HomeMy WebLinkAboutALUC/BOS & LEGIS JOINT MTG OCT 19, 2000BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND US1
Mailing for_ _
ALUC iVleefiin
October i9, 200
• - 1
■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601:•FAK("530) 53&7785`■
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BUTTE COUNTY-=
AIRPORT LANV USE COMMISSION
Location: Chico Area Recreation District Community Center ,
545 Vallombrosa, Chico; California
Date/Time: October 19, 2000 - 6:00 p.m.
AGENDA
A. Opening Statement by ALUC Chair:
B. Business Items:
ITEM WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARING
1. Joint Meeting to hold a workshop to present the 2000 Draft Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan and Addendum to the Butte County Board of Supervisors, Chico City
Council, Paradise Town Council, and Oroville City Council: -Presentation by Ken Brody
of Shutt Moen Associates of the Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Addendum.
The proposed Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Addendum contain compatibility
criteria and compatibility zones proposed for each of the County's public use airports, which
applies to: -the Chico Municipal Airport, the Oroville Airport, the Paradise Skypark Airport
and the Ran chaero Airport. The purpose of the workshop is strictly to provide information to
local legislative bodies and no action regarding the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan will
occur. Members of the public will be invited to make comments following the consultant's
presentation and the questions/comments of the legislative bodies.
C. Adjournment:
Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact M. A.
Meleka at (530) 538-6572 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you.
*Copies of the agenda and documents relative to an agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of
$.08 per page.
Airport Land Use Commission a October 19, 2000 Agenda a Page 1
'fiTt /ry�� •}y���t {,y+�y
�� r • .
- . * Z .. I f+ 'Y r ^ti
P ` .
...1.
f�f..•.
'� r � �
r - .* fir.
� : •
•
.Very.^r.wV�n—•yi•iJ�r!
•
• .. • r
,�
t,
` • h.
1
,F
r —
T
J
r,
t Count .. •
:LAND `OF NATURAL WEALTH- AND' BEAUTY.
' AIRPORT LAND USE -COMMISSION
1 _ 00 "} 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE •. OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 96965-3397
• - TELEPHONE• 530 538 7601
FAX: (630) 538-7785 '
` RE: Joint Meeting for the 2000 Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
The ALUC is planning to hold a joint meeting with the legislative body, as well as candidates for T
- office, of the Jurisdictions.. that would be affected by the- referenced -'Drift Plan. These. '
jurisdictions are Butte County, the City, of Chico, the City, of Oioville, and the Town. of Paradise.
• The Commission invites you and would greatly'appreciate your attendance at the Joint Meeting
on October 19, 2000'at 6:00•p.m..The meeting will'be held,in'the Community Center of Chico s '
Area sRecreation District at , 545 ' Vallombrosa, Chico.—As materials for this meeting, I have -
_ • attached a copy of the Plan's policies (Chapters 2 & 3 of the Draft) and the revised Addendum.
As;you are aware, the -Draft Plan -was. first distributed for"comments in April of this year., The
Commission then -reviewed' and considered^ all'' comments` ieceived .during ,they comment
penod/pubhc hearings that, followed this distribution.. Subsequently, the Commission provided
direction to staff and the consultant,,for incorporating necessary modifications. Following this -
direction, an a_ ddendum was prepared'and'presented to the Commission at its September meeting. '
In pursuit of the Commission's desire to.inaintain ongoing consultation'and communication with
local jurisdictions, staff is•coordinating, the aforementioriedJoint Meeting. :The intent of this .
meeting is to facilitate -understanding of the Draft 1Plan Nand Addendum. To that end, the
consultant will presen,vand explain major ajor components of the Plan. Also intended is fulfilling r 1
�the- requirement_of Section 21675(c) of the Public Utilities Code requiring the Commission to'
consult with the involved agencies prior to the establishment'of theairport planning boundaries:.
,�
�. Again, the Commission `is looking forward to having you at this meeting and' urges you to take
' t advantage of this event to enhance` your jurisdiction's knowledge . of the Draft' Plan. The -
Commission would also be glad to:welcomeai y. other persons that you may want to invite to this
meeting. Should you need any • additiorial information or have questions, please call' me at 538-
y 6572: - 0, ;
Sincerely,,
M. A: I4eleka '
• , Principal Planner
Attachments'
•
t
Revised
September 26;2000
Butte County Airport land Use Compatibility Plan
Addendum
This addendum contains a list of proposed revisions to the draft Butte County Airport Land Use Com-
patibility Plan dated March 2000. A brief discussion of selected revisions follows the respective items
where necessary to clarify the intent or background for the change. In most cases, reference is made -
to the analysis and recommendations contained in the July 12, 2000, matrix prepared in response to
public and agency comments on the draft plan.
Only substantive changes are listed here; minor typographical corrections will also be made prior to
printing of the final document. After adoption by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission,
these revisions will be incorporated into the plan and a final document will be printed.
Back of Title Page: Names of commission members and staff will be listed.
E
Page 2-2, Policy 1.2.10 — Revise definition of "existing land use" as follows:
Existing Land Use = A land, use which either physically exists or for which local government com-
mitments to the proposal have been obtained; that is, no further discretionary approvals are
necessary
ble for theprop�rty to be used fa ie, than its proposed . Local government com-
mitment to a proposal can usually be considered firm once one or more of the following have
occurred:
► A tentative parcel or subdivision map has been approved and the originalperiod (before any
time extensions are submitted) within which the approval is valid has not expired;.
► A vesting tentative parcel or subdivision map has been approved;
► A development agreement has been approved and remains in effect;
► A final subdivision map has been recorded;
► A use permit or other discretionary landuseentitlement has been approved and not yet ex-
ip red; or
► A valid building permit has been issued.
Discussion: This change is based upon the recommendation outlined in matrix item #3. Note
that formation of an assessment district for the provision of infrastructure and the actual installa-
tion of such infrastructure are not listed as conditions which by themselves qualify a land use as
existing. It is within the ALUC's authority to exempt from review any development proposals for
• which only those conditions - and none of the others listed above — occur. However, such a
policy should be stated elsewhere in the policies chapter rather than as part of the existing land
use definition. Shutt -Moen Associates' recommendation is that the ALUC not exempt projects
from review under these. circumstances.
Page 2-5, Policy 1.5.1(6) — Modify as follows:
• ro
The adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation which (1) affects property
rty
within an airport influence area, and (2) involves the types of airport impact concerns listed in
Section 1.4 (State Aeronautics Act Section 21676(b)).` Any proposed change or variance to any
such ordinance or regulation also. must be submitted for ALUC review if issues of noise, safety. .
airspace protection and overflight as addressed herein'are involved.
Discussion: This modification has not previously been discussed. It is intended to clarify that a
zoning change or variance which involves compatibility issues must be treated similarly to a gen-
eral plan amendment. Without this clarification, the prospect exists that compatibility conflicts
could arise because of zoning changes or variances granted subsequent to when the ALUC finds
the general plan and its implementing ordinances to be consistent with the Compatibility Plan.
Page 2-6, Policy 1.5.2(b) —Add new -Sub -policy (3) as follows:
(3) Because the ALUC is acting in an advisory capacity when reviewing projects under these
the Commission.
Discussion: This addition represents a slight restating of the first recommendation included un-
40.
n-
• der item #1 in the matrix.
Page 2-7, Policy 1.5.3(a)(4) — Correct to read: "... 20,000 square feet orggreater."
Discussion: This is a correction of a typographical omission.
Page 2-9, Policies 2.2.3(b) and 2.3.3(b) = Change last word in first sentence from "specify" to "re-
quire."
Discussion: This change clarifies the original intent..
Pages 2-14 and 2-15, Table 2A — Make the following modifications as shown on the accompanying
revised table: _
► Add note defining children's schools as including through grade 12.
► Under "Other Development Conditions" for Zones B1 and 82, change "office buildings" to
"buildings with noise -sensitive: uses."
► Split the dual residential density criteria for. Compatibility Zone C into two distinct criteria and
zones designated C(1) and C(2) and modify Note 13 accordingly.
► Reduce minimum density requirement for Zone C(2) from 5.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre.
► Revise Note 3 to clarify applicability of open land requirements to private property.
•
Discussion: The first change is'necessary to.make the table consistent with Policy 4.1.5(a). The
others respond to matrix items #8A' and #8D and the further direction provided by the ALUC.
2
Page 2-16, Policy 2.4.3 — Insert the following revisions and additions: ;
•
(2) Local Jurisdictions have the following choices, or a combination thereof, for satisfying this
s
evaluation requirement:
The general plan and/or referenced implementing ordinances and regulations must con-
tain sufficient detail to enable the local jurisdiction to assess whether a proposed devel-.
opment fully meets the compatibility criteria specified in the Compatibility Plan this re-
quires both that the compatibility criteria be identified and that project review proce-
dures be described);
The Compatibility Plan must be adopted by reference (additionally, the project review
procedure must be described in a separate instrument presented to and approved by the
ALUC); and/or
The general plan ...
(3) The status of ALUC review of major land use actions depends upon which of the preceding
options the local agency selects for making its general plan consistent with the Compatibility
Plan This status in turn affects whether a local agency would be required to utilize the .
override process in the event of a disagreement with the ALUC's action.
► If either of the first two options under Sub-policy(2) is selected then referral of major
land use actions to the ALUC is voluntary. In this case, the Commission's review is advi-
sory and the local agency would not need to utilize the override process if it elects to
• -
approve a project without incorporating the Commission's comments.,.
► If the third option is chosen submittal of major land use actions for ALUC review is man-
datory and override procedures would apply:
Discussion: These changes reflect the remainder of the recommendations listed under Item #1
in the matrix. The wording has been slightly modified from the originally proposed language.
Page 2-16, Policy 2.4.4(a) — Replace infill policy with the following:
Infill — Where development not in conformance with this Compatibility Plan already exists, ad-
ditional infill development of similar land uses may be allowed, to occur even if such land uses
are to be prohibited elsewhere in the zone. This exception applies only within Compatibility
Zones 82 and C.
(1) A parcel can be considered for infill development if it meets all of the following criteria lotus
the applicable provisions of either Sub -policy (2) or (3) below:
► The parcel size is no larger than 20 acres.
► The site is at least 65% bounded (disregarding roads) by existing uses similar to, or more
intensive than, those proposed.
► The proposed project would not extend the perimeter of the area defined' by the sur-
rounding, already developed, incompatible uses.
• Further increases in the density, intensity, and/or other incompatible design or usage
characteristics (e.g., through use permits, density transfers, addition of second units on
the same parcel, height variances, or other strategy) are prohibited.
3
The area to be developed cannot previously have been set aside as open land in accor-
• dance with Policy 4.2.5 unless replacement open land is provided within the same corn-"
patibility zone. [9/26 revision]
(2) For residential development:
► If the size of the oarcel or000sed for division is 10 acres or less, the development densi
shall be no greater than the overall density represented by all existing lots which lie fully
or partially within a "distance of 300 feet from the boundarx of the parcel to be divided.
► If the size of the parcel proposed for division"is greater than 10 acres (but no larger than
20 acres), then the development density shall be no greater than" double the density per-
mitted in accordance with the Primate Compatibility Criteria (Table 2A).
(3) For nonresidential development, the proposed use shall not have an intensity (the number of
people per acre) more than 50% above the intensity_ permitted in accordance with the.Pri
mar) Compatibility Criteria (Table 2A). [For example, whereas an average intensity of 50
people per acre is normally permitted in Zone 82, the infill policy would allow a total of 75
people per acre (50 people/acre x 150% = 75 people/acre).]
(4) To avoid the ripple effect of infill development on some parcels permitting additional parcels._ .. .
subsequently to qualify for infill, the ALUC's intent is that parcels eligible for infill be deter-
mined just once. Thus, in order for the ALUC to consider proposed development under.
. these infill criteria, the entity having land use authority (Butte County or affected cities) must
first identify the qualifying locations in its general plan or other adopted planning document
approved by the ALUC. This action may take place in conjunction with the process of,
amending a general plan for consistency with the ALUC plan or may be submitted by the
local agency for consideration by the ALUC at the time of adoption of this Compatibility Plan.
In either case, the burden for demonstrating that a proposed development qualifies as infill
rests with the project proponent and/or affected land use jurisdiction.
Discussion: This change is based upon matrix item #4, as modified by ALUC suggestions.
Page 2-17, Policy 2.4.4(c)(2) — In last sentence, replace "assessor's full cash value" with "market
value."
Discussion: This change reflects item #6 in the matrix.
Page 2-27, Policy 4.2.5 — In Sub -Policies (b) and (d), delete references to automobile parking lots as
acceptable forms of open land.
(b) Roads and atiternobile parkimg 1 are acceptable
• (d) ...providing contiguous landscaped andpai king areas is ..'
Discussion: For the reasons cited in matrix item #8D, the ALUC concludes that automobile
parking lots do not meet the basic safety-related objectives for providing open land.
4
Page 2-27, Policy 4.2.5 — Replace Sub -policy (c) with the following:
• Open land requirements are intended to be applied with res ect to an entire zone Community
general Rllans and/or implementing policies shall indicate how and where the requirements will
be met. Application of open land requirements to individual development proposals is at the
discretion of the local jurisdiction and is dependent uponIhe size of the development (some ..".
Individual parcels may be too small to accommodate the minimum -size open area requirement)
and whether the requirements can be made solely on public property. Measures must be estab
lished to assure that propeU designated as open land will continue to meet the open land crite-
ria for as long as the airport remains in operation.
Discussion: This change matches the proposed revisions to Table 2A, Note 3.
Pages 2-27 and 2-28, Policy 4.2.6 — Modify introductory paragraph; insert new Sub -policy (a); and
renumber subsequent sub -policies.
Criteria for Clustering — The ALUC generally supports clustering as a means for both enhancing
safety compatibility in the airport vicinity and accomplishing other development objectives. This
policy describes the purposes of clustering and the limitations on its use..:
a) Clustering occurs when development on a site or within an overall compatibility zone is con-
centrated in only a portion of the area and the remaining area is set aside either as open land
(see preceding policy) or is otherwise held to a low -intensity usage. Clustering may apply to
either residential or nonresidential development..
In terms of airport land use compatibility_ planning, the primary –purpose of clustering is to
provide locations where an aircraft can attempt an off -airport emergency landing Clus-
tering may also serve to limit the risks to people on the ground, even if open land is not
provided, by shifting habitable areas awav from principal aircraft flieht tracks, especially
tracks close to the runway ends.
From a development perspective, clustering may be desirable or necessary because of
various other site planning considerations not associated with airport compatibility.
Examples of clustering include:
• Residential development where the building envelopes on large lots are all close to-
gether,, such as adjacent to a street.
• Residential development in which most of the lots are small so that a large area can
be provided for purposes such as a common recreational use -or preservation of an
environmental sensitive habitat.
► Nonresidential development in which the buildings are surrounded by large areas of
• low -intensity uses such as landscaping,
(b) Clustering of new residential development ...
Discussion: This change reflects the Commission's guidance concerning matrix item #8C.
5
Page 3-3, Paragraph 1.1.4 — Revise Sub -paragraph (a) and add the following new paragraph (c) to
the discussion of the basis for defining the boundaries of Compatibility Zone .0
(a) Annoyance associated with aircraft overflights is the major concern within Zone C. Although
the zone lies mostly outside'the 55 -dB CNEL contour, land uses are nevertheless subjected to
frequent aircraft noise events. Risk is a concern mostly only with respect to uses such as
schools, hospitals, and ones involving very high intensities.
LcJ In some portions of.the Chico Municipal Airport influence area, Zone C is divided into two
sub -zones designated CO) and C(2). See Paragraph 2.1.2(d) for a description of the basis for
delineation of these zone boundaries.
Page 3-4, Paragraph 2.1.4(d) — Revise discussion of the Chico Municipal Airport boundary determi-
nants for Zone C as follows:
(d) Zone C, including Sub -zones CO) and C(2), contains the normal traffic pattern for both run-
ways.. The zone is wider to the northeast than to the southwest because of the wider pattern
sometimes flown by the heavy aircraft which use the primary runway. Extensions of Zone C
to the northwest and southeast follow the offset nonprecision instrument (VOR DME) ap-
proach procedures, to each end of Runway 13L-31 R. Where sub -zones are designated, Sub -
zone CO) is applied to locations where noise, risks, and potential overflight annoyance are
• comparatively higher than in Sub -zone C(2) and urban density residential development nei-
ther exists or is planned. Sub -zone C(2) is eg nerally intended for the comparatively less im-
pacted locations lateral to the runways or for areas where extensive urban residential devel-
opment already exists. Locations where future residential development may adhere to the
criteria of either sub -zone are simply designated Zone C on the map
Discussion: This change responds to the Commission's guidance regarding matrix item #1 OD.
Chapter3, Figures 3A, 38, and 3D — Replace the Compatibility Maps for Chico Municipal Airport,
Oroville Municipal Airport, and Ranchaero Airport with the attached new versions..
Discussion: These revisions correspond to matrix item #10 and the comments provided. by the
Commission. Designated locations of Zones CO) and C(2) are shown on the Chico Municipal
Airport map based upon the Commission's input.
Appendix D — Replace with the revised version attached.
Discussion: The major changes proposed for this table are expansion.of the introductory para-
graph and revision of the evaluation definitions to read "normally compatible" or "normally in-
compatible" rather than simply "compatible" or "incompatible." Modifications have also been.
made in the residential land use category in response to the split of Compatibility Zone C into
• CO) and C(2) sub -zones. Suggestions offered by the ALOC subcommittee were examined and
several revisions and additions have been made, but most of the evaluations as originally in-
cluded in the draft plan were judged to be consistent with the Table 2A criteria and various other
policies in Chapter 2.
t
Appendix F2, 2"d Page, 3'd Paragraph — Add language as follows to recommended avigation easement
• document concerning property owner waiver of right to sue the airport.
Grantor, together with its successors in interest and assigns, hereby waives its right to legal action
against- Grantee, its successors, or assigns for monetary damages or other redress due to impacts,
as described in Paragraph (2) of the granted rights of easement, associated with aircraft opera=
tions in the air or on the ground at the airport, including future increases in the volume` or
changes in location of said operations. Furthermore, Grantor, its successors, and assigns shall
have no duty to avoid or mitigate such damages through physical modification of airport facilities
or establishment or modification of aircraft operational procedures or restrictions. However, this
waiver shall not apply if the airport role or character of its usage (as identified in an adopted air-
port master plan, for example) changes in a fundamental manner which could not reasonably
have been anticipated at the time of the granting of this easement and which results in a substan-
tial increase in the impacts associated with aircraft operations. Also, this grant of easement shall
not operate to deprive the Grantor, its successors or assigns, of any rights which may from time to
time have against any air carrier or private operator for negligent or unlawful operation of aircraft.
Discussion: The addition was discussed in matrix item #8F. Note that no change is recom-
mended with regard to the zones within which dedication of an avigation easement is required
as a condition for development approval.
• Appendix H — Expand introductory section as noted below and add attached Appendix H1 table.
As indicated in Chapter 1, state law requires each local agency having jurisdiction over land uses
within an ALUC's planning area to modify its general plan and any affected specific plans to be
consistent with the compatibility plan. The local agency must take this action within 180 days of
when the ALUC adopts or amends its plan. Alternatively, a local agency can override the ALUC
by a two-thirds vote after first holding a public hearing and making findings that the agency's
plans are consistent with the intent of state law.
This appendix contains two types of information intended to To facilitate the general plan consis-
tency process, L_L1J an initial review of the current general plan and appli
cable specific or community plans of each jurisdiction affected by the Compatibility Plan; and 2
a checklist of general plan consistency requirements..
The emphasis in ttrs theeg neral plan consistency review -is on comparing the adopted local land
use designations with the compatibility zone criteria set forth in Chapter 2 herein. Other ele-
ments of the general plans (the noise elements in particular) also need to be consistent with the
Compatibility Plan. With regard to land use designations, consideration is given to whether the
designation is for future development or merely reflects existing uses. Where a local plan's land
use designation represents an existing use, changing the designation isnot required for the pur-
poses of consistency with the Compatibility Plan. The existing development could remain as a
nonconforming use as indicated in the plan policies. Any future redevelopment of the property,
however, would need to be consistent with Compatibility Plan criteria.
7
The checklist sets forth the tX sof modifications or additions to a community's general plan
• and/or separate implementation documents'which are necessary in oiderl• r the plan•to 66' fully
consistent with the Compatibility Plan. Listed items are divided into two"groups: - compatibility'
criteria: and project review procedures:
The comparison with'.,. [Note: this final paragraph will be'' modified as, appropriate once the plan
is adopted.]
Discussion: 'The addition of the checklist is'intended to assist local jurisdictions and the ALUC in
ensuring that all aspects of general plan consistency requirements are implemented.
Initial Study Revisions to the Initial Study of Environmental Impacts are indicated by underlining
and strikeouts on the accompanying pages.
Discussion:: The modifications provide additional information regardmg'the effect of the Com-
patibility Plan on the number of new residential lots which can be created in the.vicinity of the'
Chico Municipal and Oroville Municipal airports.
r1
- Countywide Policies / Chapter 2
• Table 2A
Primary Compatibility Criteria
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
2-14
Maximum Densities / Intensities
Additional Criteria
Other Uses
Zone Locations
Residential
(people/ac) 2 Req'd
Open
Prohibited Uses
Other Development
(du/ac) - '
Aver- Single with Land
Conditions'
age ° Acre' Bonus
A Runway Protection
0
10 Not Not All
► All structures except aero-
► Avigation easement dedica-
Zone
Appli- Appli- Remain-
nautical facilities with lo-
tion
and
cable cable ing-
cation set by FAA criteria
within Building
► Assemblages of people
Restriction Line
► `Objects exceeding FAR
Part 77 height limit's
► Aboveground bulk storage
of hazardous materials
► Hazards to flight9
B1 Approach/Departure
s0.1
25 50 Not 30%
► Children's schools, 10 day
► Locate structures maxi -
Zone
(minimum
Appli-
care centers, libraries
mum distance from e.*
and
parcel size
cable
► Hospitals, nursing homes
tended runway centerline
Sideline. Zone
210.0
► Highly noise -sensitive
Minimum NLR of 25 dB in
acres)
uses (e.g. outdoor the-
residences and buildings
aters)
with noise -sensitive uses 12
► Aboveground bulk storage
► Airspace review required
of hazardous materials 11
for objects >35 feet tall"
► Hazards to flight9
► Avigation easement dedica-
tion
B2 Extended'
s0.2
50 100 130 20% '
Children's schools,10 day
► Minimum NLR of 20 dB in
Approach/Departure
(average
care centers, libraries
residences (including mo -
Zone
parcel size
Hospitals, nursing homes
bile homes) and buildings
25.0 acres)
Highly noise -sensitive
with noise -sensitive uses 12
uses (e.g. outdoor the-
► Airspace review required
aters)
for objects >70 feet tall
► Hazards to flight9.
Deed notice required
C Traffic Pattern
(1) s0.2
100 300 390 10%
Children's schools,10 day
Deed notice required
(average
care centers, libraries
► Airspace review required
parcel size
Hospitals, nursing homes
for objects >100 feet tall
25.0 acres)
Hazards to flight'
or 14
(2) 24.0
(average
parcel size
s0.2 acres)
0 Other
No
No No
Hazards to flight'
► Airspace review required
Airport Environs
Limit
Limit Req't
for objects > 100 feet tall
* Height Review
Same as Underlying Not
Same as Underlying
► Airspace review required
Overlay
Compatibility Zone Appli-
Compatibility Ione
for objects >35 feet tall 12
cable
► Avigation easement dedica-
tion required
• Table 2A
Primary Compatibility Criteria
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
2-14
is
•
Countywide Policies /.Chapter 2
NOTES:
1 Residential development should not contain more than the indicated number of dwelling units (both primary and
secondary) per gross acre. With clustering, some parcels may be much smaller than others as long as the
maximum overall density criterion is not exceeded. Clustering of units is encouraged in Compatibility Zones B2 and
C — see Policy 4.2.6 for limitations.
2 Usage calculations shall include all people who may be on the property (e.g., employees, customers/visitors, etc.)
both indoors and outside. These criteria are intended as general planning guidelines to aid in determining the
acceptability of proposed land uses. Additional guidance is provided by Appendix C.
3 Open land requirements are intended to be applied with respect to an entire zone. Community general plans and/or
implementing policies shall indicate how and where the requirements will be met. Application of open land require-
ments to individual development proposals is at the discretion of the local jurisdiction and is dependent upon the
size of the development (some Individual parcels may be too small to accommodate the minimum -size open area
requirement) and whether the requirements can be made solely on public property. See supporting compatibility
policies on safety (Policy 4.2.5) for definition of open land.
4 The uses listed here are ones which are explicitly prohibited regardless of.whether they meet the intensity criteria. In
addition to these explicitly prohibited uses, other uses will normally not be permitted in the respective compatibility
zones because they do not meet the usage intensity criteria.
5 Airport proximity and the potential for aircraft overflights should be disclosed as part of all real estate transactions in-
volving property within any of the airport influence area zones. Easement dedication and deed notice requirements
apply only to new development.
6 The total number of people permitted on a project site at any time, except rare special events, must not exceed the
indicated usage intensity times the gross acreage of the site. Rare special events are ones (such as an air show at
an airport) for which a facility is not designed and normally not used and for which extra safety precautions can be
taken as appropriate.
7 Clustering of nonresidential development is permitted except in Zone A. However, no single acre of a project site
shall exceed the indicated number of people per acre. See Policy 4.2.6 for details.
8 An intensity bonus may be allowed in Zones B2 and C if the building design includes features intended to reduce
risks to occupants in the event of an aircraft collision with the building. See Policy 4.2.7 for details.
9 Hazards to flight include physical (e.g., tall objects), visual, and electronic forms of interference with the safety of
aircraft operations. Land use development which may cause the attraction of birds to increase is also prohibited.
See the supporting compatibility policies on airspace protection (Policies 4.3.2 and 4.3.6) for details.
10 For the purposes of these criteria, children's schools include through grade 12.
11 Storage of aviation fuel and other aviation -related flammable materials on an airport is exempted from this criterion.
Storage of up to 2,000 gallons of nonaviation flammable materials is also exempted.
12 NLR = Noise Level Reduction; the outside -to -inside sound level attenuation which the structure provides. See the
supporting compatibility policy on interior noise (Policy 4.1.5) for details.
13 Objects up to 35 feet in height are permitted; however, the Federal Aviation Administration may require marking and
lighting of certain objects. See supporting compatibility policy on height restrictions (Policy 4.3.2) for details.
14 Two options are presented for residential densities in Compatibility Zone C. Option (1) requires an average parcel
size of at least 5.0 gross acres. Option (2) requires a density of at least 4.0 dwelling units per acre (an average
parcel size no greater than 0.2 gross acres). In locations where only one of these options is considered acceptable,
the compatibility maps in Chapter 3 show either a C(1) or a C(2) symbol. In locations where either option is allowed,
the map is marked with just the letter C. In the latter locations, the choice between the two options is at the
discretion of the local land use jurisdiction. All other criteria for Zone C apply to both the C(1) and C(2) designations.
This two -option criterion is based upon a determination that the intrusiveness of aircraft noise is the most significant
compatibility factor in Zone C; safety is only a minor concern The concept is that noise concerns can be minimized
either by limiting the number of dwellings in the affected area or by allowing high densities which tend to have
comparatively high ambient noise levels. [Corrected 9/26]
Source: Shutt Moen Associates (September 2000)
Table 2A, Continued
2-15
PRO
iL
� M I
������\:��
PRO
iL
� M I
'I
=11 �- sfi,�Il1!D,�C•cl�;�'I-� 7 :1 �, 7.t1�'
Wad Wa
glii_.fsj�ao ut!am
mm_ .�. •� ���c fiJ •Ifs � I..,1: \�f I�/.//.
.•�� s t .�:`._�,�.�.± pc, � ir- 1 { �)li .:�i;1_: f �I fin' S�-
"rzdp,\ {,��,+, L 1•III• ��i/�I�.��M
CM
,t3 _ ...1
� �� •`:two � ss`� i' �"t'� � ��-" ?�'1 \ � �u
AN',— .i
: � .:y tom,, v�",� ':�';�'-�' �T7 ■
O
®j�>I ] _
Fx v `F
� { ..fir 1 - � , a;,�'e•'s ,�i,,�,s,�'`' -■
TA
i IBM N--
� x
.1 - C.:. -I -.�
0
hM'
IS—
�
1
ft
:1•=afZ4T1;Zi :4•
• Appendix D:
• Compatibility Guidelines for Specific Land Uses
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
The compatibility evaluations listed below for specific types of land uses can be used by Butte Coun-
ty and other affected jurisdictions as guidelines in implementation of the primary compatibility crite-
ria listed in Table 2A. The individual evaluations of compatibility versus incompatibility are based
upon assumptions as to the typical characteristics of the respective land uses, particularly with regard
to usage intensity (the number of people per acre). Assumptions also are made with regard to'the
sensitivity of each use to noise and overflight annoyance and to the height of the structures. _-Atypical
cases of a particular land use mgy be more or less compatible with airportactivities than an evalua-
tion indicates. These evaluations are therefore not regarded as adopted ALUC policies or criteria. In
case of any conflicts between these evaluations of specific land uses and the policies and criteria in
Chapters 2 and 3 of this document, the contents of Chapters 2 and 3 shall prevail.
Compatibility Zones
Land Use A Bi B2 C D
J '
Agricultural Uses
Truck and Specialty Crops 0 + + + +
Field Crops 0 + + + +
Pasture and Rangeland 0 + + + +
Vineyards 0 + + + +
Orchards - 0 + + +
Dry Farm and Grain 0 + + + +
Tree Farms, Landscape Nurseries and Greenhouses - 0 + + +
Fish Farms - .0 + + +
Feed Lots and Stockyards - 0 + + +
Poultry Farms - 0 0 + +
Dairy Farms - 0 + + +
Natural Uses
Fish and Game Preserves 0 0 0 0 0
Land Preserves and Open Space 0 + + + +
Flood and Geological Hazard Areas 0 + + + +
Waterways: Rivers, Creeks, Canals, 0 •0 0 0 +
Wetlands, Bays, Lakes '
- Normally incompatible
0 Potentially compatible with restrictions (see Table,2A)
+ Normally compatible
* Revisions from March 2000 Grafi Plan
D-1
Compatibility Guidelines for Specific Land Uses /Appendix D
Compatibility
Zones
Land UseA
B1
B2 .
�1)/�2) .
D
Residential
# 25.0 acre average parcel size
- 0
+
+/-
+
# 1.0-4.9 acre average parcel size •
- -
# 1.1-_9 dwelling units / acre average density r
- -
-
-/-
+
# 4.0-7.9 dwelling units / acre average density
- -
-
-/+
+
# 28.0 dwelling units / acre average density
- -
-
-/+
+
Mobile Home Parks
- -
-
-/+
+
Institutional
* -Children's Schools
- -
-
-
+
* Colleges and Universities
- -
-
0
+ -
Day Care, Centers
- -
-
0
+
Hospitals and Residential Care Facilities
- - '
-
-
+
* Churches
- -
-
0
+
Memorial Parks / Cemeteries
- +
+
+
+
Recreational
Golf Courses (except clubhouse)
0 0
+
+
+
Golf Course Clubhouses
- 0
0
0
+
Parks (low intensity; no group activities)
0 +
+
+
+
Playgrounds and Picnic Areas
- 0
0
+
+
•
Athletic Fields (with small or no bleachers). F
* Spectator -Oriented Sports Complexes or Stadiums
= 0
0
+
+
+
Riding Stables
- 0
+
+
+
Marinas and Water Recreation
- 0
+
+
+
Health Clubs and Spas -
- -
0
0
+
Tennis Courts
- 0
+
+
+
Swimming Pools
- 0
0
0
+
Fairgrounds and Race Tracks
- -
-
-
+
Resorts and Group Camps _
- -
0
0
+
-
Shooting Ranges
- '0
0
0
+
Industrial
Research and Development Laboratories
- 0
0
+
+
Warehouses and Distribution Facilities
- . 0
+
+
+
Manufacturing and Assembly
- 0
0
+
+
Cooperage and Bottling Plants
- 0
+
+
+
Printing, Publishing and Allied Services
- 0
+
+
+
Chemical, Rubber and Plastic Products
- -
0
0
+
Food Processing
- -
0
0
+
- Normally incompatible
0. Potentially compatible with restrictions (see Table 2A)
•
+ Normally compatible
* Revisions from March 2000 Draft Plan
# Addendum Revisions (9126100)
D-2
'
Compatibllity Guidelines for Specffic Land Uses / Appe
- Normally incompatible
0 Potentially compatible with restrictions (see Table 2A)
+ Normally compatible
* Revisions from March 2000 Draft Plan
U
D-3
Compatlblllty
Zones
Land Use
A
61
B2
C
D
Commercial Uses .
Low -Intensity Retail (e.g., auto, furniture sales)
-
0
+
+
+.
Retail Stores (1 floor)
-
0
0
+ •.
+
*
Retail Stores (2 or 3 floors)
-
.-
0
01:
+
Large Shopping Malls (500,000+ sq. ft.)
-
-
-
0.
+
*.
Restaurants and Drinking Establishments (no drive thru)
-
0
0
0
+
*
Fast Food Restaurants
-
-
0
0
+
Auto and Marine Services
-
0
+
+
+
Building Materials, Hardware and Heavy Equipment
-
0
+
+ _
+
*
Office Buildings (1 or 2 floors)
-
0
+
+ .•
+ .
*
Office Buildings (3 floors)
-
-
0
0
+
*
Banks and Financial Institutions (1 or 2.floors)
-
0
0
+
+
Repair Services
-
'0
0
+
+
Gas Stations
-
0
0
+
+
*
Government Services / Public Buildings (1 or 2 floors)
-
0
0
+
+
*
Motels (1 or 2 floors)
-
-
0
0
+
*
Hotels and Motels (3 floors)
-
=
-
0
+.
Theaters, Auditoriums and Assembly Halls
-
-
-
0
+
Outdoor Theaters
-
=
-
0
+
Truck Terminals
-
+
+
+
+
*
Any Uses with more than 3 habitable floors aboveground
-
-
-
- .
0
Transportation, Communications and Utilities
Aircraft Storage
0
+,
+
+
+
Automobile Parking
0
+
+
+
+
Highway and Street Right -of -Ways
0
+ .
+
+
+
Railroad and Public Transit' Facilities
0
+
+
+
+
Taxi, Bus and Train Terminals
-
0
+
+
+
Reservoirs
-
0
0
0
+
Power Lines
-
0
0
0
+
Water Treatment Facilities
-
0
+
+
+
Sewage Treatment and Disposal Facilities
-
0
0
0
+
Electrical Substations
-
0
0
0
+
Power Plants
-
0
0
+
Sanitary Landfills
-
-
-
-
0
- Normally incompatible
0 Potentially compatible with restrictions (see Table 2A)
+ Normally compatible
* Revisions from March 2000 Draft Plan
U
D-3
•
Sample Implementation Documents /Appendix F
This indenture made this day of , 19 _, between hereinafter
referred to as Grantor, and the [Insert County or City namel, a political subdivision in the State of Califor-
nia, hereinafter referred to as Grantee.
The Grantor, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby ac-
knowledged, does hereby grant to the Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual and assignable
easement over the following described parcel of land in which the Grantor holds a fee simple estate:` The
property which is subject to this easement is depicted as on "Exhibit N'
attached and is more particularly described as follows:
[Insert legal description of real property]
The easement applies to the Airspace above an imaginary plane over the real property. The plane is
described as follows:
The imaginary plane above the hereinbefore described real property, as such plane is defined by Part
77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, and consists of a plane [describe approach, transition, or hori-
zontal surface]; the elevation of said plane being based upon the Airport official runway
end elevation of feet Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), as determined by [Insert name and Date of
Survey or Airport Layout Plan that determines the elevation] the approximate dimensions of which said
plane are described and shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
The aforesaid easement and right-of-way includes, but is not limited to:
(1) For the use and benefit of the public, the easement and continuing right to fly, or cause or permit
the flight by any and all persons, or any aircraft, of any and.all kinds now or hereafter known, in, -
through, across, or about any portion of the Airspace hereinabove described; and
(2) The easement and right to cause or create, or permit or allow to be caused or created within all
space above the existing surface of the hereinabove described real property and any and all Air-
space laterally adjacent to said real property, such noise, vibration, currents and other effects of air,
illumination, and fuel consumption as may be inherent in, or may arise or occur from or during the
operation of aircraft of any and all kinds, now or hereafter known or used, for navigation of or flight
in air; and
(3) A continuing right to clear and keep clear from the Airspace any portions of buildings, structures, or
improvements of any kinds, and of trees or other objects, including the right to remove or demolish
those portions of such buildings, structures, improvements, trees, or other things which extend into
or above said Airspace, and the right to cut to the ground level and remove, any trees which extend
into orabove the Airspace; and
(4) The right to mark and light, or cause or require to be marked or lighted, as obstructions to air navi-
gation, any and all buildings, structures, or other improvements, and trees or other objects, which
extend into or above the Airspace; and
(5) The right. of ingress to, passage within, and egress from the hereinabove described real property,
for the purposes described in subparagraphs. (3) and -(4) above at reasonable times and after rea-
sonable notice.
Appendix F2
Typical Avigation Easement
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
F-5
. Sample Implementation Documents / Appendix F
•
For and on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, the Grantor hereby covenants with the lbaffld
County or City name], for the direct benefit of the real property constituting the Airport
hereinafter described, that neither the Grantor, nor its successors in interest or assigns will construct,
install, erect, place or grow in or upon the hereinabove described real property, nor will they permit to
allow, any building structure, improvement, tree or other object which extends into or above the Airspace,
or which constitutes an obstruction to air navigation, or which obstructs or interferes with the use of the.
easement and rights-of-way herein granted.
The easements and rights-of-way herein granted shall be deemed both appurtenant to and for the direct
benefit of that real property which constitutes the Airport, in the [Insert County or City
namel, State of California; and shall further be deemed in gross, being conveyed to the Grantee for the
benefit of the Grantee and'any and all members of the general public who may use said easement or
right-of-way, in landing at, taking off from or operating such aircraft in or about the Airport,
or in otherwise flying through said Airspace.
Grantor, together with its successors in interest and assigns, hereby waives its right to legal action
against Grantee its successors or assigns for monetary damages or other redress due to impacts as
described in Paragraph (2) of the granted rights of easement, associated with aircraft operations in the air
or on the ground at the airport, including future increases in the volume or changes in location of said
operations. Furthermore. Grantor, its successors, and assigns shall have no duty to avoid or mitigate
such damages through physical modification of airport facilities or establishment or modification of air-
craft operational procedures or restrictions. However, this waiver shall not apply if the airport role or
character of its usage (as identified in an adopted airportmaster plan, for example) changes in a funda-
mental manner which could not reasonably have been anticipated at the time of the granting of this ease-
ment and which results in a substantial increase in the impacts associated with aircraft operations. Also
this grant of easement shall not operate to deprive -the Grantor, its successors or assigns, of any rights
which may from time to time have against any air carrier or private operator for negligent or unlawful
operation of aircraft.
These covenants and agreements run with the land and are binding upon the heirs, administrators, exec-
utors, successors and assigns of the Grantor, and, for the purpose of this instrument, the real property
firstly hereinabove described is the servient tenement and said Airport is the dominant
tenement.
[MIMO
STATE OF
ss
COUNTY OF }
On , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State,
personally appeared , and known to me to be the persons whose
names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Appendix F2, Continued
F-6
Notary Public
U
•
•
Local Plans Consistency Review / Appendix H
Compatibility Criteria
General Plan Document
The. following items typically appear directly in a general plan document. Amendment of the general
plan will be required if there are any conflicts with the Compatibility Plan (see Policy 2.4.3(a)).
> Land Use Map — Any direct conflicts between proposed new land uses indicated on a general
plan land use map and the land use criteria in the Compatibility Plan (see Table 2A) must be elimi-
nated. This is most likely to involve residential land uses and may require changes to allowable
densities. Any specifically identified sites for future schools also must comply with Compatibility
Plan criteria. Most other nonresidential uses usually can be consistent with compatibility criteria
provided that limitations can be set on intensity of usage (see below).
)o-. Noise Element — General plan noise elements typically include criteria indicating the maximum
noise exposure for which residential development is normally acceptable. This limit must be made
consistent with the equivalent Compatibility Plan criteria (see Policies 4.1.3 and 4.1.4). Note, how-
ever, that a general plan may establish a different limit with respect to aviation -related noise than
for noise from other sources (this may be appropriate in that aviation -related noise is often judged
to be more objectionable than other types of equally loud noises).
Zoning or Other Policy Documents
The following items need to be reflected either in the general plan or in a separate policy document
such as a combining zone ordinance. If a separate policy document is adopted, modification of the
general plan to achieve consistency with the Compatibility Plan may not be required. Modifications
would normally be needed only to eliminate any conflicting language which may be present and to
make reference to the separate policy document.
> Secondary Dwellings:— The Compatibility Plan counts detached secondary dwellings on the
same parcel as additional dwellings for the purposes of density calculations. This factor needs to
be reflected in local policies either by adjusting the maximum allowable densities or by prohibiting
secondary dwellings where their presence would conflict with the compatibility criteria.
> Intensity Limitations on Nonresidential Uses = Local policies must be established to limit the
usage intensities of commercial, industrial, and other nonresidential' land uses. This can be done
by duplication of the performance -oriented criteria — specifically, the number of people per acre
— indicated in the Compatibility Plan (see Table 2A and Policy 4.2.6). Alternatively, local jurisdic-
tions may create a detailed list of land uses which are allowable and/or not allowable within each
compatibility zone (Appendix D provides a starting point for a list of this type). For certain land
uses, such a list may need to include limits on building sizes, floor area ratios, habitable floors,
and/or other design parameters which are equivalent to the usage intensity criteria.
Appendix H1
Checklist of General Plan Consistency Requirements
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
H-11
•
•
is
Local Plans Consistency Review / Appendix H
> Identification of Prohibited Uses —The Compatibility Plan prohibits day care centers, hospitals,
and certain other uses within much of each airport's influence area (see Table 2A). These often
are permitted or conditionally permitted uses within many commercial or industrial land use desig-
nations. Policies need to be established which preclude these uses in accordance with the com-
patibility criteria.
> Open Land Requirements — The Compatibility Plan requirements (see Policy 4.2.5) for assuring
that a minimum amount of open land is preserved in the airport vicinity must be reflected in local
.policies. Normally, the locations which are intended to be maintained as open land would be iden-
tified on a map with the total acreage within each compatibility zone indicated. If some of the area
included as open land is private property, then policies must be established which assure that the
open land will continue to exist as the property develops. Policies specifying the required charac-
teristics of eligible open land also must be established.
> Infill Development — If a jurisdiction wishes to take advantage of the infill development provisions
of the Compatibility Plan (see Policy 2.4.4(a)), the lands which meet the qualifications must be,
shown on a map.
> Height Limitations and Other Hazards to Flight — To protect the airport airspace, limitations
must be set on the height of structures and other objects near airports. These limitations are to be
- based upon Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, but may include exceptions for objects on
high terrain as provided .for in the Compatibility Plan (see Section 4.3). Restrictions also must be
established on other land use characteristics which can cause hazards to flight (specifically, visual
or electronic interference with navigation and uses which attract birds). Note that many jurisdic-
tions have already adopted an airport -related hazard and height limit zoning ordinance which, if up
to date, will satisfy this consistency requirement.
> Noise Insulation Requirements — The compatibility criteria (see Policy 4.1.5) call for certain.
buildings proposed for construction within Compatibility Zones B1 and B2 to demonstrate that.
they will contain sufficient sound insulation to reduce aircraft -related noise to an acceptable level.
These criteria apply to new residences, schools, and certain other buildings containing noise -
sensitive uses. Local policies must include parallel criteria.
> Buyer Awareness Measures — As a condition for approval of development within certain com-
patibility zones, the Compatibility Plan requires either dedication of an avigation easement to the
airport proprietor or placement on deeds of a notice regarding airport impacts (see Table 2A,
Policy 4.4.2, and Appendix F). Local jurisdiction policies must contain similar requirements. The
plan also encourages, but does not require, local jurisdictions to adopt a policy stating that air-
port proximity and the potential for aircraft overflights be disclosed as part of real estate transac-
tions regarding property in the airport influence area.
> Nonconforming Uses and Reconstruction — Local jurisdiction policies regarding nonconform-
ing uses and reconstruction must be equivalent to or more restrictive than those in the Compati-
bility Plan (see Policies 2.4.4(b) and (c)).
Appendix H1, Continued
H-12
L-A
•
Local Plans Consistency Review / Appendix H
Review Procedures,
In addition to incorporation of ALUC compatibility criteria, local jurisdiction implementing documents
must specify the manner in which development proposals will be reviewed for consistency with the.
compatibility criteria.
> Actions Always Required to be Submitted for ALUC Review — State law specifies which types
of development actions must be submitted for airport land use commission review (see Policy
1.5.1). Local policies should either list these actions or, at a minimum, note the jurisdiction's
intent to comply with the state statute.
Other Land Use Actions Potentially Subject to ALUC Review— In addition to the above ac-
tions, the Compatibility Plan identifies certain major land use actions for which referral to the
ALUC is dependent.upon agreement between the jurisdiction and the ALUC. If the jurisdiction
fully complies with all of the items in this general plan consistency checklist or has taken the
necessary steps to override the ALUC, then referral of the'additional actions is voluntary. On the
other hand, a jurisdiction may elect not to incorporate all of the necessary compatibility criteria
and review procedures into its own policies. In this case, referral of major land use actions to the
ALUC is mandatory. Local policies should indicate the jurisdiction's intentions in this regard.
> Process for Compatibility Reviews by Local Jurisdictions —If a jurisdiction chooses to sub
mit only the mandatory actions for ALUC review, then it must establish a policy indicating the
procedures which will be used to assure that airport compatibility criteria are addressed during
review of other projects. Possibilities include: a standard review procedure checklist which in-
cludes reference to compatibility criteria; use of a geographic information system to identify all
parcels within the airport influence area; etc.
> Variance Procedures — Local procedures for granting of variances to the zoning ordinance
must make certain that any such variances do not result in a conflict with the compatibility crite
ria. Any variance which involves issues of noise, safety, airspace protection, or overflight com-
patibility as addressed in the'Compatibility Plan must be referred to.the ALUC for review.
> 'Enforcement". Policies must be established to assure compliance with compatibility criteria
during the lifetime of the development. Enforcement procedures are especially necessary with
regard to limitations on usage intensities and the heights of trees.
Source: Shutt Moen Associates (August 2000)
Appendix H1, Continued
H-13
Countywide Policies
1. GENERAL APPLICABILITY
1.1: Purpose
The purpose of this Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is to establish pro-
cedures and criteria by which, in'accordance with the California' State Aeronautics Act:
1'.1.1. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) — The ALUC:
(a) Shall review proposed land use development in Butte County and affected
cities within the county for compatibility with airport activity.
(b) Shall review certain types of airport development proposals which are also
subject to ALUC review and are addressed by the Plan.
1.1.2. County of Butte and Affected Cities in the County - The county and cities:
(a) -Shall refer specified land use proposals to the ALUC for review.
(b) Shall each make their General Plan and zoning ordinance consistent with the
Commission's Compatibility Plan.
(c) Can make other planning decisions regarding the lands impacted by airport
operations.
1.2. Definitions -
• The following definitions apply for the purposes of the policies set forth in this document
(additional terms are defined in the Glossary): {
2-1
/ Chapter.2
1.2.11. Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 — The part of Federal Aviation
Regulations which deals with objects affecting navigable..airspaceh
.gter,vicinity of
airports. Objects which exceed the Part 77 height limits constitute airspace ob-
structions.
1.2.12. Height Review Overlay Zone — Areas of land in the vicinity of an airport where
the ground lies above an FAR Part 77 surface or less than 35 feet beneath such
surface.
1.2.13. Heliport —A helicopter landing facility for which a Helipoit Permit is required
from the California Department of Transportation. Public -use and special -use .
heliports (including those at hospitals) are included within this definition, but heli -
pads located on an airport are excluded.
1.2.14. Infill — Development of vacant or underutilized land within areas which are al-
ready largely developed or are used more intensively. See Section 2.4.4.(a) for
criteria used to identify infill areas for the purposes of the Compatibility11plan.
1.2.15. Local Jurisdiction —The county of Butte or any city or other government agency
(except agencies of the state or federal government) having jurisdiction over land
uses within their boundaries.
1.2.16. Major Land Use Action — Actions related to proposed land uses for which com-
patibility with airport activity is a particular concern, but for which ALUC review is
not always mandatory under state law. These types of actions are listed) in Policy
1.5.3.
1.2.17. Nonconforming Use —In general, a land use, parcel, or building which,!does not
comply with a current land use plan or zoning ordinance, but which was legally
permitted at the time the plan or ordinance was adopted. For the purposes of
this Compatibility Plan, a nonconforming land use is one which exists (see defini-
tion of "existing land use" in Policy 1.2.10) as of the plan's adoption date, but
which does not conform with the compatibility criteria set forth herein.''
�I
1.2.18. Project; Land Use Action; Development Proposal — Terms similar in meaning and
all referring to the types of land use matters, either publicly or privately E
sponsored, which are subject to the provisions of this Compatibility Plan.
!I
2-3
•
CJ
-1.4.1.- Principal Compatibility Concerns .= The Commission is concerned only with the,
potential impacts related to:
(a) Exposure to aircraft noise;
(b) Land use'safety with respect both to people on the ground and the occupants
of aircraft;..
(c) Protection* of airport airspace; and
(d) General 'concerns related to. aircraft. overflights.
1.5., Types of Actions Reviewed
1.5.1. Actions Which Always Require ALUC Review —As required'by state law, the fol-
lowing types of actions shall be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission for.
determination of consistency with the Compatibility Plan prior to their approval by
• the local jurisdiction.:
(a) The adoption or approval of any amendment to a general or specific plan af-
feging the property within an airport influence area (State Aeronautics Act
Section 21676(b)). .
(b) The adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building'regulation which
(1) affects property within an airport influence area, and (2) involves the types
of airport impact concerns.listed in Section,71.4 (State Aeronautics Act Section
21676(b)).
(c) Adoption or modification of themaster'plan for'an existing public -use airport-
(State
irport(State Aeronautics Act Section 21676(c)).
(d) Any proposal for expansion of an existing airport or heliport if,such expansion
will require an amended airport permit from the state of California (State
Aeronautics Act Section 21664.5).
(e) Any proposal for new airport or heliport whether for public use or private
use (State Aeronautics Act Section 21661.5) if the facility requires a State Air-
port Permit.
• 1.5.2. Other Land Use Actions Subject to ALUC Review in addition to the above types
of land use actions for which ALUC review is mandatory, other types of land use
actions are subject to review under the following circumstances:
2-5
Countywide Policies,/Chapter,2 _
.s •'. circumstances under which ALUC review of these actions is to be conducted are
indicated in Policy 1.5.2 above.
(a) Actions affecting land uses within an airport influence area.
(1) Any proposed expansion of the sphere of influ6ce=of a city or special .
district.
(2) Proposed pre -zoning associated with future annexation of land to a city.
(3) Proposed residential development, including land divisions, consisting of
five or more dwelling units or parcels.
(4) Any discretionary development proposal for projects having a building floor
area of 20,000 square feet.,
(5) Proposed land acquisition by a government entity for any facility accommo-
dating a congregation of people (for example, a school or hospital).
(6) Any off -airport, nonaviation use of land within Compatibility Zone A.
(7) Proposals for new development (including buildings, antennas, and other
structures) having a height of more than:
► 35 feet within Compatibility Zone 81 or a Height Review Overlay Zone;
► 70 feet within Compatibility Zone 82; or
► 100 feet within Compatibility Zones C or D.
(8) Any obstruction reviewed by the Federal. Aviation Administration in accor-
dance with Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations which receives a
finding of anything other than "not a hazard to air navigation."
(9) Any project having the potential to create electrical or visual hazards to
aircraft in flight, including:
► Electrical interference with radio communications or navigational sig-
nals;
• Lighting which could be mistaken for airport lighting;
► Glare in the eyes of pilots of aircraft using the airport; and
► Impaired visibility near the airport.
(10) Projects having the potential to attract an increased number of birds to the
vicinity of an airport.
(b) Proposed nonaviation development of airport property if such development has
.not previously been included in an airport master plan or community general
plan reviewed by the Commission.
(c) Regardless of location within Butte County, any proposal for construction or al-
teration of a structure (including antennas) taller than 200 feet above the ground •
level at the site. (Such structures also require notification to the Federal
2-7
Countywide Pollcles /.Chapter 2
.. - ,. - — .mow..., a_ - ... -3,.: ...� • ci.`+:: ...'e"M-':`.
(a) Within 180 days of the Commission's adoption or amendment of the Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan, each local agency'must amend its general plan and
any'applicable specific plan to be consistent with the�Commission's Plan or, a17
ternatively, adopt findings and override the Commission in accordance with Sec-
tion 21676(b) of the Public Utilities'Code (Government Code Section 65302.3).
(b) Prior to takin "a 'ion on a proposed amendment, the local agency must submit a
draft of the proposal to the Commission for review and approval.
(c) In conjunction with its submittal of a general plan or specific plan amendment to
the ALUC, a local.agency may request that the Commission modify the areas
defined as "infill" in accordance with Policy 2.4.4.(a): The Commission will in-
clude a determination on the infill as part ,of its action on the consistency of the
general plan and specific plans.
2.2.2. Subsequent Reviews.of Community Land Use Plans and Ordinances - As indicated
in Policies 1.5.1.(a) and 1.5.1.(b), prior to taking action on an amendment of a gen- -
eral plan or specific plan or the addition or, approval of a zoning ordinance or build-
ing regulation affecting an airport influence.area as defined herein, local agencies
must submit the proposed plan, ordinance, or regulation to the Commission for re-
view. Subsequent land use development which is consistent with applicable, previ-
ously reviewed, local plans, ordinances, and regulations is subject to Commission
review only under the conditions indicated in Policies 1.5.2 and 2.3.5.
2.2.3. Commission Action Choices — When reviewing a general plan, specific plan, zoning
ordinance, or building regulation for consistency with the Compatibility Plan, the
Airport Land Use Commission has three choices of action:
(a) Find the plan, ordinance, or regulation consistent with the Compatibility Plan'.
To make such a finding with regard to a general plan, the conditions identified in
Policy 2.4.3 must be met.
(b) Find the plan, ordinance, or regulation consistent with the Compatibility Plan,
subject to conditions and/or modifications which the Commission may specify.
(c) Find the plan, ordinance, or regulation inconsistent with the Compatibility Plan.
In making a finding of inconsistency, the Commission shall note the specific con-
flicts upon which its determination is based.
2-9
Countywide Policies./..Chapter 2
(b) Any applicable review fees as established by the Butte CountyAirp`ort Land Use •
Commission. t
2.3.2. ALUC Secretary's Choices — When reviewing major land use actions in accordance
with Policy 1.5.2.(d), the ALUC Secretary has two'choices of action: f
(a) Find that the proposed project does not contain characteristics likely to. result in
inconsistencies with the compatibility criteria set forth in this plan.;The Secretary
is authorized to approve such projects on behalf of the Commission.
(b) ' Find that the proposed project may be inconsistent with the Compatibility Plan.
The Secretary shall forward any such project to the Commission for a consistency
determination.' 4
2.3.3. Commission Action Choices — When reviewing a major land use project proposal,
the Airport Land Use Commission has three choices of action:
(a) Find the project consistent with the Compatibility Plana
(b) Find. the project consistent with the Compatibility Plan, subject to compliance
with such conditions as the Commission may specify. Any such conditions
should be limited in scope and described in a manner which allows compliance •
to be clearly assessed (e.g., the height of a structure).
(c) Find the project inconsistent with the Compatibility Plan. In making a finding of
inconsistency, the Commission shall note the specific conflicts upon which its
determination is based.
,h
2.3.4. Response Time — State law does not set a time limit for airport land use
commissions to review land use actions other than amendment of a general plan or
specific plan or the addition or approval of a zoning ordinance or building
regulation. Nevertheless, the policy of the Butte County Airport Land Use
Commission is that:
(a) Reviews by the ALUC Secretary shall be completed within 21 days of when a
complete application is submitted.
i
(b) Reviews of projects forwarded to the Commission for a consistency
determination shall be completed within 60 days of the date of project referral.
(c) The date of referral is deemed to be the date on which all applicable project
submittal information as listed in Policy 2.3.1 is received by the Commission
Secretary.
(d) If the ALUC Secretary or the Commission fail to make a determination within the •
above time periods, the proposed action shall be deemed consistent with the
Compatibility Plan.
2-11
Countywide Policies / Chapter,-:
:2,,
2.4.2. Function of Supporting Criteria The Primary Compatibility Criteria matrix
represents a compilation of compatibility criteria associated with each of the four
types of airport impacts listed in Section 1.A.y,F6r the purposes`of reviewing
{ ro` osed amendments to coun or ci land use" laps and zonri ordinances as t.
i P.. P tY. tY P g .
well as in the review of most individual development proposals, the criteria in the
matrix are anticipated to suffice.:'However, certain complex land use actions m" ay re-
quire more intensive review. The Commission may refer to the supporting criteria,
as listed in Section 4, to clarify or supplement its review of such actions.
' 2.4.3. General Plan Consistency with Compatibility Plan — In order for a general plan to be
considered consistent with'the`Compatibility Plan, both of the following must. e
1 accomplished:
(a) -No direct conflicts can exist between the two plans.
(1) Direct conflicts primarily involve general plan land use designations which
do not meet the density or intensity criteria specified in the Compatibility
Plan although conflicts with regard to other policies also may exist.
(2) Note, however, that a general plan cannot be found inconsistent with' -the'
Compatibility Plan, because of land use designations which reflect existing
• land uses even if those designations conflict with the ALUC's compatibility
criteria. Because ALUCs have no authority over existing land uses, general
plan land use designations which merely reflect the existing uses for such
parcels are, in effect, excluded from requirements for general plan _
consistency,with the ALUC plan. This exception is applicable only if the
general plan includes policies setting limitations on expansion and
reconstruction of nonconforming uses consistent with Policies 2.4.4.(b) and
2.4.4.(c).
(b) Provisions must be made for evaluation of proposed land use development
situated within an airport influence area relative to the compatibility criteria set
forth in the Compatibility Plan.
(1) Even if the land use designations in a general plan have been deemed
consistent with the Compatibility Plan, evaluation of the proposed
development relative to the land use designations alone is usually
insufficient. General plans typically do not contain the detailed airport land
use compatibility criteria necessary for a complete compatibility evaluation
of proposed development.
2-13
NOTES:
1 Residential development should not contain more than the Indicated number of dwelling units (both primary and •
secondary) per gross acre. With clustering, some parcels may be much smaller than others as long as the
maximum overall density criterion is not exceeded. Clustering of units is encouraged in Compadblllgr Zones B2 and
C — see Poky 42.6 for limitations.
2 Usage dations shall include all people who may be on the property (e.g., employees, customersArisitors, etc.)
both indoors and outside. These criteria are intended as. general planning guidelines to aid in determining the
acceptability of proposed land uses. Additional guidance is provided by Appendix C.
3 Open land requirements are intended to be applied with respect to an entire zone. This Is typically accomplished as
part of a community general plan or a specific plan, but may also apply to large (10 acres or more) development
projects. See supporting compatibility policies on safety (Policy 4.2.5) for definition of open land.
4 The uses listed here are ones which are explicitly prohibited regardless of whether they meet the intensity criteria. In
addition to these explicitly prohibited uses, other uses will normally not be permitted in the respective compatibility
zones because they do not meet the usage intensity criteria.
5 Airport proximity and the potential for aircraft overflights should be'disclosed as part of all real estate transactions in-
volving property within any of the airport influence area zones. Easement dedication and deed notice requirements
apply only to new development.
6 'The total number of people permitted on a project site at any time, except rare special everts, must not exceed the
Indicated usage intensity times the gross acreage of the site. Rare special everts are ones (such as an air show at
an airport) for which a facility is not designed and normally not used and for which extra safety precautions can be
taken as appropriate.
7 Clustering of nonresidential development is permitted except in Zone A. However, no single acre of a project site
shall exceed the indicated number of people per acre. See Policy 4.2.6 for details.
8 An intensity bonus may be allowed in Zones B2 and C if the building design includes features intended to reduce
risks to occupants in the event of an aircraft collision with the building. See Policy 4.2.7 for details.
9 Hazards to flight include physical (e.g., tall objects), visual, and electronic fomes of interference with the safety of
aircraft operations. Land use development which may cause the attraction of birds to increase is also prohibited.
See the supporting compatibility policies on airspace protection (Policies 4.3.2 and 4.3.6) for details. •
10 Storage of aviation fuel and other aviation -related flammable materials on an airport is exempted from this criterion.
Storage of up to 2,000 gallons of nonaviation flammable materials is also exempted.
11 NLR = Noise Level Reduction; the outside -to -inside sound level attenuation which the structure provides. See the
supporting compatibility policy on interior noise (Policy 4.1.5) for details.
12 Objects up to 35 feet in height are permitted; however, the Federal Aviation Administration may require marking and
lighting of certain objects. See supporting compatibility policy on height restrictions (Policy 4.3.2) for details.
13 Safety is only a minor concern in Zone C. The intrusiveness of aircraft noise is the more significant concern. The
split residential density criterion in this zone is based upon the concept that noise concerns can be minimized either
by limiting the number of dwellings in the affected area or by allowing high densities which tend to have
comparatively high ambient noise levels. Thus, either the average parcel size must be at least 5.0 acres or the
density must be at least 5.0 dwelling units per acre.
Source: Shutt Moen Associates (March 2000)
Table 2A, Continued
2-15
Countywide Policies /Chapter 2
burden for demonstrating that a proposed development qualifies as,infill
rests with the project proponent and/or affected land use jurisdiction.
(b) Nonconforming Uses — Uses not in conformance with this Compatibility Plan
may only be expanded as follows: 7';x
(1) Nonconforming residential uses may be expanded in building size provided
that the expansion does'not result in more dwelling units than currently
exist on the parcel.
(2) A nonconforming nonresidential development may be continued,
modified, transferred, or sold, provided that no such use shall be expanded
in area or increased in intensity (the number of people per acre) above the
levels existing at the time ofadoptionof this plan.
(3) Any proposed expansion of a nonconforming use (in terms of the number
of dwelling units or people on the site) shall be subject to ALUC review:
Factors to be considered in such'reviews include whether the development
qualifies as infill (Policy 2.4.4.(a)) or warrants approval because of other
special conditions (Policy 2.4.44).
(c) Reconstruction — An existing nonconforming development which has been fully
or partially destroyed as the result of a calamity may be rebuilt only under the
• following conditions:
(1) Nonconforming residential uses may be rebuilt provided that the expansion
does not result in more dwelling units than existed on the parcel at the
time of the damage.
(2) A nonconforming nonresidential development may be rebuilt provided that
it has been only.partially destroyed and that the reconstruction does not
increase the floor area of the previous structure or result in an increased
intensity of use (i.e.,.more people per acre). Partial destruction shall be
consideredttomean damage which can. be repaired at a cost of no more
than 75% of the assessor's full cash value of the structure at the time of the
damage.
(3) Any nonresidential use which has been more than 75% destroyed must
comply with all applicable standards herein when reconstructed.
(4) Reconstruction under Paragraphs (1) or (2) above must begin within 24
months of the date that the damage occurred.
(5) The above exceptions do not apply within Zone A or where such
reconstruction would be in conflict with a county or city general plan or
zoning ordinance.
2-17
Tr5�eY{f 1.
,Countywide.Pallcles
;hapter 2
3. REVIEW OF AIRPORT MASTER PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT: PLANS
3.1. Review Process
3.1.1. Project Submittal Information — An airport master plan' or development plan
submitted to the Commission for review shall contain sufficient information to
enable the Commission to adequately assess the noise, safety, airspace protection,
and overflight impacts of airport activity upon surrounding land uses. A master plan
report should be submitted, if available.
(a) At a minimum, information to be submitted shall include:
(1) A layout plan drawing of the proposed facility showing the location of:
► Property boundaries;
► Runways or helicopter takeoff and landing areas;
► Runway or helipad protection zones; and
► Aircraft or helicopter approach/departure flight routes.
(2) Airspace surfaces in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77.
(3) Activity forecasts, including the number of operations by each type of
aircraft proposed to use the facility, the percentage of day versus night
operations, and the distribution of takeoffs and landings for each runway
direction.
(4) Proposed flight track locations and projected noise contours or other
relevant noise impact data.
(5) A map showing existing and planned land uses in -the areas affected by
aircraft activity associated with implementation of the proposed master
plan or development plan.
(6) Any environmental document (initial study, draft environmental impact
report, etc.) which has been prepared for the project.
(7) Identification and proposed mitigation of impacts on surrounding land uses.
(b) Any applicable review fees as established by the Butte County Airport Land Use
Commission shall accompany the application.
�Mkl
•
•
0
Countywide Pollcles /,.Chapter, 2
• '- (a) Activity forecasts that are: (1) significantly higher than those in the Airport Land
'Use Compatibility Plan; or which (2) include a higher proportion of laiger,or
noisier aircraft.
(b) Proposals to: (1) construct anew runway or helicopter takeoff and landing area;
(2) change the length; width, or landing threshold location of an existingrunway;
or (3) establish an instrument approach.procedure.
3.2.2. Consistency Determination — The Commission shall determine whether the" ,
proposed airport plan or development plan is consistent with the Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan. The.Commission shall base its determination of consistency on
findings that the forecasts and development identified in th,e airport plan would not
result in- greater noise, overflight, and safety impacts or height restrictions on
surrounding land.uses than are assumed in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
3.3. Review Criteria for Proposed New Airports or Heliports*. -
3.3.1. Substance of Review — In reviewing proposals for new airports and heliports, the
Commission shall focus on the noise, safety, airspace, protection, and overflight
• impacts upon surrounding land uses.
(a) Other types of environmental impacts (e.g., air quality, water quality, natural
habitats, vehicle traffic, etc.) are not within the scope of Commission review.
(b) The Commission shall evaluate the adequacy of the proposed facility design (in
terms of federal and state standards) only to the extent that the design affects
surrounding land use.
(c) The Commission must base its review on the proposed airfield design. The
Commission does not have the authority to require alterations to the airfield
design.
3.3.2. Airport/Land Use Relationships — The review shall examine the relationships
between existing and planned land uses in the vicinity of the proposed airport or
heliport and the impacts that the proposed facility would have upon these land uses.
Questions to be considered should include:
(a) Would the existing or planned land uses be considered incompatible with'the
airport or heliport if the latter were already in existence?
(b) What measures are included in the airport or heliport proposal to mitigate the
noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts on surrounding land
uses? Such measures might include:
2-21
' Countywide. Policies /.Chapter 2
•
urbanized nature of the land uses south of Chico Municipal Airport, tie equivalent
criterion for that area is 60 dB CNEL.
4.1.4. Noise Exposure for Other Land Uses - Noise level coriipatibility'standards for other
types of land uses shall be applied in the same manner as'the above residential noise
level criteria. Examples of acceptable noise levels for other land uses in an airport's
vicinity are presented in Table 2B. The extent of outdoor activity associated with a
particular land use is an important factor to be considered in evaluating its
compatibility with airport noise, particularly for those uses listed as "marginally
acceptable."
4.1.5. Interior Noise Levels — Land uses for which interior activities may be easily disrupted
by noise shall be required to comply with the following interior noise level criteria.
(a) The maximum, aircraft -related, interior noise level which shall be considered
acceptable for land uses near airports is 45 dB CNEL in:
► Living and sleeping areas of single- or multi -family residences;
► Hotels and motels;
► Hospitals and nursing homes;
►
Churches, meeting halls, office buildings; and mortuaries; and •
► Schools, libraries, and museums.
(b) Calculations should assume that windows are closed.
(c) When reviewed as part of a general plan or zoning ordinance amendment or as
a major land use. action, evidence that proposed structures will be designed to
comply with the above criteria shall be submitted to the ALUC under the.
following circumstances:
(1) Any mobile home situated within an airport's 55 -dB CNEL contour. [A.
typical mobile home has an exterior -to -interior noise level reduction (NLR)
of approximately 15 dB with windows closed.]
(2) Any single- or multi -family residence situated within an airport's 60 -dB
CNEL contour. [Wood frame buildings constructed to meet 1990s
standards for energy efficiency typically have an NLR of approximately 20
dB with windows closed.]
(3) Any hotel or motel, hospital or nursing home, church, meeting hall, office
building, mortuary, school, library, museum, or other noise -sensitive
nonresidential use situated within an airport's 65 -dB CNEL contour.
•
2-23
•
Countywide Policies /_Chapter.2
CNEL (dB)
Land Use Category
50-55
55-60
60-65
65-70
70-75
Residential
no interference from.the.noise exposure.
+ Normally Acceptable
Noise is a factor to be considered in that slight interference with outdoor activities may
single-family, nursing homes, mobile homes'-
++
—
—
indoor activities.
multi -family, apartments, condominiums
o Marginally Acceptable
The indicated noise exposure will cause moderate interference with outdoor activities
and with indoor activities when windows are open. The land use is acceptable on the
Public
condition that outdoor activities are minimal and construction features which provide
sufficient noise attenuation are used (e.g., installation of air conditioning so that windows
schools, libraries, hospitals
+
o
—
— —
— —
churches, auditoriums, concert halls
+
o
' o
—
— —
transportation, parking, cemeteries
++
++
.++
+
0.
Commercial and Industrial
noise insulation is not practical under most circumstances. The indicated land use
'
should be avoided unless strong overriding factors prevail and it should be prohibited if
offices, retail trade
++
+
0
0
—
service commercial, wholesale trade,
++
++
+
o
0
warehousing, light industrial
general manufacturing, utilities,
++
++
++
+
+
extractive industry .
Agricultural and Recreational
cropland
++
++
++
++
+
livestock breeding
++
+
o
o
—
parks, playgrounds, zoos
++
+
+
0
_
golf courses, riding stables, water recreation
++
++
+
0
0
outdoor spectator sports
,++
+
+
o
—
amphitheaters
+
o
—
--
--
Source: Shutt Moen Associates (March 2000)
•
Table 2B
Noise Compatibility Criteria
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
2-25
Land Use Acceptability
-Interpretation/Comments
•
++ Clearly Acceptable
The activities associated with the specified land use can be carried out with essentially
no interference from.the.noise exposure.
+ Normally Acceptable
Noise is a factor to be considered in that slight interference with outdoor activities may
occur. Conventional construction methods will eliminate most noise intrusions upon
indoor activities.
o Marginally Acceptable
The indicated noise exposure will cause moderate interference with outdoor activities
and with indoor activities when windows are open. The land use is acceptable on the
condition that outdoor activities are minimal and construction features which provide
sufficient noise attenuation are used (e.g., installation of air conditioning so that windows
can be kept closed). Under other circumstances, the land use should be discouraged.
— Normally Unacceptable
Noise will create substantial interference with both outdoor and indoor activities. Noise
intrusion upon indoor activities can be mitigated by requiring special noise insulation
construction. Land uses which have conventionally constructed structures and/or in-
volve outdoor activities which would be disrupted by noise should generally be avoided.
— — Clearly Unacceptable
Unacceptable noise intrusion upon land use activities will occur. Adequate structural
noise insulation is not practical under most circumstances. The indicated land use
'
should be avoided unless strong overriding factors prevail and it should be prohibited if
outdoor activities are involved.
Notes:
'. In the area south of Chico Municipal Airport, these uses are "marginally acceptable" within the 55-60 dB CNEL range.
Source: Shutt Moen Associates (March 2000)
•
Table 2B
Noise Compatibility Criteria
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
2-25
Il
Countywlde.P.ollcles /. Chapter..2
4.2.5. Open Land — In the event that a light aircraft is forced to land away from an airport,
the risks to the people on board can. best be minimized by providing as much open .
land area as possible within the, airport'vicinity. This concept is -based upon the fact
that many light aircraft accidents and, incidents occurring away from an airport run-
way are controlled emergency landings in"which the pilot has reasonable opportu-
nity to select the landing site.
(a) To qualify as open land, an area must'be:
y;
(1) Free of structures and other major obstacles such as walls, large trees or
poles (greater than 4 inches in diameter, measured 4 feet above the
ground), and overhead wires.
(2) Have minimum dimensions of at least 75 feet by 300 feet.
(b) Roads and automobile parking lots are acceptable as open land afeas if they
meet the above criteria. The arrangement of light fixtures is a paramount design
consideration.
(c) Open land requirements for each compatibility zone are to be applied with
respect to the entire zone. Individual parcels may be too small to'accommodate
the minimum -size open area requirement. Consequently, the We of
open land areas must initially be accomplished at the general plan or specific •
plan level or as part of large -acreage projects:
(d) Clustering of development, subject to the limits indicated in Policy 4.2.6, and
providing contiguous landscaped and parking areas is encouraged as a means of
increasing the size of open land areas.
(e) Building envelopes and the airport compatibility zones should be'indicated on all
development plans and tentative maps for projects located within the influence
area of airports covered by this Compatibility Plan in order to assure that
individual development projects provide the open land areas identified in the
applicable general plan, specific plan, or other large-scale plan.
4.2.6. Limitations on Clustering — Policy 4.2.5.4 notwithstanding, limitations shall be set
on the maximum degree of clustering or usage intensity acceptable within a portion
of a large project site.
(a) Clustering of new residential development shall be limited as follows:
(1) Zone A: Not applicable.
(2) Zone 61: Not permitted except that individual dwelling units on
contiguous parcels, each meeting the 10 -acre minimum parcel size •
requirement, can be located near the common edge or corner of the
parcels. Buildings shall be located as far as practical from the extended
2-27
Countyiwide Policies % Chaptet'2
(a) Building'design features which would enable application of an intensity bonus
include, but are not limited oto, the following:
Using..concrete walls; ,.
Limiting the number and size of windows;
► Upgrading the strength of the building roof;
► Avoiding skylights;
► Enhancing the fire sprinkler system;
►"Limiting'buildings to a single story; and
► . Increasing the number of emergency exits.
(b) Proponents of projects wishing to take*advantage of intensity bonuses may
submit appropriate details of the building design along with their project review
application to the ALUC. The commission shall consider and approve intensity
bonuses on a case-by-case basis.
(c) Alternatively,' affected local jurisdictions may draft an ordinance or other policy
document establishing criteria which the jurisdiction will use in considering and
' approving intensity bonus requests:. . Any such ordinance or policy must be
` reviewed and approved by the ALUC before taking effect. .
4.3. Airspace Protection
4.3.1. Basis for�Height Limits — The criteria for limiting the height of structures, trees, and
other objects in the vicinity of an airportshall be based'upon: Part 77, Subpart C, of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR); the United -States Standard for Terminal
'Instrument Procedures (TERPS); and applicable airport'design standards published by
the Federal Aviation Administration. Airspace plans depicting the critical areas for
airspace protection around each of the airports covered by this Compatibility Plan
are depicted in Chapters 4 through 7. '
4.3.2. Height Restrictions — The height of objects within the influence area of each airport
shall be reviewed,'and restricted if necessary, according to the criteria below, The
locations of these+zones are depicted on the respective Compatibility Map for each
airport. In considering exceptions to the specified height limits, the Commission
shall consider FAR. Part 77, TERPS, and airport design standards, together with the
results of any Federal Aviation Administration aeronautical study of the proposal in
question.
(a) Within Compatibility Zone A: The height of all objects shall be limited in
accordance with applicable Federal Aviation Administration criteria including
PMol
Countywide P611des Y Chapter 2
(b) Allow the generation of noise and other impacts associated with aircraft •
overflight;
(c) Restrict the height of structures, trees and other objects;
(d) Permit access to the property for the removal or aeronautical marking of objects
exceeding the established height limit; and 3`
(e) Prohibit electrical interference, glare, and other potential hazards to flight from
being created.on the property. An example of an avigation easement is provided
in Appendix F.
4.3.5. FAA Notification - Proponents of a project which may exceed a Part,77 surface
must notify the Federal Aviation Administration as required by FAR Part 77, Subpart
B, and by the State Aeronautics Act, Sections 21658 and 21659. (Notification to the
Federal Aviation Administration under FAR Part 77, Subpart B, is required even for
certain proposed construction that does not exceed the height limits allowed by
Subpart C of the regulations. Refer to Appendix B for the specific Federal Aviation
Administration notification requirements.)
(a) Local jurisdictions shall inform project proponents of the requirements for
notification to the Federal Aviation Administration. For objects less than 50 feet •
in height, FAA notification will generally not be required except for locations
within Compatibility Zones A and 81 and the Height Review Overlay Zone.
(b) The requirement for notification to the Federal Aviation Administration shall not
necessarily trigger an airport compatibility review of an individual project by the
Airport Land Use Commission unless required in accordance with Policy 4.3.2.
(c) FAA review is required for any proposed structure more than 200'Ifeet above the
surface level of its site. All such proposals also shall be submitted to the ALUC
for review regardless of where in the county they would be located.
(d) Any project submitted to the ALUC for airport land use compatibility review for
reason of height -limit issues shall include a copy of FAR Part 77 notification to
the Federal Aviation Administration and the results of the FAA's analysis.
4.3.6. Other Flight Hazards — Land uses which may cause visual, electronic,,or bird strike
hazards to aircraft in flight shall not be permitted within any airport's influence area.
Specific characteristics to be avoided include:
(a) Glare or distracting lights which could be mistaken for airport lights;
(b) Sources of dust, steam, or smoke which may impair pilot visibility;,;
•
2-31
Countywide Policies / Chapter 2
4.4.3. Land Use Conversion —The compatibility of uses in the airportinfluence areas shall
be preserved to the.maximum feasible' extent. Particular emphasis should be placed
on preservation of existing agricultural and open space uses.
(a) The conversion of land from existing or'planned agricultural, industrial, or
commercial use. to residential uses within Compatibility Zones A, B1, and B2 is
strongly discouraged.
(b) In Compatibility Zone C, general plan amendments (as well as other discretionary
actions such as rezoning, subdivision approvals, use permits, etc.) which would
convert land to residential use or increase the density of residential uses above
existing levels should be subject to careful consideration of overflight impacts.
2-33
'r
Individual Airport .Policies.
and Compatibility Maps
1. BASIS FOR COMPATIBILITY ZONE BOUNDARIES
1.1. General
The general concepts used to develop the compatibility zone boundaries for the four
public -use airports in Butte County are outlined below. The compatibility zone bound-
aries represent a composite of noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight concerns.
• The basic aviation -oriented boundaries were then modified to take into account distinct
operational characteristics at each airport, as well as geographic features and existing land
uses in the surrounding areas. These additional factors for each airport are described on
the following pages of this chapter. The Compatibility Factors Map included in the Back-
ground Data chapter for each airport also depicts the relationship between the various
compatibility factors and the compatibility zone boundaries.
1.1.1. Compatibility Zone.A -Zone A includes airport runways and immediately adja-
cent areas wherein uses are restricted to aeronautical functions in accordance with
Federal Aviation Administration standards.
(a) The length of Zone A is set to encompass the runway protection zone (RPZ) lo-
cated at each end of the runway. Runway protection zone dimensions are de-
fined by Federal Aviation Administration airport design standards and take into
account the runway approach type and the type of aircraft the runway is in-
tended to accommodate. The FAA strongly encourages all airports to own or .
have easements on property within the RPZ.
(b) The lateral limits of Zone A are generally defined by the airfield building re-
striction lines as depicted on the airport layout plan for each airport. This area
is normally on airport property..
3-1
Individual Airport Policies and Compatibility Maps / Chapter 3
• (c) In addition to being an area of high risk, Zone A also is subject to high noise
levels. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) exceeds 65 dB within
much of Zone A at each airport.
1.1.2. Compatibility Zone B1 — Zone B1 generally surrounds Zone A, including areas
both immediately beyond the runway protection zones and lateral to the runways.
These are locations where noise levels and risks are both high.
(a)' Noise levels typically are 55 dB CNEL or greater. Also, noise levels produced
by individual aircraft operations are high enough to disrupt many land use ac-
tivities.
(b) Risk levels are high both because of the proximity of Zone B1 to the airport
runways and because the areas are overflown by aircraft at low altitudes —
typically only 200 to 400 feet above the runway elevation. According to the
data presented in the Caltrans Handbook, 25% to 40% of near -airport (off run-
way, but within 5 miles) general aviation aircraft accidents occur within'an
area equivalent to Zone B1 for airports comparable those in Butte County.
(c) Additionally, restrictions on the height of objects may be required for airspace
protection purposes.
• 1.1.3. Compatibility Zone B2 — Zone B2 is the extended approach/departure zone for
each airport and also may include some land lateral to the runways. This zone is
affected by moderate degrees of both noise and risk.
(a) Noise levels may exceed 55 dB CNEL in portions of Zone B2. Noise from indi-
vidual aircraft operations is disruptive to noise -sensitive land uses. Aircraft
overfly much of this area'at altitudes of..less than approximately 600 feet above
the, runway elevation on either Msual or straight -in instrument approaches.
(b) Caltrans Handbook data i6dicates that 10% to 15% of near -airport general
aviation aircraft accidents occur within the area comparable to that
encompassed by Zone B2.
1.1.4. Compatibility Zone C — The outer boundary of Zone C is defined as the area
commonly overflown by aircraft at an ,altitude of 1,000 feet or less above ground
level. Included are locations beneath the traffic pattern and pattern entry points.
(Atypical trafficpattern altitude is 1,000 feet above the airport elevation, although
it can be lower or, especially for large airplanes, higher.)
(a) Annoyance associated with aircraft overflights is the major concern within
Zone C.. Although the zone lies mostly outside the 55 -dB CNEL contour, land
• uses are nevertheless subjected to. frequent aircraft noise events.
r t
3-2
Individual Airport Policies and Compatibility Maps/ Chapter 3
•' (b) Compatibility Zone C also includes lands within the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR) Part 77 transitional and horizontal zones. Restrictions may
be required on tall objects (ones greater than, 70 feet high).
1.1.5. Compatibility Zone D — Zone D includes other areas within the airport vicinity
which are overflown less frequently or at a higher altitude by aircraft arriving and
departing the airport.'*The outer edge of this zone mostly coincides with the outer
boundary of the FAR Part 77 conical zone.
1.1.6. Height Review Overlay Zone — This zone overlays all of Compatibility Zone A plus
locations within other zones where the ground level exceeds or reaches to within
35 feet of an FAR Part 77 airspace surface. This height allows construction of typi-
cal two-story structures. Structures exceeding this height require review to assure
that they do not constitute airspace hazards. The Airspace Plan- drawings included
in Chapters 4 through 7 for the four airports addressed by this plan provide the
ground and airspace surface elevation data necessary for such reviews.
1.1.7. Airport Influence Area — The combination of Compatibility Zones A, B1, B2, C,
and D comprise the Airport Influence Area for each airport. f.
• 1.2. Special Conditions
At some airports, special conditions as provided for in Policy 2.4.4.(f) of Chapter 2 have
been acknowledged by the Airport Land Use Commission in adoption of this Compatibili-
ty Plan. These special conditions result in establishment of compatibility zone boundaries
and/or compatibility criteria different in character from the zones and criteria applicable
to other airports in the county. Where any such additional policies have been adopted .
fora particular airport; they are listed in the following sections of this chapter. These spe-
cial policies are not to be generalized or considered as precedent applicable'to other loca-
tions near the same airport or to the environs of other airports addressed by this plan.
i
3-3
•
Individual Airport Policies and Compatibility Maps / Chapter 3-
2. CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
•2.1. Compatibility Map Delineation
2.1.1. Compatibility Map —The Compatibility Map for Chico Municipal Airport is pre-
sented in Figure 3A and is to be used in conjunction with the criteria set forth in
Table 2A.
2.1.2. Boundary Determinants
(a) Zone A extends laterally to the building restriction line on each side of the run-
ways. The length of the zone'encompasses the future runway protection zone
at each runway end and takes into account the proposed runway extensions.
For the primary runway, Zone A extends 2,500 feet beyond the primary sur-
face (2,700 feet beyond the runway end), consistent with the RPZ criteria for
runways having a precision approach with visibility minimums less than 3/4 -
mile). For the secondary runway (13L-31 R), visual approach RPZs (1,000 feet
• long) are assumed. Zone A for Chico Municipal Airport lies entirely on the air-
port property.
(b) Zone B1 encompasses the 60 -dB CNEL contour based upon the expanded
forecast assumptions (see,Chapter 4, Exhibit 4D). Nearly all of the 65 -dB
CNEL contour for a'peak fire attack day also is contained within this zone.
Aircraft passing the ends of the zone will have descended below 400 feet
above ground level on instrument approaches to either end of Runway 13L-
31 R.. Aircraft on -visual approaches to any of the four runway ends also will
typically have descended below 400 feet. Southeast of. the airport; Zone B1 is
widened to protect the heavy -aircraft noise abatement departure corridor for
Runway 13L
(c) Beyond'the runway ends, the boundaries of Zone B2 reflect the airport's
principal approach and departure paths. On instrument approaches, aircraft
will have descended below 600 feet above ground level when passing the
outer edges of this zone. Except to. the southeast, Zone B2 fully encompasses
both the expanded forecast 55 -dB CNEL contour and -the peak fire attack day
60 -dB CNEL contour, including the portions lateral to the runway.
(d) Zone C contains the normal traffic pattern for both runways. The zone is
wider to. the northeast than to the southwest because of the wider pattern
)i sometimes flown by the heavy aircraft which use theP rrimaY runway.
Y
Extensions of Zone C to the northwest and southeast follow the offset
tM'
Individual Airport Policies and Compatibility Maps / Chapter 3
• nonprecision instrument (VOR DME) approach procedures to each end of
Runway 13L-31 R.
(e) Zone D includes the remainder of the area within the FAR Part 77 conical
surface. These areas are commonly overflown by aircraft as they enter -and
depart the traffic pattern.
(f) The Height Review Overlay Zone applies in portions of the hilly area east of the
airport.
2.2. Additional Compatibility Policies
2.2.1. Runway Extension Assumptions — The Compatibility Map in Figure 3A is predicat-
ed upon extension of both runways being part of the city's adopted master plan for
the airport. If the city should decide either not to pursue these projects or to
change the length of the extensions, modification of the Compatibility Map may be
appropriate.
2.2.2. Noise Impact Assumptions — Three sets of noise contours depicting three different
activity assumptions are presented in Chapter 4. In preparation of the Chico Mu-
nicipal Airport Compatibility Map (Figure 3A), emphasis was given to the expanded
forecast noise contours (see Exhibit 4F in Chapter 4). These contours should be
used in conjunction with any cumulative (Community Noise Equivalent Level)
noise impact analyses associated with the countywide supporting compatibility cri-
teria on noise (Section 4.1 of Chapter 2). The expanded forecast case is based up-
on an average day of a four-month fire season for fire attack aircraft operations
plus 1.5 times the 2018 operations -forecast (as presented in the August 1998
preliminary draft Chico Municipal Airport Master Plan) for all other aircraft types.
The other noise contour set given consideration in the Compatibility Map
delineation is that associated with the peak fire attack day (Exhibit 4G in Chapter.
4). Specific factors considered are noted in the preceding discussion of
compatibility zone boundary determinants.
3-5
• lndivldual Airport Policies and Compatibility Maps / Chapter 3
3. OROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
3.1. Compatibility Map Delineation
3.1.1. Compatibility Map The Compatibility Map for Oroville Municipal Airport is
presented in Figure 36 and is to be used ini conjunction with the criteria set forth
in Table 2A.
3.1.2.. Boundary Determinants -
(a) Zone A encompasses the runway protection zones at each of the four runway
ends. The RPZs extend 1,700 feet and 1,000 feet beyond the primary surface
of the main and secondary runways, respectively. Laterally, the zone
boundaries follow the building restriction lines indicated on the adopted
airport layout plan. All but some tiny areas of Zone A are on airport or other
"adjoining public property.
• (b) The length and width of Zone B1 are set'so as to include the airport's project-
ed 55 -dB CNEL contour.
.(c) Zone B2 extends beyond Zone B1 at each runway end to encompass the
close -in, low -altitude portions of traffic patterns. The zone length is greater to
the southwest than in other directions in recognition both of the dominance of
take -offs in that direction and the existing straight -in nonprecision (GPS)
.instrument approach to that runway end.
(d) Zone C contains the principle traffic pattern for each runway.
(e) The outer boundary of Zone D matches the FAR Part 77 conical zone limits.
(f) . No high terrain resulting in the need for a Height Review Overlay Zone exists
around Oroville Municipal Airport.
3.2. Additional Compatibility Policies . .
None.
3-6
3-7
Individual Airport Policies and Compatibility Maps / Chapter 3
4. PARADISE SKYPARK AIRPORT
4.1. Compatibility Map Delineation
4.1.1. Compatibility Map —The Compatibility Map for Paradise Skypark Airport is
presented in Figure 3C and is to be used in conjunction with the criteria set forth
in Table 2A.
4.1.2.- Boundary Determinants
(a) Zone A extends 1,200 feet beyond each runway end to encompass the runway
protection zones. The width is 125 feet from the runway centerline, matching
the airport's building restriction line. The outer ends of the zone are not on
airport property.
(b) Zone B1 stretches 2,500 feet beyond the primary surface at each end of the
runway and has a width of 1,000 feet from the runway centerline. Most of the
• airport's projected 55 -dB CNEL contour falls within this zone. The contour ex-
tends roughly an equal distance in each direction despite the different noise
characteristics. -Although nearly all of the aircraft operations at the airport are
to and from the south, the noise impact in this area is slightly reduced by the
dropping terrain. In contrast, the area to the north, although seldom
overflown, is affected by noise generated. behind aircraft as they begin their
takeoff roll.
(c) To the south, Zone B2 encompasses areas overflown by aircraft at relatively
low altitude as they descend toward landing and climb away from the airport.
The tendency of most departing aircraft to turn "slightly to the right to follow
the valley is reflected in the shape of the zone.. Because operations to and
from the north are rare, no Zone B2 is included on that end of the airport.
(d) Zone C is located only on the west side of the airport in recognition of the
traffic pattern location only on that side.
(e) Zone D contains the remainder of the area within the FAR Part 77 airspace
boundaries for the airport.
(0 An area of Height Review Overlay Zone occurs immediately north of the
airport and a smaller area exists to the east.
3-8
•
Individual Airport Policies and Compatibility Maps / Chapter 3
4.2. Additional Compatibility Policies
None.
3-9
U
Individual Airport Policies and Compatibility Maps / Chapter 3
5. RANCHAERO AIRPORT
5.1. Compatibility Map Delineation
5.1.1. Compatibility Map — The Compatibility Map for Ranchaero Airport is presented in
Figure 3D and is to be used in conjunction with the criteria set forth in*Table 2A.
5.1.2. Boundary Determinants
(a) Zone A extends 1,200 feet beyond each end of the runway, encompassing
both runway protection zones. Laterally, the zone boundary follows the
building restriction line, 125 feet from the runway centerline. The outer ends
of the zone are not on airport property although easements cover some of the
area.
(b) A minimal 2,500 -foot length is indicated for Zone B1 at both runway ends.
This distance is consistent with the low volume of activity at the airport.
• Projected noise levels at the outer edge of the zone are only about 50 d6
CNEL. However, with aircraft generally below 300 feet above the ground on
either approach or departure, noise from individual overflights can be
intrusive. To the.north, the Zone B1 boundary is widened westward to reflect
the flight track which most aircraft -follow to avoid overflight of the neighboring
subdivision. The area along the extended runway centerline is also included
in the zone because some aircraft fly.straight-in and straight-out. Laterally, -the
Zone B1 width is set at 600 feet from the runway centerline so as to contain
the 55 -dB CNEL contour.
(c) Zone B2 is a continuation of Zone B1 out to a distance of 5,000 feet from the
primary surface. The low altitude of aircraft overflight — and the moderate
noise and safety concerns which result = are the principal, determinants of
this minimal distance.
(d) Zone C contains the airport traffic pattern on the west side of the airport plus a
buffer strip along the east side of the runway. The western edge of the zone
coincides with the FAR part 77 conical zone boundary.
(e) Zone D includes additional buffer area east of the airport to a distance of
5,000 feet from the runway. Aircraft normally do not fly on this side of the air-
port, thus the height review and airport proximity disclosure policies
applicable within this zone are sufficient compatibility measures.
(0 No high terrain resulting in the need for a Height Review Overlay Zone exists
around Ranchaero Airport:
3-10
•
3-12
Ott Count'
e
-a� LAND'0FNATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY'
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION'
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE . • OROVILL• E, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
TELEPHONE: .(530) 538-7601
FAX: (530) 538-7785
October 2, 2000 r ,
RE: ' Public'Comments on the Proposed Addendum to the 2000 Draft ,
Butte County,'Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan' ' '
I have attached a copy _ the referenced, document pursuant to the Public Utilities Codes
Section 21675(6). This Section requires the ALUC to consult with the,invi)lved" agencies
prior to establishtmenof the! airport'planriing boundaries.
•' At its September meeting,'the ALUC decided that the Public Comments period for the -
referenced document/Plan start oii" October 5 and end on November 17, 2000. Please -
submit your comments no later than'the mentioned closing date. - • -
Thank you for your time and efforts in finalizing the subject Plan., Should you have any
questions, please call me at (530) 538-6572. {• '
'Sincerely,
M. -A. Meleka -. r .
Principal Planner
N.
MM:cs . �. :•,. ,r 1 K.
Attachments .
-BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION +
• 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 •
TO: ALUC Staff
FROM: Interested Agencies/Entities
DATE: October 2, 2000
SUBJECT: October ALUC Regular Meeting
The ALUC will not hold its regular meeting in October, 2000 since
no application is scheduled for'consideration. Regular notification
(according to the Brown Act) for future meetings will follow.
e f ,
*Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •
Revised .
• September 26, 2000
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
Addendum
This addendum contains a list of proposed revisions to the draft Butte County Airport Land Use Com-
patibility Plan dated March 2000. A brief discussion of selected revisions follows the respective'items
where necessary to clarify the intent or background for the change. In most cases, reference is made
to the analysis and recommendations contained in the July 12, 2000, matrix prepared in response to
public and agency comments on the draft plan. .
Only substantive changes are listed here; minor typographical corrections will also be made prior. to'
printing of the final document. After adoption by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission,
these revisions will be incorporated into the plan and a final document will be printed.
Back of Title Page: Names of commission members and staff will be listed.
Page 2-2, Policy 1.2. 10 — Revise definition of "existing land use" as follows:
• Existing Land Use — A land use which either physically exists or for which local government com-
mitments to the proposal have been obtained; that is, no further discretionary approvals are
necessary along with substantial eenstruetion investinent by the property owner make it infeasi
ble for Ehe property to be used f6r amything other than its proposed t . Local government com-
mitment to a proposal can usually be considered firm once one or more of the following have
occurred:
A tentative parcel or subdivision map has been approved and the original period (before any
time extensions are submitted) within which the approval is valid has not expired;
► A vesting tentative parcel or subdivision map has been approved;
A development agreement has been approved and remains in effect;
► A final subdivision map has been recorded;
► A use permit or other discretionary 'anduseentitlement has been approved and not yet ex=
fired; or ,
► A valid building permit has been issued.
Discussion: This change is based upon the recommendation outlined in matrix item #3. Note
that formation of an assessment district for the provision of infrastructure and the actual installa-
tion of such infrastructure are not listed as conditions which by themselves qualify a land use as
existing. It is within the ALUC's authority to exempt from review any development proposals for
• which only those conditions — and none of the others listed above — occur. However, such a
policy should be stated elsewhere in the policies chapter rather than as part of the existing land
use definition. Shutt Moen Associates' recommendation is that the ALUC not exempt projects
from review under these circumstances.
1
Page 2-5, Policy 1.5.1(b) - Modify as follows:
• The adoption orapproval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation which (1) affects property
within an airport influence area, and (2) involves the types of airport impact concerns listed in
Section 1.4 (State Aeronautics Act Section 21676(b)). _ Aniproposed change or variance to anX
such ordinance or rellulation also must be submitted for ALUC review if issues of noise; safety,
airspace protection, and overflight as addressed he�rein`are involved.,-'.''- `
Discussion: This modification has not previously been discussed. It is intended to clarify that a
zoning change or variance which involves compatibility issues must be treated similarly to a gen-.,
eral plan amendment. Without this clarification, the prospect exists that compatibility conflicts
could arise because of zoning,changes or variances granted subsequent to'when the ALUC finds
the general plan and its implementing ordinances to be consistent with the. Compatibility Plan.
Page 2-6, Policy 1.5.2(b) Add new Sub -policy (3) as follows:
(3) Because the ALUC is acting in an adviso!�t capacity when reviewing_ projects under these
circumstances, local jurisdictions are not required to adhere to the override process if they
elect to approve a project without incorporating design changes or conditions suggested by..........
the Commission.
• Discussion: This addition represents a slight restating of the first recommendation included un-
der item #1 in the matrix.
Page 2-7, Policy 1.5.3(x)(4) — Correct to read: "... 20,000 square feet or greater."
Discussion. This is a correction of a typographical omission.
Page 2-9, Policies 2.2:3(b) and 2.3.3(b) Change last word in first sentence from "specify" to "re-
quire."
Discussion: This change clarifies the original intent.
Pages 2-14 and 2-15, Table 2A — Make the following modifications as shown on the accompanying
revised table:
► Add note defining children's schools as including through grade 12.
► Under "Other Development Conditions" for Zones B1 and B2, change "office buildings" to
"buildings with noise -sensitive uses."
► Split the dual residential density criteria for Compatibility Zone C into two distinct criteria and
zones designated C(1) and C(2) and modify Note 13 accordingly.
► Reduce minimum density requirement for Zone C(2) from 5.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre.
► Revise Note 3 to clarify applicability of open land requirements to private property.
• Discussion: The first chane is necessary to make the table consistent with Policy 4.1.5(a). The
g rY Y
others respond to matrix items #8A and, #8D and the further direction provided by the ALUC.
Page. 2-16, Policy 2.4.3 — Insert the following revisions and additions:
(2) Local jurisdictions have the following choices, or a combination thereof, for satisfying this
evaluation requirement:
► The general plan and/or referenced implementing ordinances and regulations must con-
tain sufficient detail to enable the local jurisdiction to assess whether a proposed devel- <::
opment fully meets the compatibility criteria specified in the Compatibility Plan thisrre
quires both that the compatibility criteria be identified and that project review proce
dures be described);
► The Compatibility Plan must be adopted by reference (additionally, the project review
procedure must be described in a separate instrument presented to and approved by the
ALUC); and/or
► The general plan ...
(3) The status of ALUC review of major land use actions depends upon which of the preceding .' .
options the local agency selects for making its general plan consistent with the Compatibility'
Plan This status in turn affects whether a local agency would be required to utilize the
override process in the event of a disagreement with the ALUC's action.
► If either of the first two options under Sub-policy(2) is selected then referral of major
land use actions to the ALUC is voluntary. In this case, the Commission's review is advi-
sory and the local agency would not need to utilize the override process if it elects to
approve a project without incorporating the Commission's comments.
• If the third option is chosen submittal of major land use actions for ALUC review is man-
datory and override procedures would apply.
Discussion: These changes reflect the remainder of the recommendations listed under Item #1
in the matrix. The wording has been slightly modified from the originally proposed language.
Page 2-16, Policy 2.4.4(a) - Replace infill policy with the following:
Infill — Where development not in conformance with'this Compatibility Plan already exists, ad-
ditional infill development of similar land uses may be allowed to occur even if such land uses
are to be prohibited elsewhere in the zone. This exception applies only within Compatibility
Zones 82 and C.
(1) A parcel can be considered for infill development if it meets all of the following criteria Pius
the applicable provisions of either Sub -policy (2) or (3) below:
► The parcel size is no larger than 20 acres.
► The site is at least 65% bounded (disregarding roads) by existing uses similar.to, or more
intensive than, those proposed.
► The proposed project would not extend the perimeter of the area defined by the sur-
rounding, already developed, incompatible uses.
• Further increases in the density, intensity, and/ other incompatible design or usage
characteristics (e.g., through use permits, density transfers, addition of second units on
the same parcel, height variances, or other strategy) are prohibited.
3
► The area to be developed cannot previously have been set aside as open land in accost.-:,.,.
• dance with Policy 4.2.5 unless replacement open land is provided within the same com`
patibility.zone. 19/26 revision]
For residential development:
► If the size of the parcel proposed for division is 10 acres or less, the development density'
shall be no greater than the overall density represented by all existing lots which lie fully .'
or partially within a distance of 300 feet from the boundary of the parcel to be `divided.
► If the size of the parcel proposed for division is greater than 10 acres (but no la aerg r than
20 acres) then the development density shall be no greater than double the density per
mitted in accordance with the Primar� Compatibility Criteria (Table 2A).
M For nonresidential development the proposed use shall not have an intensity (the number of
people per acre) more than 50% above the intensity permitted in accordance with the}Pri-
maQX Compatibility Criteria (Table 2A).. [For example, whereas an average "in'nsity of 50
leople per acre is normally_ permitted in Zone B2 the infill policy would allow a total of 75
people per acre (50 people/acre x 150% = 75 people/acre).l
141 To avoid the ripple effect of infill development on some parcels permitting additional parcels.
subsequently to qualify for infill the ALUC's intent is that parcels eligible for infill be deter-
mined just once. Thus, in order for the ALUC to consider proposed development under`.
these infill criteria, the entity, having land use authority (Butte County or affected cities) must
• first identify the qualifying locations in its general plan or other adopted planning document
approved by the ALUC. This action may take dace in conjunction with the process of
amending a general plan for consistency with the ALUC plan or may be submitted by the
local agency for consideration by the ALUC at the time of adoption of this Compatibility Plan.
In either case, the burden for demonstrating that a proposed development qualifies as infill
rests with the project proponent and/or affected land use jurisdiction.
Discussion: This change is based upon matrix item #4, as modified by ALUC suggestions.
Page 2-17, Policy 2.4.4(c)(2) — In last sentence, replace "assessor's full cash value" with "market
value."
Discussion: This change reflects item #6 in the matrix.
Page 2-27, Policy 4.2.5 — In Sub -Policies (b) and (d), delete references to automobile parking lots as
acceptable forms of open land.
(b) Roads and atiteniebile parking 1 are acceptable ...
• (d) ...providing contiguous landscaped and parkin areas is ...
Discussion: For the reasons cited in matrix item #8D, the ALUC concludes that automobile
parking lots do not meet the basic safety-related objectives for providing open land.
4
Page 2-27, Policy. 4.2.5 — Replace Sub -policy (c) with the following::.
• Open land requirements are intended to be applied with respect town entire zone. Community
general plans and/or implementing policies shall indicate how and where the requirements will
be met Application of open land requirements to individual development proposals is at the
discretion of the local jurisdiction and is dependent upon the size of the development (some
Individual parcels may be too small to accommodate the 'minimum -size open area requirement)
and whether the requirements can be made solely on public property. Measures mustbe "estab-
lished to assure that property designated as open land will continue to meet the open land c�ite-
ria for as long as the airport remains in operation.
Discussion: This change matches the proposed revisions to Table 2A, Note 3.
Pages 2-27 and 2-28, Policy 4.2.6 — Modify introductory paragraph; insert new Sub -policy (a); and
renumber subsequent sub -policies.
Criteria for Clustering — The ALUC generals supports clustering as a means for both enhancine
safety compatibility in'the airport vicine and accomplishing other development objectives. This
policy describes the purposes of clustering and the limitations on its use....
(a) Clustering occurs when development on a site or within an overall compatibility zone is con-
centrated in only a portion of the area and the remaining area is set aside either as open land..
• (see preceding policy) or is otherwise held to a low -intensity usage. Clustering may apply to
either residential or nonresidential development.
M In terms of airport land use compatibility planning the primarypurpose of clustering is to
provide locations where an aircraft can attempt an off -airport emergency landing Clus-
tering may also serve to limit the risks to people on the ground, even if open land is not
provided by shifting habitable areas away from principal aircraft flight tracks, especially
tracks close to the runway ends.
From a development perspective clustering may desirable or necessary because of
various other site planning considerations not associated with airport compatibility.
Examples of clustering include:
► Residential development where the building envelopes on large lots are all close to-
gether, such as adjacent to a street.
► Residential development in which most of the lots are small so that a large area can
be provided for purposes such as a common recreational use or preservation of an
environmentally sensitive habitat.
► Nonresidential development in which the buildings are surrounded by large areas of
low -intensity uses such as landscaping.
• (b) Clustering of new residential development ...
Discussion: This change reflects the Commission's guidance concerning matrix item #8C.
5
Page 3-3, Paragraph 1.1.4 — Revise Sub -paragraph (a) and add the following new paragraph•
the discussion of the basis for defining the boundaries of Compatibility Zone C. ".
(a) Annoyance associated with aircraft overflights is the major concern within Zone C. Although
the zone lies mostly outside the 55-d6 CNEL contour, land uses are nevertheless subjected toy
frequent aircraft noise events. Risk is a concern mostly only with respect to uses such as '
schools, hospitals, and ones involving very high intensities.
Lcl In some portions of the Chico Municipal Airport influence area, Zone C is divided into two :.
sub -zones designated CO) and CO. See Paragraph 2.1.2(d) for a description of the basis for
delineation of these zone boundaries.
Page 3-4, Paragraph 2.1.4(d) — Revise discussion. of the Chico Municipal Airport boundary determi-
nants for Zone C as follows:
(d) Zone C, including Sub -zones C(1).and CO, contains the normal traffic pattern for both run-
ways. The zone is wider to the northeast than to the southwest because of the wider pattern,
sometimes flown by the heavy aircraft which use the primary runway. Extensions of Zone C
to the northwest and southeast follow the offset nonprecision instrument NOR DME) ap-
proach procedures to each end of Runway 13L-31 R. Where sub -zones are designated,'Sub-
zone CO) is applied to locations where noise, risks, and potential overflight annoyance are
comparatively higher than in Sub -zone C(2) and urban density residential development nei-;_.::.::..:
• ther exists or is Rllanned Sub -zone C(2) is generally intended for the comparatively: less im
pacted locations lateral to the runways or for areas where extensive urban. residential devel-
opment already exists Locations where future residential development may adhere to the
criteria of either sub -zone are simply designated Zone C on the map.
Discussion: This change responds to the Commission's guidance regarding matrix item #10D.
Chapter 3, Figures 3A, 38, and 3D — Replace the Compatibility Maps for Chico Municipal Airport,
Oroville Municipal Airport, and Ranchaero Airport with the attached new versions.
Discussion: These revisions correspond to matrix item #10 and the comments provided by the
Commission. Designated locations of Zones CO) and C(2) are shown on the Chico Municipal
Airport map based upon the Commission's input.
Appendix D — Replace with the revised version.attached.
Discussion: The major changes proposed for this table are expansion of the introductory_ para-
graph and revision of the evaluation definitions to read "normally compatible" or "normally in-
compatible" rather than simply "compatible" or "incompatible." Modifications have also been
made in the residential land use category in response to the split of Compatibility Zone C into
• CO) and C(2) sub -zones. Suggestions offered by the ALUC subcommittee were examined and
several revisions and additions have been made, but most of the evaluations as originally in-
cluded in the draft plan were judged to be consistent with the Table 2A criteria and various other
policies in Chapter 2.
A
Appendix F2, 2nd Page, 3'd Paragraph — Add language as follows to recommended avigation easement
document concerning property owner waiver of right to sue the airport.
Grantor, together with its successors in interest and assigns, hereby waives its right to legal action
against Grantee, its successors, or assigns for monetary damages or other redress due to impacts,,
as described in Paragraph (2) of the granted rights of easement, associated with aircraft opera-
tions in the air or on the ground at the airport, including future increases in the volume or
changes in location of said operations. Furthermore, Grantor, its successors, and assigns shall
have no duty to avoid or mitigate such damages through physical modification of airport facilities
or establishment or modification of aircraft operational procedures or restrictions. However, this
waiver shall not apply if the airport role or character of its usage (as identified in an adopted air-
port master plan for example) changes in a fundamental manner which could not reasonably . .
have been anticipated at the time of the granting of this easement and which results in a substan-
tial increase in the impacts associated with aircraft operations. Also, this grant of easement shall
not operate to deprive the Grantor, its successors or assigns, of any rights which may from time to
time have against any air carrier or private operator for negligent or unlawful operation of aircraft.
Discussion: The addition was discussed in matrix item #8F. Note that no change is recom-
mended with regard to the zones within which dedication of an avigation easement is required
as a condition for development approval.
Appendix H — Expand introductory section as noted below and add attachedAppendix H1 table.
As indicated in Chapter 1, state law requires each local agency having jurisdiction over land uses
within an ALUC's planning area to modify its general plan and any affected specific plans to be
consistent with the compatibility plan. The local agency must take this action within 180 days of
when the ALUC adopts or amends its plan. Alternatively, a local agency can override the ALUC
by a two-thirds vote after first holding a public hearing and making findings that the agency's
plans are consistent with the, intent of state law.
This appendix contains two types of information intended to Te facilitate the general plan consis-
tency process; an initial review of the current general plan and appli-
cable specific or community plans of each jurisdiction affected by the Compatibility Plan: and 2
a checklist of general plan consistency requirements.
The emphasis in this the general plan consistency review is on comparing the adopted local land
use designations with the compatibility zone criteria set forth in Chapter 2 herein. Other ele-
ments of the general plans (the noise elements in particular) also need to be consistent with the
Compatibility Plan. With regard to land use designations, consideration is given to whether the
designation is for future development or merely reflects existing uses. Where a local plan's land
use designation represents an existing use, changing the designation is not required for the pur-
poses of consistency with the Compatibility Plan. The existing development could remain as a
• nonconforming use as indicated in the plan policies. Any future redevelopment of the property,
however, would need to be consistent with Compatibility Plan criteria.
7
The checklist settfoith the typesof modifications or additions to a commuhity's general plan
-• X..:.,Y. :. c. ".i,:je::::�� � 'F, t
and/or separate imjilementatiori'documents which are necessarX in order for the plan to be fuIIX
•
consistent with the Co... •. .... a._ .. .-r. " i
�atibilit Plan:`'Listed items re divi-.ded into t.wo,..groups: compatibility,
criteria: and project review'procedures.
The comparison with .:. [Note: this final paragraph will be modified as appropriate once the plan
is adopted.]
Discussion:. The addition of the checklist is intender! to assist local jurisdictionsand the`ALUC in
ensuring that all aspects of general plan consistency requfrements are implemented.
Initial Study — Revisions to the Initial Study of Environmental Impacts are indicated by underlining
and strikeouts on the accompanying pages.
Discussion: The modifications provide additional infotmation regarding"the effect of the Com
patibility Plan on the number of new residential lots which can be created in the vicinity of the
Chico Municipal and Oroville Municipal airports.-
0
irports:
•
•
8
•
•
•
Countywide Policies l
2 .
Table 2A ,
Primary Compatibility Criteria
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
2-14
Maximum Densities / Intensities
Additional Criteria
(2) z4.0
Other Uses
(average
Zone Locations
Residential
(people/ac)2 Req'd
Open
Prohibited Uses
Other Development
(du/ac)�'
Aver- Single with Land'
Conditions°
No No
No Hazards to flight9`
► Airspace review required
age ° Acre 7 Bonus"
Limit Limit
Req't
for objects > 100 feet tall
A Runway Protection
0
10 Not Not All
► All structures except aero-
► Avigation easement dedica-
Compatibility Zone
Zone
for objects >35 feet tall12
Appli- Appli- Remain-
nautical facilities with lo-
tion
► Avigation easement dedica-
and
cable cable ing
cation set by FAA criteria
within Building
► Assemblages of people
Restriction Line
Objects exceeding FAR
Part 77 height limits
► Aboveground bulk storage
of hazardous materials
• Hazards to flight9
B1 Approach/Departure
sO.1
25 . 50 Not : 30%
► Children's schools, 10 day .
► Locate structures maxi -
Zone
(minimum
Appli-
-care centers, libraries
mum distance from ex- .:
and
parcel size
cable
► Hospitals, nursing homes
tended runway centerline"
Sideline Zone
z10.0
Highly noise -sensitive
► Minimum NLR of 25 dB in
acres)
uses (e.g. outdoor the-
residences and buildings
aters)
with noise -sensitive uses'Z
► Aboveground bulk storage
► Airspace review required
of hazardous materials"
for objects >35 feet tall13
► Hazards to flight9
► Avigation easement dedica-
ton
82 Extended
s0.2
50' 100 130 20%
Children's schools,10 day .
► Minimum NLR of 20 dB in
Approach/Departure
(average
care centers, libraries
residences (including mo-. .
Zone
parcel size
Hospitals, nursing homes
bile homes) and buildings
z5.0 acres)
Highly noise -sensitive
with noise -sensitive uses 12
uses (e.g. outdoor the-
► 'Airspace review required
aters)
for objects >70 feet tall
► Hazards to flight9
Deed notice required
C Traffic Pattern
(1) s0.2
100 300 390 10%
► Children's schools,10 day
Deed notice required
(average
care centers, libraries
► Airspace review required
parcel size
► Hospitals, nursing homes
for objects >100 feet tall
a 5.0 acres)
Hazards to flight9
Table 2A ,
Primary Compatibility Criteria
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
2-14
or"
(2) z4.0
(average
parcel size
s0.2 acres)
D Other
No No
No Hazards to flight9`
► Airspace review required
Airport Environs
Limit Limit
Req't
for objects > 100 feet tall
* Height Review
Same as Underlying
Not Same as Underlying
► Airspace review required
Overlay
Compatibility Zone
Appli- Compatibility Zone
for objects >35 feet tall12
cable
► Avigation easement dedica-
ton required
Table 2A ,
Primary Compatibility Criteria
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
2-14
•
•
is
NOTES:
CounWde Policies / Chapter 2
1 Residential development should not contain more than the indicated number of dwelling units (both primary and ,
secondary) per gross acre. With clustering, some parcels may be much smaller than others as long as the
maximum overall density criterion is not exceeded. Clustering of units is encouraged in Compatibility Zones 82 and
C — see Policy 4.2.6 for limitations.
2 Usage calculations shall include all people who may be on the property (e.g., employees, customers/visitors,•etc.)
both indoors and outside. These criteria are intended as general planning guidelines to aid in determining the
acceptability of proposed land uses. Additional guidance is provided by Appendix C.
3 Open land requirements are intended to be applied with respect to an entire zone. Community general plans and/or.,'...
implementing policies shall indicate how and where the requirements will be met. Application of open land require-
ments to individual development proposals is at the discretion of the local jurisdiction and is dependent upon the .
size of the development (some Individual parcels may be too small to accommodate the minimum -size open area
requirement) and whether the requirements can be made solely on public property. See supporting compatibility
policies on safety (Policy 4.2.5) for definition of open land.
4 The uses listed here are ones which are explicitly prohibited regardless of whether they meet the intensity criteria. In
addition to these explicitly prohibited uses, other uses will normally not be permitted in the respective compatibility
zones because they do not meet the usage intensity criteria. 7.
5 Airport proximity and the potential for aircraft overflights should be disclosed as part of all real estate transactions in-'.' .
volving property within any of the airport influence area zones. Easement dedication and deed notice requirements
apply only to new development.
6 The total number of people permitted on a project site at any time, except rare special events, must not exceed the
indicated usage intensity times the gross acreage of the site. Rare special events are ones (such as an air show at
an airport) for which a facility is not designed and normally not used and for which extra safety precautions can be
taken as appropriate.
7 Clustering of nonresidential development is permitted except in Zone A. However, no single acre of a project site
shall exceed the indicated number of people per acre. See Policy 4.2.6 for details.
8 An intensity bonus may be allowed in Zones B2 and C if the building design includes features intended to reduce
risks to occupants in the event of an aircraft collision with the building: See Policy 4.2.7 for details.
9 Hazards to flight include physical (e.g., tall objects), visual, and electronic forms of interference with the safety of
aircraft operations. Land use development which may cause the attraction of birds to increase is also prohibited.
See the supporting compatibility policies on airspace protection (Policies 4.3.2 and 4.3.6) for details.
10 For the purposes of these criteria, children's schools include through grade 12.
11 Storage of aviation fuel and other aviation -related flammable materials on an airport is exempted from this criterion.
Storage of up to 2,000 gallons of nonaviation flammable materials is also exempted.
12 NLR = Noise Level Reduction; the outside -to -inside sound level attenuation which the structure provides. See the
supporting compatibility policy on interior noise (Policy 4.1.5) for details.
13 Objects up to 35 feet in height are permitted; however, the Federal Aviation Administration may require marking and
lighting of certain objects. See supporting compatibility policy on height restrictions (Policy 4.3.2) for details.
14 Two options are presented for residential densities in Compatibility Zone C. Option (1) requires an average parcel
size of at least 5.0 gross acres. Option (2) requires a density of at least 4.0 dwelling units per acre (an average
parcel size no greater than 0.2 gross acres). In locations where only one of these options is considered acceptable,
the compatibility maps in Chapter 3 show either a C(1) or a C(2) symbol. In locations where either option is allowed,
the map is marked with just the letter C. In the latter locations, the choice between the two options is at the
discretion of the local land use jurisdiction. All other criteria for Zone C apply to both the C(1) and C(2) designations.
This two -option criterion is based upon a determination that the intrusiveness of aircraft noise is the most significant
compatibility factor in Zone C; safety is only a minor concern The concept is that noise concerns can be minimized
either by limiting the number of dwellings in the affected area or by allowing high densities which tend to have
comparatively high ambient noise levels. [Corrected 9126]
Source: Shutt Moen Associates (September 2000)
Table 2A, Continued
2-15
1!
a
I
nxgpFxY�
n-FIEN
A
0
• :..Appendix D
Compatibility Guidelines for Specific Land. Uses
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan .
The compatibility evaluations listed below for specific types of land uses can be used by Butte Coun
ty and other affected jurisdictions as guidelines in implementation of the primary compatibility cite='
ria listed in Table 2A. The individual evaluations of compatibility versus incompatibility are based
upon assumptions as to the typical characteristics of the respective land uses, particularly with regard
to usage intensity (the number of people per acre). Assumptions also are made with regard to the
sensitivity of each use to noise' -and overFli htg annoyance and to the height of the structures.' Atypical
cases of a particular land use may be more or less compatible with airport activities than an evalua-
tion indicates. These'evaluations are therefore not regarded as adopted ALUC policies or criteria.In
case of any conflicts between these evaluations of specific land uses and the policies and criteria in
Chapters 2 and 3 of this document, the contents of Chapters 2 and 3 shall prevail.
Compatibility Zones
Land Use A B1 B2 C D
• Agricultural Uses
Truck and Specialty Crops - 0 + + + +
Field Crops 0 + + + +
Pasture and Rangeland 0 + + + +
Vineyards .. 0 + + + +
Orchards - 0 + + +
Dry Farm and Grain 0 + + + +
Tree Farms; Landscape Nurseries and Greenhouses - 0 + + +
Fish Farms - 0 + + +
Feed Lots and Stockyards - 0 .. + + +
Poultry Farms - 0 0 + +
Dairy Farms - 0 + + +
Natural Uses
Fish and Game Preserves 0 0 0 01 0
Land Preserves and Open Space 0 + + + +
Flood and Geological Hazard Areas 0 + + + +
Waterways: Rivers, Creeks, Canals, 0 0 0 0 +
Wetlands, Bays, Lakes
- Normally incompatible.
• 0 Potentially.compatible with restrictions (see Table 2A)
+ . Normally compatible
* Revisions from March 2000 Draft Flan '
D-1
•
Compatibility Guidelines for Specific Land Uses / Appendix D
Institutional
* -Children's Schools - - - - +
* Colleges and Universities - - 0 +
Day Care Centers 0 +
Hospitals and Residential Care Facilities - - - +
* Churches - - - 0 +
Memorial Parks / Cemeteries - + + + +
Recreational
Golf Courses (except clubhouse)
0 0
+
+
+
Golf Course Clubhouses
- 0
0
0
+
Compatibility Zones
0 +
+ _
+
+
Playgrounds and Picnic Areas
- 0
Land Use
A B1 1132. -(1)/(2)
D
Residential
- 0
0
+
#
25.0 acre average parcel size
- 0 + +/-, ;
;. +'
#
1.0-4.9 acre average parcel size
-/-
- 0
#
1.1_9 dwelling units /acre average density
+
Marinas and Water Recreation
#
4.0-7.9 dwelling units / acre average density.
- - - =/+ "
+
#
28.0 dwelling units / acre average density
- - - -/+
+
+
Mobile Home Parks
= - - /+
+
Institutional
* -Children's Schools - - - - +
* Colleges and Universities - - 0 +
Day Care Centers 0 +
Hospitals and Residential Care Facilities - - - +
* Churches - - - 0 +
Memorial Parks / Cemeteries - + + + +
Recreational
Golf Courses (except clubhouse)
0 0
+
+
+
Golf Course Clubhouses
- 0
0
0
+
Parks (low intensity; no group activities)
0 +
+ _
+
+
Playgrounds and Picnic Areas
- 0
0
+
+
* Athletic Fields (with small or no bleachers) .
- 0
0
+
+
• * Spectator -Oriented Sports Complexes or Stadiums
- -
-
-
+
Riding Stables
- 0
+
+
+
Marinas and Water Recreation
- 0
+
+
+
Health Clubs and Spas
- -
0
0
+
Tennis Courts
- 0
+
+
+
Swimming Pools
- 0
0
01
+
Fairgrounds and Race Tracks
- -
-
-
+
Resorts and Group Camps
- -
0
0
+
Shooting Ranges
- 0
0
0
+
Industrial
Research and Development Laboratories
- 0
0
+
+
Warehouses and Distribution Facilities
- 0
+
+
+
Manufacturing and Assembly
- 0
.0
+
+
Cooperage and Bottling Plants
- 0
+
+
+
Printing, Publishing and Allied Services
- 0
+
+
+
Chemical, Rubber and Plastic Products
- -
0
0
+
Food Processing
- -
0
0
+
•
D-2
- Normally incompatible
0 Potentially compatible with restrictions (see Table 2A)
+ Normally compatible
* Revisions from March 2000 Draft Plan
# Addendum Revisions (9/26100)
•
Compatibility Guidelines for Specific Land Uses /Appendix D
Land Use
Commercial Uses
Low -Intensity Retail (a. g., auto, furniture sales)
Retail Stores (1 floor)
* Retail Stores (2 or 3 floors)
Large Shopping Malls (500,000+ sq. ft.)
* Restaurants and Drinking Establishments (no drive thru)
* Fast Food Restaurants
Auto and Marine Services
Building Materials, Hardware and Heavy Equipment
* Office Buildings (1 or 2 floors)
* Office Buildings (3 floors)
* Banks and Financial Institutions (1 or 2 floors)
Repair Services
Gas Stations
* Government Services / Public Buildings (1 or 2 floors)
* Motels (1 or 2 floors)
* Hotels and Motels (3 floors)
Theaters, Auditoriums and Assembly Halls
Outdoor Theaters
Truck Terminals
* Any Uses with more than 3 habitable floors aboveground
• Transportation, Communications and Utilities
Aircraft Storage
Automobile Parking
Highway and Street Right -of -Ways.
Railroad and Public Transit Facilities
Taxi, Bus and Train Terminals
Reservoirs
Power Lines
Water Treatment Facilities
Sewage Treatment and Disposal Facilities
Electrical Substations
Power Plants
Sanitary Landfills
• - Normally incompatible
0 Potentially compatible with restrictions (see Table 2A)
+ Normally compatible
* Revisions from March 2000 Draft Plan
s -
Compatlblllty Zones
A 131 B2 C D
-
0
+
+
+
-
0
0
+
4
-
-
:.0
0.
+
_
-
-
0
-
0
0
.0
+
-
-
0
0
+
-
0
+
+
+
-
0
+
+
+
-
0
+
+
+
-
0
0.'+
+.
-
0
0
+
+
-
-
0
0
+
-
-
-
0
+
-
-
-
0
+
-
-
-
0
+
-
-
-
-
0
0
+
+
+
+
0
+
+
+
+
0
+
+
+
+
0
+
+
+
+
-
0
+
+
+
-
0
0
0
+
-
0
0
0
+
-
0
+
+
+
-
0
0
0
+
-
0
0
0
+
-
-
0
0
+
-
-
-
-
0
NMI
•
LJ
Sample Implementation Documents /Appendix F
This indenture made this day of , 19 _, between hereinafter
referred to as Grantor, and the flnsert County or City namel, a political subdivision in the State of Califor-
nia, hereinafter referred to -as Grantee.
The Grantor, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby ac- ,
knowledged, does hereby grant to the Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual and assignable. :
easement over the following described parcel of land in which the Grantor holds a fee simple estate: The'
property which is subject to this easement is depicted as on "Exhibit X.
attached and is more particularly described as follows:
[Insert legal description of real property]
The easement applies to the Airspace above an imaginary plane over the real property. The plane is
described as follows:
The imaginary plane above the hereinbefore described real property, as such plane is defined by Part
77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, and consists of a plane [describe approach, transition, or hori-
zontal surface]; the elevation of said plane being based upon the . Airport official runway
end elevation of feet Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), as determined by [Insert name and Date of
Survey or Airport Layout Plan that determines the elevation] the approximate dimensions of which said
plane are described and shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
The aforesaid easement and right-of-way includes, but is not limited to: .
(1) For the use and benefit of the public, the. easement and continuing right to fly, or cause or permit
the flight by any and all persons; or any aircraft, of any and all kinds now or hereafter known, in,
through, across, or about any portion of the Airspace hereinabove described; and
(2) The easement and right to cause or create, or permit or allow to be caused or created within all
space above the existing surface of the hereinabove described real property and any and all Air-
space laterally adjacent to said real property, such noise; vibration, currents and other effects of air,
illumination, and fuel consumption as may be inherent in, or may arise or occur from or during the
operation of aircraft of any and all kinds, now or hereafter known or used, for navigation of or flight
in air; and
(3) A continuing right to clear and keep clear from the Airspace any portions of buildings, structures, or
improvements of any kinds, and of trees or other objects, including the right to remove or demolish
those portions of such buildings, structures, improvements, trees, or other things which extend into
or above said Airspace, and the right to cut to the ground level and remove, any trees which extend
into or above the Airspace; and
(4) The right to mark and light, or cause or require to be marked or lighted, as obstructions to air navi-
gation, any and all buildings, structures, or other improvements, and trees or other objects, which
extend into or above the Airspace; and
(5) The right of ingress to, passage within, and egress from the hereinabove described real property,
for the purposes described in subparagraphs (3) and .(4) above at reasonable times and after rea-
sonable notice.
Appendix F2
Typical Avigation Easement
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
F-5
•
•
Sample Implementation Documents / Appendix F
For and on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, the Grantor hereby covenants with the Insert .i f
County or City namel, for the direct benefit of the real property constituting the Airport
hereinafter described, that neither the Grantor, nor its successors in interest or assigns will construct, .
install, erect, place or grow in or upon the hereinabove described real property, nor will they permit. to
allow, any building structure, improvement, tree or other object which extends into or above the Airspace,
or which constitutes an obstruction to air navigation, or which obstructs or interferes with the use of the
easement and rights-of-way herein granted.
The easements and rights-of-way, herein granted shall be deemed both appurtenant to and for the direct
benefit of that real property which constitutes the Airport, in the (insert County or'City
namel, State of California; and shall further be deemed in gross, being conveyed to the Grantee for the
benefit of the Grantee and any and all members of the general public who may use said easement or
right-of-way, in landing at, taking off from or operating such aircraft in or about the Airport,
or in otherwise flying through said Airspace.
Grantor, together with its.successors in interest and assigns hereby waives its right to legal action
against Grantee, its successors or assigns for monetary damages or other redress due to impacts as
described in Paragraph (2) of the granted rights of easement associated with aircraft operations in the air
or on the ground at the airportincluding future increases in the volume or changes in location of said
operations. Furthermore,. Grantor, its successors and assigns shall have no•duty to avoid or mitigate
such damages through physical modification of airport facilities or establishment or modification of air-
craft operational procedures or restrictions However, this waiver shall not apply if the airport role or
character of its usage (as identified in an adopted airport master plan for example) changes in a funda-
mental manner which could not reasonably have been anticipated at the time of the granting of this ease-
ment and which results in a substantial increase in the impacts associated with aircraft operations" Also
this grant of easement shall not operate to deprive the Grantor, its successors or assigns, of any rights
which may from time to time.have against any air carrier or private operator for negligent or unlawful
operation of aircraft.
These covenants and agreements run with the land and are binding upon the heirs, administrators, exec-
utors, successors and assigns of the Grantor, and, for the purpose of this instrument, the real property
firstly hereinabove described is the servient tenement and said. Airport is the dominant .
tenement.
DATED: '
STATE OF }
ss
COUNTY OF. }
On , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State,
personally appeared , andm known to me to be the persons whose
names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
Appendix F2, Continued
F-6
r
•
•
Local Plans Consistency Review / Appendix H
Compatibility Criteria
General Plan Document
The following items typically appear directly in a general. plan document. Amendment of the general.
plan will be required if there are any conflicts with the Compatibility Plan (see Policy 2.4.3(a)).
> Land Use Map — Any direct conflicts between proposed new land uses indicated on a general Y'
plan land use map and the land use criteria in the Compatibility Plan (see Table 2A) must be elimi-
nated. This is most likely to involve residential land uses and may require changes to allowable
densities. Any specifically identified sites for future schools also must comply with Compatibility
Plan criteria. Most other nonresidential uses usually can be consistent with compatibility criteria
provided that limitations can be set on the intensity of usage (see below).
> Noise Element — General plan noise elements typically include criteria indicating. the maximum
noise exposure for which residential development is normally acceptable. This limit must be made
consistent with the equivalent Compatibility Plan criteria (see Policies 4.1.3 and 4.1.4). Note, how-
ever, that a general plan may establish a different limit with respect to aviation -related noise than
for noise from other sources (this may be appropriate in that aviation -related noise is often judged
to be more objectionable than other types of equally loud noises).
Zoning or Other Policy Documents
The following items need to be reflected either in the general plan or in a separate policy document
such as a combining zone ordinance. If a separate policy document is adopted, modification of the
general plan to achieve consistency with the Compatibility Plan may not be required. Modifications
would normally be needed only to eliminate any conflicting language which may be present and to
make reference to the separate policy document.
> Secondary Dwellings — The Compatibility Plan counts detached secondary dwellings on the
same parcel as additional dwellings for the purposes of density calculations. This factor needs to
be reflected in local policies either by adjusting the maximum allowable densities or by prohibiting
secondary dwellings where their. presence would conflict with the compatibility criteria.
> Intensity Limitations on Nonresidential Uses — Local policies must be established to limit the
usage intensities of commercial, industrial, and other nonresidential land uses. This can be done
by duplication of the performance -oriented criteria — specifically, the number of people per acre
— indicated in the Compatibility Plan (see Table 2A and Policy 4.2.6). Alternatively, local jurisdic-
tions may create.a detailed list of land uses which are allowable and/or not allowable within each
compatibility zone (Appendix D provides a starting point for a list of this type). For certain land
uses, such a list may need to include limits on building sizes, floor area ratios, habitable floors,
and/or other design parameters which are equivalent to the usage intensity criteria.
Appendix H1
•
Checklist of General Plan Consistency Requirements
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
H-11
•
•
•
Local Plans Consistency Review / Appendix H
> Identification of Prohibited Uses — The Compatibility Plan prohibits day care centers, hospitals,
and certain other uses within much of each airport's influence area (see Table 2A). These often
are permitted or conditionally permitted uses within many commercial or industrial land use desig-
nations. Policies need to be established which preclude these uses in accordance with the com-
patibility criteria.
)o-, Open Land Requirements — The Compatibility Plan requirements (see Policy 4.2.5) for assuring
that a minimum amount of open land is preserved �in the airport vicinity must be reflected in local
policies. Normally, the locations which are intended to be maintained as open land would be iden-
tified on a map with the total acreage within each compatibility zone indicated. If some of the area
included as open land is private property, then policies must be established which assure that the
open land will continue to exist as the property develops. Policies specifying the required charac-
teristics of eligible open land also must be established:
> Infill Development — If a jurisdiction wishes to take advantage of the infill development provisions
of the Compatibility Pari (see Policy 2.4.4(a)), the lands which meet the qualifications must be
shown on a map.
> Height Limitations and Other Hazards to Flight — To protect the airport airspace, limitations
must be set on the height of structures and other objects near airports. These limitations are to be
based upon Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, but may include exceptions for objects on
high terrain as provided for in the Compatibility Plan (see Section 4.3). Restrictions also must be
established on other land use characteristics which can cause hazards to flight (specifically, visual
or electronic interference with navigation and uses which attract birds). Note that many jurisdic-
tions have already adopted an airport -related hazard and height limit zoning ordinance which, if up
to date, will satisfy this consistency requirement.
> Noise Insulation Requirements — The compatibility criteria (see Policy 4.1.5) call for certain
buildings proposed for construction within Compatibility Zone's B1 and B2 to demonstrate that..
they will contain sufficient sound insulation to reduce aircraft -related noise to an acceptable level.
These criteria apply to new residences, schools, and certain other buildings containing noise -
sensitive uses. Local policies must include parallel criteria.
> Buyer Awareness Measures — As a condition for approval of development within certain com-
patibility zones, the Compatibility Plan requires either dedication of an avigation easement to the
airport proprietor or placement_ on deeds of a notice regarding airport impacts (see Table 2A,
Policy 4.4.2, and Appendix F). Local jurisdiction policies must contain similar requirements. The
plan also encourages, but does not require, local jurisdictions to adopt a policy stating that air-
port proximity and the potential for aircraft overflights be disclosed as part of real estate transac-
tions regarding property in the airport influence area.
> Nonconforming 7Uses and Reconstruction - Local jurisdiction policies regarding nonconform-
ing uses and reconstruction must be equivalent to or more restrictive than those in the Compati-
bility Plan (see Policies 24.4(b) and (c)).
Appendix H1, Continued
H-12
•
•
•
Local Plans Consistency Review / Appendix H
Review Procedures
In addition to incorporation of ALUC compatibility criteria, local jurisdiction implementing documents
must specify the manner in which development proposals will be reviewed for consistency with the
compatibility criteria.
> Actions Always Required to be Submitted for ALUC .Review —State law specffies which types
of development actions must be submitted for airport land use commission review (see Policy
1.5.1). Local policies should either list these actions or, at a minimum, note the jurisdiction's
intent to comply with the state statute.
> Other Land Use Actions'Potentially Subject to ALUC Review — In addition to the above ac-
tions, the Compatibility Plan identifies certain major land use actions for which referral to the .
ALUC is dependent upon agreement between the jurisdiction and the ALUC. If the jurisdiction .
fully complies with all of the items in this general plan. consistency checklist or has taken the
necessary steps to override the ALUC, then referral of the additional actions is voluntary: 'On the
other hand, a jurisdiction may elect not to incorporate all of the necessary compatibility criteria
and review procedures into its own policies. In this case, referral of major land use actions to the
ALUC is mandatory. Local policies should indicate the jurisdiction's intentions in this regard.
> Process for Compatibility Reviews by Local Jurisdictions — If a jurisdiction chooses to sub-
mit only the mandatory actions for ALUC review, then it must establish a policy indicating the
procedures which will be used to, assure that airport compatibility criteria are addressed during
review of other projects. Possibilities include: a standard review procedure checklist which in-
cludes reference to compatibility criteria; use of a geographic information system to identify all
parcels within the airport influence area; etc.
> variance Procedures — Local procedures for granting of variances to the zoning ordinance
must make certain that any such variances do not result in a conflict with the compatibility crite-
ria. Any variance which involves issues of noise, safety, airspace protection, or overflight com-
patibility as addressed in the Compatibility Plan must be referred to the ALUC for review.
> Enforcement — Policies must be established to assure compliance with compatibility criteria
during the lifetime of the development. Enforcement procedures are especially necessary with
regard to limitations on,usage intensities and the heights'of trees.
Source: Shutt Moen Associates (August 2000)
Appendix H1, Continued
H-13
Revised September 1, 2000 `"
Initial Study'
of Environmental Im acts
P..:
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
BACKGROUND
1. Project Title:
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (March 2000 Draft)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Mr. M. A. Meleka
530/538-6572
4. Project Proponent's Name and Address:
.. Same as #2 above.
5. Project Location:
The Compatibility Plan primarily applies to land use planning and future development within
the environs of the four public -use airports in Butte County: Chico Municipal Airport, Oroville
Municipal Airport, Paradise Skypark Airport, and Ranchaero Airport. The plan defines the
affected locations as the airport influence area for each airport. Maps depicting the proposed
boundaries of each airport's influence area are included in the plan document. The airport
influence areas range in size from about 4.0 miles by 2.6 miles around Ranchaero Airport to
5.6 miles by 4.0 miles around Chico Municipal Airport. Additional locations to which the plan
applies are the sites of (1) any proposed structure taller than 200 feet above the ground or (2)
any proposed new airport or heliport for which a permit is required from the Caltrans Aero-
nautics Program. t -
6. General Plan Designation:
Various.
7. Zoning:
Various. '
8. Description of Project:
The plan provides a set of policies for use by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
in evaluating the compatibility between future proposals for land use development in the vi-
cinity of the four public -use airports and the aircraft activity at these airports. The local agen-
IS-1
•
•
U
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
cies that have jurisdiction overland uses within the areas covered by this plan include: Butte '
County, the cities of Chico and Oroville, and the town of Paradise. The plan also establishes
policies by which the Commission will review master plans for the four existing airports and
development plans for any proposed new airport or heliport; The -plan is prepared in accor-
dance with requirements of the California State Aeronautics Act.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
> Chico Municipal Airport' On northern edge of expanding Chico urban area. Increasing
residential development on north and west. Industrial uses and open land to the east.
> Oroville Municipal Airport: Sparsely populated except for unincorporated community of
Thermalito to the northeast. State lands — Thermalito Afterbay and Oroville Wildlife Ref-
uge — occupy most of southwestern and southeastern portions of airport influence area.
> Paradise Skypark Airport: Lightly populated, steeply sloping terrain in immediate vicinity.
Town of Paradise a mile to the north. .
> Ranchaero Airport: Orchards immediately around airport. Residential neighborhoods of
Chico nearby to the north and northeast.
10. Other agencies whose approval is required:
The Butte County Airport Land Use .Commission can adopt the plan without approval from
any other agency, either state or local. Nevertheless, in preparation of the plan, the Commis-
sion and its consultants have been guided by the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook pub-
lished by the Caltrans Aeronautics Program as required by state law (Public Utilities Code Sec-
tion 21674.7). Furthermore, implementation of the Compatibility Plan's policies can only be
accomplished by the general purpose local governments which have authority over land use
within the airport influence areas: Butte County, the cities of Chico and Oroville, and the
town of Paradise. State statutes require these agencies to make their general plans consistent
with the Compatibility Plan within 180 days, unless they go through an override procedure.
The override procedure requires a two-thirds vote and specific findings must be supported.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the follow-'
ing pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
_ Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service Systems
IS -2
Agricultural Resources _ Air Quality
_ Cultural Resources _ Geology / Soils
_ Hydrology / Water Quality . _ Land Use / Planning
Noise _ Population / Housing
Recreation _ Transportation / Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
_JL I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an EN-
VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" Impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on at-
• tached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only
the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,.
because"all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier,EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon. the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Prepared by:
Signature Date
Printed Name
Representing
IS -3
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Explanations of all "Potentially Significant," "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation' lncorporate�d,"'`:
"Less Than Significant Impact," and No Impact" answers are provided on the attached sheets ..,.
General Comment
The project is regulatory in nature. No physical construction would result from the adoption of the
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. or from subsequent implementation of the land
use restrictions and policies. Although future land use development in the vicinity of airports in
Butte County would be influenced by the Compatibility Plan, it is speculative to anticipate the'spe- :.
cific characteristics of that development or the types of environmental impacts which would be asso
ciated with it. One possibility is that land'uses in much of the airports' environs would remain un-
changed from present conditions. On'the other hand, the Compatibility Plan neither precludes new.
development near airports nor dictates the type of land uses which are allowed., The plan merely
limits the density, an4 intensity, and height of the uses so as,to avoid creation of noise and safety
compatibility conflicts with airport activities. Also, state law establishes a procedure by which af-
fected local jurisdictions can override the compatibility policies set forth in the plan.
• Given these considerations, it is concluded that ALUC adoption of the Butte County Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan will have no impact with respect to the following environmental impact issues:
1. Aesthetics All
2. Agricultural Resources All
3. Air Quality All
4. Biological Resources All
5. Cultural Resources All
6. Geology and Soils All ,
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Issues a), b) c), d), g), h) .
8. Hydrology and Water.Quality All
9. Land Use and Planning Issue a)
10. Mineral Resources All
11. Noise Issues a), b), c), d)
12. Population and Housing Issues b), c) ,
13: Public Services Issues a).i), a).ii), a).iii), a).iv)
14. Recreation All
15.- Transportation / Traffic Issues a), b), d), e), 0, g)
16. Utilities and Service Systems All
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance Issues a), c)
• For each of these topics, the "No Impact" column has been checked and reference is made to the
above General Comment.
IS -4
•
•
0
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
1. -Aesthetics
C C
Q - 0
a
m
6 ,
«� w..�%
E
Issues
C�ti
c a
`0 « «� :;: n..
".�v�
0
skt—_
am
-Olaf
Z
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
X.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the*existing,visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?, ,
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment.'
Mitigation:
None required.
2. Agricultural Resources
.Issues
4
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assess-
ment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farm-
land of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for. agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
'1C
C C
C
a
m
skt—_
3a_95
-Olaf
MME
X
X
X
CS
CL
E
0
Z
X
X
IS -5
0
•
Where available, the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following determina-
tion. Would the project.-
a)
roject:a) Conflict with or'obstruct implementation of the applica-
ble air quality plan? _
W Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ex-
isting or projected air quality violation? _
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant'for which the project region is
non -attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emis-
sions which exceed, quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant con-
centrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial num-
ber of people? -
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment.
IS -6
X
X
X
X
X
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts -
• c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could 'resultin .
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? W.
X
Discussion:
See preceding General.Cornment Furthermore, land use compatibility policies in
the Compatibil-
ity Plan favor continuation of agricultural land uses in the vicinity of airports.
Mitigation:
a
None required.
3. Air Quality
o
a as
cE
as
Co.
CL
Issues
c o, CL m o, �''
CL
m o, a
E
C
WE ��E
�y
z
0
•
Where available, the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following determina-
tion. Would the project.-
a)
roject:a) Conflict with or'obstruct implementation of the applica-
ble air quality plan? _
W Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ex-
isting or projected air quality violation? _
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant'for which the project region is
non -attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emis-
sions which exceed, quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant con-
centrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial num-
ber of people? -
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment.
IS -6
X
X
X
X
X
-
Inhial,Study of Environmental Impacts
• Mitigation:
None required.
4. Biological Resources
Issues
o� r a ' o°Do "a
�H 3a 365E z
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,•or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
x
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the Califor-
nia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and.
• Wildlife Service?
x
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
x
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratoryfish or wildlife species or with es-
tablished native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance?
x
0 Conflict with.the provisions of an adopted Habitat Con-
servation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat con-
servation plan?
x
Discussion:
,
• See preceding General Comment.
IS -7
-
Initial Study of Environmental. Impacts
•
Mitigation:
None required. ;
5. Cultural Resources
WE WE C � :. '
o
��u «� o'«iii E
' Issues
000- '� �« :. a . o
E 3 r 3r
}
aa� .1 z
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse, change in the. significance
of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? '" '
X
W Cause a substantial adverse change.in the significance
of an archaeological resources pursuant to §15064:53
�t
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource onsite or unique geologic feature?
)t
d) Disturb any human`remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
�t
•
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment. -
Mitigation.
None required.
6.. Geology and Soils
c W o c W
r-
«.—_�. a CoE
Issues
mem to mEm
c Q, n. In tm „ « ami o, a c
E E
ave 3rn 3� .N z
Would the project: '
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial ad-
verse effects; including.the risk of"loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of,a known 'earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State. Geologist for the
•
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
,known fault? ,Refer to Division of Mines and Geol-
ogy Special Publication 42.
X
IS -8
•
•
U
Inldal Study of Environmental Impacts
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment.
Mitigation:
None required.
7. Hazards and Hazardous Material
Issues
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ-
ment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ-
ment through reasonably foreseeable upset and acci-
dent conditions involving the release of hazardous ma-
terials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefac--
a0 W - O
«
tion?
x
iv) Landslides?
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
�t
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable; or
«=
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
o
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
�N1c�
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
�t
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- .
B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating sub- `..
stantial risks to life or property?
k
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment.
Mitigation:
None required.
7. Hazards and Hazardous Material
Issues
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ-
ment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ-
ment through reasonably foreseeable upset and acci-
dent conditions involving the release of hazardous ma-
terials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
X
X
IS -9
is
jp !0
%
a0 W - O
«
«
m
c
m c W
.—�. ie
a rn
.—�.
c W
a
E
«=
m CD
o
a. v)_
�N1c�
mow_
z
X
X
IS -9
•
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
d) Be located on a site.which is included on a list of haz-
ardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govern- `
ment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create -a
significant hazard to the public or environment?...'.'.
i
e) if located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plans has not been adopted, within two miles bf a.'
public airport or public -use airport, result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project
area? X
f) If located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result ,
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? X
g) Impair implementation of or physical ly'interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evac-
uation plan? X
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildlife fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where res-
idences are intermixed with wildlands? �t
Discussion:
7.e) The Compatibility Plan establishes the criteria by which safety hazards referred to in this issue
would be evaluated. These criteria reduce the risk of exposure to the hazards of an off -airport
aircraft accident by limiting residential densities'and concentrations of people in locations near
the four public -use airports in Butte County. The risks of: aircraft accident occurrence are re-
duced by limitations on the height of structures, trees, and other. objects which might pene-
trate airport airspace as defined by Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77. The plan also seeks
to minimize the consequences of an off -airport aircraft accident by requiring a percentage of
the land area in critical areas near the airports to remain open and reasonably suitable for a
survivable emergency aircraft landing.
7.0 Although. the Compatibility Plan does not specifically pertain to land uses around private air-
strips, the compatibilityconcepts presented in the plan would be generally applicable.
7.a), 7.b), 7.c), 7.d), 7.g), and 7.h): See preceding General Comment.
Mitigation:
None required.
•
IS -10
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
b)
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
• 8. Hydrology and Water Quality
`
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering
of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the produc-
E
Issues
c .
6SE
ave
X3. U)
rz. .
Would the project:
X
-
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
site or area, including through the alteration of course
requirements?
of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
X
b)
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering
of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the produc-
tion rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses or .
planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
X
c)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of course
of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
X
d)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
•
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the,
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
1t
e)
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of pol-
luted runoff?
X
0
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
X
g)
Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
X
h)
Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
X
i)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as
a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
X
j)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
•
injury, or death involving inundation by seiche, tsu-
nami, or mudflow?
X
IS -11
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts -
• Discussion:
See�preceding General Comment. •-
Mitigation:
None required.
9. land Use and Planning c E � x
03 -ccI W
E cc
Issues o CM a ob M« CO a C
CL .03 ra 3 ro E z
Would the projects
a)L Physically divide an established community? K'.
b) Conflict with an applicable land, use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the proj-
ect (including, but not limited to the.general plan, spe-
cific plan, local coastal program; or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose` of avoiding or mitigating an
• environmental effect? K
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation. plan .
or natural community conservationplan? 1t
Discussion:
9.a) See preceding General Comment.
9.b) State law (Government Code 65302.3) requires each local government having jurisdiction over
land use within locations addressed by an airport land use compatibility plan to modify its
general plan and; any applicable specific plan for consistency, with the compatibility plan (or to
go through the special process required to override the airport land *use commission). With
regard to the draft Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, this requirement would
apply to the -county of Butte, the cities'of Chico and Oroville, and the town of Paradise. Ap-
pendix H of the Compatibility Plan contains an initial evaluation of local general plans consis-
tency with the Compatibility: Plan policies. This evaluation indicates that certain modifications
to the general plan of each'of the,four affected jurisdictions would be required as a conse-
quence of ALUC adoption of the Compatibility Plan.
For a general plan to be considered consistent with the Compatibility Plan, it must do both of
the following: (1)'•it must not have any direct conflicts with the Compatibility Plan and (2) it
• must contain criteria and/or provisions for evaluation of proposed land use development situ-
ated within an airport influence area.
IS -12
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
Direct conflicts most often occur with respect to land use designations and/or densities which
• are unacceptable for their proximity to the airport. Elimination of these conflicts will require
reduction in planned future residential densities in certain locations around each of the air-
ports. Only proposed land uses are affected. The ALUC has no authority over existing land
uses even if those uses do not conform to the proposed compatibility criteria. - The. ComPatibil-
ity Plan would be applicable to these locations only if redevelopment or extensive reconstruc= =
tion were to be proposed.
The second requirement addresses the common problem that local general plans and/or other
policy documents do not contain criteria for evaluating other compatibility factors such as lim--
its on'the height of structures and the intensity (number;of people per acre) of land uses. The
project evaluation requirement can be met in any of several ways identified in the Compatibil-
ity Plan. Options include: (1) incorporation of the ALUC's compatibility criteria into the -gen-
eral plan, zoning ordinance, and/or other local policy document; (2) adoption of the Compati-
bility Plan by reference; and (3) agreement to submit certain major land use actions to the
ALUC for compatibility review.
Although ALUC adoption of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan would es-
tablish compatibility criteria which would be applicable countywide, the Commission does not
have authority to implement the plan. This responsibility rests with individual land use juris-_
dictions through the general plan consistency process described above.. Because the affected
jurisdictions have multiple options with regard to how to implement the compatibility criteria,
as well as the option to override the ALUC, the specific land use environmental impacts which
may result cannot:be determined at this time. Only a general evaluation of the impacts, pri-
marily with regard to housing, is presently possible (see Section 12, Population and Housing
Each jurisdiction will need to assess these impacts at a higher level of detail as part of the
CEQA process associated with the general plan changes and/or other policy actions taken in
response to the Compatibility Plan. .
9.0 The Compatibility Plan has no known conflicts with any habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan. However, conflicts potentially could occur if such -plans were
to include proposals which could lead to increased attraction of birds to the vicinity of the
airports. Attraction of birds also would conflict with established Federal Aviation Administra-
tion policies:
Mitigation:
None required..
•
IS -13
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
•
10. -Mineral Resources.
c c c_`, c c
m m so .: w�
Issues
M 0 a . � � L CD_ � C a : c
E..
ern
a°inE .3 z
Would the project:
a) Resulfin the loss of availabilityof a known mineral re-
source that would be of value to the region .and the
residents of the state?
1t
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? :.
X
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment.-
omment:Mitigation:
Mitigation:
None required.
11. Noise
C C C o C C R
Issues
a o, L c a E
„
CL U)ern E z°O
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in "
-excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
K
b) . Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
x
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise lev-
els in the project vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
x
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
X
IS -14
Initial Study of Environmental, Impacts
• e) ° If located within an airport land use plan or, where such `
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public -use airport, exposure of people
residing or working in the project area to'excessive
noise levels? .. X
f) If located within the vicinity of a private {airstrip, expo-
sure of people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? �t '
Discussion:
11.a), 11.b), 11.0, and 11.d): See preceding General Comment.
11.e) The Compatibility Plan establishes the criteria by which noise exposure referred to in this issue
would be evaluated. These criteria reduce the potential exposure of people to excessive
aircraft -related noise by limiting residential densities and concentrations of people in locations
near the four public -use airports in Butte County and by establishing noise level reduction
requirements for new structures in the -most highly impacted locations. The plan does not
regulate the operation of aircraft or the noise produced by that activity; the ALUC has no au-
thority over such matters.
• 11.0 Although the Compatibility Plan does not specifically pertain to land uses around private air-
strips, the compatibility concepts presented: in the plan -would be generally applicable.
Mitigation:
None required.
12. Population and Housing T
w m o m a Q
« « E
Issues. a c I E °1 CL o
?in 3� �v� E
IL 0.9 z
Would the project:' ;
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either '
directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses).
or indirectly (e.g:, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? J X
b) .Displace a substantial amount of existing housing, ne-
cessitating -the construction of replacement housing
• elsewhere? X
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement, housing elsewhere? �t
IS -15
4
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
• Discussion:
12.a) The Compatibility Plan does not directly or indirectly induce population growth either region-
ally or locally. In fact, its provisions limit the location, distribution, and density of residential
and nonresidential land uses in the airport's environs to minimize potential noise impacts and
safety concerns. Nevertheless, to the extent that such restrictions conflict with currently
adopted county and city land use plans, adoption of the Compatibility Plan could cause popu-.
lation growth to be shifted to locations different from where now planned. As indicated by the
data summarized in the following paragraphs, any such shifts would, be small relative to the
overall. projected growth in the county and individual cities. These impacts are judged to be
less than significant.
Of the four airports addressed by the Compatibility Plan, the two having potential for extensive
urban development in their environs are Chico Municipal Airport and Oroville Municipal Air-
port. The following analysis examines the effects which implementation of the Compatibility
Plan policies could have on the number of allowable new residential lots in the vicinity of
these two airports:
Comparisons are made between the number of additional lots allowable under the Compati-.
bility Plan criteria and the number possible under applicable local general plans and zoning.
Zoning is particularly a factor with regard to assessing the development potential of parcels
designated agricultural -residential in that, under the Butte County General Plan, the minimum
parcel sizes for this designation range from as little as 1.0 acre to as much as 40.0 acres. (It is
recognized that the land use zoning of these parcels can be changed without amending the
General Plan. However, any such rezoning would need to remain consistent with the Compat-
ibility Plan criteria.)
The estimated percentaee of each compatibility zone which is alreadv developed is taken into
account in the calculations of future development potential. For the purposes of these calcula-
tions, parcels too small to have subdivision potential under current general plan and zoning
criteria are assumed to be developed regardless of whether a house already exists. The Com-
patibility Plan explicitly allows a dwelling to be built on any legal lot of record even if the par-
cel size is less than the indicated compatibility criterion.
The analvsis also assumes the numbers of residential parcels and dwelline units to be eauiva-
lent. This assumption simplifies the analysis and, for most subdivisions, the two numbers are
identical. For multi -family developments, the number of impacted parcels has been calculated
as if each dwelling unit would be on its own parcel, thus the numbers areagain equal. Where
some differences could occur are with respect to secondary dwelling units. The lost potential
for secondary units on existing large parcels has not been reflected in the calculations, but this
impact is tiny relative to the overall numbers discussed.
• Chico Municipal Airport
> Compatibility Zone B1: Most of the 300± acres planned for residential or agricultural resi-
dential uses within this zone are either already developed (250+ acres) or have land use
IS -16
_ Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
• zoning which is consistent with the compatibility criterion of 1 dwelling unit per 10.0 acres
maximum density (30± acres). Little potential for future subdivision remains with or with-
out the added limitations of the Compatibility Plan.
> Comoatibility Zone 82: Nearly 1,700 acres are planned for reside_ndal_or ap-Hcultural resi-
dential uses.
► The greatest potential effect resulting from implementation of the Compatibility Plan
would be on 400± acres (a portion of the Bidwell Ranch) planned by the city of Chico
for low-density residential use. This development would be inconsistent with the
Compatibility Plan. Assuming an average density of 2.5 to 3.0 dwelling units per gross
acre, some 1,000 to 1,200 planned residential parcels would be eliminated.
► An additional 600± acres of existing low-density residential development south of the
airport would become nonconforming:(in terms of the Compatibility Plan, not the city
general plan). The Compatibility Plan has -no affect on continued residential use of this
ro e
► Lastly, some 300 acres north and northwest of the airport are zoned for 1- or 3 -acre
suburban residential uses with the majority already developed. The Compatibility Plan
would preclude any remaining larger lots from being subdivided into parcels smaller
than a 5 -acre average. About 50'potential lots would be eliminated.
> Compatibility Zone C: Zone C at Chico Municipal Airport contains nearly 4,000 acres of
land designated for residential or agricultural residential uses. A portion of this zone has ,
been divided into two -sub -zones. Sub -zone 61) limits residential densities to 1 dwelling
unit per 5.0 acres, the same as in Zone 82. Sub -zone C(2) requires densities to be at least
4.0 dwelling units per acre (the concept is that higher'densities will produce higher ambi-
ent noise levels and thus lower the intrusiveness of aircraft overflights). .
► Of the 2,400 acres in Sub -zone CO), the majority (some 1,450 acres) is zoned for mini- .
mum lot sizes'of 5.0 to as much as 160 acres. This zoning, most of which is east of the
airport, is consistent with the Compatibility Plan criteria: About 850 acres have 1- or 3 -
acre suburban residential zoning. Over half of this area is already subdivided into the
minimum lot sizes. The plan would limit the number of smaller lots into which re-
maining undeveloped large parcels could -be divided. Lastly, a small segment (less than
100 acres) of Sub -zone C(1) is planned for urban low-density residential development .
(up to 5.0 dwelling units per acre). The plan would preclude this density. In total,
implementation of the Sub -zone C(1) criteria would eliminate between 200 and 400
new residential parcels which could otherwise be created under current land use plan-
ning and zoning
Sub -zone C(2) together with the Zone C area which allows either the high- or the low-
density option, covers over 1,500 acres of existing or potential residential develop-
ment. The chief effect of the density criteria.for this zone would be to require'future
residential development to be slightly more dense than the present average which is
estimatedat about 3.0 dwelling units per gross acre. Increasing'the average density to
•4.0 dwelling units,per gross acre on -the remaining undeveloped land would result in
' some 600*to 800 more future dwelling, units within this area than are currently antici-
ap ted.
IS -17
a
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
• > Total Airport Influence Area: Implementation of the Compatibility Plan would result in
higher residential densities in some locations and lower densities in others compared to
the densities currently planned. Under the assumptions noted above, the net effect could
be a loss of between 250 and 1,050 potential residential parcels over the nearly 6,000
acres of existing or planned residential- lands in the Chico Municipal Airport influence area.
This loss could be reduced by further increasing average densities within Sub -zone C(2).
For example, an average density of 5.0 dwelling units per gross acre within this area would
reduce the loss to no more than 450± residential parcels and could eliminate it altogether.
By comparison, the 1994 Chico General Plan provides for over 22,000 additional dwelling
units within the future Chico city limits. The overall impact of the CompatibiliX Plan on
potential housing development in the airport area is thus judged to be insignificant.
Oroville Municipal Airport
> Compatibility Zone 81: All of the roughly 220 acres in this compatibility zone currently
require minimum lots sizes of 10 to 40 acres. The Compatibility Plan thus would have no
effect on the number of potential new residential lots.
> Compatibility Zone 82: About 250 acres of mostly undeveloped lands designated for resi-
dential or agricultural residential uses lie within this zone. Some 40 acres planned for low -
or medium -density residential uses would be prevented from developing at those densi- .
• ties, resulting in a loss of approximately 200 residential parcels.
> Compatibility Zone C: The Compatibility Plan requires future residential development
within Zone C to be either very low density 0 dwelling unit per 5.0 acres) or moderately
high (at least 4.0 dwelling units per acre).
Of the approximately 1,900 acres of residential -designated lands within this zone at
Oroville-Municipal Airport; about 950 acres are presently zoned for 5- or 10 -acre mini-
mum parcel sizes. Over 250 acres are planned for medium -density residential which
requires a minimum of 5.0 dwelling units per acre. _These designations are consistent
with the compatibility criteria.
► The remaining 700+ acres are planned for low-density residential uses. About half of
this area is already developed. Implementation of the compatibility plan would re-
quire any future development to be medium density or at least be at the upper end of
the low-density range (1.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre).
> Total Airport Influence Area: The net effect of the Compatibility Plan on the Oroville Mu-
nicipal Airport environs would be about the same number of total dwelling units as indi-
cated by current Butte County_ planning and zoning designations.
12.b) and 12.c): No housing or people will be displaced as a result of the plan's adoption. -The Com-
patibility Plan does not apply to existing housing. Moreover, it explicitly allows construction of,
single-family houses on legal lots of record where such uses are permitted by local land use
• regulations. Also see preceding General'Comment.
IS -18
•
•
•
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
Mitigation:
None required.
13. Public Services
Issues
a) Would the project result -in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physi-
cally altered governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant impacts, in order to main-
tain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public services?
Discussion:
1'3.a) i), ii), and iv): See preceding General Comment.
13.a) iii): The Compatibility Plan prohibits new schools within much of the influence area of each
airport covered by the plan (existing schools are not affected unless expansion is proposed).
The restriction is intended as'a means of avoiding future noise and safety compatibility con-
flicts between aviation activity and school uses: In some cases, this restriction would necessi-
tate moving the location of future school sites identified in local general plans and specific
plans. The distance that a planned school site would need to be moved in order to be accept-
able is generally small— approximately 0.5 to 1.0 mile. The overall consequences are consid-
ered to be less than significant.
13.a) v): Adoption of. the Compatibility Plan would create a temporary increase in the workload of
county and city planning department staffs as a result of the requirement to modify local gen-
eral plans for consistency with the Compatibility Plan. An initial assessment of the inconsisten-
cies which would need to be addressed are included in Appendix H of the Compatibility Plan.
Over the long term, procedural policies included in the Compatibility Plan are intended to
simplify the ALUC project review process and thus reduce workload both for ALUC staff and
the staff of the affected land use jurisdictions.
IS -19
X
t!
X
CL .
o 9a
a.O E
a Ey �
'3
m pa
E
o
z
3�
�m
1'3.a) i), ii), and iv): See preceding General Comment.
13.a) iii): The Compatibility Plan prohibits new schools within much of the influence area of each
airport covered by the plan (existing schools are not affected unless expansion is proposed).
The restriction is intended as'a means of avoiding future noise and safety compatibility con-
flicts between aviation activity and school uses: In some cases, this restriction would necessi-
tate moving the location of future school sites identified in local general plans and specific
plans. The distance that a planned school site would need to be moved in order to be accept-
able is generally small— approximately 0.5 to 1.0 mile. The overall consequences are consid-
ered to be less than significant.
13.a) v): Adoption of. the Compatibility Plan would create a temporary increase in the workload of
county and city planning department staffs as a result of the requirement to modify local gen-
eral plans for consistency with the Compatibility Plan. An initial assessment of the inconsisten-
cies which would need to be addressed are included in Appendix H of the Compatibility Plan.
Over the long term, procedural policies included in the Compatibility Plan are intended to
simplify the ALUC project review process and thus reduce workload both for ALUC staff and
the staff of the affected land use jurisdictions.
IS -19
X
X
X
X.
X
1'3.a) i), ii), and iv): See preceding General Comment.
13.a) iii): The Compatibility Plan prohibits new schools within much of the influence area of each
airport covered by the plan (existing schools are not affected unless expansion is proposed).
The restriction is intended as'a means of avoiding future noise and safety compatibility con-
flicts between aviation activity and school uses: In some cases, this restriction would necessi-
tate moving the location of future school sites identified in local general plans and specific
plans. The distance that a planned school site would need to be moved in order to be accept-
able is generally small— approximately 0.5 to 1.0 mile. The overall consequences are consid-
ered to be less than significant.
13.a) v): Adoption of. the Compatibility Plan would create a temporary increase in the workload of
county and city planning department staffs as a result of the requirement to modify local gen-
eral plans for consistency with the Compatibility Plan. An initial assessment of the inconsisten-
cies which would need to be addressed are included in Appendix H of the Compatibility Plan.
Over the long term, procedural policies included in the Compatibility Plan are intended to
simplify the ALUC project review process and thus reduce workload both for ALUC staff and
the staff of the affected land use jurisdictions.
IS -19
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
•
Mitigation: ,
None required.
14. RecreationW
o C* C
�� «c ;o «cii E
Issuesc
a a a s _« a a a o
�N �N
e_W 3� z
a) Would the project increase the"use of existing neigh-.
borhood and regional parks or other recreational facilk'
ties such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
�t
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or re-
quire the construction.or expansion of recreational fa-
cilities which might,have an adverse physical_effect on
the environment?
39
Discussion:.
•
See preceding General Comment.
Mitigation:'
None required.
15. Transportation /Traffic
a
m o W Q
eo
C
c 0 «c Co «� E
Issuesc
0 a� rn a o
g E
-ave iStn z
.Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in rela-
tion to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in'either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
x
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively; a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
•
management agency for designated roads and high-
ways?
X
IS -20-
•
•
•
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
c) Result in a change in.air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks? k
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incom=
patible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? x
g) Conflict with accepted policies, plans, or programs sup-
porting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn -outs
bicycle racks, etc.)? X
Discussion.
15.a), 15.b), 154, 15.e), 15.f), and 15.g): See preceding General Comment,
154 The Compatibility Plan has no authority over the operation of airports or air traffic, although it
does include policies for review of certain aspects of proposed airport development which
could have off -airport compatibility implications.
Mitigation:
None required.
16. Utilities and Service Systems
Issues
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ap
plicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
a facilities, the construction of which could cause signifi-
cant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater.
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,' the
construction of which could cause significant environ-
mental effects?
Wa
o
macis
t F
=
ZF
a
�.—�.
m e 10
.. u
m ct P
u
ao c w
E
c a
E
ED «
rn a
E
z
atn
Zvi 3�
�vs
•
L7_
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed? �t
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment.
provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
'demand in addition -to the provider's existing `commit-
ments? X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
-to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs? X
g) Comply with federal, 'state, and local statutes and regu-
lations related to solid waste? �t
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment.
Mitigation:
None required.-
.17.
equired:
.17. Mandatory findings of Significance
Issues
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause.a fish or wild-
life population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, re-
duce the number or restrict the range of a rare or en-
dangered plant or animal, or -eliminate important exam-
ples of the major periods of California history or prehis-
tory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually lim-
ited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other cur-
rent projects, and -the effects of probable future pro-
jects.)
IS -22
acca
*6
aCl
«Ecca�oE
.9
aEa
o�
a «
rn
000E
vj 3
rnE
N
a
E
0
z
X
X
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
• c) Does the project have environmental effects which will .
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,°ei-
ther directly or indirectly? )t
Discussion:
17.a) and 17.c): See preceding General Comment.
17.b) Because the Compatibility Plan is regulatory and restrictive in nature and will not cause any
physical development to occur, it has no potential to create cumulatively significant environ-
mental impacts. Rather, the plan addresses potential noise and safety impacts and other air-
port land use compatibility issues associated with potential future development which other
public entities or private parties may propose for the vicinity of airports in Butte County. With-
out adoption of the plan, the adverse impacts — both to airport functionality and to commu-
nity livability —of allowing incompatible development to occur maybe individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable. The Compatibility Plan thus, in effect, serves as a mitigation
plan designed to avoid impacts which might otherwise be cumulatively significant.
Mitigation:
None required.
IS -23
1
• COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED ADDENDUM TO THE
DRAFT AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN
During the public hearing that was conducted during the ALUC's review of the Draft Addendum for the Butte
County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, a number of requests were made by members of the public regarding
changes to the Compatibility Maps that apply to the Chico Municipal and Ranchaero Airports. These changes were
not directed by the ALUC to be incorporated into the Addendum at this time and will be considered during the
public review period as specific written requests are submitted.
The following generally describes the proposals that were suggested. These proposals are likely to be submitted as
formal requests during the public review period for the Plan Addendum and revised Initial Study. This summary is
for informational purposes only.
c:
-10
Chico Municipal Airport
1) Consider changing the Compatibility Zone designation on the west side of the airport between Eaton Road and
Hicks Lane from C(1) to C (2).
2) Consider making the southern boundary of Zone B2 on the east side of the airport co -terminus with Sycamore
Creek.
3) 'Consider changing the Zone C designated area southeast of the airport to Zone C(2).
4) Consider changing the designation of a large tract of land on the east side of the airport located east of
Cohasset Road from C(1) to C(2).
Ranchaero Airport
1) Consider retracting the extent of Zone B 1 on the southeast side of the airport so that the boundary extends as a
straight line for the entire length of the zone rather than fanning out to the east.
2) Consider revising the configurations of Zones B2 and C on the east side of the airport consistent with what was
originally proposed in the Draft Compatibility Plan.
CLERK OF THE BOARD
File folder for table
0 Butte County Airport Land Use Commis
1T_A2_- -P-21_L!1SL_ _!LL_ _.1.1___2___ a_ aL_ T___Pa ♦S_
Compatibility Plan and Public Review period for the
ad2Rion of a proposed Negative Declaration
Notice is hereby, given by the Butte County Airport Commission that an addenum to the Draft
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is available for public review and comment. In addition, an
environmental document pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act has been prepared
for the proposed Plan and is also available for public review and comment..
ITEM ON WHICH A NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED
SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Public .Utilities Code Sections 21674 (c) and 21675 et. seq. allow a yearly. update to .the
comprehensive land use plans for -each of the County's public use airports. The proposed Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan contains a comprehensive review of the compatibility criteria
applicable to each of the County's public use airports, which applies to: the Chico Municipal
Airport, the Oroville Airport, the Paradise Skypark Airport and the Ranchearo Airport..
The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission is required by Public Utilities Code Section
. 21675 (a) to formulate a comprehensive land use plan that will provide for the orderly growth of the
area surrounding each airport. Such plans will safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants
within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general. In formulating the plan, the Butte County
Airport Land Use Commission may develop height restrictions on buildings, specify use of land, and
determine building standards to include soundproofing of structures adjacent to airports within the
planning area.
The Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Initial Study are on file and available for public
viewing at the office of the Butte County Department of Development Services, 7 County Center
Drive, Oroville,. CA. For information call: (530) 538-7601 (Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m.). Comments may be submitted until November 17, 2000
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT COMMISSION
THOMAS A. PARILO, DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
•
Mailing for
ALUC Meeting FILE
October 19, 2000 COPY
- lute Co4W
LAND" OF NATURAL WEALTH AND . BEAUTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE . OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601
FAX: (530) 538-7785
October 2, 2000
RE: Public Comments on the Proposed Addendum to the 2000 Draft
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
I have attached a copy of the referenced document pursuant to the Public Utilities Codes
Section 21675(c). This Section requires the ALUCto consult with the involved agencies
prior to establishment of the airport planning boundaries.
At its September meeting, the ALUC decided that the Public Comments period for the
referenced document/Plan start on October 5 and end on November 17, 2000. Please
submit your comments no later than the mentioned closing date.
Thank you for your time and efforts. in finalizing the subject Plan. Should you have any
questions, please call me at (530) 538=6572.
Sincerely,
M. A. Meleka
Principal Planner.
MM:cs
Attachments
J
..
i
��
..+a1p�r..trr "_��.r.w-y�.�..-+4.
_
r r• `Y
�� ; ,
+
.. r
•
.�47
•
Ate•
•��
~�
-
- _ . � � . .
� t �
� 4' - ..
_
•�
• - r
q. ;:00
M
yyJ/M���9Mj
r
+BUTTE COUNTY 'AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION +
• 7 .County Center Drive, Oroville; CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 •
MEMORANDUM
TO: -ALUC Staff
FROM: Interested Agencies/Entities
DATE: October 2, 2000 "
SUBJECT: October ALUC Regular Meeting` .
The ALUC will not hold its regular meeting in October, 2000 since
no application is scheduled for consideration. Regular notification
(according to the Brown Act) for future meetings will follow.
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •
vised .:.:::..
September 26;`2000
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
.Addendum
This addendum contains a list of proposed revisions to the draft Butte County Airport Land Use Com-
patibility Plan dated March 2000. A brief discussion of selected revisions follows the respective items
where necessary to clarify the intent or background for the change. In most cases, reference is made
to the analysis and recommendations contained in the July 12, 2000, matrix prepared in response to.
public and agency comments on the draft plan.
Only substantive changes are listed here; minor typographical corrections will also.be'.made prior to'..
printing of the final document. After adoption by, the. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission,
these revisions will be incorporated into, the plan and a final document will be printed.
Back of Title Page:. Names of commission members and staff will be listed.
Page 2-2, Policy 1.2.10 — Revise definition of "existing land use" as follows:
Existing Land Use — A land use which either physically exists or for which local government com-
mitments to the proposal have been obtained; that is, no further discretionary approvals are
necessary along
ble for the properEy to be used f;o. an�thing othei than its proposed . Local government com-
mitment to a proposal can usually be considered firm once one or more of the following have
occurred:
P. A tentative parcel 'or subdivision map has been approved and the original period (before any
time extensions are submitted) within which the approval is valid has not expired;
► A vesting tentative parcel or subdivision map has been approved;
► A development agreement has been approved and remains in effect;
_► A final subdivision map has been recorded
► A use permit'or other discretionary land. ase entitlement has been approved and not yet ex-
ired; or
► A valid building permit has been issued.
Discussion: This change is based upon the recommendation outlined in matrix item #3. eNote
that formation of an assessment district for the provision of infrastructure and the actual installa-
tion of such infrastructure are not listed as conditionswhich by themselves qualify a land use as
existing: It is within the ALUC's authority to exempt from review any development proposals for
which only those conditions —.and none of the others listed above — occur.. However, such a
policy should be stated elsewhere inthe,policies chapter rather than as part of the existing land
use definition. Shutt Moen Associates' recommendation is that the ALUC not exempt projects
from review under these circumstances.
Z,
Page 2-5, Policy 1.5.1(b) —Modify as follows:
The adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation which (1) affects property
within an airport influence area, and (2) involves the types of airport impact concerns listed in
Section 1.4 (State Aeronautics Act Section 21676(b)). Any proposed' -change or variance to a
such ordinance or regulation also must be submitted for ALUC review if issues of noise, safety.
airspace protection, and overflight as addressed herein are involved.
Discussion: This modification has not previously been discussed. It is intended to clarify that a
zoning change or variance which involves compatibility issues must be treated similarly to a gen-
eral plan amendment. Without this clarification, the prospect exists that compatibility'conflicts "
could arise because of zoning changes or variances granted subsequent to when the ALUC finds .
the general plan and its implementing ordinances to be consistent with the Compatibility Plan.
Page 2-6, Policy 1.5.2(b) —Add new Sub -policy (3) as follows:
Because the ALUC'is acting in an advisory capacity'wheri reviewing projects under these
circumstances, local Jurisdictions are not required to adhere to the override process if the
elect to approve a pro-ject without incorporating design changes or conditions suggested by.: ... ....
the Commission.
Discussion This addition represents a slight restating of the first recommendation included un-
der item #1 in the matrix.
Page 2-7, Policy 1:5.3(x)(4) — Correct to read: "... 20,000 square feet or greater."
Discussion: This is a correction of a typographical omission.
Page 2-9, Policies 2.2.3(b) and 2.3.3(b) — Change last word in first sentence from "specify" to "re-
quire."
Discussion: This change clarifies the original intent.
Pages 2-14 and 2-15, Table 2A — Make the following modifications as shown on the accompanying
revised table:
► Add note defining children's schools as including through grade 12.
► Under "Other Development Conditions" for Zones B1 and 82, change "office buildings" to
"buildings with noise -sensitive uses."
► Split the dual residential density criteria for Compatibility Zone C into two distinct criteria and
zones designated C(1) and C(2) and modify Note 13 accordingly.
► Reduce minimum density requirement for Zone C(2) from 5.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre.
► Revise Note 3 to clarify applicability of'open land requirements to private property.
Discussion: The first change is necessary to make the table consistent with Policy 4.1.5(a). The
others respond to matrix items #8A and #8D and the. further direction provided by the ALUC.
2
Page 2-16, Policy 2.4.3 — Insert the following revisions and additions:
(2) Local jurisdictions have the following choices, or a combination thereof, for satisfying this
evaluation requirement:
► The general plan and/or referenced implementing ordinances and regulations must'-
.con-tain sufficient detail to enable the local jurisdiction to assess whether a proposed devel-
opment fully meets the compatibility criteria specified in the Compatibility Plan (this4e
quires both that the compatibility criteria be identified and that project review proce-
dures be described);
► The Compatibility Plan must be adopted -by reference (additionally, the project review
procedure must be`described in a separate instrument presented to and approved by the
ALUO and/or,
► The general plan ...
(3)'The status of ALUC review of major land use actions depends upon which of the preceding .
options the local agency selects for making its general plan consistent with the Compatibility
Plan This status in turn affects whether a local agency would be required to utilize the .
override process in the event of a disagreement with the ALUC's action.
► If either of the first two options under Sub -policy (2) is selected, then referral of maior
land use actions to the ALUC is voluntary. In this case the Commission's review is advi-
sory and the local agency would not need to utilize the override process if it elects to
approve a project without incorporating the Commission's comments.
► If the third option is chosen submittal of major land use actions for ALUC review is man-
datory and override procedures would apply. .
Discussion: These changes reflect the remainder of the recommendations listed under Item #1
in the matrix. The wording has been slightly modified from the originally proposed language.
Page 2-16, Policy 2.4.4(a) — Replace infill policy with the following:
Infill —Where development not in conformance with this Compatibility Plan already exists, ad-
ditional infill development of similar land uses may be allowed to occur even if such land uses
are to be prohibited elsewhere in the zone. This exception applies only within Compatibility
Zones 82 and C.
(1) A parcel can be considered for infill development if it meets all of the following criteria. Ip_us
► The parcel size is no larger than 20 acres.
► The site is at least 65%.bounded (disregarding roads) by existing uses similar to, or more
intensive than,.those proposed.
► The proposed project would not extend the perimeter of the area defined by the sur-
roundin g, already developed, incompatible uses.
► Further, increases in the density,• intensity, and/or other incompatible design or usage
characteristics (e.g., through use permits, density transfers, addition of second units on.
the same parcel, height variances, or other strategy) are prohibited.
3
► The area to be developed cannot previously have been set aside as open land.in accor=':= `;..:.
dance with Policy 4.2.5 unless replacement open land is provided within the same com_.:
patibility zone. [9/26 revision]
For residential development:
► If the size of the parcel proposed for division is 10 acres or less, the development dens
shall be no greater than the overall density represented by all existing lots which
or partially within a distance of 300 feet from the boundary of the parcel to be divided.
► If the size of the parcel proposed for division is greater than 10 acres (but no larger than
20 acres) then the development denser shall be no greater than double the density per-
mitted in accordance with the PrimaQXCompatibility Criteria (Table 2A).
ll For nonresidential development the proposed use shall not have an intensity (the number of
people per acre) more than 50% above the intensity permitted in accordance with the Pri-
mary Compatibility Criteria (Table 2A): [For example, whereas an average intensity -of 50
people per acre is normally permitted in Zone B2 the infill policy would allow a total of 75
peoRle per acre (50 people/acre x 150% = 75 people/acre).)
i4 To avoid the ripple effect of infill development on some parcels permitting additional parcels
subsequently to qualify for infill the ALUC's intent is that parcels eligible for infill be deter-
mined just once. Thus, in order for the ALUC to consider proposed development under
these infill criteria, the -entity having land use authority (Butte County or affected cities) must
first identify the qualifying locations in its general plan or other.adopted planning document
approved by the ALUC. This action mlay take place in conjunction with the process of
amending a general plan for consistency with the ALUC plan or may be submitted by the
local agency for consideration by the ALUC at the time of adoption of this Compatibility Plan.
In either case, the burden for demonstrating that a proposed development qualifies as infill
rests with the project proponent.and/or affected land use jurisdiction.
Discussion: This change is based upon matrix item,#4, as modified by ALUC suggestions.
Page 2-17, Policy 2.4.4(c)(2) — In last sentence, replace "assessor's full cash value" with "market
value."
Discussion: This change reflects item #6 in the matrix.
Page 2-27, Policy 4.2.5 — In Sub -Policies (b) and (d), delete references to automobile parking lots as
acceptable forms of open land.
(b) Roads are acceptable
(d) ...providing contiguous.landscaped amd par areas is ...
Discussion: For the reasons cited in matrix item #8D, the ALUC concludes that automobile
parking lots do not meet the basic safety-related objectives for providing open land.
4
Page 2-27, Policy 4.2.5 — Replace Sub-policy.(c) with the following:. .
Open land requirements are intended to be applied with respect to an entire zone Community
general plans and/or implementing policies shall indicate how and where the requirements will
be -met Application of open land requirements to individual develoRment proposals is at the
lished to assure that property designated as open land will continue to meet the open land crite-
ria for as long as the airport remains in operation.
Discussion: This change matches the proposed revisions to Table 2A, Note 3.
Pages 2-27 and 2-28, Policy 4.2.6 — Modify introductory paragraph; insert new Sub -policy (a); and
renumber subsequent sub -policies.
Criteria for Clustering — The ALUC generally supports clustering as a means for both enhancing
safety compatibility in the airport vicinity and accomplishing other development objectives. This
policy describes the purposes of clustering and the limitations on its use.....
(a) Clustering_ occurs when development on a site or within an overall compatibility zone iscon-
centrated in only a portion 'of the area and the remaining area is set aside either as open land::, :... .
(see preceding policy) or is otherwise held to a low -intensity usage. Clustering may apply to
either residential or nonresidential development..
(1) In terms of airport land use compatibility planning, the primary purpose of clustering is to
provide locations where an aircraft can attempt an off -airport emergency landing. Clus-
tering may also serve to limit the risks to people on the ground, even if.open land is not
provided, by shifting habitable_ areas away from principal aircraft flight tracks, especially
tracks close to the runway ends.
(2) From a development perspective clustering may be desirable or necessary because of
various other site planning considerations not associated with airport compatibility.
Examples of clustering include:
► Residential development where the building envelopes on large lots are all close to-
gether, such as ad*scent to a street.
► Residential development in which most of the lots are small so that a large area can
be provided for purposes such as a common recreational use or preservation of an
environmentally sensitive habitat.
Nonresidential development in which the buildings are surrounded by large areas -o
low -intensity uses such as landscaping.
(b) Clustering of new residential development ...
Discussion: This change reflects the Commission's guidance concerning matrix item #8C.
5
= Page 3-3, Paragraph 1.1.4— Revise Sub -paragraph (a) and add the following new
the discussion of the basis for defining the boundaries of Compatibility Zone C.
(a) Annoyance associated with aircraft overflights is the major concern within Zone C. Although
the zone lies mosdy outside the 55 -dB CNEL contour, land uses are nevertheless subjected to
frequent aircraft noise events. Risk is a concern mostly only with respect to uses such as
schools, hospitals, and ones involving very high intensities.
(c) In some portions of the Chico Municipal Airport influence area, Zone C is divided into two
sub -zones designated CO) and C(2). See Paragraph 2.1.2(d) for a description of the basis for
delineation of these zone boundaries.
Page 3-4, Paragraph 2.1.4(4) — Revise discussion of the Chico Municipal Airport boundary determi-
nants for Zone C as follows:
(d) Zone C, including Sub -zones CO) and CO, contains the normal traffic pattern for both run-
ways. The zone is wider to the northeast than to the southwest because of the wider pattern
sometimes flown by the heavy aircraft which use the primary runway. Extensions of Zone C
to the northwest and southeast follow the offset nonprecision instrument (VOR DME) ap=' .
proach procedures to each end of Runway 13L-31 R. Where sub -zones are designated, -Sub -
zone CO) is applied to locations where noise, risks, and potential overflight annoyance are
comparatively higher than in Sub -zone C(2) and urban density residential development nei-
ther exists or is planned Sub -zone C(2) is generally intended for the comparatively less im-
pacted locations lateral to the runways or for areas where extensive urban residential devel-
opment already exists. Locations where future residential development may adhere to the
criteria of either sub -zone are simply designated Zone C on the map.
Discussion: This change responds to the Commission's guidance regarding matrix item #1 OD.
Chapter.3, Figures 3A, 36, and 3D — Replace the Compatibility Maps for Chico Municipal Airport,
Oroville Municipal Airport, and Ranchaero Airport with the attached new versions.
Discussion: These revisions correspond to matrix item #10 and the comments provided by the
Commission. Designated locations of Zones CO) and C(2) are shown on the Chico Municipal
Airport map based upon the Commission's input.
Appendix D — Replace with the revised version attached.
Discussion: The major changes proposed for this table are expansion of the introductory para-
graph and revision of the evaluation definitions to read "normally compatible" or "normally in-
compatible" rather than simply "compatible" or "incompatible." Modifications have also been
made in the residential land use category.in response to the split of Compatibility Zone C into
CO) and C(2) sub -zones. Suggestions offered by the ALUC subcommittee were examined and
several revisions and additions have been made, but most of the evaluations as originally in-
cluded in the draft plan were judged to be consistent with the Table 2A criteria and various other
policies in Chapter 2.
N.
Appendix F2, 2"d Page, 3'a Paragraph — Add language as follows to recommended avigation easement
document concerning property owner waiver of right to sue the airport.
Grantor, together with its successors in interest and assigns, hereby waives its right to legal action
against Grantee, its successors, or assigns for monetary damages or other redress due to impacts,
as described in Paragraph (2) of the granted rights of easement, associated with aircraft opera=
tions in the air or on the ground at the airport, including future increases in the volume or
changes in location of said operations. Furthermore, Grantor, its successors, and assing s sFiall
have no duty to avoid or mitigate such damages through physical modification of airportfacilities
or establishment or modification of aircraft operational procedures or restrictions. However, this
waiver shall not apply if port role or cFraracter of its usage (as identified in an adopted air-
port master plan for example) changes in a fundamental manner which could not reasonably .
have been anticipated at the time of the granting of this easement and which results in a-substan= .
tial increase in the impacts associated with aircraft operations. Also—this grant of easement shall
not operate to deprive the Grantor, its successors or assigns, of any rights which may from time to
time have against any air carrier or private operator for negligent or unlawful operation of aircraft.
Discussion: The addition was discussed in matrix item #8F. Note that no change is recom-
mended with regard to the zones within which dedication of an avigation easement is required
as a condition for development approval.
Appendix H = Expand introductory section as noted below and add attached Appendix H1 table.
As indicated in Chapter 1, state law requires each local agency having jurisdiction over land uses
within an. ALUC's planning area to modify its general plan and any affected specific plans to be
consistent with the compatibility plan. The local agency must take this action within 180 days of
when the ALUC adopts or amends its plan. Alternatively, a local agency can override the ALUC
by a two-thirds vote after first holding a public hearing and making findings that the agency's
plans are consistent with the intent of state law.
This appendix contains two types of information intended to To facilitate the general plan consis-
tency process, tHis appendix eantains:an initial review of the current general plan and appli-
cable specific or community plans of each jurisdiction affected by the Compatibility flan: and 2
a checklist of general plan consistency requirements.
The emphasis in tris the general plan consistency review is on comparing the adopted local land
use designations with the compatibility zone criteria set forth in Chapter 2 herein. Other ele-
ments of the general plans (the noise elements in particular) also need to be consistent with the
Compatibility Plan. With regard to land use designations, consideration is given to whether the
designation is for future development or merely reflects existing uses. Where a local plan's land
use designation represents an existing use, changing the designation is not required for the pur-
poses of consistency with the Compatibility Plan. ' The existing development could remain as a
nonconforming use as indicated in the plan policies. Any future redevelopment of the property,
however, would need to be consistent with Compatibility Plan criteria.
7
criteria: and project review'procedures.
The comparison with .'.. (Note: this final paragraph will be modified as appropriate once: `the" "plan ..: .
is adopted.]
Discussion: The addition of the checklist is intended'to assist. local jurisdictions and the ALUC in
ensuring that all aspects of general plan consistency requirements are. implemented. .
Initial Study— Revisions to the Initial Study of Environmental Impacts are indicated by. underlining
and strikeouts on the
accompanyinga
. Pes.._ g
Discussion: The modifications provide additional information regarding the.effecf of the Com=.;
patibility Plan on, the number of new residential lots which can be created in the vicinity of the
Chico Municipal and Oroville Municipal airports.
8
Countywide Policies / Chapter 2 .
Maximum Densities / Intensities
Other uses
Additional Criteria
Zone Locations
Residential
(people/ac) 2
Req'd
4
Use
Other Development
care centers, libraries
(mac)'
Aver- Single with
Laed s Prohibited
► Hospitals, nursing homes
Conditions
25.0 acres)
agel- Acre' Bonus $
,
D Other
No No
A Runway Protection
0
10 Not. Not
All
► All structures except aero-
► Avigation easement dedica--
Zone
. Same as Underlying
Appli- Appli-
Remain-
nautical faclities with lo-
tion
and
Deed notice required
cable cable
ing
cation set by FAA criteria
► Airspace review required, -
within Building
parcel size
Hospitals, nursing homes
for objects >100 feet tall
► Assemblages of people
25.0 acres)
Restriction Line
or 14
► Objects exceeding FAR
Part 77 height limits
► Aboveground bulkstorage
of hazardous materials
► Hazards to flight9
BI ApproaclVDeparture
0.1
25 50 Not :
30%
► Children's schools, 10 day .
► Locate structures maxk
Zone
(minimum
Appli- .
- .
-care centers, libraries -
mum distance from ex-'-. .
and
parcel size
cable
► Hospitals, nursing homes
tended runway dentedine'
Zone
210.0
► Highly noise -sensitive
► Minimum NLR of 25 dB in
acres)
uses (e.g. outdoor the-
residences and buildings
aters)
with noise -sensitive us'S 12
► Aboveground bulk storage
► Airspace review required
of hazardous materials"
for objects >35 feet tall 13
► Hazards to MOO
► Avigation easement dedica-
ton
82 Extended
s0.2 50 100 130
20% Children's schools,10 day
► Minimum NLR of 20 dB in
ApproactVDeparture
(average
care centers, libraries
residences (iincluding mo -
Zone
parcel size
► Hospitals, nursing homes
bile homes) and buildings
25.0 acres)
Highly noise -sensitive
with noise -sensitive uses 12
D Other
No No
uses (e.g. outdoor the-
► Airspace review required
Airport Environs
Limit Limit
aters) -
for objects >70 feet tall
* Height Review
. Same as Underlying
► Hazards to flight9
Deed notice required
C Traffic Pattern
(1) -.0.2 100 300 390
10% ► Children's schools," day
Deed notice required
(average
care centers, libraries
► Airspace review required, -
parcel size
Hospitals, nursing homes
for objects >100 feet tall
25.0 acres)
Hazards to flight9
or 14
IE
Table 2A
Primary Compatibility Criteria
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
2-14
(2) 24.0
(average
parcel size
s0.2 acres)
D Other
No No
No Hazards to flight9
► Airspace review required
Airport Environs
Limit Limit
Req't
for objects > 100 feet tall
* Height Review
. Same as Underlying
Not Same as Underlying
► Airspace review required.
Overlay
Compatibility Zone
Appli- Compatibility Zone
for objects >35 feet tall 12
cable
► Avigation easement dedica-
ton required
IE
Table 2A
Primary Compatibility Criteria
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
2-14
NOTES:
Countywide Policies / Chapter 2
1 Residential development should not contain more than the indicated number of dwelling units (both primary and
secondary) per gross acre. With clustering, some parcels may be much smaller than others as long as the
maximum overall density criterion is not exceeded. Clustering of units is encouraged in Compatibility Zones B2 and
C — see Policy 4.2.6 for limitations.
2 Usage calculations shall include all people who may be on the property (e.g., employees, customers/visitors, etc.) :•_ _
both indoors and outside. These criteria are intended as general planning guidelines to aid in determining the
acceptability of proposed land uses. Additional guidance is provided by Appendix C.
3 Open land requirements are intended to be applied with respect to an entire zone. Community general plans and%r"
implementing policies shall indicate how and where the requirements will be met. Application of open land require-.
ments to individual development proposals is at the discretion of the local jurisdiction and is dependent upon the
size of the development (some Individual parcels may be too small to accommodate the minimum -size open area
requirement) and whether the requirements can be made solely on public property. See supporting compatibility
policies on safety (Policy 4.2.5) for definition of open land.
4 The uses listed here are ones which are explicitly prohibited regardless of whether they meet the intensity criteria. In
addition to these explicitly prohibited uses, other uses will normally not be permitted in the respective compatibility
zones because they do not meet the usage intensity criteria.
5 Airport proximity and the potential for aircraft overflights should be disclosed as part of all real estate transactions in-
volving property within any of the airport influence area zones. Easement dedication and deed notice requirements
apply only to new development.
6 The total number of people permitted on a project site at any time, except rare special events, must not exceed the
indicated usage intensity times the gross acreage of the site. Rare special events are ones (such as an air show at
an airport) for which a facility is not designed and normally not used and for which extra safety precautions can be .
taken as appropriate.
7 Clustering of nonresidential development is permitted except in Zone A. However, no single acre of a project site
shall exceed the indicated number of people per acre. See Policy 4.2.6 for details.
8 An intensity bonus maybe allowed in Zones B2 and C if the building design includes features intended to reduce
risks to occupants in the event of an aircraft collision with the building. See Policy 4.2.7 for details. .
9 Hazards to flight include physical (e.g., tall objects), visual, and electronic forms of interference with the safety of
aircraft operations. Land use development which may cause the attraction of birds to increase is also prohibited.
See the supporting compatibility policies on airspace protection (Policies 4.3.2 and 4.3.6) for details.
10 For the purposes of these criteria, children's schools include through grade 12.
11 Storage of aviation fuel and other aviation -related flammable materials on an airport is exempted from this criterion.
Storage of up to 2,000 gallons of nonaviation flammable materials is also exempted.
12 NLR = Noise Level Reduction; the outside -to -inside sound level attenuation which the structure provides. See the
supporting compatibility policy on interior noise (Policy 4.1.5) for details.
13 Objects up to 35 feet in height are permitted; however, the Federal Aviation Administration may require marking and
lighting of certain objects. See supporting compatibility policy on height restrictions (Policy 4.3.2) for details.
14 Two options are presented for residential densities in Compatibility Zone C. Option (1) requires an average parcel
size of at least 5.0 gross acres. Option (2) requires a density of at least 4.0 dwelling units per acre (an average
parcel size no greater than 0.2 gross acres). Indocations where only one of these options is considered acceptable,
the compatibility maps in Chapter 3 show either a C(1) or a C(2) symbol. In locations where either option is allowed,
the map is marked with just the letter C. In the latter locations, the choice between the two options is at the
discretion of the local land use jurisdiction. All other criteria for Zone C apply to both the C(1) and C(2) designations.
This two -option criterion is based upon a determination that the intrusiveness of aircraft noise is the most significant
compatibility factor in Zone C; safety is only a minor concern The concept is that noise concerns can be minimized
either by.limiting the number of dwellings in the affected area or by allowing high densities which tend to have
comparatively high ambient noise levels. /Corrected 91261
Source: Shutt Moen Associates (September 2000)
Table 2A, Continued
2-15
;me
0
-
��..5�7�• f a.:FJ
;7 �r
Ow
• ti f ,r
t gi j a
,( 44.fA 1
k >
RpviSpd U
I
. I
b
I
RP-vi-Qarl E
.Appendtz D
R Compatibility, Guidelines for Specific Land Uses
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
The compatibility evaluations listed below for specific types of land uses can be used by Butte ,Coup.=
ty and other affected jurisdictions as guidelines in implementation of the primary compatibility cite=:
ria listed in Table 2A. The individual evaluations of compatibility versus incompatibility are based
uuRon assumptions as to the typical characteristics of the respective land uses, particularly with regard
to usage intensity (the number of people per acre). Assumptions also are made with regardto the
sensitivity of each use to noise and overflight annoyance and to the height of the structures:`r`-' ical
cases of a particular land use may be more or less compatible with airportactivities than an evalua-
tion indicates. These evaluations are therefore not regarded. as adopted ALUC policies or criteria: ". in
case of any conflicts between these evaluations of specific land uses and the policies and criteria in.,
Chapters 2 and 3 of this document, the contents of Chapters 2 and 3 shall prevail.
- Normally incompatible
0 Potentially compatible with restrictions (see Table 2A)
+ Normally compatible
Revisions from March 2000 Draft Plan'
D-1
Compatibility Zones
Land Use
A
B1
.62
C
D
Agricultural Uses
Truck and Specialty Crops
0
+
+
+
+
Field Crops
0
+
+
+
+
Pasture and Rangeland
0
+
+
+
+
Vineyards
0
+
+
+
+
Orchards
-.
0
+
+
+
Dry Farm and Grain
0
+
+
+
+
Tree Farms; Landscape Nurseries and Greenhouses
-
0
+
+
+
Fish Farms
-
0
+
+
+
Feed Lots and Stockyards
-
0
+
+
+
Poultry Farms
- -
0
0
+
+
j Dairy Farms
-
0
+
+
+
Natural Uses
Fish and Game Preserves
0
0
0
0
0
Land Preserves and Open Space
0
+
+
+
+
Flood and Geological Hazard Areas
0
+
+
+
+
Waterways: Rivers, Creeks,Canals,
0
0
0•
0
+
Wetlands, Bays, Lakes
'
- Normally incompatible
0 Potentially compatible with restrictions (see Table 2A)
+ Normally compatible
Revisions from March 2000 Draft Plan'
D-1
Compatibility Guidelines for SpecNlc Land Uses / Appendix D
Institutional
* -Children's Schools
- -
-
+
* Colleges and Universities
Compatlblllty Zones
-
0
+
Day Care Centers
-. -
-
Land Use
.A S1 .....B2....(1)/(2)
D
ResidentlaF
#
25:0 acre average parcel size
0 +
-
#
1.0-4.9 acre average parcel size
Memorial Parks / Cemeteries
- +
#
1.1-3.'9 dwelling units/ acre average densitii
- - - :: =/-
+
#
4.0-7.9 dwelling units / acre average dens fir
- - - /+
+
#
28.0 dwelling units/ acre average density
- - - -/+
+
+
Mobile Home Parks
i
- - - /+
+
Institutional
* -Children's Schools
- -
-
+
* Colleges and Universities
- -,
-
0
+
Day Care Centers
-. -
-
0
+
Hospitals and Residential Care Facilities
* Churches
- -
-
0
+
Memorial Parks / Cemeteries
- +
+
+
+
Recreational
Golf Courses (except clubhouse)
0 0
+
+
+
Golf Course Clubhouses
- 0
0
0
+
Parks (low intensity; no group activities)
0 +
+ .
+
+
Playgrounds and Picnic Areas.
- 0
0
+
+
* Athletic Fields (with small or no bleachers) .• ':
- 0
0
+
+
* Spectator -Oriented Sports Complexes or Stadiums
- -
-
-
+
Riding Stables
- 0
+
+
+
Marinas and Water Recreation
- 0
+
+
+
Health Clubs and Spas
- -
0
0
+
Tennis Courts
- 0
+
+
+
Swimming Pools
- 0
0
0
+
Fairgrounds and Race Tracks
- -
-
-
+
Resorts and Group Camps
- -
0
0
+
Shooting Ranges
- 0
0
0
+
Industrial
Research and Development Laboratories
- 0
0
+
+
Warehouses and Distribution Facilities
- 0
+
+
+
Manufacturing and Assembly
- 0
0
+
+
Cooperage and Bottling Plants
- 0
+
+
+
Printing, Publishing and Allied Services
- 0
+
+
+
Chemical, Rubber and Plastic Products
- -
0
0
+
Food Processing
- -
0
0
+
- Normally incompatible
0 Potentially compatible with restrictions (see Table 2A)
+ Normally compatible
* Revisions from March 2000 Draft Plan
# Addendum Revisions (9126100)
D-2
- Normally incompatible
0 Potentially compatible with restrictions (see Table 2A)
+ Normally compatible
* Revisions from March 2000 Draft Plan
0
Compatibility Guidelines for Specl/ic
Land Uses / Appends D
z
;
Ccmpatlbiltty
Zones
Land Use
A
B1`
B2
C--
D
Commercial Uses
Low -Intensity Retail (e.g., auto, furniture sales)
-...
0.
+
+
+
Retail Stores (1 floor) ;; .::..:
: -
0.
0
+
+
Retail Stores (2 or 3 floors)
Large Shopping Malls (500,000+ sq. ft.)
-
-
-
0
+
*
Restaurants and Drinking Establishments (no drive thru)
-
0.
0
.0
+
*
Fast Food Restaurants
-
-
0
0
+
Auto and Marine Services
-
0
+
+
+
Building Materials, Hardware and Heavy Equipment
=
0
+
+
'+
*
Office Buildings (1 or 2 floors)
-
0
+
+
+
*
Office Buildings (3 floors)
-
_
0
':0
+
*
Banks and Financial Institutions (1 or 2 floois)
-
. 0 .
0 ..
+
+
Repair Services
0.
`0 ..:
+
+
Gas Stations
-
0
0
+
+
*
. Government Services / Public Buildings (1 or 2 floors)
-
0
0
+
+
*
Motels (1 or 2 floors)
-
-
0
0
+
*
Hotels and Motels (3 floors)
-
-
-
0
+
Theaters, Auditoriums and Assembly Halls
-
-
-
0
+
Outdoor Theaters
-
-
-
0
+
Truck Terminals
-
+
+
+
+
*
Any Uses with more than 3 habitable floors aboveground
-
-
-
-
0
Transportation, Communications and Utilities
Aircraft Storage
0
+
+
+
+
Automobile Parking
0
+
+
+
+
Highway and Street Right -of -Ways
0
+
+
+
+
Railroad and Public Transit Facilities
0
+
+
+
+
Taxi, Bus and Train Terminals
-
0
+
+
+
Reservoirs
-
0
0
0
+
Power Lines
-
0
0
0
+
Water Treatment Faclities
-
0
+
+
+
Sewage Treatment and Disposal Facilities
-
0
0
0
+
Electrical Substations
-
0
0
0
+
Power Plants
-
-
0
0
+
Sanitary Landfills
-
-
-
-
0
- Normally incompatible
0 Potentially compatible with restrictions (see Table 2A)
+ Normally compatible
* Revisions from March 2000 Draft Plan
0
Sample /mplenmentatlon Documents /Appendix F
This indenture made this day of , 19 _, between' hereinafter
referred to as Grantor, and the (Insert County or City namel, a political subdivision in the State of Califor-
nia, hereinafter referred to as Grantee.
The Grantor, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby ac-
knowledged, does hereby grant to the Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual and assignable
easement over the following described parcel of land in which the Grantor holds a fee simple estate: The
property which is subject to this easement is depicted as on °Exhibit 9
attached and is more particularly described as follows:
[Insert legal description of real property]
The easement- applies to the Airspace above an imaginary plane over the real property. The plane is
described as follows:
The imaginary plane above the hereinbefore described real property, as such plane is defined by Part
77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, and consists of a plane [describe approach, transition, or hod-
zontal surface]; the elevation of said plane being based upon the " Airport official runway
end elevation of feet Above Mean Sea Level (AMSC), as determined by [Insert name and Date of
Survey or Airport Layout.Plan that determines the elevation] the approximate dimensions of which said
plane are described and shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
The aforesaid easement and right-of-way includes, but is not limited to:
(1) For the use and benefit of the public, the easement and continuing right to fly, or cause or permit
the flight by any and all persons; or any aircraft, of any and all kinds now or hereafter known, in, .
through, across, or aboutany portion of the Airspace hereinabove described; and
(2) The easement and right to cause or create, or permit or allow to be caused or created within all
space above the existing surface of the hereinabove described real property and any and all Air-
space laterally adjacent to said real property, such noise, vibration, currents and other effects of air,
illumination, and fuel consumption as may be inherent in, or may arise or occur from or during the
operation of aircraft of any and all kinds, now or hereafter known or used, for navigation of or flight
in air; and
(3) A continuing right to clear and keep clear from the Airspace any portions of buildings, structures; or
improvements of any kinds, and of trees or other objects, including the right to remove or demolish
those portions of such buildings, structures, improvements, trees, or other things which extend into
or above said Airspace, and the right to cut to the ground level and remove, any trees which extend
into or above the Airspace; and
(4) The right to mark and light, or cause or require to be marked or lighted, as obstructions to air navi-
gation, any and all buildings, structures, or other improvements, and trees or other objects, which
extend into or above the Airspace; and'
(5) The right of ingress to, passage within, and egress from the hereinabove described real property,
for the purposes described in subparagraphs (3) and (4) above at reasonable times and after rea-
sonable notice.
Appendix F2
Typical Avigation Easement
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
F-5
Sample Implementation Documents /Appendix F
For and on behalf of itself, its'successors and assigns, the Grantor hereby covenants with the fingfLn
County or City namel, for the direct benefit of the real property constituting the Airport
hereinafter described, that neither the Grantor, nor its successors in interest or assigns will construct,
install, erect, place or grow in or upon the hereinabove described real property, nor will they permit to
allow, any building structure, improvement, tree or other object which extends into or above the Airspace,
or which constitutes an obstruction to air navigation, or.which obstructs or interferes with the use of the'
easement and rights-of-way herein granted.
The easements and. rights-of-way herein granted shall be deemed both appurtenant to and for the direct
benefit of that real property which constitutes the Airport, in the (Insert County or City .:
namel State of California; and shall further be deemed in gross, being conveyed to the Grantee for the
benefit of the Grantee and any and all members of the general public who may use said easement or
right-of-way, in landing at, taking off from or operating such aircraft in or about the Airport,
or in otherwise flying through said Airspace..
Grantor, together with its successors in interest and assigns, hereby waives its right to legal action
against Grantee, its successors, or assigns for monetary damages or other redress due to impacts. as
described in Paragraph (2) of the granted rights of easement, associated with aircraft ooerations in the air
or on the ground at the airport, including future increases in the volume or changes in location of said
operations. Furthermore, Grantor, its successors, and assigns shall have no duty to avoid or mitigate
such damages through physical modification of airport facilities or establishment or modification of air-
craft operational procedures or restrictions. However, this waiver shall not apply if the airport role or... , .
character of its usage (as identified in an adopted airport master plan, for example) changes in a funda-
mental manner which could not reasonably have been anticipated at the time of the granting of this ease-
,,. --+ --A .-d,:..L..we...pe. — .. w..L..,+....+:—t :.............:— +k— ..,........6...,........,......1 ...:46 —:r -" ..........:......... A1 --
this grant of easement shall not operate to deprive the Grantor, its successors or assigns, of any
which may from time to time have against any air carrier or private operator for negligent or unla,
operation of aircraft.
These covenants and agreements run with the land and are binding upon the heirs, administrators, exec-
utors, successors and assigns of the Grantor, and, for the purpose of this instrument, the real property
firstly hereinabove described is the servient tenement and said Airport is the dominant
tenement.
DATED:
STATE OF }
ss
COUNTY OF }
On , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State,
personally appeared , and known to me to be the persons whose
names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
Appendix F2, Continued
F-6
Local Plans Consistency Review / Appendbc H
Compatibility Criteria
General Plan Document
The following items typically appear directly in a general plan document. Amendment of the general
plan will be required if there are any conflicts with the Compatibility Plan (see Policy 2.4.3(a)).
> Land Use Map — Any direct conflicts between proposed new land uses indicated on a general
plan land use map and the land use criteria in the Compatibility Plan (see Table 2A) must be elimi-
nated. This is most likely to involve residential land uses and may require changes to allowable
densities. Any specifically identified sites for future schools also must comply with Compatibility
Plan criteria. Most other nonresidential uses usually can be consistent with compatibility criteria
provided that limitations can be set on the intensity of usage (see below).
> Noise Element — General plan noise elements typically include criteria indicating the maximum
noise exposure for which residential development is normally acceptable. This limit must be made
consistent with the equivalent Compatibility Plan criteria (see Policies 4.1.3 and 4.1.4). Note, how-
ever, that a general plan may establish a different limit with respect to aviation -related noise than
for noise from other sources (this may be appropriate in that aviation -related noise is often judged
to be more objectionable than other types of equally loud noises).
Zoning or Other Policy Documents
The following items need to be reflected either in the general plan or in a separate policy document
such as a combining zone ordinance. Ifa separate policy document is adopted, modification of the
general plan to achieve consistency with the Compatibility Plan may not be required. Modifications
would normally be needed only to eliminate any conflicting language which may be present and to
make reference to the separate policy document.
> Secondary Dwellings _ The Compatibility Plan counts detached secondary dwellings on the
same parcel as additional dwellings for the purposes of density calculations. This factor needs to
be reflected in local policies either by adjusting the maximum allowable densities or by prohibiting
secondary dwellings where their presence would conflict with the compatibility criteria.
> Intensity Limitations on Nonresidential Uses — Local policies must be established to limit the
usage intensities of commercial, industrial, and other nonresidential land uses. This can be done
by duplication of the performance -oriented criteria — specifically, the number of people per acre
— indicated in the Compatibility Plan (see Table 2A and Policy 4.2.6). Alternatively, local jurisdic-
tions may create a detailed list of land uses which are allowable and/or not allowable within each
compatibility zone (Appendix D provides a starting point for a list of this type). For certain land
uses, such a list may need to include limits on building sizes, floor area ratios, habitable floors,
and/or other design parameters which are equivalent to the usage intensity criteria.
Appendix H1
Checklist of General Plan Consistency Requirements
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
H-11
Local Plans Consistency Review /-Appendix H
Identification of Prohibited Uses —The Compatibility Plan prohibits day care centers, hospitals,
.and certain other uses within much of each airport's influence area (see Table 2A). These often
are permitted or conditionally permitted uses within many commercial or industrial land use desig-
nations. Policies need to be established which preclude these uses in accordance with the com-
patibility criteria. „
> Open Land Requirements — The Compatibility Plan requirements (see Policy 4.2.5) for assuring
that a minimum amount of open land is.preserved in the airport vicinity must be reflected in local
policies. Normally, the locations which are intended to be maintained as open land would be iden-
tified on a map with the total acreage within each compatibility zone indicated. If some of the area
included as open land is private property, then policies must be established which assure that the
open land will continue to exist as the property develops. Policies specifying the required charac-
teristics of eligible open land also must be established.
> Infill Development — If a jurisdiction wishes to take advantage of the infill development provisions
of the Compatibility Plan (see Policy 2.4.4(a)), the lands which meet the qualifications must be
shown on a map.
> Height Limitations and Other Hazards to Flight — To protect the airport airspace, limitations
must be set on the height of structures and other objects near airports. These limitations are to be
based upon Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, but may include exceptions for objects on
high terrain as provided for in the Compatibility Plan (see Section 4.3). Restrictions also must be
established on other land use characteristics which can cause hazards to flight (specifically,. visual
or electronic interference with navigation and uses which attract birds). Note that many jurisdic-
tions have already adopted an airport -related hazard and height limit zoning ordinance which, if up
to date, will satisfy this consistency requirement.
-
>- Noise Insulation Requirements — The compatibility criteria (see Policy 4.1.5)' call for certain
buildings proposed for construction within Compatibility Zones B1 and B2 to demonstrate that..
they will contain sufficient sound insulation to reduce aircraft -related noise to an acceptable level.
These criteria apply. to new residences, schools, and certain other buildings containing noise -
sensitive uses. Local policies must include parallel criteria.
> Buyer Awareness Measures = As a condition for approval of development within certain com-
patibility zones, the Compatibility Plan requires either dedication of an avigation easement to the
airport proprietor or placement on deeds of a notice regarding airport impacts (see Table 2A,
Policy 4.4.2, and Appendix F). Local jurisdiction policies must contain similar requirements. The
plan also encourages, but does not require, local jurisdictions to adopt a policy stating that air-
port proximity and the potential for aircraft overflights be disclosed as part of real estate transac-
tions regarding property in the airport influence area.
> Nonconforming Uses and Reconstruction — Local jurisdiction policies regarding nonconform-
ing uses and reconstruction must be equivalent to or more restrictive than those in the Compati-
bility Plan (see Policies 2.4.4(b) and (c)).
Appendix H1, Continued
H-12
Local Plans Consistency Review / Apperidbc H
Review Procedures
In addition to incorporation of ALUC compatibility criteria, local jurisdiction implementing documents
must specify the manner in which development proposals will be reviewed for consistency with the
compatibility criteria. ,
> Actions Always Required to be Submitted for ALUC Review — State law species which types
of development actions must be submitted for airport land use commission review (see Policy
1.5.1). Local policies should either list these actions or, at a minimum, note the jurisdiction's
intent to comply with the state statute.
> Other Land Use Actions Potentially Subject to ALUC Review — In addition to the above ac-
tions, the Compatibility Plan identifies certain major land use actions for which referral to the
ALUC is dependent upon agreement between the jurisdiction and the ALUC. If the jurisdiction
fully complies with all of the items in this general plan -consistency checklist or has taken the
necessary steps to override the ALUC, then referral of the additional actions is voluntary. On the
other hand, a jurisdiction may elect not to incorporate all of the necessary compatibility criteria
and review procedures into its own policies. In this case, referral of major land use actions to the
ALUC is mandatory.' Local policies should indicate the jurisdiction's intentions in this regard.
> Process for Compatibility Reviews by Local JurisdicUons — If a jurisdiction chooses to sub-
mit only the mandatory actions for ALUC review, then it must establish a policy indicating the
procedures which will be used to assure that airport compatibility criteria are addressed during
review of other projects. Possibilities include: a standard review procedure checklist which in-
cludes reference to compatibility criteria; use of a geographic information system to identify*all
parcels within the airport influence area; etc.
> Variance Procedures — Local procedures for granting of variances to the zoning ordinance
must make certain that any such variances do not result in a conflict with the compatibility crite-
ria. Any variance which involves issues of noise, safety, airspace protection, or overflight com-
patibility as addressed in the Compatibility Plan must be referred to the ALUC for review.
> Enforcement —Policies, must be established to assure compliance with compatibility criteria
during the lifetime of the development. Enforcement procedures are especially necessary with
regard to limitations on usage intensities and the heights of trees.
Source: Shutt Moen Associates (August 2000)
Appendix H1, Continued
H-13
Revised Septernber 1,'°2000.
Initial Study -of Environmental Impacts
Butte County Airport Land Use Compat(bllity Plan
BACKGROUND
1. Project Title:
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (March 2000 Draft)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
3. Contact Person and. Phone Number:
Mr. M. A. Meleka
530/538-6572
4. Project Proponent's. Name and Address:
Same as #2 above.
5. Project Location:
The Compatibility Plan primarily applies to land use planning and future development within
the environs'of the four public -use airports in Butte County: Chico Municipal Airport, Oroville
Municipal. Airport, Paradise Skypark Airport, and Ranchaero Airport. The plan defines the
affected locations as the airport influence area for each airport. Maps depicting the proposed
boundaries of each airport's influence area are included in the plan document. The airport
influence areas range in size from about 4.0 miles by 2.6 miles around Rarichaero Airport to
5.6 miles by 4.0 miles around Chico Municipal Airport. Additional locations to which the plan
applies aye the sites of Many proposed structure taller than 200 feet above the ground or (2)
any proposed new airport or heliport for which a permit is required from the Caltrans Aero-
nautics Program.
6. General Plan Designation:
Various.
7. Zoning:
Various.
8. Description of Project:
The plan provides a set of policies for use by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
in evaluating the compatibility between future proposals for land use development in the vi-
cinity of the four public -use airports and the aircraft activity at these airports. The local agen-
IS-1
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
cies that have jurisdiction ov& land uses within the areas covered by this plan include: Butte
County, the cities of Chico and Oroville, and the town of Paradise. The plan also establishes
policies by which the Commission will review master plans for the four existing airports and
development plans for any proposed'new airport or heliport. The plan is prepared in accor-
dance with requirements of the California State Aeronautics Act.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
> Chico Municipal Airport: On northern edge of expanding Chico urban area. Increasing
residential development on north and west. Industrial uses and open land to the east.
> Oroville Municipal Airport: Sparsely populated except for unincorporated community of
Thermalito to the northeast. State lands — Thermalito Afterbay and Oroville Wildlife Ref-
uge — occupy most of southwestern and southeastern portions of airport influence area.
> Paradise Skypark Airport: Lightly populated, steeply sloping terrain in immediate vicinity.
Town of Paradise a mile to the north.
> Ranchaero Airport: Orchards immediately around airport. Residential neighborhoods of
Chico nearby to the north and northeast.
10. Other agencies whose approval is required:
The Butte County Airport Land Use .Commission can adopt.the plan without approval from
any other agency, either state or local. Nevertheless, in preparation of the plan, 'the Commis-
sion and its consultants have been guided by the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook pub-
lished by the Caltrans Aeronautics Program as required by state law (Public Utilities Code Sec-
tion 21674.7). Furthermore, implementation of the.Compatibility Plan's policies can only be
accomplished by the general purpose local governments which have authority over land use
within the airport influence areas: Butte County, the cities of Chico and Oroville, and the
town of Paradise. State statutes require -these agencies to make their general plans consistent
with the Compatibility Plan within 180 days, unless they go through an override procedure.
The override procedure requires a two-thirds vote and specific findings must be supported.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would_ be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the follow-
ing pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources,
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service Systems
IS -2
_ Agricultural Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water Quality
Noise
_ .Air Quality
_ Geology / Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Recreation _ Transportation / Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Initlal Study of Environmental Impacts
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
JL . I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an EN-
VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
— I find that the proposed project'MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" Impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures, based upon the earlier analysis as described on at-
tached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only
the effects that remain to be addressed.
- I find that, although the proposed project could have:a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have,been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIRlor NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Prepared by: . ` -
Signature Date
Printed Name Representing
IS -3
IMtlat Study of Environmental Impacts
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Explanations of all "Potentially Significant," "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation' Incorporated,"
"Less Than Significant Impact," and "No Impact" answers are provided on the. attached sheets.
.General Comment
The project is regulatory in nature. -No physical construction would result from the adoption of the .
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. or from subsequent implementation of the land
use restrictions and policies. Although future land use development in the vicinity of airports in
Butte County would be influenced by the Compatibility Plan, it is speculative to anticipate the'spe
cific characteristics of that development or the types of environmental impacts which would be asso-
ciated with it. One possibility is that land uses in much of the airports' environs would remain un-
changed from present conditions. On the other hand, the Compatibility Plan neither precludes new
development near airports nor dictates the type of land uses which are allowed. The plan merely
limits the density, a"4 intensity, and height of the uses so as to avoid creation of noise and safety
compatibility conflicts with airport activities. Also, state law establishes a procedure by which af-
fected local jurisdictions can override the compatibility policies set forth in the plan..
Given these considerations, it is concluded that ALUC adoption of the Butte County Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan will have no -impact with respect to the following environmental impact issues:
1..
Aesthetics
All -
2.
Agricultural Resources
All
3.
Air Quality
All
4.
Biological Resources
All
5.
Cultural Resources
All
6.
Geology and Soils
All
7.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Issues a), b) c), d), g); h)
8.
Hydrology and Water Quality
All
9.
Land Use and Planning
Issue a)
10.
Mineral Resources
All
11.
Noise,
Issues a), b), c), d)
.12.
Population and Housing
Issues b), c)
13.
Public Services
Issues a).i), a).ii), a).iii), 'a).iv)
14.
Recreation
All
15..
Transportation / Traffic
Issues a), b), d), e), 0, g)
16.
Utilities and Service Systems.
-All
17.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Issues a), c)
For each of these topics, the "No Impact" column has been checked and reference is made to the
above General Comment.
IS -4
b) Substantially damage scenic resources including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,,and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which '
would adversely affect day, or, nighttime views in the
area?
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment.
Mitigation:
None required.
2. Agricultural Resources
x
2'c
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
1. Aesthetics
—
cc c C
�e a
c F
a
CO
.�i
Issues
41
a
o
aviE:°.ivy9i.3FAX
z
Would the project:
a) Have'a substantial. adverse effect on a scenic vista?
x
b) Substantially damage scenic resources including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,,and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which '
would adversely affect day, or, nighttime views in the
area?
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment.
Mitigation:
None required.
2. Agricultural Resources
x
2'c
cc.
c cc
W ea
m ao
�e a
c F
~
.6
Issues c o, a ,a Q► = = m vm a
ave E °ern 3M 3m E
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assess-
ment Model 0 997) prepared by the California Department of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts .
on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farm-
land of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California Resources '
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
x
x
IS -5
t
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
�t
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment. Furthermore, land use compatibility policies in the Compatibil-
ity Plan favor continuation of agricultural land uses in the vicinity of airports.
Mitigation:
None required.
3. Air Quality
aE C 6
Issues
o «:.ii E
a t
c CL o°Do15a o
Where available, the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management -or air pollution control'
district may be relied upon to make the following determina-
tion. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implei•nentation of the applica-
ble air quality plan?
x
b) Violate any air quality• standard or contribute to an ex-
isting or projected air quality violation?
�t
c) ' Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of '
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is . .
non -attainment under an applicable federal or state
»
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emis-
sions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
7t
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant con-
centrations?
x
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial num-
ber of people?
X
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment.
IS -8
•
Init/al Study of Environmental Impacts
y,
Mitigation:
:. ....
None required.
4. Biological Resources
'S� a .'rs�ii C
Issues
c E a o C r .. E COL c
-3 cc �W E
0. WE Z,
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by.the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the Califor-
nia Department'of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and '
Wildlife Service?
�t
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native..
resident or migratory fish or wildlife, species or with es-
tablished native resident or migratorywildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
�t
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance?
�t
fl Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Con-
servation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat con-
servation plan?
X
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment. .
IS -7
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
Mitigation:
None required.
5. Cultural Resources'
Issues
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change In the significance
of an archaeological resources pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment.
Mitigation:
None required.
6. Geology and Soils .
4
Issues
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial ad-
verse effects, including the risk of -loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geol-
ogy Special Publication 42.
IS -8
X
_'' c
Q�
c cc
�" o
Ion
r is
«= s
«iii
CO
me
Octc
3.0i1c�
� a
A61
E
a°(nE
3�
z
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change In the significance
of an archaeological resources pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment.
Mitigation:
None required.
6. Geology and Soils .
4
Issues
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial ad-
verse effects, including the risk of -loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geol-
ogy Special Publication 42.
IS -8
X
_'' c
Q�
c cc
�" o
Ion
r is
«= s
«iii
CO
Eo
d(AE
E M.9
J(A
ee moo.
JNE
3�
z
X
InNal Study of Environmental Impacts
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X.
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefac-
tion? X
iv) Landslides? X .:
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X `.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and .potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as'defined in Table 18-1-
B of the Uniform Building Code 0 994), creating sub-
stantial risks to life or.property?
Discussion:
See preceding General, Comment.
Mitigation:
None required.
7. Hazards and Hazardous Material
Issues '
.Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to -the public or the environ-
ment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ-
ment through reasonably foreseeable upset.and acci-
dent conditions involving the release of hazardous ma-
terials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
withiri one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school? '
1, E-
m.
c c c
Boa o
m`�
68
m e
0 c
cW
«o P O.
m :'
3�
Ol O.
arnE
�v�
.�rnE
IS -9
Inftlal Study of Environmental Impacts
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of haz-
ardous materials- sites compiled pursuant to Govern-
ment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a
significant hazard to the public or environment?
e) If located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plans has not been adopted, within two miles of a'. .
public airport or public -use airport, result in' a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
fl If located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evac-,
uation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildlife fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where res-
idences are intermixed with wildlands?
Discussion:
X
X
X
7.e) The Compatibility Plan establishes.the criteria by which safety hazards referred to in this issue
would be evaluated. These criteria reduce the risk of exposure to.the hazards of an off -airport
aircraft accident by limiting residential densities and concentrations of people in locations near
the four public -use airports.•in Butte County. The risks of aircraft accident occurrence are re-
duced by limitations on the height,of structures, trees, and other objects which might pene-
trate airport airspace as defined by Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77. The plan also seeks
to minimize the consequences of an off -airport aircraft accident by requiring a percentage of
the land area in critical areas near the airports to remain open and reasonably suitable for a
survivable emergency aircraft landing.
7.f) Although the Compatibility Plan does not specifically pertain to land uses around private air-
strips, the compatibility concepts presented in the plan would be generally applicable.
7.a), 7.b), 7.c), 7:d), 7.g), and 7.h): See preceding General Comment.
Mitigation:
None required.
IS -10
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
8.
Hydrology and Water Quality
E g S
«. = 8 a
Issues
c a ::; t r F:. 10 0.
E c
dN Z
Would the project: ;
a)
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements? •
�t
b)
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially'with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering
of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the produc-
tion rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses or �'
planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
39
c)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of course
of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
39 `
d)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration.of the "
course of a stream orIriver, or substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which .
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
- �t
e)
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of pol-
luted runoff?
�t
f)
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
1t
g)
Place housing within a.1 00 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
K
h)
Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures
'
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
x
i)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as
a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
X
j) .
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving inundation by seiche, tsu-
nami, or mudflow?
�t
IS -11
Initial 'Study of Environmental Impacts
Discussion: '
See preceding General Comment.
Mitigation:
None required.
9. Land Use and Planning C 6 C C
E
Issues
0.9 c« as c
o.rn E 3H M ern E. z
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? x
b) Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the proj=
ect (including, but not limited to the general plan, spe-
cific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? x
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan_
or natural community conservation plan? K
Discussion:
9.a) See preceding General Comment.
9.b) State law (Government Code 65302.3) requires each local government having jurisdiction over
land use within locations addressed by an airport land use compatibility plan to'modify its
general plan and any applicable specific plan for consistency with the compatibility plan (or to
go through the special process required to override the airport land use commission). With
regard to the draft Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, this requirement would
apply to the county of Butte, the cities of Chico and Oroville,and the town of Paradise. Ap-
pendix H of the Compatibility Plan contains an initial evaluation of local general plans consis-
tency with the Compatibility Plan policies. This evaluation indicates that certain modifications
to the general plan of each.of the four affected jurisdictions would be required as a conse-
quence of ALUC adoption of the Compatibility Plan.
For a general plan to be considered consistent with the Compatibility Plan, it must do both of
the following: (1) it must not have any direct conflicts with the Compatibility Plan and (2) it
must contain criteria•and/or provisions for evaluation of proposed land use development situ-
ated within an `airport influence area.
IS -12
' Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
Direct conflicts most often occur with respect to land use designations and/or densities which:'
are unacceptable for their proximity to the airport. Elimination of these conflicts will require
reduction in planned future residential densities in certain locations around each of the air-
ports. Only proposed land -uses are affected. The ALUC has no authority over existing land
uses even if those uses do not conform to the proposed compatibility criteria. The Compatibil- .
ity Plan would be applicable to these locations only if redevelopment or extensive reconstruo-
tion were to be proposed.
The second requirement addresses the common problem that local general plans and/or other
policy documents do not contain criteria forevaluating other compatibility factors such as lim-
its on the height of structures and the intensity (number of people per acre) of land uses. The
project evaluation requirement can be met in any of several ways identified in the Compatibil-
ity Plan. Options include: (1) incorporation of the ALUC's compatibility criteria into the'gen-`
.eral plan, zoning ordinance, and/or other local policy document; (2) adoption of the Compati-
bility Plan by reference; and (3) agreement to submit certain major land use actions to the
ALUC for compatibility review.
Although ALUC adoption of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan would es-
tablish compatibility criteria which would be applicable countywide, the Commission does not
have authority to implement the plan. This responsibility rests with individual land use juris-
dictions through the general plan consistency process described above.. Because the affected
jurisdictions. have multiple options with regard to how to implement the compati biIity.criteria,
as well as the option to override the ALUC, the specific land use, environmental impacts which
may result cannot be determined at this time. Only a general evaluation of the impacts, pri-
marily with regard to housing, is presently_ possible (see Section 12, Population and Housing)
Each jurisdiction will need to assess these impacts at a higher level of detail as part of the
CEQA process associated with the general plan changes and/or`other policy actions taken in
response to the Compatibility Plan.
9.0 The Compatibility Plan has no known conflicts with any habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan. However, conflicts potentially could occur if such plans were
to include proposals which could lead to increased attraction of birds to the vicinity of the
airports. Attraction of birds also would conflict with established Federal Aviation Administra-
tion policies.
Mitigation:
None required.
IS -13
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
(' 10. Mineral Resources
c
«2
Issues
c CL
dN_
..
�tll g
c
dl_
z
Would the project:
,
a) Result' in the loss of availability.of a known mineral re-
source that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
�t
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general'plan, specific plan,, or other land use plan?
X
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment.
Mitigation:
None required.
11. Noise
a�
C �
nom o
«c a
c
«�
E
Issues
c 1 o.
n.as E
a, « a
ern 3
� c
c
z
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies? X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise lev-
els in the project vicinity above levels existing without
the project? X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity•above levels existing
without the project? X
IS -14
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts'
e) I(located within an airport land use plan or; where such -
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public -use airport, exposure of people
residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels? X
f) If located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expo-
sure of people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? X
Discussion: `
11.a), 11.b), 11.0, and 11.d): See preceding General Comment
11.e) The Compatibility Plan.'establishes the criteria by which noise exposure referred to in this issue
would be evaluated. These criteria reduce the potential exposure of people to excessive
aircraft -related noise by limiting residential densities and concentrations of people in locations
near the four public -use airports in Butte County and byestablishing noise level reduction
requirements for new structures in the most highly impacted locations. The plan does not
regulate the operation of 'aircraft or the noise produced by that activity; the ALUC has no au-.
thority over such matters. ,
11.0 Although the Compatibility Plan does not specifically pertain to land uses around private air-
strips, the compatibility concepts presented in the plan would be generally applicable.
Mitigation: .
None required.
.12. Population and Housing
a m o 0 0
«u a
�— E
Issues « o, n a
a°in E �N 3�, SNE z
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? X
b) Displace a substantial amount of existing housing, ne-
cessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? - X.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X
IS -15
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
Discussion:
12.a) The Compatibility Plan does not directly or indirectly induce population growth either region-
ally or locally. In fact, its provisions limit the location, distribution, and density of residential
and nonresidential land uses in the airport's environs to minimize potential noise impacts and
safety concerns. Nevertheless, to the extent that such restrictions conflict with currently
adopted county and city land use plans, adoption of the Compatibility Plan could cause popu-
lation growth to be shifted to locations different from where now planned. As indicated by the
data summarized in the following paragraphs, any such shifts would be small relative to the
overall projected growth in the county and individual cities. These impacts are judged to be
less than significant.
Of the four airports addressed by the Compatibility Plan, the two having potential for extensive
urban development in'their environs are Chico Municipal Airport and Oroville Municipal Air-
port. The following analysis examines the effects which implementation of the Compatibility
Plan Rolicies could have on the number of allowable new residential lots in the vicinity of
these two airports.
Comparisons are made between the number of additional lots allowable under the Compati-
bility Plan criteria and the number possible under applicable local general plans and zoning.
Zoning is particularly a factor with regard to assessing the development potential of parcels.
designated agricultural -residential in that, under the Butte County General Plan, the minimum
parcel sizes for this designation range from as little as 1.0 acre to as much as 40.0 acres. (It is
recognized that the land use zoning of these parcels can be changed without amending the
General Plan. However, any such rezoning would need to remain consistent with the Compat-
ibility Plan criteria.)
The estimated percentage of each compatibility zone which is already developed is taken into
account in the calculations of future development potential. For the purposes of these calcula-
tions, parcels too small to have subdivision potential under current general plan and zoning
criteria are assumed to be developed regardless of whether a house already exists. The Com-
patibility Plan explicitly allows a dwelling to be built on any legal lot of record even if the par-
cel size is less than the indicated compatibility criterion.
The analysis also assumes the numbers of residential parcels and dwelling units to be equiva-
lent. This assumption simplifies the analysis and, for most subdivisions, the two numbers are
identical. For multi -family developments, the number of impacted parcels has been calculated
as if each dwelling unit would be on its own parcel, thus the numbers are again equal. Where
some differences could occur.are with respect to secondary dwelling units. The lost potential
for secondary units on existing large parcels has not been reflected in the calculations, but this
impact is tiny relative to the overall numbers discussed.
Chico Nfunicipal Airport'
> Compatibility Zone B1: Most of the 300± acres planned for residential or agricultural resi-
dential uses within this zone are either already developed (250+ acres) or have land use.
IS -16
Initlal Study`of Environmental Impacts
zoning which is consistent with the compatibility criterion of 1 dwelling unit per 10.0 acres
maximum density (30f acres). Little potential for future subdivision remains with or with-
out the added limitations'of the'Compatibility Plan.
-
)o- Comoatibility Zone B2: Nearlv 1,700 acres are planned for residential or aericultural_resi-
dentia) uses. ,
► The greatest potential effect resulting from implementation of the Compatibility Plan
would be on 400± aces (a portion of the Bidwell Ranch) planned by the city of Chico
for low-density residential use. This develolment would be inconsistent with the
Compatibility Plan. Assuming an average density of 2.5 to 3.0 dwelling units per gross
acre, some 1,000 to 1,200 blanned residential parcels would be eliminated.
► An additional 600± acres of existing low-density residential development south of the
airport would become nonconforming (in terms of the Compatibility Plan, not the city
general plan). The Compatibility Plan has -no affect on continued residential use of this
propea.
► Lastly, some 300 acres north and northwest of the* airport are zoned for 1- or, 3 -acre
suburban residential uses with the majority already developed. The Compatibility Plan
Would preclude any remaining larger lots from being subdivided into parcels smaller . .
than a 5 -acre average. About 50 potential lots would be eliminated.
> Comoatibility Zone C: , Zone C at Chico Municipal Airport contains nearly 4,000 acres of
land designated for residential or agricultural residential uses. A portion of this zone has
been divided into two sub -zones. Sub -zone CO) limits residential densities to 1 dwelling
unit per 5.0 acres, the same as in Zone B2. Sub -zone C(2) requires densities to be at least
4.0 dwelling units per acre (the concept is that higher densities will produce higher ambi-
ent noise levels and thus lower the intrusiveness of aircraft overflights).
► Of the 2,400 acres in Sub -zone CO), the majority'(some 1,450 acres) is zoned for'mini-
mum lot sizes of 5.O io as much as 160 acres. This zoning, most of which is east of the
airport, is consistent with the Compatibility Plan criteria. About 850 acres have 1- or 3 -
acre suburban residential zoning. Over half of this area is already subdivided into the
minimum lot sizes. The plan would limit the number of smaller lots into which re-
maining undeveloped large parcels could be divided. Lastly, a small segment (less than
100 acres) of Sub -zone CO) is planned for -urban low-density residential development
WR to 5.0 dwelling units per acre). The plan would preclude this density. In total,
implementation of the Sub -zone C(1)'criteria would eliminate between'200 and 400
new residential parcels which could otherwise be created under current land use plan
ning and zoning,:
► Sub -zone C(2) together with the Zone C area which allows either the high- or the low-
densitk option, covers over 1,500 acres of existing or potential residential develop-
ment. The chief. effect of the density criteria for this zone would be to require future
residential development to be slightly more dense than the present average which is
estimated at about 3.0 dwelling units per gross acre. Increasing the average density to
4.0 dwelling units per gross acre on the remaining undeveloped Iand would result in
some 600 to 800 more:future dwelling units within this area than'are currently antick
ap ted.
IS -17
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
> Total Airport Influence Area:.Implementation of the Compatibility Plan would result in
higher residential densities in some locations and lower densities in others compared to
the densities currently planned. Under the assumptions noted above, the net effect could
be a loss of between 250 and 1,050 potential residential parcels over the nearly 6,000
acres of existing or planned residential lands in the Chico Municipal Airport influence area
This loss could be reduced by further increasing average densities within Sub -zone CO
For example, an average density of 5.0 dwelling units per gross acre within this area would .
reduce the loss to no more than 450± residential parcels and could eliminate it altogether.
By comparison, the 1994 Chico General Plan Rrovides for over 22,000 additional dwelling
units within the future Chico city limits. The overall impact of the Compatibility Plan on
potential housing development in the airport area is thus judged to be insignificant.
Oroville Municipal Airport
> Compatibility Zone B1: All of the roughly 220 acres in this compatibility zone currently
require minimum lots sizes of 10 to 40 acres. The Compatibility Plan thus would have no
effect on the number of potential new residential lots.
> Compatibility Zone B2: About 250 acres of mostly undeveloped lands designated for resi-
dential or agricultural residential uses lie within this zone. Some 40 acres planned for low -
or medium -density residential uses would be prevented from developing at those densi- .
ties, resulting in a loss of approximately 200 residential parcels.
Compatibility Zone C: The CompatibilitXPlan requires future residential development
within Zone C to be either very low density (1 dwelling unit per 5.0 acres) or moderately
high (at least 4.0 dwelling units per acre).
► Of the approximately 1,900 acres of residential -designated lands within this zone at
Oroville Municipal Airport, about 950 acres are presently zoned for 5- or 10 -acre mini-
mum parcel sizes. Over 250 acres are planned for medium -density residential which
requires a minimum of 5.0 dwelling units per acre. These designations are consistent
with the compatibility criteria.
► The remaining 700+ acres are planned for low-density residential uses. About half of
this area is already developed. Implementation of the compatibility plan would re-
quire any future development to be medium density or at least be at the upper end of
the low-density range (1.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre).
> Total Airport Influence Area: The net effect of the Compatibility Plan on the Oroville Mu-
nicipal Airport environs would be about the same number of total dwelling units as indi-
cated by current Butte County planning and zoning_ designations.
12.b) and 12.c): No housing or people will be displaced as a result of the plan's adoption. The Com-
patibility Plan does not apply to existing housing. Moreover, it explicitly allows construction of
single-family houses on legal lots of record where such uses are permitted by local land use
regulations. Also see preceding General Comment.
IS -18
Inldal Study of Environmental Impacts .
Mitigation:
None required.
13. Public Services Z, E 4 c
m o m C
L i
Issues o a «' : oo a o
z
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physi-
cally altered governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant impacts, in order to main-
tain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection? X
ii) Police protection?
.iii) Schools?' X
iv) Parks? X
v) Other public services? - . X
Discussion:
13.a) i), ii), and iv): See preceding General Comment.
.13.a) iii): The Compatibility Plan prohibits new schools within much of the influence area of each
airport.covered by the plan (existing schools are not affected unless expansion is proposed).
The restriction is intended as a means of avoiding future.noise and safety compatibility.con-
•- flicts between aviation activity and school uses." In some cases, this restriction would necessi-
tate moving the location of future school sites identified in local general plans and specific
plans. The distance that a planned school site would need to be moved in order to be accept-
able is generally small — approximately 0.5 to 1.0 mile.' The overall consequences are consid-
ered to be less than significant. ,
13.a) v): Adoption of the;Compatibility Plan would create a temporary increase in the workload of
county and city planning department staffs as a result of the requirement to modify local gen-
eral plansfor consistency with the Compatibility Plan. An initial assessment of the inconsisten-
cies which would need to be addressed are included in Appendix H of the Compatibility Plan.
Over the long term, procedural policies included'in the Compatibility Plan are intended to
simplify the ALUC project 'review process and thus reduce workload both for ALUC staff and
the staff of the affected land use jurisdictions.
IS -19
InNal Study of Environmental Impacts
Mitigation:
None required.
14. Recreation
:,-,g Cod C .. C E.
«� �� CL
Issues
c a t °1 te Co. - o
IL N E
z
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neigh-
borhood and regional parks or other recreational facili-
ties such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or re-
quire the construction or expansion of recreational fa-
,
cilities which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
X
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment.
Mitigation:
None required.
15. Transportation 7 Traffic
o
i
g
r_ �c io a
E
Issues
.°! 9 1- a °' a O1 a
a°v� E 3rh 3a Sin E z
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in rela-
tion to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in.a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
X
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads and high-
ways?
X
IS -20
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks? �t
d).. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature .
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incom-
patible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?, x
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X
g) Conflict with accepted policies, plans, or programs sup-
porting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn -outs
bicycle racks, etc.)?
Discussion:
15.a), 15.b), 154, 15.e), 15.0, and 15.g): See preceding General Comment.
15.c) The Compatibility Plan has•no authority over the operation of airports or air traffic, although it
does include policies for review of certain aspects of. proposed airport development which
could have off -airport compatibility implications.
Mitigation:
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ap-
plicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) -Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause signifi-
cant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could'cause significant environ-
mental effects?
X
X
X
IS -21
None required. ;
16. Utilities and Service Systems
C
C
W
r o
Q C
cc
rM—�.
Lc o
';=
a
Issues
cos c.
m v�
m o► a
av)E
JCA 3�
•3W E
C
z
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ap-
plicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) -Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause signifi-
cant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could'cause significant environ-
mental effects?
X
X
X
IS -21
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and,resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
1t
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it'
has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing commit-
ments?
x
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs?
fit,
" g) Comply with federal,'state, and -local statutes and regu-
lations related to solid waste? ' a
X
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment.
Mitigation: -
None required.
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance
211C CC C CC
.. E
Issues
iL O1 a
CLV)stn 3M z
a) Does,the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment; substantially reduce'the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild-
life population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
-,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, re-
e-duce
d ucethe number or restrict the range of a rare or en-
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important exam-
ples of the major periods of California history or prehis-
tory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually lim-
ited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other cur-
rent projects, and the effects"of,probable future pro-
jects.)
x
IS -22
i .
.
Inftial Study of Environmental Impacts
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will ,
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, ei-
ther directly or.indirectly? x
Discussion:
17.a) and 17.c): See preceding General Comment.
17.b) Because the Compatibility Plan is regulatory and restrictive in nature and will not cause any
physical development to occur, it has no potential to create cumulatively significant environ-
mental impacts. Rather; the plan addresses potential noise and safety impacts and other air-
port land use compatibility issues associated with potential future developmentwhich other
public entities or private parties may propose ,for the vicinity of airports in Butte County. With-
out adoption of the plan, the adverse impacts - both to airport functional ity.and to commu-
nity livability — of allowing incompatible development to occur may be individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable. The Compatibility Plan thus, in effect, serves as a mitigation.
plan designed to avoid impacts which might otherwise be cumulatively significant.
Mitigation:
None required.
IS -23
3
f
ti
IS -23
s
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED ADDENDUM TO THE
DRAFT AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN
During the public hearing that'was conducted during the ALUC's review of the Draft Addendum for the Butte
County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, a number of requests were made by members of the public regarding
changes to the Compatibility Maps that apply to the Chico Municipal and Ranchaero Airports. These changes were
not directed by the ALUC. to be incorporated into the Addendum at this time and will be considered during the
public review period as specific written requests are submitted.
The following generally describes the proposals that were suggested. These proposals are likely to be submitted as
formal requests during the public review period for the Plan Addendum and revised Initial Study. This summary is
for informational purposes only.
Chico Municipal Aimort
1) Consider changing the. Compatibility Zone designation on the west side of the airport between Eaton Road and
Hicks Lane from C(1) to C (2).
2) Consider making the southernboundary of Zone B2 on the east side of the airport co -terminus with Sycamore
Creek.
3) Consider changing the Zone C designated area southeast of the airport to Zone C(2).
4) Consider changing the designation of a large tract of land on the east side of the airport located east of
Cohasset Road from C(1) to C(2).
Ranchaero Airport
1) Consider retracting the extent of Zone B 1 on the southeast side of the airport so that the boundary extends as a
straight line for the entire length of the zone rather than fanning out to the east.
2) Consider revising the conf gurafions of Zones B2 and C on the east side of the airport consistent with what was
originally proposed in the Draft Compatibility Plan.
5
Mailing for ���
ALUC Meeting ��j
October 19, 2000
l'ENKA$ III 11,11111;XIAL31 ZIP =I- 1-1
Notice is hereby given by the Butte County Airport Commission that an addenum to the Draft
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is available for public review and comment. In addition, an
environmental document pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act has been prepared
for the proposed Plan and is also available for public review and comment..
SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Public Utilities Code Sections 21674 . (c) and 21675 et. seq. allow a yearly update to the
comprehensive land use plans for each of the County's public use airports. The proposed Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan contains a comprehensive review of the compatibility criteria
applicable to each of the County's public use airports, which applies to: the Chico Municipal
Airport, the Oroville Airport, the Paradise Skypark Airport and the Ranchearo Airport. .
The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission is required by Public Utilities Code Section
21675 (a) to formulate a comprehensive land use plan that will provide for the orderly growth of the
area surrounding each airport. Such plans will safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants
within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general. In formulating the plan, the Butte County
Airport Land Use Commission may develop height restrictions on buildings, specify use ofland, and
determine building standards to include soundproofing of structures adjacent to airports within the
planning area.
The Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Initial Study are on file and available for public
viewing at the office of the Butte County Department of Development Services, 7 County Center
Drive, Oroville,. CA. For information call: (530) 538-7601 (Monday- through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
P.M.). Comments may be submitted until November 17, 2000
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT COMMISSION
THOMAS A. PARILO, DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES