Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout047-250-141 (3)DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN BUTTE COUNTY AND DOUGLAS N. GUNN, TRUSTEE OF THE ROBERT AND ANN STEPHENS CHARITABLE REMAINDER UNITRUST, ET AL. This Development Agreement is entered into this 27th day of October, 1998, by and between BUTTE COUNTY, a political .subdivision of the State of. California, hereinafter "County," and DOUGLAS N. GUNN, Trustee of the Robert and Ann Stephens Charitable Remainder Unitrust, hereinafter collectively "Landowner," pursuant to the authority of Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the Government Code of California. Recitals A. Authorization. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California adopted Section 65864, d sem., of the Government Code (the "Development Agreement Statute"), which authorizes the County and an applicant for a development project to enter into a development agreement, establishing certain development rights in the Property which is the subject of the development project application. B. Propeea. The subject of this Agreement is the development of an approximately 230 -acre portion of that certain parcel of land, identified as APN 047-250-141 consisting of a total of approximately 300 acres, located in the unincorporated area of Butte County within the North Chico Specific Planarea (the "NCSP") as described in Exhibit "A-1 " and shown on Exhibit "A-2" (hereinafter the "Property"), attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Landowner represents that all persons holding legal or equitable interests in the Property shall be bound by the Agreement. Page 1 11/2/98 32- 3z =3z C. Hearing. On August 27, 1998, the County Planning Commission, designated by Butte County Resolution No. 84-160 as the planning agency for purposes of development agreement review pursuant to Government Code Section 65867, in a duly noticed and conducted public hearing, considered this Agreement and recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve this Agreement. D. Environmental Documents. On October 27, 1998, the Board of Supervisors, in Resolution 98- , adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Entitlements which tiered off of the NCSP Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Mitigation measures were included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and are incorporated, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), in the terms and conditions of this Agreement, as reflected by the findings concurrently adopted by the Board of Supervisors with this Agreement. E. Entitlements. The Board of Supervisors has approved the following land use entitlements for the Property, which entitlements are the subject of this Agreement: (1) Amendment to the North Chico Specific Plan, as adopted by Resolution - . No. 987_, for 229.2± acres; (2) The Rezoning of the Property from SR -1 and SR-1/OS acres to Planned Development SR-l/PD on 126.1± acres which generates the ability to develop up to 126 units (single-family home lots) and from OS to OS/PD on 103.1± acres which generates the ability to develop up to 34 additional units for a total of 160 units, pursuant to Ordinance No. dated October 27, 1998; and (3) This Development Agreement, as adopted by Ordinance No. (the "Adopting Ordinance"). The approvals described in paragraphs E (1) through (3), inclusive, together with all County rules, ordinances, regulations and policies applicable thereto adopted and in effect as of the effective date of this Agreement, are referred to herein as the "Entitlements." Page 2 11/1198 1 F. General and Specific Plans. Development of the Property in accordance with 2 the Entitlements and this Agreement is consistent with and will,provide orderly growth and. 3 development of the area in accordance with the policies set forth in the General Plan and NCSP 4 and the County finds and declares that this Agreement is consistent with the General Plan of 5 Butte County and with the North Chico Specific Plan. For purposes of the protection granted 6 by this Agreement, except as otherwise provided herein, the applicable law shall be as set forth 7 in the Entitlements as of the date hereof. 8 9 G. Substantial Costs to Landowner. Landowner has incurred and will incur 10 substantial costs in order to comply with conditions of approval of the Entitlements and to 11 assure development of the Property in accordance with the Entitlements and the terms of this 12 Agreement. 13 14 H. Services and Facilities to be Provided. Development of the Property will result 15 in a need for certain municipal services and facilities, some of which will be provided by 16 County to such development through the implementation of the NCSP and some of which will 17 be provided by Landowner subject to the performance of Landowner's obligations hereunder. 18 Landowner agrees to contribute to the costs of certain public facilities and services as required 19 herein to mitigate impacts on the community of the development of the Property, and County 20 agrees .to implement the NCSP to assure that Landowner may proceed with and complete 21 development of the Property in accordance with the terms of .this Agreement. If County 22 specifies that Landowner provide contributions of land or money, other than the dedication of 23 the drainage easement right-of-way depicted in Exhibit "B", for public improvements which 24 exceed requirements to mitigate impacts arising as a result of development entitlements on the 25 Property, County shall reimburse Landowner in the manner specified in Section 4.3 of this 26 Agreement. 27 28 I. Development A=ement Resolution. County and Landowner have fulfilled all 29 requirements set forth in the Development Agreement Resolution of the County of Butte, 30 Resolution No. 84-160, adopted by the Board of Supervisors on October 2, 1984, as amended. 3.1 Page 3 11/2/98 1 I. AGREEMENT ' 2 3 SECTION 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS 4 5 1.1 Incorporation of Recitals. The Preamble, the Recitals and all defined terms set 6 forth in both are hereby incorporated into this Agreement as if set forth herein in full. 7 8 1.2 Proper Description and Binding Covenants. The Property comprises those 9 portions of that property identified as APN 0477250-141 and described in Exhibits "A-1" and 10 "A-211. It is intended and determined that the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute 11 covenants which shall run with the Property and the benefits and burdens hereof shall bind and 12 inure to all successors in interest to and assigns of the parties hereto. Accordingly, all 13 references herein to "Landowner" shall mean and refer to DOUGLAS N. GUNN, Trustee of 14 the Robert and Ann Stephens Charitable Remainder Unitrust, and each and every subsequent 15 purchaser or transferee of the Property or any portion thereof from Landowner. 16 17 1.3 Term. 18 1.3.1 Commencement.; Expiration. The term of this Agreement shall 19 commence upon the effective date of the Adopting Ordinance approving this Agreement. This 20 Agreement. shall extend for a period of fifteen (15), years thereafter, unless said term is 21 terminated, modified or extended by circumstances set forth in this Agreement or by mutual 22 consent of the parties hereto. Following the expiration of the term, this Agreement shall be, 23 deemed terminated and of no further force and effect; provided, however, said termination of 24 the Agreement shall not affect any right or duty nor the ability to construct any improvements, . 25 facilities, buildings or the like partially or completely 'constructed emanating from County 26 entitlements on the Property approved prior to, concurrently, with, or subsequent to the 27 expiration of this Agreement. At the date of recordation of part or all of Final Subdivision 28 Map(s), this Agreement shall terminate as to those maps or parts of maps so recorded, unless 29 specified otherwise in- Subdivision Agreements or other agreements between Landowner and 30 County regarding the. timing, payment, security or other arrangements for site development or 31 improvement installation or related matters. County shall cause any written notice of 32 termination approved pursuant to this subsection to be recorded against the applicable parcel, 33 at Landowner's expense, with the County Recorder. 34 Page 4 11/2/98 M 1 . 1.3.2 Termination Upon Mutual Agreemen . This Agreement may be 2 terminated upon the written mutual agreement of the parties. 3 4 1.4 Amendment of Agreement. This Agreement may be amended from time to time, 5 by mutual consent of County and -Landowner, in accordance with the provisions of the. 6 Development Agreement Statute. The parties acknowledge that under the County Zoning. 7 Code and applicable rules, regulations and policies of the County, the Director of Development 8 Services has the discretion to approve minor modifications to approved land use entitlements 9 without the requirement for a public hearing or approval by the .Board of Supervisors. 10 Accordingly, the approval of any minor modifications to the Entitlements consistent with this. 11 Agreement shall not constitute nor require an amendment to this Agreement to be effective. 4i2 13 . 1.5 Recordation. The County shall cause this Agreement, any amendment hereto 14 and any termination thereof to be recorded, at Landowner's expense, with the County Recorder 15 within ten (10) days of this Agreement, amendment or termination becoming effective. 16 ' 17 SECTION 2: DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY iF. 19 2.1 Permitted Uses. The permitted uses of the Property, the maximum density and 20 intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, provisions for reservation 21 or dedication of land for public purposes, and location of public improvements, and other terms 22 and conditions of development applicable to the Property shall be those set forth in the 23 Entitlements and in this Agreement. 24 25 2.2 � Vested Entitlements. Subject to the provisions and conditions of this Agreement, 26 County agrees that County is granting, and grants herewith, the Entitlements set forth in. r 27 Recitals E., above. Landowner's vested right to proceed with the development of the Property 28 shall be subject to subsequent approvals, including without limitation, environmental review 29 as required by CEQA, tentative subdivision maps, final subdivision maps, grading permits, 30 building permits, final inspections, etc., provided that any conditions, terms, restrictions and 31 requirements for such subsequent approvals shall be consistent with the Entitlements set forth 32 in Recitals E., above. As specified in Government Code Section 65866, this Agreement shall 33 not prevent County from applying new rules, regulations or policies which do not conflict with 34 existing rules regulations or policies applicable to the property or prevent the County from Page 5 11/2/98 13 I approving, conditionally approving or denying any subsequent development project 2 applications on the basis of existing or new rules, regulations, and .policies. 3 4 2.3 Existing Improvements. It is recognized that the property is developed 5 with an existing single family residence that is located with the OS/PD zone. The existing 6 dwelling will be allowed to remain as a pre-existing non -conforming use and shall be counted 7 as one of the 34 Density Transfer Units (DTUs) described in Section 3.4. As such, the net 8 number of DTUs shall be 33 unless the existing residence is removed in which case the total 9 34 DTUs may be transferred. Any reference to 34 DTUs in this document shall take into 10 account the preceding limitation. 11 12 13 2.4 Rules, Regulations and Official Policies. 14 15 2.4.1 Inconsistency. To the extent any future rules, ordinances, regulations or 16 policies applicable to development of the Property are inconsistent with the Entitlements as 17 provided in this Agreement, the terms of the Entitlements and this Agreement shall prevail, 18 unless the parties mutually agree to alter this Agreement. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 al 2.4.2 Application of Chanes. This section shall not preclude the application to development of the Property, of changes in County laws, regulations, plans or policies, the terms of which are specifically mandated and required by changes in State or Federal laws or regulations. In the event State or Federal laws or regulations enacted after this Agreement has been executed, or action of any governmental jurisdiction, prevent, delay or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, or require Ichanges in plans, maps or permits approved by County, the parties agree that the provisions of this Agreement shall be modified, extended or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such State and Federal laws or regulations or the regulations of other governmental jurisdictions. Each party agrees to extend to the other its prompt, good faith and reasonable cooperation in so modifying this Agreement or approved plans. 2.4.3 Authorityof�. This section shall not be construed to limit the authority or obligation of County to hold necessary public hearings, or to limit discretion of County or any of its officers or officials, with regard to rules, regulations, ordinances, laws and entitlements of use which require the exercise of discretion by County or any of its officers or Page 6 11/2/98 1 officials, provided that subsequent discretionary actions shall be consistent with the uses and 2 the density and intensity of development as provided by the Entitlements and this Agreement, 3 in effect as of the effective date of this Agreement. 4 5 SECTION 3: LANDOWNER OBLIGATIONS 6 ' 7 3.1 Drainage Easement Dedication. Landowner shall dedicate and County shall 8 accept an easement as depicted on Exhibit "B", for construction and maintenance of drainage 9 improvements to consist of a connector canal between Keefer Slough and Mud Creek and 10 necessary intake and outfall structures. Transfer of the `easement and recordation will occur. 11 simultaneously with Development Agreement execution and recordation. Landowner shall 12 only be obligated to pay Landowners proportionate share for design, construction, and 13 maintenance of the drainage facilities if such share is lawfully imposed through fees or 14 assessments adopted by or on behalf of a County. Service Area or Assessment District or other 15 similar, entity to maintain said facilities for the general area. 16 17 3.2 Drainage Mitigation. Landowner shall create, or link the connector canal to, 18 topographic features or facilities which will serve as detention basin(s) or equivalent means to 19 mitigate stormwater runoff from the Property during peak storm events to a level that is at least 20 ten percent (10%) below pre -development runoff conditions. 21 22 3.3 Ail.port Protection Measures. Landowner will comply with the nine (9) Airport 23 Land Use Commission (ALUC) recommended conditions from ALUC's August 20, 1998 24 consistency findings transmittal as set forth in Sections 2 and 3 as items A through H, in 25 attached Exhibit "C", in order to minimize noise and safety concerns regarding the Chico 26 Municipal Airport (CMA) when exercising the Entitlements agreed to in this document and 27 described in Section 3.4 immediately below. M 29 3.4 Subdivision Man Processing. Landowner anticipates submitting two or more 30 subdivision maps for up to 160 units on the Property. Landowner may submit and County 31 shall promptly process the first subdivision map for up to 126 units in the SR-1/PD zone. This 32 subdivision map shall only need to be processed by County's Development Review Committee, 33 unless appealed to the Board of Supervisors. Landowner may submit and County shall 34 promptly review a second subdivision map for up to 34 additional density transfer units 35 ("DTUs") to be built in the SR-1/PD zone or elsewhere within the NCSP pursuant to Section Page 7 11/2/98 1 4.1 of this Agreement, after adoption of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) Update for 2 the CMA by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). As to any DTU, 3 Landowner and County agree that the subdivision map shall be brought before the ALUC for; 4 a determination of whether significant airport compatibility issues exist or whether they have 5 otherwise been satisfactorily mitigated by subdivision design criteria. If ALUC determines that 6 the subdivision map is consistent with noise and safety criteria*in the CLUP Update which are 7 consistent with California Public Utilities Code Section 2167.0, the subdivision map shall be 8 processed in accordance with the Entitlements. If the ALUC makes a finding of inconsistency 9 under these same criteria, the transfer of such DTU's shall not be allowed within the SR-1/PD 10 zone but may be transferred to other property in the NCSP, pursuant to Section 4.1 of this 11 Agreement. If a CLUP Update has not been adopted within 30 months of the effective date 12 of this Agreement, the subdivision map for the `DTUs shall be processed and CMA 13 compatibility determined pursuant to the CLUP or its equivalent which was in existence as of 14 the effective date of this Agreement. Landowner agrees not to request extensions of approved 15 subdivision maps beyond the 15 year term of this Agreement. At the time of recordation of 16 final subdivision maps, Landowner and County agree to enter into mutually acceptable 17 Subdivision Agreements regarding tinning and security arrangements for the installation of site , 18 improvements. 19 20 3.5 Retention of Creek Corridor Open Space. Landowners will reserve in open 21 space a 50 -foot corridor on the Property from the outer edge of the north side of Mud Creek 22 and plant native trees and shrubs to create wildlife habitat and improve aesthetics as specified 23 in subdivision map conditions. Landowner shall reserve a 50 -foot open space corridor from 24 the top of bank along both sides of Keefer Slough on the Property and plant native trees and 25 shrubs along this drainage as specified in subdivision map conditions for the same purposes. 26 Open space preserved on-site will be credited towards PD Ordinance open space requirements. 28 3.6 Dedication of Public Trail Easement. Upon recordation by Landowner of a'final 29 subdivision map for the first 126 units on the Property, Landowner will dedicate to the Chico 30 Area Recreation District ("CARD"), or other entity acceptable to County, an easement for a 31 public bicycle/hiking/pedestrian trail along Mud Creek and Keefer Slough. Landowner will 32 construct trail improvements and be reimbursed by County or CARD, as applicable, pursuant 33. to this Agreement and the NCSP for the cost of improvements. At the time that Landowner 34 records a final subdivision map for the DTUs, Landowner will . enter into a conservation 35 easement with a public agency or non-profit organization to retain the approximately 103.1 Page 8 11/2/98 1 acres adjacent to the airport as permanent open space, or if no such entity will accept such open 2 space, then to the County. 3 4 3.7 North Chico Specific Plan Policies. Landowner agrees to comply with the 5 design requirements and development standards specified in the NCSP as amended, by this 6 Development Agreement. 7 8 3.8 Development, Connection and Mitigation Fees. Except as otherwise provided 9 herein, any and all required payments of development, connection or mitigation fees by 10 Landowner shall be made in the amount specified by then applicable County ordinances, either 11 in effect as of the date of this Agreement, subject to adjustment or subsequent adoption in 12 accordance with Section 2.4.2. 13 14 3.8.1 School Fee Agreements. So long as Landowner is paying to School 15 District the state authorized fees then adopted and in force taking into consideration NCSP 16 School Policies 1-4 on page 6-15 of the NCSP, County shall not refrain from approving any 17 subdivision maps or other such entitlements for the Property or from issuing any building 18 permits for development thereof consistent with the Entitlements on the basis of adverse 19 impacts of this development on school facilities. 20 21 3.8.2 Countywide Facilities Fees. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary 22 in Section 2.4 of this Agreement, Landowner will be given a credit against any county -wide, 23 NCSP or CSA 87 impact mitigation fees for the reasonable value of land, drainage facilities 24 or other improvements which Landowner dedicates or elects to install at Landowner's ` own 25 expense. 26 27 3.9 Processing Fees and Charges., Landowner shall pay. those processing, 28 inspection and plan check fees and charges required by County under then current regulations 29 for processing applications and requests for permits, approvals and other actions, and 30 monitoring compliance with any permits issued or approvals granted or the performance of any 31 conditions with respect thereto or any performance required of Landowner hereunder. 32 33 3.10 Public Financing Limited to Specific Funding Mechanisms and Fees. 34 Except as expressly provided herein, Landowner's sole and only obligation with respect to the 35 participation of the Property in any funding mechanisms to support the construction of any Page 9 11/2/98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 i public facilities and improvements or the provision of public .services in relation to development of the Property shall be to pay existing County fees related to the construction and provision of public facilities authorized by ordinance to be collected by County as of the effective date of this Agreement, as such fees may be adjusted from time to time in accordance with applicable law, or such other fees as may be duly adopted in the future by County from time to time to implement the NCSP or in accordance with applicable law. Provided, however, Landowner's obligation to pay future County fees is limited to those fees adopted on a county- wide basis or which apply uniformly to all properties within the NCSP which are similarly situated, whether by geographic location, drainage sheds or other distinguishing circumstances. 3.11 Negative Declaration Mitigation Measures. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement to the contrary, when Landowner elects to develop the Property, Landowner shall be bound by, and shall perform, all mitigation measures identified in the NCSP EIR and the Mitigated Negative Declaration related to this development which are adopted by the County and required pursuant to CEQA as identified in the mitigation monitoring plan as a responsibility of Landowner. 3.12 No Additional Dedications or Easements. Landowner shall not be obligated to dedicate any right of way or grant any public utility easements as a condition of development of the Property except as may be required to obtain subsequent approvals as set forth in section 2.2 of this document. Page 10 11/2/98 0 0 . * I 1 2 SECTION 4: COUNTY OBLIGATIONS 3 4 4.1 Specific Plan Amendment and Rezone. As provided in the Recitals and Section 5 2.2, County agrees that Landowner has a fully vested Specific Plan Amendment and Rezone 6 to Suburban Residential One Acre -Planned Development (SR-1/PD) on 126.1± acres and a 7 fully vested Specific Plan Amendment and Rezone to Open Space -Planned Development 8 (OS/PD) on the 103.1± acres depicted in Exhibit "D". County agrees that Landowner has a 9 fully vested right and entitlement to build up to 160 units in residential subdivisions on the 10 Property, subject to the provisions of Sections 2.2 and 3.4. County and Landowner agree the 11 34 units credited as Density Transfer Units will not be built on the OS area. These DTUs will 12 be transferred either to the SR-1/PD area and all units built on that portion of the Property if 13 allowed pursuant to Section 3.4, or transferred to other property within the NCSP subject to 14 subsequent approvals specified in Section 2.2 and any rezone or specific plan amendment 15 needed to make the DTU's consistent with the NCSP. Open space preserved on-site will be 16 credited towards the open space requirements for both the SR-1/PD and OS/PD zones except 17 for that portion contained within the drainage easement dedication described in Section 3.1 and 18 also excepting the 103.1 acres of land designated OS/PD which will not be credited towards 19 the open space requirement for the SR-l/PD zone. County also agrees that Landowner has a 20 vested right, but no obligation, to use open space areas anywhere on the Property for ancillary 21 facilities which County hereby acknowledges are open space compatible, including trails, 22 community sewage and water treatment or disposal systems, wetland/habitat mitigation and 23 enhancement, road access to Hicks Lane, utilities, active and passive recreation, drainage 24 facilities and all other open space retaining uses. 25 26 4.2 County Cooperation. County shall cooperate with Landowner and use its best 27 good faith efforts in processing and approving all tentative subdivision maps, final subdivision 28 maps, building permits, grading permits, final inspections and any other land use applications 29 for permits or approvals (collectively, "Subsequent Applications") which may be required by 30 County consistent with the Entitlements and this Agreement. County agrees to expedite 31 review, grant and implementation of. any Subsequent Applications consistent with the 32 Entitlements and this Agreement and to impose conditions and/or adopt mitigation measures 33 only to the extent they are consistent with and implement the Entitlements and this Agreement. 34. The processing and approval of Subsequent Applications which are consistent with the 35 Entitlements shall not require an amendment to this Agreement. County further finds that the Page 11 - 11/2/98 1 NCSP EIR and the Mitigated Negative ;Declaration adequately address the significant impacts 2 of development of the Property in accordance with the Entitlements and this Agreement and 3 agrees that, to the extent lawfully allowed, the processing of Subsequent Applications shall tier 4 off of and rely upon the NCSP EIR and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Property. 5 Upon approval of any Subsequent Application, County agrees that such subsequent 6 entitlements or approvals shall automatically be vested according to the terms of this 7 Agreement as if such entitlements and approvals were specifically identified in this Agreement 8 and that the expiration date for any tentative subdivision map approved for the Property shall 9 extend for the term of this Agreement. 10 11 4.3 Reimbursement by County. If Landowner installs, at its cost, the drainage 12_ improvements described in Section 3.1 or any other improvements which provide public 13 benefits above and beyond the service or mitigation needs of the Property, County shall. 14 compensate Landowner or its successors, in a manner consistent with County Code and policy, 15 for the amount of public benefit provided which exceeds service or mitigation requirements . 16 for the Property specified in the Entitlements and this Agreement. Such compensation shall 17 be made from assessments, developer fees, state and federal cost share or grant programs or 18 any other source available to County. Compensation may be made in cash, by fee reduction, 19 by density bonus or any other form agreeable to the Landowner and County. Landowner and 20 County agree that County shall not be obligated to reimburse Landowner for. that limited 21 portion of improvements designed exclusively to mitigate stormwater runoff to a level that is 22 at least ten percent (10%) below pre -development runoff conditions described in Section 3.2, 23 unless County shall receive Federal, State, local or private funding from sources which provide 24 funds eligible to reimburse Landowner. Landowner shall join County in any application 25 prepared by County for Federal, State, local or private funding which may be identified by 26 Landowner or County to finance improvements and reimburse Landowner. Landowner and 27 County shall each use its best efforts to cooperate to obtain approval of and to equitably share 28 'such funding. County and Landowner agree that the pursuit or approval of such application 29 shall not result in any adverse economic or financial impact upon Landowner or the Property. 30 31 4.4 Maps and Permits. Provided that Landowner is not in default under this 32 Agreement, and as except as provided in Section 3.4, County shall not cease to process or 33 approve tentative or final subdivision maps or issue building permits or certificates of 34 occupancy for development of the Property that are consistent with the Entitlements. 35 Page 12 111/2/98 1 4.5 No Moratorium, Quotas, Restrictions or Other Growth Limitations. Subject to 2 applicable law relating to the vesting provisions of development agreements, Landowner and 3 County intend that, except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement shall vest the 4 Entitlements against subsequent County plans, actions, resolutions, and ordinances that directly 5 or indirectly limit the Entitlements. 6 7 4.6 Essence of Agreement: The foregoing Sections 2,3 and 4 are of the essence of 8 this Agreement. 9 10 SECTION 5: DEFAULT, REMEDIES, TERMINATION 11 12 5.1 General Provisions. Subject to.,extensions of time by mutual consent in writing, 13 failure or unreasonable delay by either party to perform any term or provisions of this 14 Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event of alleged default or breach of any term or 15 condition of this Agreement, the party alleging such default or breach, shall give the other party ` 16 not less than thirty (30) days notice in writing specifying the nature of the alleged default and 17 the manner in which said default maybe satisfactorily cured. During any such thirty -day 18 period, the party charged shall not be considered in default for purposes of termination or 19 institution of legal proceedings.. 20 21 After notice and expiration of the thirty -day period, the other party to this Agreement 22 at its option may institute legal proceedings pursuant to this Agreement,or give notice of intent 23 to terminate the Agreement pursuant to California Government Code Section 65868 and 24 regulations of County implementing said Government Code Section. Following notice of 25 intent to terminate, the matter shall be scheduled for consideration and review by the Board of 26 Supervisors within thirty (30) calendar days in the manner set forth in Government Code 27 Sections 65865, 65867 and 65868 and County regulations implementing such Sections. 28 29 Following consideration of the evidence presented in said review before the Board of. 30 Supervisors, either party alleging the default by the other party may give written notice` of 31 termination_ of this Agreement to the. other party. 32 33 Evidence of default may also arise_in the course of a regularly scheduled periodic 34 review of this Agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65865.1. If either party 35 determines that the other party is in default following the completion of the normally scheduled Page 13 1 t/V98 I periodic review, said party may give written notice of default of this Agreement as set forth 2 in this section, specifying in said notice the alleged nature of the default, and potential actions 3 to cure said default and shall specify a reasonable period of time in which such default is to be 4 cured. If the alleged default is not cured within thirty (30) days or within such longer period 5 specified in the notice, or if the defaulting party waives its right to cure such alleged default, 6 the other party may terminate this Agreement. 7 8 5.2 Annual Review. As required by Government Code Section 65865.1, County 9 shall, at least every twelve (12) months during the term of this Agreement, review the extent 10 of good faith substantial compliance by Landowner with the terms of this Agreement. Such 11 periodic review shall be limited in scope to compliance with the terms of this Agreement 12 pursuant to Section 65865.1 of the Government Code and the monitoring of mitigation in 13 accordance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources "Code of the State of California. 14 Notice of such annual- review shall include a finding regarding compliance with this 15 Agreement. A finding by County of good faith compliance by Landowner with the terms of 16 the Agreement shall be conclusive with respect to the performance of Landowner during the 17 period preceding the review. 18 19 Upon not less than thirty (30) days written notice by the Director of Development 20 Services of County, Landowner shall provide such information as may be reasonably requested 21 and deemed to be required in order to ascertain compliance with this Agreement. 22 23 In the same manner prescribed in Section 10, the County shall deposit in the mail to 24 Landowner a copy of all staff reports and related exhibits concerning contract performance 25 and, to the extent practical, at least ten (10) calendar days prior to any such periodic review. 26 Landowner shall be permitted an opportunity to be heard orally or, in writing regarding its 27 performance under this Agreement before the Board of Supervisors or if the matter is referred 28 to the Planning Commission before said Commission. 29 30 If County takes no action within thirty (30) days following the hearing, Landowner shall 31 be deemed to have complied in good faith with the provisions of the Agreement. 32 33 5.3 Enforced Delay, Extension of Times of Performance. In addition to specific 34 provisions of this Agreement, performance by either party hereunder shall not be deemed to 35 be in default where delays or default are due to war, insurrection, strikes, walkouts, riots, Page 14 11/2/98 I floods, drought, earthquakes, fires, casualties, acts of God, governmental restrictions imposed 2 or mandated by other governmental entities, enactment of conflicting state of federal laws or 3 regulations, new or supplementary environmental regulation, litigation, or similar bases for 4 excused performance. If written notice of such delay is given to County within thirty (30) days 5 of the commencement of such delay, an extension of time for such cause shall be granted in 6 writing for the period of the enforced delay, or longer as may be mutually agreed upon. 7 8 5.4 Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may 9 institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any default, to enforce any covenant or 10 agreement herein, or to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation. The remedies of County 11 for any default of this Agreement by Landowner shall include but not be limited to termination. 12 of this Agreement and the vesting of the Entitlements hereunder and cessation of approving 13 requests for development of the Property.. All legal actions shall be initiated in the Superior 14 Court of the County of Butte, State of California, unless required by law, to be initiated in the 15 Federal District Court in the Eastern District of California,. 16 17 5.5 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated following any event of 18 default of Landowner or for any other reason, such termination shall not affect the validity of 19 any building or improvement within the Property which is completed as of the date of . 20 termination, provided that such building or improvement has been constructed pursuant to a 21 building permit issued by the County. Furthermore, no termination of this Agreement shall 22 prevent Landowner from completing and occupying any building or other improvement 23 authorized pursuant to a valid building permit previously issued by the County that is under 24 construction at the time of termination,. provided that any such building or improvement is 25 completed in accordance with said building permit in effect at the time of such termination. 26 27 5.6 Applicable Law and Attorneys' Fees. This Agreement shall be construed and 28 enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Should any legal action be 29 brought by either party for breach of this Agreement or to enforce any provisions herein, the 30 prevailing party to such action shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs and 31 such other costs as may be fixed by the Court. 32 Page 15 11/2/98 1 SECTION 6: HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT 2 - 3 Landowner and its successors -in -interest and assigns, hereby agrees to, and shall defend 4 and hold County, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, and 5 employees harmless from any liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injury, 6 or bodily injury including death, as well as from claims for property damage which may arise 7 from the operations of Landowner, or of Landowner's contractors, subcontractors, agents, or 8 employees under this Agreement, whether such operations be by Landowner, or by any of 9 Landowner's contractors or subcontractors, or by any one or more persons directly or indirectly 10 employed by, or acting as agent for, Landowner or Landowner's contractors or subcontractors, 11 unless such damage or claim arises from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of County. 12 The foregoing indemnity obligation of Landowner shall not apply to any liability for damage 13 or claims for damage with respect to any damage to or use of any public improvements after 14 the completion and acceptance thereof by County. In addition to the foregoing indemnity 15 obligation, Landowner agrees to and shall defend, indemnify and hold County, its elective and 16 appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents and employees harmless from any suits or 17 actions at law or in equity arising out of the execution, adoption or implementation of this .18 Agreement, exclusive of any such actions brought by Landowner, its successors -in -interests 19 or assigns. 20 21 SECTION 7: PROJECT AS A PRIVATE UNDERTAKING 22 23 It is specifically understood and agreed by .and between the parties hereto that the 24 subject project is a private development. No partnership, joint venture or other association of 25 any kind is formed by this Agreement. 26 27 SECTION 8: COOPERATION IN THE EVENT OF LEGAL CHALLENGE 28 29 In the'event of any legal action instituted by a third party or other governmental entity 30 or official challenging the validity of any provision of this Agreement, the parties hereby agree 31 to cooperate in defending said action. 32 Page 16 11/2/98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 .31 32 33 34 35 SECTION 9: GENERAL 9.1 Enforceability. The County agrees that unless this Agreement is amended or canceled pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement and the Adopting Ordinance, this Agreement shall be enforceable by any party hereto'notwithstanding any change hereafter mi any applicable general plan, specific plan, airport land use plan --except as specified in Section 3.4, zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance or building regulation adopted by County, or by initiative, which changes, alters or amends the rules, regulations and policies applicable to the development of the Property at the time of approval of this Agreement,, as provided by this Agreement and, as specified in Section 2.3.1, by Government Code Section 65866. 9.2 County Finding. The County hereby finds and determines that execution of this Agreement is in the best interest of the public health, safety and general welfare and is consistent with the General Plan and North Chico Specific Plan. 9.3 Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole 7 protection and benefit of the Landowner and the County and their successors and assigns. , No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision in this Agreement. . 9.4 Severability. Except as set forth herein, if any term, covenant or condition of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person, entity or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement and all Entitlements to which it refers, or the application of such term, covenant or condition to Entitlements, persons, entities or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby and each term, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law; provided, however, if any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid or unenforceable and the effect thereof is to deprive a party hereto of an essential benefit of its bargain hereunder, then such party so deprived shall have the option to terminate this entire Agreement from and after such determination. 9.5___.. Construction. This Agreement shall be subject to and construed in accordance and harmony with all Butte County Codes, as they may be amended, provided that such amendments do not affect or conflict with the rights granted to the parties by this. Agreement consistent with the requirements of this Agreement and Government Code Section 65866. Page 17 11/2/98 9.6 Other Necessary Acts. Each party shall execute and deliver to the other all such other further instruments and documents as may be reasonably necessary to carry out this Agreement in order to provide and secure to the other party the full and complete enjoyment of its rights and privileges hereunder. 9.7 Estoppel Certificate. Either .party may, at anytime, and from time to time, deliver written notice to the other party requesting such party to certify in writing that, to the knowledge of the certifying party, (I) this Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the parties, (ii) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, or if so amended, identifying the amendments, and (iii) the requesting party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, to describe therein the nature of such default. The party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate within thirty (30) days following the receipt thereof. County acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by transferees and mortgagees of Landowner. SECTION 10: NOTICES All notices required by this Agreement, the enabling legislation, or the procedure adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 65865, shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid. Notice required to be given to the County shall be addressed as follows: Director Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965 Notice required to be given to the Landowner shall be addressed as follows: Douglas N. Gunn Gunn Accountants 250 West Crest Street, Suite E Escondido, California 92025-1715 Page 18 11/2/98 Either party may change the address stated herein by giving notice in writing to the other party, and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. II. ASSIGNMENT Landowner shall have the full right upon written notice to and consent by. County, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, to assign this Agreement as to the Property, or any portion thereof, in connection with any sale, transfer or conveyance thereof, and upon the express written assignment by Landowner and assumption by the assignee of such assignment in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "E" and. the conveyance of Landowner's interest in the Property related thereto, Landowner shall be released from any further liability or obligation hereunder related to the portion of.the Property so conveyed and the -assignee shall be deemed to be the "Landowner," .with all rights and obligations related. thereto, with respect to such conveyed property. M. FORM OF AGREEMENT, EXHIBITS This Agreement is executed in two duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. This Agreement consists of 18 pages and 7 exhibits, which constitute the entire understanding and agreement of the parties. Approved this 27th day of October, 1998, by the Board of Supervisors of Butte County. COUNTY: BUTTE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of California By: Fred C. Davis, Chairman Board of Supervisors MI.1 9 ./ ' By: DOUGLAS N. GUNN, Trustee of the Robert and Ann Stephens Charitable Remainder Unitrust t ATTEST: John Blacklock, Clerk Board of Supervisors By: Page 19 13 11/2/98 1 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Susan Minasian, County Counsel 3 By: Page 20 11/2/98 2 LIST OF EXHIBITS 3 4 5 Exhibit A - - Property Description 6 A-1 - - Legal Description of Property 7 A-2 - - Diagram of the Property 8 Exhibit B - - Drainage Easement diagram 9 Exhibit C - - ALUC consistency findings transmittal 10 Exhibit D - - Zoning diagram 11 Exhibit E - - Form of Assignment 12 13 14 15 .16 17 18 19 20 21 Page 21 11/2/98 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1-8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 i .COUNTY OF BUTTE ' AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of November 18,1998 Chairman Hennigan called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m., November 18, 1998, in the Butte County'Board of Supervisor's Chambers, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Causey, Alternates Koch, Papadakis, and Chairman Hennigan Absent: Commissioner Hatley arrived at approximately r. 9:30 a.m. Alternates Present: Chester Ward Brian Baldridge Chairman Hennigan informed the Commission that he would have'to leave the meeting by 10:40.a.m. :` because he had to go to New York. Vice -Chairman, Nina Lambert, was not present, so an interim Vice-`,:: Chairman would have to be elected to conduct the meeting after Chairman Hennigan left. It was moved by Alternate Papadakis, seconded by Commissioner Causey to elect Commissioner Gerst to serve as the Pro -tem Chairman-. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Causey, Alternates Koch,.Papadakis, and Chairman Hennigan NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hatley ABSTAIN: None C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: October 21, 1998 Alternate Koch pointed out an error on page 6, line 16. It should read "Alternate Koch said the average property owner in the area that will be affected by the proposed actions has icnovi no idea what a FAR Part 150 Noise Study is, or could tell from the legal notice that was placed in the newspaper that. their property will be adversely affected." Page 12,, line 41, should read "Alternate Koch clarified to the Commission that Chico Aerial Applicators originally had a fifteen year lease with the City of Chico, which expired. They would like to continue operations at the Chico Municipal Airport, and have indicted indicated that there will be no operational, changes. They are currently in the process of renewing their lease with the City of Chico." Chairman Hennigan mentioned to the Commission, and others present the importance of using the microphone so that their comments can be heard by the Recording -Clerk. He pointed out that questions were asked, and that the answers were not included in last month's minutes. Chairman Hennigan said that he would like more time to present corrections to the October 21, 1998 minutes. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 18, 1998 ■ Page 1 ■ • a 1 It was moved by Alternate Koch, seconded by Commissioner Gerst, to continue the approval of the October 2 21, 1998 minutes to the December 16, 1998 meeting to allow for the submittal of written corrections. 3 4 The motion passed by the following voter 5 AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Causey, Alternates Koch, Papadakis, and Chairman Hennigan 6 NOES: None 7 ABSENT: Commissioner Hatley 8 ABSTAIN: None 9 10 D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA (Committee members or staff may request additions, 11 deletions, or changes in the Agenda order) 12 13 It was moved by Commissioner Gerst, seconded by Alternate Papadakis, to move Business. Item E.3. to the 14 top of the agenda. 15J . 16 The motion passed by the following vote: 17 AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Causey, Alternates Koch, Papadakis, and Chairman Henr igan 18 NOES: None 19 ABSENT: Commissioner Hatley 20 ABSTAIN: None 21 22 It was moved by Commissioner Gerst, seconded by Commissioner Rosene, to accept the agenda as amended. 23 24 The motion passed by the following vote: 25 AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Causey, Alternates Koch, Papadakis, and Chairman Hennigan 26 NOES: None 27 ABSENT: Commissioner Hatley 28 ABSTAIN: None 29 30 E. BUSINESS ITEMS: 31 32 Items with Public Hearings 33 34 3. Report on Impacts to Local Agency Plans Resulting from the ALUC's October 21, 1998 ` 35 Amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and Request for Interpretations: 36 37 Ms. Webster summarized the staff report dated November 6, 1998. 38 39 The Commission answered questions outlined in the staff report, to clarify their October 21, 1998 40 amendments to the CMAEP: 41 42 ■ Questions. l and 2: It was the consensus of the Commission to seek a legal opinion from 43 County Counsel, regarding when in the process does residential development projects become 44 vested? 45 46 Chairman Hennigan opened the hearing to the public. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 18, 1998 ■ Page 2 ■ 1 Tom Parilo, Director of the Butte County Department of Development Services said that it is unclear 2 how the Commission's amendments to the CMAEP will affect subdivisions that are currently being 3 processed in the Overflight Protection Zone (OPZ). He feels this should be addressed as part of the 4 question of vesting, and that the issuance of a single family residential building permits do not fall 5 under the Airport Land Use Commission area of authority. Therefore, he feels that development of 6 a residence on an existing lot would not be subject to the provision that prohibits the development 7 of Single Family Dwellings within Zones A and B of the OPZ. 8 9 Commissioner Hatley was present at this time. 10 11 ■ Questions 3, 4: It was the consensus of the Commission that Commercial, Business Park and 12 Industrial development is appropriate in Zones A, Al and B of the OPZ. The Commission 13 also referred to map CIC -9 (Proposed Land Use Plan) in the 1978 Comprehensive Land Use. 14 Plan. 15- 16 ■ Questions 5: Densities shown at the top of page 6-13 of the CMAEP under Medium and High 17 Density Residential categories would be consistent in Zone B. 18 19 ■ Question 6: Industrial and Business Park Development uses that do not exceed specified 20 people per acre concentrations, will be considered compatible. 21 22 1. Butte County Development Agreement (DEV99-01 - Robert and Ann Stephens/George 23 Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141: 24 25 Ms. Webster summarized the staff report dated November 9, 1998. 26 27 Commissioner Rosene said that Ms. Webster's noise analysis addresses the property's location with 28 regard to future noise contours, but it does not address single event noise levels. 29 30 Ms. Webster said that single event noise levels are not specifically addressed in the CMAEP, and that 31 staff does not have any monitoring data specific to the Stephens property. Although, it was a valid 32 note, staff does not have the data to support making exposure to single event noise levels a part of the 33 inconsistency findings, however it was noted under "Other Commission Comments." 34 35 Commissioner Gerst questioned what the procedure would be to have a noise study done? 36 37 Ms. Webster said that an acoustical analysis and monitoring would have to be done at a time when 38 single events noise levels occur. 39 40 Chairman Hennigan suggested a reference to engine run -ups and campaign fires be included in 41 ALUC's findings. As many as seventy-five tankers a day have been recorded during the campaign 42 fires at Chico Municipal Airport. These activities can last for several days and occur two to three 43 times per year and should be recognized in the findings. 44 --- 45 Alternate Papadakis said that the best solution is to prevent residential development within a certain 46 distance of the airport environment, and that this would possibly reduce the number of complaints. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 18, 1998 ■ Page 3 ■ 1 Commissioner Rosene said that while the contours may look acceptable, the single event noise levels 2 in that area are a problem, and should be considered. 3 4 Chairman Hennigan said that while staff is recommending a residential noise exposure level 5 correction of +5 dB, he feels that +10 dB would be justifiable. 6 7 Alternate Koch said that the City of Chico's official log of all noise complaints, indicates a minimal 8 amount of calls about the Chico Municipal Airport during single event noise occurrences, such as; 9 campaign fires, U2's, and all the other events that occur at the airport.. 10 11 Chairman Hennigan opened the hearing to the public. 12 13 George Kammerer, Attorney, Hefner, Stark & Marois, representing the applicant. The Stephens 14 project was placed on today's agenda per the Chairman's request at the Board of Supervisors hearing ' 15 held on October 27, 1998. Mr. Kammerer mentioned that the applicant kept their promise to return 16 to ALUC, in response to the Chairman's promise to render a consistency determination on the project 17 under the amended CMAEP at today's meeting. Mr. Kammerer said "That by appearing here today, 18 however, we are not in any way waiving any of our rights to object to the October 21, 1998 action 19 taken by the Airport Land Use Commission either substantially or procedurally in any way." He said 20 that the applicant has worked very hard to make this project airport compatible in all ways such as; 21 noise, safety, overflight concerns, and air space protection. The applicant is proposing to design it 22 the way the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook has recommended as a clustered development, with 23 significant areas of open space left on the project to mitigate noise and reduce safety concerns along 24 with everything that the experts are recommending to make it consistent. Mr. Kammerer requested . 25 the ability to respond to any questions or comments raised during public testimony today. 26 27 Alternate Koch questioned Mr. Kammerer regarding whether his firm Hefner, Stark & Marois, or his 28 client Robert and Ann Stephens, received any notice written or overwise that the Airport Land Use 29 Commission was intending to adopt an amendment to the CMAEP in October, which would 30 adversely affect his project? 31 32 Mr. Kammerer replied that his firm did not receive any meaningful notice in any way. In fact he said 33 he was rather surprised to learn one day before the applicant's scheduled Board of Supervisors 34 meeting that the amendments had been made the previous week. 35 36 Chairman Hennigan asked Mr. Kammerer if there was a subdivision map for the project at this time? 37 38 Mr. Kammerer replied that there was not one at this time. 39 40 Mr. Parilo said that as a legislative item the Commission normally would not have a map. 41 42 Chairman Hennigan closed the hearing to the public. 43 44 Commissioner Gerst said he has several questions regarding this project. He received his packet late, 45 and would like to see this item continued to the next meeting. 46 ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 18, 1998 ■ Page 4 ■ Commissioner Gerst made a motion to continue this item to the December 16, 1998 meeting. Mr. Kammerer reminded Chairman Hennigan that he gave a promise to the Board of Supervisors on October 27, 1998, that this matter would come back to the ALUC today to be heard, and that a determination would be made at this meeting. He also reminded Chairman Hennigan that he further extended that promise to Tom Parilo, Neil McCabe, County Counsel, Robert and Anne Stephens, Bill Beaver, with Rock Creek Reclamation District, himself, and numerous other people. He asked that those promises be abided by. Chairman Hennigan agreed with Mr. Kammerer. However, there are several items in the findings that he would like to clean up. He would like to get information in the findings about Aero Union activity, and the activities of other contractors doing engineering test flights, engine run -ups, spring training, jettisoning, and surplus retardant. All of the above listed flight activities take place on the ramp west of the parallel runway, and all of the engine run -ups take place on the north ramp near Aero Union maintenance facility or at the Air Attack Base. Commissioner Rosene said he would like to see aircraft listed that come in on military flights. Commissioner Rosene and Chairman Hennigan made a few suggestions of aircraft that fly. into CMA; C -130's, C -5's, U2, and P38. Ms. Leasure questioned if there was a list available? Commissioner Rosene said the tower should have a list. Ms. Webster questioned if these specifics should be incorporated under Section 3.B. on page 8? Commissioner Rosene said that would be an appropriate place. Chairman Hennigan suggested a category called "Overflight" be incorporated into the staff report to address the type of flights the property owners find annoying. He also wanted to delete the first sentence of the last paragraph on page 5 of the staff report. "The correction methodology has not been applied by the ALUC as a standard consistency criteria in its review of projects." He said that a dB correction needed to be established for the Keefer Road area. He asked the Commission if they felt that 5 dB or 10 dB would be appropriate to include in the findings? Alternate Koch asked if there was any kind of evaluation in the Caltrans Handbook to advise the Commission on the differences between 5 dB and 10 dB? Ms. Leasure referred to page 4-34, Exhibit F of the staff report under "Correction for Outdoor Residual Noise Level." Ms. Webster referred the Commission to page 4-35,.Exhibit 4-6 in the CMAEP that gives a list of qualitative descriptions of various typical outdoor noise environments. Chairman Hennigan reminded the Commission that. they would have to accept the staff recommendation of 5_AB or change it. Ms. Webster clarified that if a correction factor was to be applied, she would recommend 5 dB. However, she felt that the descriptions in Exhibit 4-5 were very vague and was not entirely comfortable with the methodology. The consensus of the Commission ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 18, 1998 ■ Page 5 ■ was to stay with +5 dB. Chairman Hennigan said in the letter to the Board of Supervisors he would like to include the importance of Public Utilities Commission (PUC) law, and emphasize what. it takes to legally override the ALUC findings. Ms. Webster pointed out that this information is already stated in Exhibit A2 on pages 10 and 11 of the staff report. She also commented that the exhibit would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with the ALUC's findings. Chairman Hennigan asked if staff would be including a section in the findings on overflight describing aircraft. He pointed out,that this way the Commission has covered the three areas of concern; noise, safety and overflight. Ms. Webster asked Chairman Hennigan,if the language could be incorporated under Section 2.A.. : Overflight Protection on page 7, and continued on page 8. Chairman Hennigan agreed. Alternate Papadakis reminded the Chairman about the discussion on engine run -ups. Chairman Hennigan agreed that it should also be included in the Commission Findings. Brian Baldridge questioned if the packet going to the Board of Supervisors would include previous correspondence and letters of opposition to this project? Chairman Hennigan brought up the letter from Victor Alvistur of Aero Union Corporation, which was received from staff at today's meeting. He also mentioned previous letters from the City of Chico, and Wendy Coggins. Ms. Webster asked if these letters should be attached to the packet that would be going to the Board. of Supervisors? Chairman Hennigan said absolutely. He also suggested that the letter to the Board of Supervisors point out that there is substantial opposition in the Community to this project, not just from* the ALUC. It was moved by Alternate Papadakis, seconded by Commissioner Causey to accept the staff report with the recommended amendments. Alternate Koch stated that he would be abstaining from the vote, because he believes the amendment to the CMAEP that brought this item back to the Commission was adopted with inadequate public notice and that they improperly adopted the amendments despite the fact that there was discussion about continuing it for more consideration. In addition, he still believes. in representing the Chico Airport Commission position that this residential development should not be built at this location. Commissioner Gerst said he would be stepping down from the vote. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 18, 1998 ■ Page 6 ■ • 1 Chairman Hennigan asked Commissioner Gerst if his alternate would be voting in his place? 2 3 Commissioner Gerst replied that if he wanted to he could. ` 4 5 The motion passed by the following vote: 6 AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Causey, Hatley, Alternates Papadakis, Ward and Chairman 7 Hennigan 8 NOES: None 9 ABSENT: Commissioner Lambert 10 ABSTAIN: Alternate Koch 11 12 The amendments are as follows: 13 14 EXHIBIT A 15 16 BUTTE -COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR: 17 Butte County Development Agreement 18 (DEV99-01- Robert and Ann Stephens/George Kammerer) on APN 047-250441 19 20 The Airport Land Use Commission has prepared the following findings based upon data contained within 21 the 1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. This data, in turn is based upon the findings of a number 22 of studies, documents and reports generated by individuals firms and agencies recognized as having expertise 23 in the field of Airport Land Use Planning and land use compatibility. (See Exhibit Al, List of References) 24 25 The following findings have been prepared at the direction of the ALUC and are for the consideration of the 26 County of Butte (local agency) when making a decision on the project. If the local agency does not accept 27 the findings of the ALUC, it may override the Commission's decision with a 2/3 vote of the governing body 28 provided it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the State Aeronautics Act as 29 stated in Section 21670. Overriding findings cannot be adopted as matters of opinion, but instead must be 30 supported by new substantial factual evidence introduced into the public record. (See Exhibit A2, Review 31 of Overriding Findings Process) 32 33 Section 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS 34 35 A. No environmental documentation was submitted for the current project at the time of 36 review. 37 38 Section 2: PROJECT CONSISTENCY FINDINGS 39 40 A: Chapter 3 of the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook identifies four functional' 41 categories that address airport land use compatibility concems. These include: Noise, ,42 Safety, Airspace Protection, and.Overflight Protection. The applicant's proposal has 43 been found to be inconsistent with protection measures and policies contained in the 44 1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan which are designed to address 45 Overflight Protection and Safety. 46 ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 18, 1998 ■ Page 7 ■ 1 Overflight Protection 2 3 1. An Overflight Protection Zone (OPZ) has been adopted as part of the CMAEP 4 (Drawing CIC -14) which prohibits new single family residential development 5 in Zone A and Zone B of the OPZ to minimize the public's exposure to 6 excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around the Chico Municipal 7 Airport that are subject to the most intense aircraft overflight activity. 8 9 Information from the Chico Municipal Airport Tower indicates that a number 10 of heavy aircraft including U -2's from Beale Air Force Base, T -38's, C -5's (Air 11 Force Cargo), C -141's (Air Force Cargo) and C -130's (U.S. Coast Guard), 12 make unscheduled low altitude approaches at the Chico Municipal Airport. 13 Air tankers consisting of P -Ts, P -Ts and S -2's, which are stationed at the 14 airport, also make low altitude approaches in the vicinity of the project site:. ? - 15 Because of their size, operations involving these types of .aircraft , can be, 16 particularly annoying to residents. The ideal strategy cited ori page 3-9 of the 17 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook to address potential overflight 18 annoyance is to avoid the development of residential areas in affected 19 locations. This strategy has been employed by the Airport Land Use 20 Commission through the adoption of the Overflight Protection Zone. 21 22 The applicant's proposal would permit up to 160 single family residential 23 units within the Overflight Protection Zone. 24 25 2. Application of the Overflight Protection Zone and its corresponding policies 26 has been designed to protect the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring 27 the orderly expansion of the Chico Municipal Airport and the continued 28 viability of aircraft operations to and from that facility. 29 30- Safety 31 32 3. Accident scatter maps, based upon data generated by the University of 33 California Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies (1993) and Hodges 34 and Shutt, have been adopted as part of the CMAEP (Drawings CIC -17 and . 35 CIC -18) and support the finding that the project site is located in an area 36 which has an elevated likelihood of being impacted by aircraft accidents 4 r 37 involving both arrivals and departures. 38 39 Section 3: OTHER COMMISSION COMMENTS 40 41 A_. Luise - The area encompassed by the project site is likely to be exposed to single 42 __ event noise levels and other episodes which exceed the levels noted in Exhibit 4-4 as 43 "normally acceptable" for residential development. Noise levels in excess of the 44 recommended CNEL are likely to occur in conjunction with intensive CDF air tanker 45 operations which are necessary during campaign fires and occasional military . 46 activities. In' addition, Aero Union and other businesses under contract with CDF and ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 18, 1998 ■ Page 8 ■ . 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 -16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 .f • • the U.S. Department of Forestry find it necessary to run up their aircraft engines as much as 60% to 100% at night while the aircraft is stationary. These operational tests are an essential part of the maintenance activities for piston engine aircraft. Operational tests are typically conducted at'the north end of the main runway on a fairly routine basis during the summer months when the aircraft are most heavily utilized. - B. The prohibition of new single family residential development within Zones A and B of the Overflight Protection Zone will ensure, to the fullest extent currently possible, that no new incompatible land uses are developed which may interfere with future extension of either of the existing runways at the Chico Municipal Airport. The City of Chico Airport Commission is currently in the process of conducting an Airport Master Plan Update that will at minimum recommend the reservation of additional lands for lengthening existing runways and other construction projects designed to accommodate heavier aircraft. 'Both of these activities could result in modifications to the location of current safety zones and projected noise contours. Chairman Hennigan called for a break. Pro -tem Chairman Gerst reconvened the meeting after the break. Items without Public Hearings 2. Presentation from Butte County Officials Regarding Proposed Actions to Facilitate Re - Installation of C.S.A. 87 Aircraft Overflight Notification Signs: Acting Pro -tem Chairman Gerst acknowledged receipt of the correspondence from.Susan Minasian. Ms. Webster read the November 17, 1998 memo received from Butte County Counsel's Office. The memo said that County Counsel would be scheduling a meeting with the Board of Supervisors, to discuss resolving this item, and that they will call Chairman Hennigan by December 4, 1998 to let him know the timetables and other issues involved in compliance. No addition discussion was necessary at this time. 4. Discussion of AI.LTC Request to Review All Discretionary Projects within the Chico Airport Area of Influence until Local Agency Plans are Revised to be Consistent with the 1998 Chico Munici an 1 Airport Environs Plan or Overriding Findings are Adopted: This itemwas placed on 6 the agenda at the request of Chairman Hennigan. . Ms. Webster summarized the staff report. Pro -tem Chairman Gerst asked Ms. Webster exactly what projects would be forwarded to the ALUC for review? Ms. Webster replied that any discretionary projects, such as; parcel maps, subdivision maps, use permits,,and possibly a height variance. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 18, 1998 ■ Page 9 ■ Commissioner Rosene questioned if applications are being processed during this interim period as ' s if the amendments were in place, and how it would be handled if an application was submitted tomorrow? Ms. Webster said that this is another issue that is unclear in the law. She discussed this item with staff from other ALUC's, and Caltrans representatives. However, there is no specific mandated order of events. The law does not clearly state that local agencies have_to make the changes to their plans before they can consider any other types of projects. The best answer that she received was that if amendments to local agency plans could be done quickly enough it would be best to consider them concurrently with a specific project if something was pending. However, there is no requirement that it has to be done that way. She said the way she understood the process, it would mean that consistency findings would have to be made with their current General Plan, and Zoning for a specific development project. Pro -tem Chairman Gerst asked the Commission if they wanted all projects to come to ALUC for.,,, f . review? ,7,..... Ms. Leasure pointed out that over half the ALUC's staff budget has been spent, and there is more than six months to go. She also said that the CLUP is in progress and that was the main reason they hired Ms. Webster. Pro -tem Chairman Gerst stated that if a project is in the `Chico Environs area, and it goes to the Planning Commission or Development Review Committee for review that it should come to ALUC. Ms. Leasure pointed out that it would only be projects that fall within the area affected by the Commission's October 21, 1998 amendments. Commissioner Rosene said that during the interim period the Commission should be allowed. to review those projects. Alternate Koch registered an objection on the same basis that he abstained from voting on the. previous agenda item. • i` Ms. Leasure said any letter sent to the City of Chico should request how they are planning to comply with the amendments made by the ALUC. 'rc Commissioner Hatley questioned the cost factor if this item passed? Ms. Leasure said that it could cause problems later. She said that Ms. Webster could be spending quite a bit of time on the CLUP, and if the number of projects submitted to the ALUC increased it might require that the ALUC request additional funding from the Board of Supervisors. It was moved by Commissioner Rosene, seconded by Alternate Papadakis to request that the City •of Chico and County of Butte send all projects proposed in the affected portions of the Chico Municipal Airport to the Airport Land Use Commission for review. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 18, 1998 ■ Page 10 ■ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 • 0 Pro -tem Chairman Gerst asked for a voice vote. AYES: Commissioner Rosene, Alternate Papadakis, and Pro -tem Chairman Gerst NOES: Commissioner Causey and Hatley ABSENT: None ABSTAIN:' Alternate Koch The motion failed because the majority of the full Commission did not vote in favor. F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT Alternate Koch asked to go over item No. 4, ALUC Staff Time A o rating. He mentioned that there are members of the Commission that visit. staff, and spend time at the County offices for various purposes. However, he said this uses up staff time that is charged to the ALUC's budget, `and reminded the Commission that every time they call, stop by, or give staff drafts of items they would ,,; ..,, like to see on the agenda it takes up a lot of staff time. He suggested the Commission be judicious in the use of staff's time. Otherwise, the CLUP update will not get done. Alternate Papadakis suggested indicating on the next Monthly Status Report the status of the ALUC's budget to date. Ms. Leasure said that staff was in ' the process of preparing a report of the budget for ' the Commission's December 16, 1998 Monthly Status Report. Alternate Koch said the amount of time it takes to prepare minutes is another issue to consider. Ms. Leasure brought up that the By -Laws state that only action minutes are required. She reminded- the emindedthe Commission that they can purchase a tape from the Department of Development Services or bring a tape in to get it copied. The Chairman can get one free copy on request, which he can share with other members of the Commission. Alternate Koch suggested this item be discussed in the budget report at the December 16, 1998 meeting. Ms. Leasure said that action minutes had already been adopted in the By -Laws. Alternate Koch said that they should discuss it again. Pro -tem Chairman Gerst questioned Ms. Leasure about a fee schedule for charging projects? Ms. Leasure said that we need to keep track of actual staff time spent on projects to develop. the basis for project fees. After enough data is available the Commission can adopt a fee schedule based on an hourly rate set by the Board of Supervisors. She said another alternative would be to adopt a deposit with additional fees required for additional staff time. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of November 18, 1998 ■ Page 11 ■ 1 G. 2 3 4 6 7 8 9' 10 11 H. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. 29 30 J. 31 32 33 34 35 CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS y Ms. Leasure said that there are inconsistencies and duplications in the Standard Operating Procedures " (SOPs) that the Commission has been reviewing, and the adopted By -Laws. She mentioned that the inconsistencies are in Section 4 "Agendas," and Section 9 "Keeping of Minutes and Records" in the SOPS. Alternate Koch asked that the By -Laws and SOPs be placed on the December 16, 1998 agenda to discuss the inconsistencies and duplications. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA (Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by State Law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda) Brian Baldridge said he thought the letter that Chairman Hennigan wrote in response to the complaint t, . . received by Mr. Gates regarding Ranchaero Airport was good. He asked Alternate Koch what the City of Chico does when a complaint comes into their office? Alternate Koch said that the City tries to respond to complaints by either a letter explaining the situation and/or forwarding the complainant to a particular department for follow-up action. v° Commissioner Causey asked Alternate Koch what happens when a written complaint comes into the i-'.- tower, .;tower, .does it go to the City? Alternate Koch said that the tower takes separate complaints. However, the complainant can get the City's number from the tower if the wish to lodge a compliant with the City of Chico. CLOSED SESSION - NONE REQUIRED ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m. Chairman Bob Hennigan Minutes prepared by Paula Atterberry, Office Assistant III K\ALUCVNUNUTES\ALUC98\N0 V-18.98 ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 18, 1998 ■ Page 12 ■ COUNTY OF BUTTE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of October 21, 1998 Chairman Hennigan called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m., October 21, 1998, in the Butte County Board of Supervisor's Chambers, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL C. Present: Absent: Alternates Present: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Lambert, Alternate Koch, and Chairman Hennigan 'Commissioners Hatley and Causey Chester Ward Brian Baldridge APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: September 16, 1998 The Commission had the following corrections to the minutes: On page 1, line 14, "Commissioner Lambert asked Alternate Papadakis to take her place as a regular member at this meeting because the agenda items were a continuation of items that the Commission had taken action on at the August 19, 1998 meeting, and that Alternate Papadakis could follow through with these items. " And page 8, Business Item E.5., line 26, it should read the North Valley Pilot's Association not the ,California Pilot's Association. It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Rosene, to approve the minutes of September 16, 1998, as corrected. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Lambert, Alternate Koch, and Chairman Hennigan NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Hatley and Causey ABSTAIN: None ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA (Committee members or staff may request additions, deletions, or changes in the Agenda order Having no changes, the consensus of the Commission was to accept the Agenda as presented. E. BUSINESS ITEMS: Items with Public Hearings 1. ALUC, File No. 98-10 (Butte County Use Permit UP99-02 - Pacific Bell Mobile Services) on APN 048-061-052 ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 1 ■ • .• Ms. Webster summarized the proposal to construct a 104 foot monopole communications tower located in the Chico Municipal Airport Area of Influence. She recommended that safety painting not be required, but that a safety light be installed at the top of the tower, preferably a strobe type light. Ms. Webster also recommended that the Commission find the project consistent with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. Alternate Koch asked if the FAA has certain criterion for strobe lighting or painting? Ms. Webster said that the FAA did not.recommend painting or strobe lighting for this particular project because they did not consider it to be an obstruction. However, the FAA did recommend that the temporary crane located at the project site be painted because of the overall height. Commissioner Lambert said she thought that the FAA recommended safety painting for structures 300 feet in height or above, and questioned if the FAA has standard requirements for the painting and lighting of communication towers? Ms. Webster was not sure if the FAA has a consistent set of standards, but said she could research that. Commissioner Gerst commented that he felt safety painting and lighting should be required consistently by the ALUC. Chairman Hennigan opened the hearing to the public. Sandy Rugroden, representing Pacific Bell Mobile Services, stated that safety painting and lighting are required by the FAA on structures above 200 feet. Pacific Bell. Mobile Services is further requesting that a red light be placed on top of the tower instead of a strobe light, and that the tower not be painted because the FAA is not requiring it. Commissioner Lambert discussed the need for the ALUC to come up with standard recommended conditions for the painting and lighting of towers, and that various agencies such as crop dusters, Enloe Flight, Oroville Flight, Butte County Search and Rescue, and the Sheriff's Department should be notified when towers are constructed. Chairman Hennigan said that he would like to see the towers painted above 75 feet in alternating orange and white stripes, and lighting at approximately 100 feet. Commissioner Gerst stated that reflectors or shielding could be installed to reduce the impact of the strobe lighting at ground level. Keith Bray, representing Nextel Communications, stated to the Commission that when choosing a site for a communication tower, Nextel conducts a radio frequency analysis, and looks at the local zoning codes. He said that this particular tower is located in more of an agricultural residential area on property that is already developed with a nursery. However, Nextel's primary concern is the neighbors, and that is why Pacific Bell and Nextel are requesting that strobe lighting not be required. He said that they will work with ALUC staff to address the lighting issue. Mr. Bray pointed out to the Commission that if there is a recommendation to paint the tower, Pacffic Bell and Nextel will try to blend in with the skyscape as opposed to the trees in the area. Pacific Bell and Nextel will support the County's recommendations, and will do what ever it takes to meet the necessary safety concerns. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 2 ■ Ms. Rugroden said that if the Commission recommends that the tower be painted, Pacific Bell and Nextel fall under the FAA's maintenance agreement. This means that they are required to use the FAA's paint samples, and adhere to the strict maintenance requirements for lighting fixtures. She mentioned that the FAA has several paint samples that can be used, and strict guidelines that address fading and chipping. Alternate Koch said that he thought a steady red light would be a better choice for this project site than a strobe light with a reflector or shield. He suggested that the Planning Commission dictate the aesthetics, and the ALUC recommend the required lighting and painting of the tower. Alternate Ward suggested that a steady red light be installed on top. Chairman Hennigan suggested that safety painting be applied to the portion of the tower that was above 75 feet. Commissioner Gerst stated that he felt safety painting should be applied to the entire tower, not just the portion above 75 feet. Chairman Hennigan noted that, in urban areas, anything below 75 feet is just obscured by trees and buildings anyway. Barbara Hennigan suggested that agencies which utilize low flying aircraft, such as, the Butte County Sheriff's Department, Butte County Mosquito Abatement, and the Civil Air Patrol be notified of the tower's location. During the flooding there were National Guard helicopters flying low, and evacuating people from the area. She mentioned that all companies constructing towers should be required to give the precise Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates of their facilities to the Butte County Planning Department, to be entered into the County's Geographic Information System (GIS), so when an emergency arises the County will be able to supply a map which identifies the air hazards: Chairman Hennigan suggested that the County's GIS staff be requested to create such a hazard map for emergency purposes. Ms. Rugroden submitted a picture of the project site located at Box Brothers Nursery to the Commission for its review. Chairman Hennigan closed the hearing to the public. It was moved by Alternate Koch, seconded by Commissioner Lambert, to find the project consistent with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and that the project is compatible with the viable, responsible operation of the Chico Municipal Airport, subject to the following: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS A. The temporary crane shall be marked with safety painting (orange and white alternating paint) and lighted with strobe type fixtures. B. The temporary crane shall be lowered to a level equal to or below the height of the 104 foot tower at night (between 5:00 p.m. and 7:30 a.m.). ■Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 3 ■ C. The 104 foot permanent tower shall be lighted with a steady red light fixture at the top of the structure. The portion of the tower which exceeds 75 feet in height (i.e. top 29 feet) shall be marked with safety painting (orange and white, alternating paint). D. At the start of construction, the applicants shall notify all known flight operators and agencies who utilize low-flying aircraft of the tower's height and specific location including GPS coordinates. Specific agencies that are notified should include, but not be limited to: the Butte County Sheriff's Department /Search and Rescue, the California Highway Patrol, the C.D.F. Air Tanker Base, Chico Aerial Applicators, the North Valley Pilots Association, Pacific Flight Services, Kenyon Aero Center, Enloe Flight Care, Mercy Medical Center of Redding (provides back-up for Enloe), U.C. Davis Medical Center, the Chico office of the Mosquito and Vector Control District, the Civil Air Patrol and the National Guard. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Lambert, Alternates Koch, and Chairman Hennigan NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Hatley and Causey ABSTAIN: None 2. Annual Review and Update of the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Chairman Hennigan said while he was before the Board of Supervisors trying to explain the ALUC's position on the Stephens -project he realized that it was the ALUC's fault that the annual update of the 1978 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) had never been done. However, the Commission could adopt issues that they have discussed in the past as part of the Airport Land Use Commission's .1998 update of the CLUP and that was his reason for placing this item on the agenda. Ms. Webster summarized the staff report including text language and map exhibits. designed to update the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport (CMA) Environs Plan as an interim measure before the end of the 1998 calendar year to avoid delays in the adoption of the updated CLUP prepared by Shutt Moen Associates. Chairman Hennigan also discussed the Exhibits presented in the staff report to the Commission at this time. Alternate Koch said he found it to be inconsistent that the Commission is willing to accept the boxes associated with the Overflight Protection Zone from the City's FAR Part 150 Study depicted in Exhibit A, drawing CIC -14, which he said were not drawn based on the "Inner Turning Zone", but,• the Commission is not willing to accept the Noise Contours from the same study which are more consistent and current then the 1978 contours. He believes that if the annual update process is going to be performed then the Commission should update and adopt the noise contours presented in the City's FAR Part 150 Study as the new noise contours for the airport until such time as they are replaced, and not just overlay land use controls. He also feels that there was not adequate public notice for this item, which involves the County's North Chico Specific Plan Area. He asked if the County was formally notified, and given an opportunity to comment? He added that the City of ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 4 ■ Chico supports the Noise Compatibility Plan, and the Overflight Protection Zone and would like to see them adopted, but there are significant additions to the Outer Safety Zone shown in Exhibit A that need to have extensive public comment from.both the County and the City. Because of the limited notice given for this item he is not prepared to approve the proposed modifications today. Chairman Hennigan opened the hearing to the public Barbara Hennigan provided documents to the Commission and staff which presented a comparison between station log information from the C.D.Y. tanker base and monitoring data that was used as the data source for the City's. FAR Part 150 Noise Study. Ms. Hennigan pointed out that only one tanker was captured in the data used by McClintock Becker, and that two C.D.F. flights that occurred during the monitoring period for the study, were not captured at all. Numerous C.D.F. flights were conducted in the time frame when McClintock Becker was doing their study. However, the timing of the monitoring did not coincide with the heaviest tanker activity, so the noise impacts associated with these operations is not reflected. She said that on Thursday, October 17, 1998, McClintock Becker only collected seventeen minutes -of data when the tankers were not flying, and therefore, feels that the data is severely faulted. Alternate Koch said that may be correct, and that it should be looked in to. However, he questioned how it was any better then the twenty year old data that the ALUC has of aircraft that are no longer here, and of flight track activity that no longer exists. Paula Leasure, Principal Planner with the Butte County Department of Development Services, requested a copy of the station log and monitoring information for the ALUC project file. Chairman Hennigan asked how today's meeting of the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission was noticed in regards to this item? In response to Chairman Hennigan question, Ms. Leasure said the Public Notice was in the Chico Enterprise Record on October 14, 1998, and was sent to the City of Chico on October 9, 1998. Ms. Webster read pages 9-22 and 9-23 from the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, which would define land use compatibility (uses and densities) within the Outer Safety Zone should it be adopted today. Chairman Hennigan felt that the Commission should adopt the Outer Safety Zone even though the .area is largely developed, to provide future guidelines. He said that there are many compatible uses identified within the text that Ms. Webster had read from the Caltrans Handbook, including very low density residential development, two-story office buildings, and small neighborhood commercial development. Alternate Koch questioned if the Butte County Planning Staff, the Board of Supervisors, and Planning Commission have all been notified about this meeting. He brought up that if this'item is adopted today it will make them all have to revise their existing General Plan, Specific Plan, and Zoning Ordinance or make overriding findings: ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 5 ■ Ms. Webster mentioned that there was short notice to have the item placed on the agenda, and that those agencies were not notified. Alternate Koch said that there is a Chico Airport Commission meeting next week, and he would like that Commission to have the chance to comment on this issue. He would like to see this item continued to the November 18, 1998 meeting so that the above mentioned agencies can be notified and be given an opportunity to comment. He also mentioned that the City of Chico has been using display ads to provide notice because no one reads the small legal ads. Ms. Webster read the legal ad per Commissioner Rosene's request. Ms. Leasure suggested to the Commission that including display ads in the ALUC's budget next year would be a good idea. Alternate Koch said the average property owner in the area that will be affected by the proposed actions'has know idea what a FAR Part 150 Noise Study is, or could tell from the legal notice that was placed in the newspaper that their property will be adversely affected. Ms. Leasure pointed out that the Caltrans Handbook states that a public hearing is not required for this item, and that staff was not provided with a copy of the proposed amendments in time to do a more detailed notice further in advance. So a general notice was placed in the Chico Enterprise Record because of the importance of the issue. Commissioner Rosene asked Commissioner Lambert how the Butte County Planning Commission would deal with this item? Commissioner Koch replied that they probably have no idea that it is being proposed. Commissioner Lambert replied that the Planning Commission had not yet been notified. However, this is in interim measure that will only be in place until the new CLUP is completed.. She also questioned how the C.D.F. Air Tanker Departure Zone Exhibit C, Drawing CIC -16 would be applied. In response to Commissioner Lambert's question Chairman Hennigan discussed both the Exhibit and amendment with her. Ms. Webster said that Exhibit C depicts the path that the tankers take. However, her main concern is that there are currently no policies associated with it. To adopt the diagram without any specific policies could be confusing. Chairman Hennigan suggested that the same restrictions that apply in the Outer Safety Zone should apply in the "Departure Clear Area" depicted in Exhibit C, Drawing CIC -16. Ms. Webster reminded the Commission that this would be an interim measure while the new CLUP is being prepared. However, there is a requirement that agencies will have to bring their plans into conformance with what ever CLUP is adopted or make overriding findings within 180 days from the date of the ALUC's action., She agreed with Alternate Koch that this will have an impact on the agencies. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 6 ■ Alternate Koch said that there should have been more than eleven or twelve days notice of today's hearing to get response from any public agency. Commissioner Lambert said the zoning in place should be consistent if this is from the 1978 FAR Part 150 Noise Study, and would not require zoning changes. Chairman Hennigan mentioned the three components that are being amended by the adoption of this item: ■ The Overflight Protection Zone established in the City of Chico's 1995 FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program ■ The Outer Safety Zone, from the 1993 Caltrans Handbook ■ The Departure Clear Area that reflects flight tracks for tanker departures. Alternate Koch said that the City of Chico generally supports the idea of establishing these zones, but would want further study of the impacts of adopting the Outer Safety Zone. Commissioner Gerst read a note he had written regarding the need for the update of the CMA Environs Plan. "The 1978 CMA Environs Plan standards are not compatible with the current Airport Public Utilities Code, and the Division of Aeronautics Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The amendment of the present Environs Plan will prevent incompatible uses and preserve the airport viability." He also asked when would -the item be effective if adopted today? Commissioner Lambert asked the Commission and ALUC Staff that since this is an interim measure could the 180 day requirement to be consistent be deferred? Ms.. Webster said she had not found a mechanism in the handbook that addresses that issue. The Commission might be able to make some type of declaration with the resolution to adopt the amendments that would relieve agencies from the 180 day requirement, but she advised the Commission to talk to County Counsel about the legality of doing that. Commissioner Lambert suggested a motion of intent. She said that this would allow for change at the next meeting if ALUC Staff and County Counsel find that there is a problem. Commissioner Gerst stated that if the Commission is going to do it, let's just do it, and not stretch it out any longer. Alternate Koch stated that he felt the Commission is making a big mistake if this action is adopted, because of inadequate notice. He suggested continuing the item for one month to properly notice affected agencies. Ms. Leasure said that from a staff perspective, there are a lot of unanswered legal .questions. She said that if the Commission chooses to do this she would prefer a motion of intent, so the ALUC can try to resolve these issues prior to adoption. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 7 ■ Chairman Hennigan closed the hearing to the public. Ms. Webster asked the Commission if they wanted to adopt any specific policies to accompany Exhibits D and E.or if the intent was to adopt the accident scatter maps to simply highlight areas with particular safety concerns. No additional policy language was proposed by the Commission It was moved by Commissioner Gerst, seconded by Commissioner Rosene, to adopt the proposed amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan as outlined in the staff report, subject to the following: Justification - Section 21674.7 of the Public Utilities Code states that an Airport Land Use Commission that formulates, adopts or amends a Comprehensive Land Use Plan shall be guided by information prepared and updated pursuant to Section 21674.5 and referred to as the Airport Land Use Plai iing Handbook published by the Aeronautics Program of the Department of Transportation. Section 21675(a) of the Public Utilities Code also states that, "the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (also known as the compatibility plan) shall be reviewed as often as necessary in order to accomplish its purpose, but shall not be amended more than once in any calendar year." It was found by the Commission that the standards within the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan are not compatible with the intent of the State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Chapter 4, Article 3.5, Section 21670 (a) (1) and (2)) and the guidelines presented within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook prepared for the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. Amendments to the 1978 CMAEP approved by the Commission will prevent the development of new incompatible land uses and preserve the viability of responsible airport operations at the Chico Municipal Airport. Environmental Findings - Section 15061 of the CEQA guidelines states that CEQA only. applies. to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, that activity is not subject to CEQA. The ALUC has found that the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan meets this CEQA exemption because: The adoption of proposed amendments to the Plan will not result in any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any physical conditions within the project area including land, air, water, mineral, flora, fauna, ambient noise, or affect objects of historic or aesthetic significance. 2. All future development projects will require individual CEQA review for physical changes proposed within the project area. 3.• Proposed amendments to the Plan will not increase the development potential for the affected area. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 8 ■ Adopted Amendments: 1) Exhibit A - This map depicts the Overflight Protection Zone identified in Exhibit III -1 of the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program and Environs Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport. The four safety zones depicted on page 9-16 of the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook have also been overlaid onto this exhibit. The Runway Protection Zone '(1), Inner Safety Zone (2), and Inner Turning Zone (3) are all contained within the Overflight Protection Zone. The only Caltrans Safety Zone which the. Overflight Protection Zone does not incorporate is the Outer Safety Zone (4). The Commission adopted the Overflight Protection.Zone and the Outer Safety Zone as Drawing CIC -14 of the CMAEP. 2) - The following text was adopted to accompany Drawing CIC -14: Overflight Protection Zone In response to concerns regarding overflight activity, the development of new residential uses shall be prohibited in the area defined as Zone A within the Overflight Protection Zone depicted in Drawing -CIC -14. This is the area that is subject to most low altitude overflight activity. Existing residential uses shall be permitted to remain in Zone A, and infill of the existing residential area would be allowed only in the area designated as Zone Al. The area defined as Zone B is subject to less intensive overflight activity. In Zone B no new single family residential uses shall be permitted. Any approval of multiple family residential uses in Zone B shall contain conditions requiring the dedication of avigation easements to the airport operator and notification of potential tenants of overflight activity. Zone A and Zone B together represent the defined "Overflight Protection Zone" (OPZ). When a development proposal is reviewed for compliance with the restrictions proposed for the Overflight Protection Zone, it is imperative that the more restrictive criterion shall be applied to insure long-term protection for the airport and area residents. .Note: There are areas within the Airport Area of Influence which have been assigned Compatible Land Use Zones (CLUZ) categories in the 1978 CMAEP. Some of those areas are located outside of the Overflight Protection Zone (OPZ). Although, the OPZ would .supersede the CLUZ categories in areas where it is applied, the CLUZ categories depicted on Drawing CIC -13 and corresponding policies will continue to apply to those areas outside of the OPZ. Outer Safety Zone - Land use compatibility and density recommendations presented within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (pages 9-22 and 9-23) will apply within the Outer Safety Zone. These recommendations include: Density of Use - The types of land uses which represent concerns within outer safety zones are similar to those in the inner safety zones, but somewhat higher densities of use can be considered acceptable. For example, whereas shopping centers and multi- story office buildings are unacceptable closer to the runway end, small neighborhood shopping centers and two-story offices are teasonable within this more distant zone. Concentrations of people should be limited to no more than 60 to 100 per acre. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 9 ■ Residential Land Uses - Typical subdivision -density residential development should continue to be avoided in this zone. Rural residential uses with lot sizes in the 2 to 5 acre range can be considered acceptable, however. Special Functions - Most special land'use functions, particularly schools, hospitals, and so on, should be avoided in the Outer Safety Zone. 3) Exhibit B - This map overlays, the Overflight Protection Zone and Caltrans Safety Zones onto the future noise contours shown within the 1978 CMAEP. The map confirms the ALUC's utilization of the noise contours shown within the 1978 CMAEP until new contours are developed and adopted as part of the CLUP update prepared by Shutt Moen Associates. The Commission adopted this map as Drawing CIC -15 within the CMAEP. " 4) Exhibit C - As part of the City of Chico's approval of Foothill Park East, modifications to.the departure tracks for C.D.F. Air Tanker flights were mutually agreed to by the City of Chico and the C.D.F. Base. This figure depicts the agreed upon departure path for C.D.F. Air Tanker flights and was adopted by -the Commission as Drawing CIC -16 within the CMAEP to accurately reflect current traffic patterns. The same land use compatibility and density recommendations presented within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook for the Outer Safety Zone will apply to lands identified as the "Departure Clear Area" within this drawing. 5) Exhibits D and E - The 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook contains maps depicting accident scatter characteristics based on information generated by Hodges and Shutt (1993) and the University of California Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies (1993). Exhibit D depicts an overlay of the UC Berkeley Study onto a map of the Chico Municipal Airport and surrounding environment. Exhibit E depicts an overlay of the Hodges and Shutt data onto a map of the Chico Municipal Airport that was used during the adoption of the North Chico Specific Plan. These exhibits were adopted by the Commission as Drawings CIC -17 and CIC -18 within the CMAEP to identify areas with particular safety related concerns. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Lambert, and Chairman Hennigan NOES: Alternate Koch ABSENT: Commissioners Hatley and Causey ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Lambert requested staff to review if the zoning would need to be brought into conformity within the 180 days, and report back to the Commission. Chairman Hennigan suggested that the County's GIS staff be requested to generate an accurate map of the adopted zones on a larger scale. Commissioner Gerst suggested that ALUC Staff notify City of Chico, and the Board of Supervisors immediately. Alternate Koch requested that the agencies get the maps as soon as possible. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 10 ■ Ms. Leasure said that this action would be effective today. Items without Public Hearings 3. Continued Discussion of Standard Operating Procedures for the Airport Land Use Commission The Commission made the following changes to the draft Standard Operating Procedures (SOP'§): 1. Section 1 METHOD FOR ADOPTING AND UPDATING SOPS, Page 1, Item 1.2: "Adoption or revisions of SDP's may be done at any regular meeting, by.a majority of the full Commission after ,proper notice in the agenda of the change, which is proposed." (07/15/98) 2. Section I METHOD FOR ADOPTING AND UPDATING SOPs, Pagel, Item I.I. Ms. Leasure suggested that deleted procedures be archived in an appendix,rather'than staying in the text of the book. 3. Section 2 SUBMISSIONS, Page 2, Item 2.1 Adoption or Amendment of General Plans and Specific Plans. "Prior to any local agency approval of a new or amended general plan or specific plan affecting an airport vicir t area of influence, the plan must,be submitted to the ALUC for review." 4. Section 4 AGENDAS, Page S, Item 4.1 No. 3. "Any citizen or agency of government may direct a letter to the Commission requesting an item be placed on the agenda. The Ehairm Chair shall place the item on the agenda if it is within the competence of the Commission to address the topic or is relevant to the Commission's charge." 5. Section 4 AGENDAS, Page S, Item 4.1 No. 3, letter G. CORRESPONDENCE *& COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS. 6. Section 4 AGENDAS, Page S, Item 4.1 No. '3, letter I. CLOSED SESSION - AS REQUIRED. k 7. Section 4 AGENDAS, Page 6, Item 4.1 No. 8. "The tentative agenda will be transmitted to the 6hairman Chair for his/her approval in sufficient time that the agenda, and supporting materials, can be mailed at least seven days prior to the scheduled meeting date." 8. Section 4 AGENDAS, Page 5, Item 4.1 No. 10. , By majority vote of the full Commission, the agenda maybe amended as to order or content subject to the California Open Meeting Law." 9. Section 5 CORRESPONDENCE, Page 7, Item 5.1 No. 2. "At least one copy of each item` addressed to the Commission, or sent by or for the Commission shall be maintained in the correspondence files for not less than three two calendar years. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 11 ■ There was a discussion regarding exactly what correspondence should be brought to the monthly ALUC meetings. Ms. Leasure recommended that staff bring the correspondence log only, and if there is any correspondence the Commissioners wants to view they could come in to the Department of Development Services to see it or request a copy in advance. 10. Section S CORRESPONDENCE, Page 7, Item 5.1 No. 4. "The correspondence log for the period, between regular meetings shall be included with each commissioners meeting agenda meeting.meeting) shall be available at the regufar Correspondence may be made available to Commissioners upon request. 11. Section S CORRESPONDENCE, Page 7, Item 5.1 No. S. "The staff may reproduce that portion of the correspondence to which they wish to caft requires special attention asappropriate. The ALUC Recording Secretary was asked to review the discussion on the Keeping of Records in the past ALUC minutes, and to add the correct language to Section 9 of the SOP'S. Chairman Hennigan suggested dating the bottom of the draft SOP pages to correspond with revisions that have been made, and to also use a three hole punch instead of stapling. A discussion ensued regarding the development of a fee schedule for ALUC project reviews. The Commission made changes to Section 6, FEE SCHEDULE, and Section 7, PROGRAM OF WORK, and requested that they be switched around within the SOP document. 12. Section 6, Page 8, will become PROGRAM OF WORK, and Section 7, Page 9, will become FEE SCHEDULE. 4. Initiation of Discussions with the Chico Airport Commission to Determine Appropriate Protection Measures for Aerial Applicator Flight .Operations Chairman Hennigan suggested sending a letter to the Chico Airport Commission inquiring about their intentions and expectations with regard to the protection of Chico Aerial Applicator's flight operations, with copies going to Chico Aerial Applicators. Alternate Koch clarified to the Commission that Chico Aerial Applicators originally had a fifteen year lease with the City of Chico, which expired. They would like to continue operations at the Chico Municipal Airport, and have indicted that there will be no operational'changes. They are currently in the process of renewing their lease with the City of Chico. Chairman Hennigan mentioned that Chico Aerial Applicator'.s flight operations are depicted on one of the old flight track maps iri the 1978 CMA Environs Plan, but that there was no specific protection for that flight track, it was just noted. He is also concerned that before the North Chico Specific Plan gets built out both Chico Aerial Applicators and the City of Chico need to consider their intentions. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 12 ■ • 0 Alternate Koch said that once the west side of the airport is developed, it will adversely affect their ability to fly directly over that area. The City of Chico will be looking into this issue as it arises. Chairman Hennigan said that a minor flight track might have to be included in the 1999 CLUP to accommodate Chico Aerial Applicator's. Ms. Leasure recommended that a copy of the letter going to Chico Airport Commission be sent to Shutt Moen Associates. There was a consensus of the Commission to send a letter to the Chico Airport Commission requesting input regarding the level of protection desired to accommodate Chico Aerial Applicator's continued operations, with copies going to Chico Aerial Applicator's and Shutt Moen Associates. F. , MONTHLY STATUS REPORT Ms. Leasure updated the Commission on the status of the contract and grant agreement with Caltrans. She told the Commission that the contract has been signed by the County Administrative Officer, and sent back to the State for the appropriate signatures. It will also . need to be signed by the County Auditor, and the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors when it is returned to the ALUC. Ms. Webster said she is currently in the process of collecting data, reports, and materials for Shutt Moen Associates. As soon as the contract has been signed, the documents necessary to start the CLUP update will be given to Shutt Moen Associates. Chairman Hennigan asked ALUC Staff if the request and letter to the Board of Supervisors regarding the signage was discussed at the Board of Supervisors meeting on October 13, 1998. Ms. Leasure said she did not attend the meeting, but she does not believe that it was discussed. However, she believes that the Board directed it to the County Administrative Officer, the Department of Development Services, the Department of Public Works, and County Counsel to try and resolve the issue. Ms. Webster said that her discussions with the Board Clerk are reflected in the Monthly Status Report. It was her understanding that the above mentioned departments -were asked to develop a course of action and present it to the Board at a future meeting. Commissioner Rosene asked if the Chico Airport Commission has written a letter to the Board of Supervisors urging the Supervisors to direct re -installation of the Aircraft Overflight Notification Signs for'the North Chico Specific Plan. He asked if a letter could be written requesting that they do so, because it is their airport that the ALUC is trying to protect. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 13 ■ Chairman Hennigan agreed that a letter should be written to the Chico Airport Commission. Commissioner Rosene asked if staff had any ideas for expediting this? Ms. Leasure suggested a letter to each of the departments it was referred to, noting that ALUC would like a response by its November 18, 1998 meeting. Alternate Baldridge asked what departments this item was directed to? Ms. Leasure said the Butte County Department of Public Works, the Department of Development Services, the County Administrative Officer, and County Counsel Alternate Koch suggested requesting that the head of each of the above listed departments attend the ALUC's November 18, 1998 meeting, and ask them to present their plan of action to the Commission. Chairman Hennigan agreed that they should be asked to attend the meeting. Alternate Koch suggested that the request be written in a positive manner. Alternate Baldridge asked for a follow-up report on the status of the County Ordinance update with regards to Ranchaero Airport and the clear zones. Chairman Hennigan responded to Alternate Baldridge's question, clarifying that there are two ordinances that are supposed to be in progress. ■ The obstruction clearance at all airports being maintained ■ Towers Ms. Leasure mentioned to the Commission that the draft report on the Tower Ordinance has been prepared and was submitted to Mr. Thomas Parilo, the Director of Development Services, for his review approximately one week ago. Ms. Webster responded that the clear zone ordinance is in the process of being analyzed by County Counsel. Chairman Hennigan suggested that staff ask County Counsel how they are coming along with proposed modifications to the ordinance. Chairman Hennigan also questioned how much of Mr. Parilo's 19.25 hours staff time was spent on the C.S.A. 87 sign re -installation item. He does believe that the ALUC should be billed for his work on that item, but that it should be billed to the people who are creating the problem. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 14 ■ G. CORRESPONDENCE NONE H. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA (Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Airport'Land Use Commission is prohibited by State Law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda) Commissioner Lambert mentioned that there was a workshop on Thursday November 5, 1998, at 6:00 p.m., in the Board of Supervisors Chambers, regarding the Flexible Lot Size ordinance and Clustering development. She also said that she had a conflict with the November 18, 1998 meeting, because of a Farm City Tour that she wants to attend. I. CLOSED SESSION _:. NONE J. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 a.m. Chairman Bob Hennigan Minutes prepared by Paula Atterberry, Office Assistant III, K\ALUC11v1IIJUTES\A1.UC98\OCf-21.98. +BSE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND U#111 COMMIS SIION + -• 74-ouMy center Drive,-Oroville;•CA 95965 *-{530) 538-7601-FA({530) 538.7755 AGENDA ITEM - E.I. TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: ALUC Staff DATE: December 4, 1998 ' ITEM: Discussion of the Butte County Board of Supervisor's December 1. 1998 Project Approval and ALUC Override for Development Agreement 99-01 (Robert and Anne Stephens/George Kammerer) on APN 047-250- 141: Multiple members of the Commission have requested to discuss the Board's December 1, 1998 action and the Airport Land Use Commission's response. FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of December 16, 1998 SUMMARY: On December 1, 1998 the Butte County Board of Supervisors voted to approve the development agreement for the Stephens property and adopted Overriding. Findings in response, to the Airport Land Use Commission's November 18, 1998 . inconsistency findings for the project. According to Department of Development Services staff this was considered to be a single action on an individual development project. It is anticipated that options will be presented to the Board during their regular meeting on December 15th or the first meeting in January to address General Plan and Specific Plan conformance with the October 21, 1998 amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission. Airport Land Use Commission members have requested that this item be placed on the agenda to discuss the Board's December 1, 1998 action and any appropriate response from the ALUC. • Butte County a Airport Land Use Commission • +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAID USE COMMISSION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-76D1 FAX (530) 538-7765 • AGENDA ITEM - E.1. TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: ALUC Staff DATE: November 9, 1998 ITEM: Butte County Development Agreement (DEV99-01 - Robert and Ann Stephens/George Kammererj on APN 047-250-141: A request for Consistency Findings for a Development Agreement to define the development rights for a 230 acre portion of a 300 acre site. Proposed entitlements include a rezone from SR -1 and SR-1/OS .to Planned Development SR-1/PD on 126 acres and from OS to OS/PD on 103 acres. The project site is located on the west side of Hicks Lane immediately adjacent to the Chico Municipal Airport, generally between Keefer Slough and Mud Creek. FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of November 18, 1998 SUMMARY: The County of Butte is presently processing the above mentioned project and has submitted a copy of the latest version of the Draft Development Agreement to the ALUC for its review and comment. Staff recommends that the Commission find the project inconsistent with the 1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. Staffs review consisted of land use compatibility and noise sensitivity. ANALYSIS: This Butte County project involves a 230 acre portion of a 300 acre site. According to Section 4.1 on page 11 of the draft agreement, vested entitlements would include a rezone to Planned Development SR-1/PD on the western 126 acre portion of the site. This area is currently zoned SR -1 -and SR-1/OS. The agreement would also establish a rezone to Planned Development OS/PD on the eastern 103 acre portion of the site. This area is currently zoned OS. The entire project is located within the North Chico Specific Plan Area. The Commission previously reviewed an initial draft of the development agreement during its August 19, 1998 meeting and found the project consistent with the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan with one (1) required and ten (10) recommended conditions. The ALUC's required and recommended conditions have been incorporated- into ncorporatedinto this version of the draft development agreement as noted in Section 3.3 (page 7) and Section 3.4 (pages 7 and 8) of the document. The development agreement was referred back to the Airport Land Use Commission by the Butte County Board of Supervisors on • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • October 27, 1998, to determine the project's consistency with amendments made to the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP) during the ALUC's regular meeting on October 21 1998. As indicated in Section 4.1 on page 11 of the draft agreement, the proposed rezoning from SR -1 and SR-1/OS to SR-1/PD would allow 126 single family residential lots to be developed within the 126 acre portion of the site. The proposed rezoning from OS to OS/PD would allow up to 34 additional single family units for a total entitlement.of up to 160 single family residential units. The 34 units would be considered "density transfer units" (DTU's) which would require a separate subdivision map to create and be located either entirely within the SR-1/PD zone (126 acre portion of the site), if determined consistent.by the Airport Land Use Commission, or transferred to another property within the North Chico Specific Plan Area. None of the density transfer units would be permitted within the OS/PD zone (103 acre portion of the site). Other aspects of the current draft of the agreement that may be.of particular interest to the ALUC include: Section 3.4 on pages 7 and 8: • Specifies that the first subdivision map for up to 126 units within the SR-1/PD zone need only be processed by the Countys Development Review Committee, unless appealed to the Board of Supervisors. - Notes that the landowner may submit a second subdivision map for the 34 DTU's to be built in the SR-1/PD zone, or elsewhere within the NCSP pursuant to Section 4.1 of the agreement, after adoption of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLOP) update for the CMA by the ALUC. The subdivision map for those units will be brought before the ALUC for a determination of whether significant airport compatibility issues exist or whether they have otherwise been satisfactorily mitigated by subdivision design criteria. If the ALUC makes a finding of inconsistency, the transfer of such DTU's shall not be allowed within the SR-1/PD zone but may be transferred to other property in the NCSP, pursuant to Section 4.1 of the agreement. If a CLUP Update has not be adopted within 30 months of the effective date of the agreement, the subdivision map for the DTU's shall be processed and CMA compatibility determined pursuant to the CLUP or its equivalent which was in existence as of the effective date of. the agreement. Land Use Compatibility Staff reviewed the request pursuant to the 1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and a determination was made that with the exception of the northwest and southwest comers of the property, the entire site -is located within the Light Aircraft Traffic Pattern shown in Drawing CIC -2 -of the CMAEP. In addition, the northeast comer of the site is located within • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 2 the Tanker Practice Drop Pattern depicted on the Generalized Flight Tracks Map prepared. for the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility. Program and Environs Plan and' incorporated within the North Chico Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report. The remainder of the site is located within the Light Aircraft Pattern'shown on the same map. A majority of the project site is located within the Horizontal Surface shown in Drawing CIC -5, and a portion of the northeast section of the property (currently zoned Open Space) is located within the 7:1 Transitional Surface. The entire 103 acre portion of the property proposed as OS/PD and the northern two-thirds of the 126 acre portion of the property proposed as SR -1 /PD, are located within Zone A of the Overflight Protection Zone delineated in Drawing CIC -14 of the CMAEP. The remaining third or southwest comer of the 126 acre area is located within Zone B of the Overflight Protection Zone which is also shown in Drawing CIC -14. According to text that was adopted by the ALUC to accompany Drawing CIC -14, the development of new residential uses shall be prohibited in the area defined as Zone A within the Overflight Protection Zone, as this is the area that is subject to most low altitude overflight activity. The area defined as Zone B is subject to less intensive overflight activity. Therefore, in Zone B no new single family residential uses shall be permitted. Any approval of multiple family residential uses in Zone B shall contain conditions requiring the dedication of avigation easements to the airport operator and notification of potential tenants of overflight activity. The applicant's proposal involves the development of up to 160.single family units on property encompassed by Zone A and Zone B. Single family residential uses are clearly not considered compatible with the above policy language that applies to both of those areas within the Overflight Protection Zone. Drawing CIC -1.7 of the CMAEP presents accident scatter information for arrivals and departures generated by the University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies (1993) depicted in Figure 9E on page 9-13 of the 9993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The UC Berkeley Study information has been overlayed onto a base map of the Chico Municipal Airport to provide information for the ALUC and local agencies regarding the potential for aircraft accidents at various distances and directions from airport runways. As indicated in Drawing CIC -17, a minimum of six potential accident sites are shown within the proposed 103 acre OS/PD portion of the project site. Five additional, potential accident sites are shown within the southern half of the proposed 126 acre SR- 1/PD portion of the project site. Drawing CIC -18 of the CMAEP also presents accident scatter information for arrivals and departures based upon the Hodges and Shutt data described in Chapter 8 of the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Aircraft accident characteristics presented within Drawing CIC -18 show similar results to those generated by the UC Berkeley Study. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 3 Although the data presented in both accident scatter maps is not specific to actual occurrences at the Chico Municipal Airport, they do provide an indication of areas with an elevated likelihood for aircraft accidents based upon established and widely accepted aircraft accident databases. It should also be noted as part of the land use compatibility analysis, that the City of Chico Airport Commission is currently in the process of preparing anew Master Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport. According to documents presented during preliminary Technical Advisory Committee Meetings for the project, it is likely that the Master Plan will, at minimum, recommend the reservation of additional lands for future lengthening of the existing runways and other construction projects designed to accommodate heavier aircraft. Both of these activities could result in modifications to the location of current safety zones and projected noise contours. Noise Sensitivity As described on page 4-29 of the CMAEP, the CNEL isolines shown in Drawing CIC -2 (1978 existing) and CIC -3 (future) are based upon assumptions judged to be most representative of operations at the Chico Municipal Airport. The purpose of this approach was to approximate the average aircraft noise exposure condition existing over most of the days of the year. Drawings CIC -3 and CIC -15 indicate that most of the 103 acre portion of the parcel that is currently zoned Open Space and the northeast corner of the 126 acre portion that is currently zoned SR-1/OS are located within the future 55 dB CNEL contour for the airport. However, it should be noted that residents may be exposed to single event noise levels and other episodes which exceed 55 dB. These may include intensive CDF. air tanker operations during campaign fires, occasional military activities and other aircraft engine testing or maintenance procedures. According to conditions recommended by the ALUC as part of its August 19, 1998 findings, which have subsequently been incorporated by reference within the current draft of the development agreement, residential development would be restricted to those portions of the 126 acre SR-1/PD area located outside of the projected 55 dB CNEL contour depicted in Drawings CIC -3 and CIC -15. Residential dwelling units would also have to be designed and constructed to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dB. Although the ALUC has conducted prior hearings for the project, the issue of applying noise corrections to the contours in Drawing CIC -3 was never discussed. However, Chairman Hennigan requested that the issue be presented as part of this report. Beyond the basic CNEL quantification of noise exposure, the state in its Land Use Compatibility Standards for Noise Environments, summarized in Exhibit 4-4 of the CMAEP, shows that the maximum exposure considered "normally acceptable" for low density, single family, duplex and mobile home development is 60 dB CNEL. The maximum exposure • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 4 considered normally acceptable for multiple family development is 65 dB CNEL. However, Caltrans and other agencies also recognize that in many instances "corrections" need to be added to the measured CNEL to obtain a "normalized" CNEL. These corrections, presented in Exhibit 4-5 of the CMAEP, are designed to consider the general character of an area (i.e. rural, suburban, urban, etc.) when establishing acceptable residential noise exposure levels. The more rural the area, the greater the correction, because the ambient noise level is generally lower in rural environments. Therefore, the impacts of exterior noise sources ate generally more noticeable in those areas. Text on page 4-17 of the CMAEP states that "....the CNEL levels have been equated to a wide range of land use restrictions on the basis of relative noise sensitivity. This is used as a current best estimate of the guidelines for land use compatibility in areas affected by aircraft noise exposures." Section 4.2.3 on page 4-21 discusses the need to consider the ambient noise environment in the area around the airport which exists when there is no aircraft noise and describes the method of evaluation used by the consultant. Essentially, measurements were conducted to include both ambient noise conditions (no identifiable specific noise sources) and intrusive noise events such as aircraft or motor vehicles. The results of the noise measurements are presented in Table 4-2 on page 4-22 of the CMAEP. The conclusions reached were that the ambient noise environment around the Chico Municipal Airport varies depending on the proximity to the urban roadway networks to the south or the sparsely developed semi -rural areas north of the airport. The noise levels south of the airport were found to reflect continuous motor vehicle activity on nearby roadways (38 dBA day and 34 dBA night) while that noise source was substantially diminished north of the airport (33 dBA day and 28 dBA night). The areas to the east and west ranged between exposure levels experienced between the north and south, with localized noise sources affecting some of the properties. The ambient noise levels along Keefer Road were lowest in the eastern segment near Cohasset Road and increased to the west. Residential noise. sources such as voices, animal sounds and mechanical equipment were noted as usually audible in the area near Hicks Lane. It was noted that ambient levels west of the airport were influenced by local traffic noise (increasing to the south), construction noise, and continuous traffic noise from Highway 99. Ambient noise levels along the south boundary of the airport (Eaton Road) were considered uniform (39 dBA day and 33 dBA night) with increased levels near Cohasset. Since the noise study for the CMAEP was conducted over 20 years ago, and new development has occurred in a number of locations around the airport, the current ambient noise environment is likely to have changed. It is expected that the 1999 update to the CMAEP will include revised noise contours and make land use compatibility recommendations based on that information. The correction methodology has not been applied by the ALUC as a standard consistency criteria in its review of projects. If the Commission felt it was appropriate to apply a correction in this case, it would have to determine the existing character of development • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 5 in the area surrounding the project site. According to Exhibit 4-5, if the area surrounding the project site is considered to be quiet suburban or rural in nature (remote from large cities and from industrial activity and trucking), a correction of +10 dB would be appropriate. If the surrounding area is considered to be quite suburban or rural in nature (not located near industrial activity), a correction of +5 dB would be appropriate. During the ALUC's review of the Stonecreek Subdivision located on the south side of Eaton Road, between Eaton Road and East Lassen Avenue, the Commission commented that a correction between 5 dB and 10 dB would be appropriate. Depending upon which factor the Commission determined should be applied in this case, the value assigned to the future 55 dB CNEL contour shown in. Drawings CIC -3 and CIC -15 with a +5 dB or +10dB correction would result in normalized CNEL of 60 or 65 dB. The .area surrounding the project site has been planned for suburban residential development as indicated by the current SR -1 zoning. The Village Core, which is part of the North Chico Specific Plan, is located immediately south of the Stephens' property. Hicks Lane is designated as an arterial within the North Chico Specific Plan and will function as a primary north/south corridor when it is re -aligned to connect with Keefer and Eaton Roads. Highway 99 is located approximately 1 mile to the west and an unnamed arterial is also planned in close proximity to the site. Based upon these factors, 'a maximum correction of .+5 dB is recommended. As discussed earlier. in the staff report, the maximum exposure considered "normally acceptable" for low density, single family, duplex and mobile home development is 60 dB CNEL. Therefore, even with the applied correction, the proposed development would not be inconsistent with that threshold. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission find that the proposed Butte County Development Agreement DEV99-01 (Robert and Ann Stephens/George Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141 is inconsistent with the 1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan based upon the findings in Exhibit "A". Attached: A: Findings Al: List of References A2: Review of Overriding Findings Process B: Location Map (shows ALUC Overflight Protection Zone) C: Generalized Flight Tracks Map D: Drawing CIC -15 from the CMAEP E: Exhibit 4-4 from the CMAEP F:. Exhibit 4-5 from the CMAEP G: Drawing CIC -17 from the CMAEP H: Drawing CIC -18 from the CMAEP I: Correspondence from the City of Chico, Airport Manager/Airport Commission (Opposing the Project) J: Latest Version of the Draft Development Agreement • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 6 ►}-BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroviile, CA 959% • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • EXHIBIT A BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR: Butte County Development Agreement DEV99-01- Robert and Ann Stephens/George Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141 The Airport Land Use Commission has prepared the following findings based upon data contained within the 1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. This data, in turn is based upon the findings of a number of studies, documents and reports generated by individuals firms and agencies recognized as having expertise in the field of Airport Land Use Planning and land use compatibility. (See Exhibit At. List of References) The following findings have been prepared at the direction of the ALUC and are for the consideration of the County of Butte (local agency) when making a decision on the project. If the local agency does not accept the findings of the ALUC, . it may override the Commission's decision with a 2/3 vote of the governing body•provided it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the State Aeronautics Act as stated in Section 21670. Overriding findings cannot be adopted as matters of opinion, but instead must be supported by new substantial factual evidence introduced into the public record. (See Exhibit A2, Review of Overriding Findings Process) Section 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS A. No environmental documentation was submitted for the current project at the time of review. Section 2: PROJECT CONSISTENCY FINDINGS A: Chapter 3 of the 9993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook identifies four functional categories that address airport land use compatibility concerns. These include: Noise, Safety, Airspace Protection, and Overflight Protection. The applicant's proposal has been found to be inconsistent with protection measures and policies contained in the 1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan which are designed to address Overflight Protection and Safety. Overflight Protection 1. An Overflight Protection Zone (OPZ) has been adopted as part of the CMAEP (Drawing CIC -14) which prohibits new single • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • family residential development in Zone A and Zone B of the OPZ to minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around the Chico Municipal Airport that are subject to the most intense aircraft overflight activity. The applicant's proposal would permit up to 160 single family residential units within the Overflight Protection Zone. 2. Application of the Overflight Protection Zone and its corresponding policies has.,been designed to protect the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of the Chico Municipal Airport and the continued viability of aircraft operations to and from that facility. ,Safety 3. Accident scatter maps, based upon data generated by the University of California Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies (1993) and Hodges and Shutt, have,been adopted as part of the CMAEP (Drawings CIC -17 and CIC -18) and support the finding that the project site is located in an area which has an elevated likelihood of being impacted by aircraft accidents involving both arrivals and departures. Section 3: OTHER COMMISSION COMMENTS A. The prohibition of new single family residential development within Zones A and B of the Overflight Protection Zone will ensure, to the fullest extent currently possible, that no new incompatible land uses are developed which may interfere with future extension of either of the existing runways at the Chico +Municipal Airport The City of Chico Airport Commission is currently in the process of conducting an Airport Master Plan Update that will at minimum recommend the reservation of additional lands for lengthening existing runways and other construction projects designed to accommodate heavier aircraft. Both of these activities could result in modifications to'the location of current safety zones and projected noise contours. B. The area encompassed by the project site is likely to be exposed to' single event noise levels and other episodes which exceed the levels noted in Exhibit 4-4 as °normally acceptable" for residential development. Noise levels in excess of the recommended `CNEL are likely to occur in conjunction with intensive CDF air tanker operations during campaign fires, occasional military activities and other aircraft engine testing or maintenance procedures. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 8 i • +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION + • 7 County Center Drive, 0roviH6, CA 95966 �. (530) _638-7601 FAX (53D) 538-7785 • t EXHIBIT Al List of References Data supporting the ALUC's findings have been generated from studies and reports prepared by recognized professionals and agencies with expertise in Airport Land Use Planning and land use compatibility. These include, but not limited to: R. Dixon Speas Associates - Prepared 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. P & D Aviation - Established the Overflight Protection Zone (OPZ) within the City of Chico's 1995 FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program and Environs. Plan and the Generalized Flight Tracks Map discussed within the project staff report. Although the ALUC did not adopt the entire FAR Part 150 Study, the OPZ and corresponding policies were adopted by the Commission on October 21, 1998 as Drawing CIC -14 of the CMAEP. Caltrans Division of Aeronautics - 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. University of California Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies '(1993) - Prepared accident scatter data presented in Figure 9E on page 9-13 of the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. This data was used to develop Drawing CIC -17 of the . CMAEP. Hodges and Shutt - Prepared accident scatter data presented in Chapter 8 of the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. This data was used to develop Drawing CIC -18 of the CMAEP. 1. • Buffe County • Airport Land Use Commission • 9 +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION + e 7 County Center Drive, OroviAe, CA 96966 a (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • EXHIBIT A2 Review of Overriding Findings Process The override process involves three mandatory steps, including: (1) The holding of a public hearing. (2) , The making of specific findings that the action proposed is consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act as stated in Section 21670 of the Public Utilities Code and summarized below. "... to provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state..." "... to provide for the orderly development of ... the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards...." "... to provide for the orderly development of.:... the area surrounding these airports so as ..... to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems." "... to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports..." "...'to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by ... the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and'safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible. land uses." _ (3) Approval of the proposed action by a two-thirds vote of the local agency's governing body. The Office of Planning and Research offers several guidelines regarding what constitutes sound, legally sufficient findings.. The most basic among these guidelines is that findings must be substanfive not just recitations of the law. "Generally, findings are not sufficient if they merely recite the very language of the local ordinance or state statute that requires them." In other words, findings must bridge the analytical gap between raw data and the ultimate decision. This assertion was affirmed in the 1992 court case, California Aviation Council v. City of"Ceres. In this case the court found that the Ceres city council had merely referred to the ALUC statutes and then concluded that the proposed land uses minimized • Butte County a Airport Land Use Commission e 10 public exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards in the airport area. The findings did not document the critical links between the proposal, the finding and the facts. It is the opinion of the ALUC, which is supportedby both legal statutes and case law, that agencies wishing to override the Commission's findings must: (1) provide factual data and evidence from qualified sources which essentially refutes the data examined by the ALUC and the conclusions reached by the Commission; and, (2) demonstrate how the agency's actions will adequately meet the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act as specified in Section 21670 of the Public Utilities Code. i • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • . 11 c t T • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • . 11 Mwfflu.� hN 0 Opt -M- \ J .� d � �� r ✓ �J /�i �/,1� .,�U�1, I -, l,� �.�•" ! �����1 �I i i^� �� �� ��,, � ('' jr ✓/_ / � • /�' i 1 �$ 'Y: q\../L"•'1 + •, 1i `:,(i �J t�:'••} �"fl i (� I�`•�/:' -�• ;I.t i �— '� `;� 1 �'�':,: ��-� ) ~ / / .". - ^ , � ' �\�,/ � !•J•`' '�(l1�1c'' �\�, ;%' �j`i '•`I!'�1%r i, //�ii'�-'_/i ( yY /'�'�h �i\' �J`-,• 1�'�// , -' / .?:��:.. �'.. `•t S± • � \ 1 f� �� I , , r J 1 � i `'}�,,; r'' l �_ •J '..•' "� 1, � r• � �i\ -•.-' :: ° . �•...: ; I i � ! (i.�' !1 r 1:j; ,'� : •' � ^) i..� `-1%I r 1 ; J1 J". � ' Jr- \:, ••-� t .� � � LL ,� :jt:.. �-�•.. .._ \. Q I._'-':i'.i /i� � / 11`-!,/ _i�-{--•����`'`- �i It �� t IJ4 11•r \ jij o ��'1 � /�J ' 'rte•.- ..._:i. _ .. .: { 1 t j••--• i� ,: �� \, 1: 1I 1 Lei �r i r �a i �, -=. - To,. �� '�f . � '.\1 L J �J � , .:,�'._._ ._.y.� • � JY►L STupEti .... /� / 1 l% `^ r AM T, Pis n 1 1� .' ✓ '` •� \" ,.�l /'••� \ �1 ,�. � ' . �••.�� • l� i' . TOS J -, v'� � �� .. s ... .... ........ :' !b ,.rte;.. , .� �•'.. :.., .: ,. , !� Y C RICO MUNICIPAL -`y'�•� AIRPORT �:,;�:�'!�:. •� .. ., ' ,�. '; _ ' �� �• mac. �`�� ' ;= • �. : •:: _ p An .� 9 :N•- tip• .�... � . . � ,r ... � ..._ _ •'J �'. �J � �C: '-1 ia• .l .. fit... 1 r, r• J `: �- '''�: FAR PART 150 t .,mac;: . +!: t AIRPORT NOISE .:....: �'. ':' :. :l '� / .:;;//(F� �,• ;� 1 � >. , COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM ED p 1 -`• •r 6i Yr AND !t<; ENVIRONS PLAN �r ✓.•i '\ ��„t.- %1 1 �% �,� a• ;l d^ ,`` . •, - �a f �..�'�'I 1 ✓ ..x. .O ..'' -J�-/� s.`..� RT .I ° .; , ! ^,� : , : l • t SCALE ` y lJ — \ SIR' MT ^i �._- �?',<y �`�' -:�� e � �: 1 � � ,�"°-�— � : ��i ,f�.. \,"_aaC•a �•. .(� _ I� '�, , / L�otii/�A/ STAAIG IN . 7 ib^ a .y+l. �. EN�t7L135�1�� s l Y t L� \ �. NORTH e- • ,tto IS _ �t:' ' •'t'P,- _ a s 0 7000 2000 3000 4000 O ,r p /l r.• ^ a. ' I r '+ ~� .� •..^�, a d '�' tjD-t• Z , �.�.•. t C 3l(�2 I' RCA i ., I •� vo ,�'� a r,moi: y ;" eft;• > LEGEND �� (302) Dat f / `--' .� \ Ta r,_. l,,' ' ..• . ' .a. •° a t• �.�.� Airport Boundary ACT10E DROP 3� .� �, rte-. / �.,,; �• ', , TA \, G ,j�� • ? �,�p ..."�V A i �- P (q�1 Chico Sphere of tlfWence HTAs— LIGw a �''• �•�': Business Jets and Heavy Aircraft ? , '•�,,.� � i % 'A ��� 11.x- � T`ea,�� � r°��c n, t :}`� 7�` ' T - - •�°"-- � ° . '! ' ry / 5 \ +, : c .r : R '' -.• v / -?. �.� Light Aircraft . f '�K = ' �+� • i' �'i�` ��t `r� _..113 O: ` �,. `, si J 1 ; _ Limited use Pattern T AIRCRAFT PATTg _ /^` �_ i •- j' �% ♦ I '� mfr ' •.Lh •' S`}t. '• •� ' r., sl : v rt4w- -v . _/ +o Tanker Practice Drop Pattern � �(h/�� "�-:' r � 1•j ii l'••� •-y'a�- ° \1 � ai �f t �� � •. � •I n•I•, i �_ �'��' 4�'', 1 O -- _ •, •a? i s .'�—'�/ •'q% _ ! '�, i • I� �,.r r jam ' • / _ _ Noise it ring -` l , "' '�• ���1 �. � • • 0 'se Monitoring 3' i ; ` HEAW AIRCRAFT PXTTERN 1 d, t 'r' _ y sell \ _ . T t r i + v g , � ��: + R.:-_- ;� ' .7 - • Noise Monitoring Site A. v �, eQQ - �.` i ^-'•.. ,ie:. 1.�\- P^{.. /� " •ASR• `�.'l._ l'� `� •I:X�. L:.• ¢ .. .Y h 1,.,. u.uo.c ru.1 , �\^ l + ` '.h J C J � , � ti_ � ` � ., ;C�(Ci1.�a.�. �_ t a ',. _ :y: �-.- � .. e _ ,• 0..,, '\ v`'i"��% �' Z •`` • i yam) ` `z'>. �w `a� t 1�+t..�`.tZ° a::. q .� ® Avigation Easement •,w r—zt �.ti n : ,y" `,``• a` % �,` r , s� r t :.�t� �r, . 1 e , At Arrival Track Designator •'• •` ti i m ! /V"'� : _ v° D1 Departure Track Oesignatar •, lr�� ? 1 i �� J • M , `T - �� 1~�`� OO ' �o>:f • •° TG1 Touch and Go Track Designator It Exhibit C - �; GENERALIZED 'J ; FLIGHT TRACKS P& D AY18tiOn paj) Technologies ••j '- •},� , - • - ,� •. • ' t :Y.,�tr i• sem. i:i.Y':cC`t f'�•T. • X, _Z, ' • - ' ` _ .j• /' - 1.' 4•. i� •?1�•f�y:`�Vt1 �('v�•%�I•:'}'fl'4� �''„ - � - •' �: r :y; • ,J• !r tr v' 'A4C" `••J ..-' ,fit a-� (:Fma, y `Fy E - •.i •fir •v ';' r • r- J �-. ..i •7V 'Ts . r. _ )•. ,� . f •::--•,. , to _.[ ,� �.� •- a• �,_ _ ..�,. {`{ --i` �•'• �'.. _ ,.i11�. �L+,��,.�r. ,��`r� L:�.. }... ���+y. .}r, > , � .f• ::ri.� _f' Ar, ••{l• '.o'T •l• �I •'�.• >. :'�+. .f'-�r�•R►� �jsb'ar. '�f•••�,^ _ - tL._•F` 'f - 4•• �+ �G:-- L•7� •sal - -t:- "J t _ . >• . /• � � T'd".I • �' • .E.► } -V. \ '�• . �' � -�`• ':. ��: .:-� •+•-•• .�� Ff • h::�% .►�: } C:•: /'�• •t: .. iil. �'=. e':' s•^• 1s ea t'1•?:.. .� �,. -...T f 7. moi__ �� T" .. } - f �t. F • i .•tEa .�'- •��Ja. .i �` '•:•�jt r.`". �,..v\ ••ya _.•Lr'.�' �' �y�?4 �l 'f raiMJj1 i rr• -; �./. s,siv::1 .'=!'.. L } J.:':!.-r•�••�'b7- / •re Jr, rMi.� q �y�,f'LY._ `t �•► tt ,�.c i •a.r » . .r`•-r _Fy'ty �w• .L.r.4 't'�• :f•' • ��, •�S ' ter;•.• .. -F:.a'. • r•i 't=. '•�=.: e • �•/y�n7� v - ?i • � ,�•' r. ::'.'. �� <„ 9,q%�C:-' st►;•X inti .`kyl .rL/�:,. _ . '•l 1'•••> •'l•':I: _y - �:_- f•�--' b 'J' •:i�t ••�!fZ';� �Jf t ": ` t1 •P•i- >�" •(;•a:.v ',?T _ N. 0. r .5. ;� ,.ems.^.; •� 2 1. J! j �•i.+. - !. '-.1t7 _ -:rte + v . _ •v.i- ...L +; .'pC•..a . - : i • �', , E / f - �A h _ f. t 7 iM- �.�1 R . t Yam t 3 �•}:�' ,{J' '.<.�,t': 'tilt t r•' J: J' a � t� t•N' 7• ` f y _ _ .�ti �•r• 1 . •! . •. v a - .Y� - :r- - 'ri: 'r •y: a. v'f .t ' r �._ ., -'r.7 s • ! s• • 1. "�• #: .ms's, :•L.::: .>` - .. P. �•I _ e - •.4>• .tom -:? _ J - t .: irk %r > .t .�v t` e` ' 1r• . •>;.'•:``;: > 3-_ ice: .y t` t•• h ox 0 .•�Y: Z i\ 's•' t - '[ 1 '7 M�A-� •;�-�t•'e•:! ':a'• C.-...�: ..%1. �:� �YJ�,,y.. •Ci z:>'Lrs-•�. moi+ 'S, �• •�,,:t tvlrr •.d • r ! sl.` c'.I. r: ,•' - 1P...• • _ : t: ..' �� :o:a. s• o-: � :'ice , i :� �4„' :L• .,V /l��'}w�•� 6 _L A,. •95.:: :T•: .4<'I C: '�:t3'•R rt. rrr. '% J ''�•^:-•-t^ ..t 777/. �j.� � •-,.:!'•'� �; :yam•: f _ �j _ f' :1' tJlE? I '}► e•..-� i.e. i • t - _ - tiN:• Y �• •i ''3 7_ 1 r AIRPORT BOUNDARY� f. • I b�`.?: :' �' �„>. . �l';;--: )''� , =i•,. ..4c•. "r NDARY�• .ti.. 'a . :'i : �-Yc,r'_:•c. •s1. I � _ . _ �i •,L-.- tit; t."• i r.K,-' CLOSURE POINT - '! t - - s: 1..'> _ .. Ji ,re.allt• -p. a:K: .;j�._. '.`« �'; •a';;;.'i:. "tw;a'' - c a..• f •r .0-. r Map -. - . .. - �• �t,"•: .,:. vim. � yj, _S:r. 1 y' •'iS •':�-- - y.j . i•K' "w F. t - /,. U t - i - 'r- t:r J x.. AIR _ •i - POR �.' D AR N rJ t d= f _{ F ,•J - •7. J� >• c l• , Y -t •- •1' w4. :•i f' J .r t`' �•i J - �.: f:� ..�;• ->-�:. ter: . r s .:1� � I � u. Dai% �' •:..'�•- �:.^-''-- Y r 'A 69 .�* , f •'v.::,'•.:,y::e:. ,.�;' _ n•` .r -td;l ►! i Runway p •� E : ay rotection Zone ::';� �, �_✓• - t . _ :, .. ;;:};.. ' • ; '••is.'„ '�_ ' . � - - :.�,x - .oma _ ;•: �... •� --t • �=-�� .►.• 2 safety one 3 � Inner Tu e Z - � -,` •�, • , i - � :. �. � - •,. ;�. �' _ ;.• .�. r Turning Zone X ��p\e t' • , :',:: ,...'?, 4 Outer Safety s u Sa Zone ,% ` i ft f tro e Zone A and! Zone I3 tome c cher represent the defined 2 tJ �P 99f. "Overflight Protection Zone" (OI'Zj. Hw►rupY T a - • ' -- , K' c ,Doo zo xl STATE _ Approved.- I By. PrQ Designed Drown ` AIF POUT 'ENV • Jed TMS - IRONS PLAN_ • n. Dtfo,r ■r[J[ •[[Deur[[. INCCbeclted Date By :Appy °Date Dole CH ICCO MUNICIPAL -AIRPORT FUTURE CNEL NOISE CONTOURS JEn - AI•RIL 9iB _ Drawing CIC-15 w t111 tom: 111 11111Iv, • . • Exhibit E EXHIBIT 4-4 LAND USE C0APATABILITY FOR C0W-lb-1ITY NOISE LN-rVIRONNIENTS A. NOi+."AtZEO :IOISE EXPCS�RE V ORMATION OESIP.EO Where sufficient data exists, evaluate lard use suitability with respect to a `ncraalized" value of.C:.*EI or Ldn. nor.mlized values are ebraired by adding or subtracting the constants described in Table 1 to the measured or calculated value of CIEL or Ldn. E. NOISE SCURCE CHARACTERISTICS The land use -noise co.-patibility recoffr"dations should be viewed in relation to the specific source of the roise. For exa=ple. aircraft and railroad noise is normally male up of higher single noise eve -its than auto traffic but occurs less frequently. There- fore. dif`arent sources yielding the sate co.-posite noise exposure do not sec"sarily create the sawn noise envirenrent. The State Aeronautics Act uses 6S C3 C%EL as the criterion which airports twist eventually reef to protect eAisting residential corsunities unAccep:able exposure to aircraft mise. In eider to facili- e the purposes of the Act, .one of which is to encourage land vses cor7atible with the 65 CS Ci:EL criterion wherever possible. and in order to facilitate the ability of airports to ct:tt:ply with INTERPRETATION NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. J N0R.rr1ALLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailtd analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. E� CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. the Act. residential uses located in Coeesmity iotse tgposure Areas greater than 65 dd should be discouraged and considered located within norrally unacceptable areas. C. SUITA9LE IIITERIOR ENVIROXNENTS One objective of locating residential units relative to a known noise source is to maintain a suitable interior noise environrent at no greater than CS dii Ct:EL or L This requiretrent, coupled with the ¢easured or calculated-nolge reduction perforrance of the type of structure under consideration, should govern the mint== acceptable distance to a noise source. 0.-ACCEPTA9LE OJTCCdR E'1VIR0:6'%STS Another consideration. which in sore con unities is an overriding factor. is the desire for an acceptable outdoor noise environment. When this is the case. more restrictive standards for land use moi-patibility, typically below the naxinuw considered "norrally acceptable" for -that land use category. ray be appropriate - 4 -33 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE Ldn OR CNEL, dB LAND USE CAT.EGORY 5S 60 65 70 7S 80 t t t RESIDENTIAL — L0W DENSITY SiNGLE FAMILY, DUPLEX, MOBILE H0MES y •M RESIDENTIAL — MULTI. FAMILY Alle "` I TRANSIENT LODGING — �• �/ / MOTELS, HOTELS SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, CHURCHES, HOSPITALS, - NURSiNG HOMES AUDITORIUMS. CONCERT HALLS.: AMPHITHEATRES SPORTS ARENA, OUTDOOR i; : • !u// ,� ,; :.�i,ii;�: SPECTATOR SPORTS PLAYGROUNDS, ' NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS (' GOLF COURSES, RIDING ........ ... ......... STABLES. WATER RECREATION, CEMETERIES OFFICE BUILDINGS, BUSINESS COMMERCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL `'= ► ` " ' INDUSTRIAL, MANUFACTURING UTILITIES, AGRICULTURE A. NOi+."AtZEO :IOISE EXPCS�RE V ORMATION OESIP.EO Where sufficient data exists, evaluate lard use suitability with respect to a `ncraalized" value of.C:.*EI or Ldn. nor.mlized values are ebraired by adding or subtracting the constants described in Table 1 to the measured or calculated value of CIEL or Ldn. E. NOISE SCURCE CHARACTERISTICS The land use -noise co.-patibility recoffr"dations should be viewed in relation to the specific source of the roise. For exa=ple. aircraft and railroad noise is normally male up of higher single noise eve -its than auto traffic but occurs less frequently. There- fore. dif`arent sources yielding the sate co.-posite noise exposure do not sec"sarily create the sawn noise envirenrent. The State Aeronautics Act uses 6S C3 C%EL as the criterion which airports twist eventually reef to protect eAisting residential corsunities unAccep:able exposure to aircraft mise. In eider to facili- e the purposes of the Act, .one of which is to encourage land vses cor7atible with the 65 CS Ci:EL criterion wherever possible. and in order to facilitate the ability of airports to ct:tt:ply with INTERPRETATION NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. J N0R.rr1ALLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailtd analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. E� CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. the Act. residential uses located in Coeesmity iotse tgposure Areas greater than 65 dd should be discouraged and considered located within norrally unacceptable areas. C. SUITA9LE IIITERIOR ENVIROXNENTS One objective of locating residential units relative to a known noise source is to maintain a suitable interior noise environrent at no greater than CS dii Ct:EL or L This requiretrent, coupled with the ¢easured or calculated-nolge reduction perforrance of the type of structure under consideration, should govern the mint== acceptable distance to a noise source. 0.-ACCEPTA9LE OJTCCdR E'1VIR0:6'%STS Another consideration. which in sore con unities is an overriding factor. is the desire for an acceptable outdoor noise environment. When this is the case. more restrictive standards for land use moi-patibility, typically below the naxinuw considered "norrally acceptable" for -that land use category. ray be appropriate - 4 -33 Exhibit F . EXHIBIT 4-5 Corrections`to be Added tb the measured Coomunity Noise Equivalent Level (CIZE to Obtain Normalized C: EL 4-34 Amount of Corraction Type of to be Added to Measured Correction Description C11EL is dB Seasonal Sumer (or year-round operation). 0 Correction Winter only (or windows always closed). - 5 Correction Quiet suburban or rural community (remote from '. for Outdoor large cities and from industrial activity and --- Residual trucking). +10 7013e Level Quiet suburban or rural community (not located near industrial activity). - + 5 Urban residential community (not immediately adjacent to heavily traveled roads and industrial areas). 0 . Noisy urban residential conmunity (near relatively busy roads or industrial arras). - 5 i Very no=sy urban residential co—inity. -10 - jCorrection No prior experience with the intruding noise. + 5 :or Previous Comaainity has had some previous exposure to Exposure and intruding noise but little effort is being- Coamunity made to control the noise. This correction Attitudes say also be applied in a situation where the community has not been exposed to the noise previously, but the people are aware that bona fide efforts are being made to control the noise. 0 _ '} Community has had considerable previous expo- sure to the intruding noise and the noise maker's relations with the community are 'good. - 5 Community aware that operation causing noise is very necesaary and it will not continue - indefinitely. This correction can -be applied for an operation of limited duration and -under emergency circumstances. -10 Pure Tone P10 pure tone or impulsive character. 0 or Impulse+ P.ure'tone or impulsive character present. 5 4-34 1' � Q i • / /, i :•- `:•�• • ` , ref` % / .� 1 1 r�''' .. 1' •/ 0.Y VQIy � • .'. { ♦ o 100, -414 it -(OO i Vim'= i. 1 ` .. �t� � ..e.. � ' ..�1 . • �.� • s , ''•, I 'i. � ;yam � � 1 q•/ � , ' '., :, 1 '�� 1 04 cb Irk n lu yeg 16, lk c-1 •� �„�� t •ltd �\•. �� �� � ',' ` • .•� 1 _ �. !� �•—� � 1: `1 �� ' - �, '•� .�-�- �i I, ■ Y .� , � . � ter. of IOp ui- '` J r,• of t i• yT,..._:75M .J� I � �,. � :.j'✓ `\,.• / l� , �� •x 1 � �� I 1 �\` �•--.a;,� %'fir'` On If . ♦ S'� r•. ,�.1 . 1 ' � • It �—� i �.7 : • ', � ` / l � _. \ • 1. !/�. °+%1' , n � I � : ' _ '/ ."•.. �'-'� ,�' "\ � l ) � �� I ..� � ,^ Off, ..,,� IF 1. �t :.� . .� .... �i..�: �. Oct -30-98 04:07P butte county planning CIT -C ICOIhf 10:2 OFFICE OF Tf IF CITY -MANAGER 411 Vmin Strout F. O. Box 142() Chin'Ll. CA 9b9-77 (530) 89�'­4c00 FAX 15.301 899-4825 ATS'N: 4y�1.4800 Octohcr 28, 1993 Exhibit I 530 538 7785 P.02 County of Butte Board of SuperviSOrs c/0 Clerk of the Board 25 County Center Drive Orw,ille, CA M65 Re: Butte County General Plan Amendment A97-02 and Specit1c Plan Amendment #97-01 (Kammerer) - APN 047-250.14,11 Dear SUpervisors- It ISour understanding that the above tllattcr --%III again be considered by the Butte (.01.1jity Airport I..and Use Conninisslon (ALU:(`.) to if the Proposed, project is, CollststClIt with 111c IMI(i use plan Ibr the (.'hico k1unicipal-Airiort. artier- At.(;('*.i determinxion is made, the matter will on.cc marc be b, !1!.Q. Boi ltd (.)t* Supervisors. 'I"lle prope,.T% . ii located On the %%Cst Side or and 'Idi 1;:cr,'. to the north cicar zone of*tl-.c. Chic() Municipal Airport. The City of Chico Airport C'on-,.nission has discussed the proposed &-velop!rient. ill i*S various confi-urations, durina several meetings. On January 7, 1993. it letter %v:.,.,, written to the Butte County Planning Cornhiission on Miall'of the Airport irporT Commission, expressing the Commission's Opposition to the proposcd ptcjtcct. It la -;r carne to the Commission's attention at its Octobcr 27. 1998, meeting?. The Chico Airport Commission remains strongly oppo.4ed to residential development on the subject ject property because it is tinder thetrart"i I c pattern of the Chien Municipal Airport and adjacent. to the very important Air -port Safety Zone. The Airport Commission urges that you not allow this development. !'hank you for your consideration. ofthe Conitiiisslion's position oil this matter. cc Airpoi-t Commission (5) Airport Land Use Commission \11j,(10.T,'CF;vfltior. L,r Kznmtxr spa /`7 110.1TItS Jr Lanio MMO F.All, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 - 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN BUTTE COUNTY AND DOUGLAS N. GUNN, TRUSTEE OF THE ROBERT AND ANN STEPHENS a`... CHARITABLE REMAINDER- UNITRUST, ET AL. This Development Agreement is entered into this 27th day of October, 1998, by and between BUTTE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter "County," and DOUGLAS N. GUNN, Trustee of the Robert and Ann Stephens Charitable Remainder Unitrust, hereinafter collectively "Landowner," pursuant to the authority of Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the Government Code of California.. Recitals A. Authorization. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California adopted Section 65864, d sem., of the Government Code (the "Development Agreement Statute"), which authorizes the County and an applicant for a development project to enter into a development agreement, establishing certain development rights in the Property which is the subject of the development project application. B. Property. The subject of this Agreement is the development of an approximately 230 -acre portion of that certain parcel of land, identified as APN 047-256-141 consisting of a total of approximately 300 acres, located in the unincorporated area of Butte County within the North Chico Specific Plan area (the "NCSP").as described in Exhibit "A-1" and shown on Exhibit "A-2" (hereinafter the "Property"), attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Landowner represents that all persons holding legal or equitable interests in the Property shall be bound by the Agreement. Page 1 11/2/98 r 1 C. _ Hearing. On August 27, 1998, the County Planning Commission, designated 2 by.Butte County Resolution No. 84-160 as the planning agency for purposes �of development 3 agreement review pursuant to Government Code Section 65867, .in a duly noticed. -and 4— conducted public hearing, considered this Agreement and recommended that the Board of 5 Supervisors approve this Agreement. 6 7 D. Environmental Documents. On October 27, 1998, the Board of Supervisors, in 8 Resolution 98- , adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Entitlements which tiered , .9 off of the NCSP Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Mitigation measures were included in 10 the Mitigated Negative Declaration and are incorporated, pursuant to the requirements of the 11 California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), in the terms and conditions of this 12 Agreement, as reflected by the findings concurrently adopted by the Board of Supervisors with 13 this Agreement. 14 -15 E. Entitlements. The Board of Supervisors has approved the following land use 16 entitlements for the Property, which entitlements are the subject of this Agreement: 17 18 (1) Amendment to the North Chico Specific Plan, as adopted by Resolution 19 No. 987_, for 229.2± acres; 20 21 (2) The Rezoning of the Property from SR -1 and SR-1/OS acres to Planned 22. Development SR-1/PD on 126.1± acres which generates the ability "to 23. develop up to 126 units (single-family home lots) and from,OS to OS/PD 24 on 103.1± acres which generates the ability to develop up to 34 , 25._ additional units for a total of 160 units, pursuant to Ordinance No. 26 , dated October 27, 1998; and 27 ; 28 (3) This Development Agreement, as adopted by Ordinance No. 29 (the "Adopting Ordinance"). 30 31 The approvals described in paragraphs E (1) through (3), inclusive, together with all County 32 rules, ordinances, regulations and policies applicable thereto adopted and in effect as of the 33 effective date of this Agreement, are referred to herein as the "Entitlements." 34 Page 2 11/2/98 1. 2 3 4 5 6 .7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29- 30 31 F. General_ and Specific Plans. Development'of the Property in accordance with the Entitlements and this Agreements consistent. with and will provide orderly growth and development of the area in accordance with the policies set forth in the General Plan and NCSP and the County finds and declares that this Agreement is consistent with the General Plan of Butte County and with the North Chico Specific Plan. For purposes of the protection granted - by this Agreement, except as otherwise provided herein, the applicable law shall be as set forth in the Entitlements as of the date hereof. G. Substantial Costs to Landowner. Landowner has incurred and will incur substantial costs in order to'comply with conditions of approval of the Entitlements and to I assure development of the Property in accordance with the Entitlements and the terms of this Agreement. H. Services and Facilities to be Provided. Development of the Property will result in a need for certain municipal services and facilities, some of which will be provided by County to such development through the implementation of the NCSP and some of which will be provided by Landowner subject to the performance of Landowner's obligations hereunder. Landowner agrees to contribute to the costs of certain public facilities and services as required herein to mitigate impacts on the community of the development of the Property, and County agrees to implement the NCSP to assure that Landowner may proceed with and complete development of the Property in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. If County specifies that Landowner provide contributions of land or money, other than the dedication of the drainage easement right-of-way depicted in Exhibit "B", for public improvements which exceed requirements to mitigate impacts arising as a result of development entitlements on the Property, County shall reimburse Landowner in the manner specified in Section 4.3 of this Agreement: I. DevelQpment Agmement Resolution. County and Landowner have fulfilled all requirements set forth in the Development Agreement Resolution of the County of Butte, Resolution`No. 84-160, adopted by the Board of Supervisors"on October 2, 1984, as amended. I. AGREEMENT SECTION. 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.1 Incomoration'of Recitals. The Preamble, the Recitals and all defined terms set forth in both are hereby incorporated into this Agreement as if set forth herein in full. 1.2 PropeM Description and Binding Covenants. The Property comprises those portions of -that property identified as APN 047-250-141 and described in Exhibits "A-1" and "A-211. It is intended and determined that the provisions of this Agreement.shall constitute covenants which shall run with the Property and the benefits and burdens hereof shall bind and inure. to all successors in interest to and assigns of the parties hereto. Accordingly, all references herein to "Landowner" shall mean and refer to DOUGLAS N. GUNN, Trustee of the Robert and Ann Stephens Charitable Remainder Unitrust, and each and every subsequent purchaser or transferee of the Property or any portion thereof from Landowner. 1.3 Tun. 1.3.1 Commencement; �E piration. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon the effective date of the Adopting Ordinance approving this Agreement. This Agreement shall extend for a period of fifteen (15) years thereafter, unless said term is terminated, modified or extended by circumstances set forth in this Agreement or by mutual . consent of the parties hereto. Following the expiration of the term, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further force and effect; provided, however, said termination of the Agreement shall not affect any right or duty nor the ability to construct any improvements, . facilities, buildings or the like partially or completely constructed emanating from County entitlements on the Property approved prior to, concurrently with, or subsequent to the expiration of this Agreement. At the date'of recordation of part or all of Final Subdivision Map(s), this Agreement shall terminate as to those maps or parts of maps 'so recorded, unless specified otherwise in Subdivision Agreements or other agreements between Landowner and w County regarding the timing, payment, security or other arrangements for site development or improvement installation or related matters. County, shall cause any written notice of. termination approved pursuant to this subsection to be, recorded, against the applicable parcel, at Landowner's expense, with the County Recorder. 1 1.3.2 Termination Upon Mutual Agreement. This • Agreement ,may be 2 terminated upon the written mutual agreement of the parties. 3 4 1.4 , Amendment, of Agreement. This Agreement maybe amended from time to time 5 by mutual consent of County and Landowner, in accordance • with the provisions of the 6 Development Agreement Statute. The parties acknowledge that under the County Zoning 7 Code and applicable rules, regulations and policies of the County, the Director of Development 8 Services has the discretion to approve minor modifications to approved land use entitlements 9 without the requirement for a public hearing or approval by the Board of Supervisors. 10 Accordingly, the approval of any minor modifications to the Entitlements consistent with this .11 Agreement shall not constitute nor require an amendment to this Agreement to be effective. 12 �• F 13 1.5 Recordation. The County shall cause this Agreement; any amendment hereto' 14 and any termination thereof to be recorded, at Landowner's expense, with the County Recorder 15 within ten (10) days of this Agreement, amendment or termination becoming effective. 16 17 'SECTION 2: DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY 18 19 2.1 Permitted Uses. The permitted uses of the Property, the maximum density and 20 intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, provisions for reservation 21 or dedication of land for public purposes, and location of public improvements, and.other terms 22 and conditions of development applicable to the Property shall be those set forth in the 23 Entitlements and in this Agreement. 24 25 2.2• . Vested Entitlements. Subject to the provisions and conditions of this Agreement, 26 County agrees that County is granting, and grants herewith, the Entitlements set forth in 27 Recitals E., above. Landowner's vested right to proceed with the development of the Property 28 shall be subject to subsequent approvals, including without limitation, environmental review 29 as required by CEQA, tentative subdivision maps, final subdivision maps, grading permits, 30 building permits, final inspections, etc., provided that any conditions, terms, restrictions and 31 requirements for such subsequent approvals shall be consistent with the Entitlements set forth 32 in Recitals E.; above. As specified in Government Code Section 65866, this Agreement shall 33 not prevent County from applying new rules, regulations or policies which do not conflict with 34 existing rules regulations or policies applicable to the property or prevent the County from Page 5 ,1-N 11/2/98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 .7 approving, conditionally approving or denying any .subsequent development project applications on the basis of existing or new rules, regulations, and policies. 2.3 Fxi�tig_Isnnrovements. It is recognized that the'property is developed with an existing single family residence that is located with the OS/PD zone. The existing dwelling will be allowed to remain as a pre-existing non -conforming use and shall be counted as one of the 34 Density Transfer Units (DTUs) described in Section 3.4. As such, the net number of DTUs shall be 33 unless the existing residence is removed in which case the total 34 DTUs may be- transferred. Any reference to 34 DTUs in this document shall take into account the preceding limitation. 2.4 ' Rules, Regulations and Official Policies. 2.4.1 Inconsistency. To the extent any future rules, ordinances, regulations or policies applicable to development of the Property are inconsistent with the Entitlements as provided in this Agreement, the terms of the Entitlements and this Agreement shall prevail, unless the parties mutually agree to alter this Agreement. 2.4.2 Application of Changes. This section shall not preclude the application to development of the Property, of changes in County laws, -regulations, plans or policies, the terms of which are specifically mandated and required by changes in State or Federal laws or regulations. In the event State or Federal laws or regulations enacted after this Agreement has been executed, or action of any governmental jurisdiction, prevent, delay or preclude compliance with one or moreprovisions of this Agreement, or require changes. in plans, maps or permits approved by County, the parties agree that the provisions of this Agreement shall be modified, extended or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such State and Federal laws or regulations or the regulations of other governmental jurisdictions. Each party agrees to extend to the other its prompt, good faith and reasonable cooperation in so modifying this Agreement or approved plans. 2.4.3 Authority of County. This section shall not be construed to limit the authority or obligation of County to hold necessary public hearings; or to limit discretion of County or any of its officers or officials with regard to rules, regulations, ordinances, laws and entitlements of use which require the exercise of discretion by County or any of its officers or Page 6 . 11/2/98 L9 1 officials, provided that subsequent discretionary actions shall be consistent with the uses and 2 the density and intensity of development as provided by the Entitlements and this Agreement, 3 in effect as of the effective date of this Agreement. 4 5 SECTION 3: LANDOWNER OBLIGATIONS 6 7 3.1 Drainage Easement Dedication. Landowner shall dedicate and County shall 8 accept an easement as depicted on Exhibit `B", for construction and maintenance of drainage 9 improvements to consist of a connector canal between Keefer Slough and Mud Creek and 10 necessary intake and outfall structures. Transfer of the easement and recordation will occur 11 simultaneously with Development Agreement execution and recordation. Landowner shall 12 only be obligated to pay Landowners proportionate share for design, construction, and 13 maintenance of the drainage facilities if such share is lawfully imposed through fees or 14 assessments adopted by or on behalf of a County Service Area or Assessment District or other 15 similar entity to maintain said facilities for the general area. 16 17 3.2 Drainage Mitigation. Landowner shall create, or link the connector canal to, 18 topographic features or facilities which will serve as detention basin(s) or equivalent means to. 19 mitigate stormwater runoff from the Property during peak storm events to a level that is at least 20 ten percent (10%) below pre -development runoff conditions. 21 22 3.3 Airport Protection Measures. Landowner will comply with the nine (9) Airport 23 Land Use Commission (ALUC) recommended conditions from ALUC's August 20, 1998 24 consistency findings transmittal as set forth in Sections 2 and 3 as items A through H, in 25 attached. Exhibit "C", in order to minimize noise and safety concerns regarding the Chico 26 Municipal Airport (CMA) when exercising the Entitlements agreed to in this document and 27 described in Section 3.4 immediately below. _ 28 29 3.4 Subdivision Map Processing. Landowner anticipates submitting two or more 30 subdivision maps for up to 160 units on the Property. Landowner may submit and County 31 shall promptly process the first subdivision map for up to 126 units in the SR-l/PD zone. This 32 subdivision map shall only need to be processed by County's Development Review Committee, 33 unless appealed to the Board of Supervisors. Landowner may submit and County shall 34 promptly review a second subdivision map for up to 34 additional density transfer units 35 ("DTUs") to be built in the SR-1/PD zone or elsewhere within the NCSP pursuant to Section Page 7. 11/2/98 1 4.1 of this Agreement, after adoption of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) Update for 2 the CMA by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). As to any DTU, 3 Landowner and County agree that the subdivision map shall be brought before the ALUC for.. 4 a determination of whether significant airport compatibility issues exist or whether they have 5 otherwise been satisfactorily mitigated by subdivision design criteria. If ALUC determines that 6 the subdivision map is consistent with noise and safety criteria in the CLUP Update which are 7 consistent with California Public Utilities, Code Section 21670, the subdivision map shall be 8 processed in accordance with the Entitlements. If the ALUC makes a finding of inconsistency 9 under these same criteria, the transfer of such DTU's shall not be allowed within the SR-1/PD 10 zone but may be transferred to other property in the NCSP, pursuant to Section 4.1 of this 11 Agreement. If a CLUP Update has not been adopted within 30 months of the effective date 12 of this Agreement, the subdivision map for the DTUs shall be processed and CMA 13 compatibility determined pursuant to the CLUP or its equivalent which was in existence as of 14 the effective date of this Agreement. Landowner agrees not to request extensions of approved 15 subdivision maps beyond the 15 year term of this Agreement. At the time of recordation of 16 final subdivision maps, Landowner and County agree to enter into mutually acceptable 17 Subdivision Agreements regarding timing and security arrangements for the installation of site 18 improvements. 19 20 3.5 Retention of Creek Corridor Oren Space. Landowners will reserve in open 21 space a 50 -foot corridor on the Property from the outer edge of the north side of Mud Creek 22 and plant native trees and shrubs to create wildlife habitat and improve aesthetics as specified 23 in subdivision map conditions. Landowner shall reserve a 50 -foot open space corridor from 24. the top of bank along both sides of Keefer Slough on the Property and plant native trees and 25 shrubs along this drainage as specified in subdivision map conditions for the same purposes. 26 Open space preserved on-site will be credited towards PD Ordinance open space requirements. 27 28 3.6 Dedication of Public Trail Easement. Upon recordation by Landowner of a final 29 subdivision- map for the first 126 units on the Property, Landowner will dedicate to the Chico 30 Area Recreation District ("CARD"), or other entity acceptable to County, an easement for a 31 public bicycle/hiking/pedestrian trail along Mud Creek and Keefer Slough. Landowner will 32 construct trail improvements and be reimbursed by County or CARD, as applicable, pursuant 33 to this Agreement and the NCSP for the cost of improvements. At the time that Landowner 34 records a final, subdivision map for the DTUs, Landowner will enter into a conservation 35 easement with a public agency or non-profit organization to retain the approximately 103.1 Page 8 11/2/98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18, 19 20 21 22 23. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 acres adjacent to the airport as permanent open space, or if no such entity will accept such open space, then.to the County. 3.7- North Chico Specific Plan Policies. Landowner agrees to comply with the design requirements and development standards specified in the NCSP as amended by this Development Agreement. 3.8 Development., Connection and Mitigation Fees. Except as otherwise provided herein, any and all required payments of development, connection or mitigation fees by Landowner shall be made in the amount specified by then applicable County ordinances, either in effect as of the date of this Agreement, subject to adjustment or subsequent adoption in accordance with Section 2.4.2. 3.8.1 School Fee Agreements. So long as Landowner is paying to School District the state, authorized fees then adopted and in force taking into consideration NCSP School Policies 1-4 on page 6-15 of the NCSP, County shall not refrain from approving any subdivision maps or other such entitlements for the Property or from issuing any building permits for development thereof consistent with the Entitlements on the basis of adverse impacts of this development on school facilities. 3.8.2 Counjymdde Facilities. Fees. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary. in Section 2.4 of this Agreement, Landowner will be given a credit against any county -wide, NCSP or CSA 87 impact mitigation fees for the reasonable value of land, drainage facilities or other improvements which Landowner dedicates or elects to install at Landowner's own expense — 3.9 Processing Fees and Charges. Landowner shall pay those processing, inspection and plan check fees and charges required by County under then current regulations for processing applications and requests for permits, approvals and other actions, and monitoring compliance with any permits issued or approvals granted or the performance of any conditions with respect thereto or any performance required of Landowner hereunder: 3.10 Public Financing Limited to Specific Funding Mechanisms .and Fees. Except as expressly provided herein, Landowner's sole and only obligation with respect to -the participation of the Property in any funding mechanisms to support the construction of any Page 9 11/2/98 1 public facilities and improvements or the provision of public services in relation to 2 development of the Property shall be to pay existing County fees related to the construction 3 and provision of public facilities authorized by ordinance to be collected by County as of the 4 effective date of this Agreement, as such fees may be adjusted from time to time in accordance 5 with applicable law, or such other fees as may be duly adopted in the future by County from 6 time to time to implement the NCSP or in accordance with applicable law. Provided, however; 7 Landowner's obligation to pay future County fees is limited to those fees adopted on a county - 8 wide basis or which apply uniformly to all properties within the NCSP which are similarly 9 situated, whether by geographic location, drainage sheds or other distinguishing circumstances. 10, 12 3.11 Negative Declaration Mitigation Measures. Notwithstanding any other provision 13 • in this Agreement to the contrary, when Landowner elects to. develop the Property, Landowner 14 shall be bound by, and shall perform, all mitigation measures identified in the NCSP EIR and 15 the Mitigated Negative Declaration related to this development which are adopted by the 16 County and required pursuant to CEQA as identified in the mitigation monitoring plan as a: 17 responsibility of Landowner. 18 19 3.12 No Additional Dedications or -Easements. Landowner shall not be obligated to 20 dedicate any right of way or grant any public utility easements as a condition of development 21 of the Property except as may be required to obtain subsequent approvals as set forth in'section "22 2.2 of this document. Page 10 11/2/98 f , • • 1 2 SECTION 4: COUNTY OBLIGATIONS 3 4 4.1 Specific Plan Amendment and Rezone. As provided in the Recitals and Section 5 2.2, County agrees that Landowner has a fully vested Specific Plan Amendment and Rezone 6 to Suburban Residential One Acre Planned Development (SR-l/PD) on -126.1± acres and a 7 fully vested Specific Plan Amendment and Rezone to 'Open Space -Planned Development 8 (OS/PD) on the 103.1± acres depicted in Exhibit "D". County agrees that Landowner has a 9 fully vested right and entitlement to build up to 160 units in residential subdivisions on the 10 Property, subject to the provisions of Sections 2.2 and 3.4. County and Landowner agree the 11 34 units credited as Density Transfer Units will not be built on the OS area. These DTUs will 12 be transferred either to'the SR-1/PD. area and all units built on that portion of the Property if 13 allowed pursuant to Section 3.4, or transferred to other property within the NCSP subject to 14 subsequent approvals specified in Section 2.2 and any rezone or specific plan amendment 15 needed to make the DTU's consistent with the NCSP. Open space preserved on-site will be . 16 credited towards the open space requirements for both the SR-1/PD and OS/PD zones except 17 for that portion contained within the drainage easement dedication described in Section 3.1 and 18 also excepting the 103.1 acres of land designated OS/PD which will not be credited towards 19 the open space requirement for the SR-l/PD zone. County also agrees that Landowner has a 20 vested right, but no obligation, to use open space areas anywhere on the Property for ancillary 21 facilities which County hereby acknowledges are open space compatible, including trails, 22. community sewage and water treatment or disposal systems, wetland/habitat mitigation and 23 enhancement, road access to Hicks Lane, utilities, active and passive recreation, drainage 24 facilities and all other open space retaining uses. 25 _ 26 4.2 County Cooperation. County shall cooperate with Landowner and use its best 27 good faith efforts in processing and approving all tentative subdivision maps, final subdivision 28 maps, building permits, grading permits, final inspections and any other land use applications 29 for permits or approvals (collectively, "Subsequent Applications") which may be required by 30 County consistent with the Entitlements and this Agreement. County agrees to expedite 31 review, grant and implementation of any Subsequent Applications consistent with the 32 Entitlements and this Agreement and to impose conditions and/or adopt mitigation measures 33 only to the extent they are consistent with and implement the Entitlements and this Agreement. 34 The processing and approvaf "of Subsequent Applications which are consistent with the 35 Entitlements shall not require an amendment to this Agreement. County further finds that the Page 11 11/2/98 I NCSP EIR and the Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately address the significant impacts 2 of development of the Property in accordance with the Entitlements and this Agreement and 3 " agrees that, to the extent lawfully allowed, the processing of Subsequent Applications shall tier 4 off of and rely upon the NCSP - EIR and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Property. 5 Upon approval of any Subsequent Application, County agrees that such subsequent 6 entitlements or approvals shall automatically. be vested according to the terms of this 7 Agreement as if such entitlements and approvals were specifically identified in this Agreement 8 and that the expiration date for any tentative subdivision map approved for the Property shall 9 extend for the term of this Agreement. '10 11 4.3 Reimbursement by County. If Landowner installs, at its cost, the drainage 12 improvements described in Section 3.1 or any other improvements which provide public 13 benefits above and beyond the service or mitigation needs of the Property, County shall 14 compensate Landowner or its successors, in a manner consistent with County Code and policy, 15 for the amount of public benefit provided which exceeds service or mitigation requirements 16 for the Property specified in the Entitlements and this Agreement. Such compensation shall 17 be made from assessments, developer fees, state and federal cost share or grant programs or 18 any other source available to County. Compensation may be made in cash, by fee reduction, 19 by density bonus or any other form agreeable to the Landowner and County. Landowner and 20 County agree that County shall not be obligated to reimburse Landowner for that limited 21 portion of improvements designed exclusively to mitigate stormwater runoff to a level that is 22 at least ten percent (10%) below pre -development runoff conditions described in Section 3.2; 23 unless County shall receive Federal, State, local or private fimding from sources which provide . 24 funds eligible to reimburse Landowner. Landowner shall join County in any application 25 prepared by County for Federal,._ State, local or private funding which may be identified by 26 Landowner or County to finance improvements and reimburse Landowner. Landowner and 27 County shall each use its best efforts to cooperate to obtain approval of and to equitably share 28 such funding. County and Landowner agree that the pursuit or approval of such application 29 shall not result in any adverse economic or financial impact upon Landowner or the Property. 30 31 4.4 Maps and Permits. Provided that Landowner is not in default under this 32 Agreement, and as except as provided in Section 3.4, County shall not cease to process or 33 approve tentative or final subdivision maps or issue building permits or certificates of 34 occupancy for development of the Property that are consistent with the Entitlements. 35 Page 12 11/1/98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ,12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21' 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ,31 32 33 34 35 • 4.5 No Moratorium, �o as, Restrictions or Other Orowth Limitations. Subject to applicable law relating to the vesting provisions of development agreements, Landowner and County intend that, except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement shall vest the Entitlements'against subsequent County plans, actions, resolutions, and ordinances that directly or indirectly limit the Entitlements. 4.6 Essence of Agreement. The foregoing Sections 2, 3 and 4 are of the essence of this Agreement. SECTION 5: DEFAULT, REMEDIES, TERMINATION 5.1 General Provisions. Subject to extensions of time by mutual consent in writing, failure or unreasonable delay by either party to perform any term or provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event of alleged default or breach of any term or condition of this Agreement, the party alleging such default or breach shall give the other party not less than thirty (30) days notice in writing specifying the nature of the alleged default and the manner in which said default may be satisfactorily cured. During any such thirty -day period, the party charged shall not be considered in - default for purposes of termination or institution of legal proceedings. After notice and expiration of the thirty -day period, the other party to this Agreement at its option may instiiute legal proceedings pursuant to this Agreement or give notice of intent to terminate the Agreement pursuant to California Government Code Section -65868 and regulations of County implementing said Government. Code. Section. -Foliowing notice ,of intent to terminate, the matter shall be scheduled for consideration and review, by the Board of Supervisors within thirty (30) calendar days in the manner set forth in Government Code Sections 65865, 65867 and 65868 and County regulations implementing such Sections. Following consideration of the evidence presented in said review before the Board of Supervisors, either party alleging the default by the other party may give written notice of termination of this Agreement to the other party. Evidence of default may also arise .in the course of a regularly scheduled periodic review of this Agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65865.1. If either party determines that the other party is in default following the completion of the normally scheduled Page 13 11/2/98 1 periodic review, said party may give written notice of default of this Agreement as set forth 2 in this section, specifying in said notice the alleged nature of the default, and potential actions 3 to cure said default and shall specify a reasonable period of time in which such default is to be 4 cured. If the alleged default is not cured within thirty (30) days, or within such longer period 5 specified in the notice, or if the defaulting party waives its right to cure such alleged default, 6. the other party may terminate this Agreement. 7 8 5.2 Annual Review. As required by Government Code Section 65865.1, County 9 shall, at least every twelve (12) months during the term of this Agreement, review the extent 10 of good faith substantial compliance by Landowner with the terms of this Agreement. Such 11 periodic review shall be limited in scope to compliance with the terms of this Agreement 12 pursuant to Section 65865.1 of the Government Code and -the monitoring of mitigation in 13 accordance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California. 14 Notice of such annual review shall include a finding regarding compliance with this 15 Agreement. A finding by County of good faith compliance by Landowner with the terms of 16 the Agreement shall be conclusive with respect to the performance of Landowner during the 17 period preceding the review. 18 19 Upon not less than thirty (30) days written notice by the Director of Development 20 Services of County, Landowner shall provide such information as may be reasonably requested 21 and deemed to be required in order to ascertain compliance with this Agreement. 22 23 In the same manner prescribed in Section 10, the County shall deposit in the mail to 24 Landowner a copy of all staff reports and related exhibits concerning contract performance 25 and, to the extent practical, at least ten (10) calendar days prior to any such periodic review. 26 Landowner shall be permitted an opportunity to be heard orally or in writing regarding its 27 performance under this Agreement before the Board of Supervisors or if the matter is referred 28 to the Planning Commission before said Commission. y 29 30 If County takes no action within thirty (30) days following the hearing, Landowner shall 31 be deemed to have complied in good faith with the provisions of the Agreement. 32 33 5.3 Enforced Delay, Extension of Times of Performance. In addition to specific 34 provisions of this Agreement, performance by either party hereunder shall not be deemed to 35 be in default where delays or default are due to war, insurrection, strikes, walkouts, riots, Page 14 11/2/98 1 floods,- drought, earthquakes, fires, casualties, acts of God, governmental restrictions imposed . 2 or mandated by other governmental entities, enactment of conflicting state of federal laws or 3 regulations, new or supplementary environmental regulation, litigation, or similar bases for 4 excused performance. If written notice of such delay is given to County within thirty (30) days 5 of the commencement of such delay, an extension of time for such cause shall be granted in 6 writing for the period of the enforced delay, or longer as may be mutually agreed upon. 7 8 5.4 Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may 9 institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any default, to enforce any covenant or .10 agreement herein, or to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation. The remedies of County 11 for any default of this Agreement by Landowner shall include but not be limited to termination 12 of this Agreement and the vesting of the Entitlements hereunder and cessation of approving . 13 requests for development of the Property. All legal actions shall be initiated in the Superior 14 Court of the County of Butte, State of California, unless required by law to be initiate_ d in the 15 Federal District Court in the Eastern District of California. 16 17 5.5 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated following any event of 18 default -of Landowner or for any other reason, such termination shall not affect the validity of 19 any building or improvement - within the Property which is completed as of the date of 20 termination, provided that such building or improvement has been constructed pursuant to a 21 building permit issued by the County. Furthermore, no termination of this Agreement shall , 22. prevent Landowner from completing and occupying any, building or. other improvement - 23 authorized pursuant to a valid building permit previously issued by the County that is under 24 construction at the time of termination, provided that any such building or improvement is 25 completed in accordance with said building permit in effect at the time of such termination. 26 , 27 5.6 Applicable L. w and Attorneys'„ Fees. This Agreement shall be construed and 28 enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Should any legal action be 29 brought by either party for breach of this Agreement or to enforce any provisions herein, the 30 prevailing party to such action shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs and .31 such other costs as may be fixed by the Court. 32' Page 15 SECTION 6: HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT Landowner and its successors -in -interest and assigns, hereby agrees to, and shall defend. and hold County, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, and employees harmless from any liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injury, or bodily injury including death, as well as from claims for property damage which may arise from the operations of Landowner, or of Landowner's contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees under this Agreement, whether such operations be by Landowner, or by any of Landowner's contractors or subcontractors, or by any one or more persons directly or indirectly employed by, or acting as agent for, Landowner or Landowner's contractors or subcontractors, unless such damage or claim arises from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of County. The foregoing indemnity obligation of Landowner shall not apply to any liability for damage or claims for damage with respect to any damage to or use of any public improvements after the completion and acceptance thereof by County. In addition to the foregoing indemnity obligation, Landowner agrees to and shall defend, indemnify and hold County, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents and employees harmless -from any suits or actions at law or in equity arising out of the execution; adoption or implementation of this Agreement, exclusive of any such actions brought by Landowner, its successors -in -interests or assigns. . SECTION 7: PROJECT AS A PRIVATE UNDERTAKING It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the subject project is a private development. No partnership, joint venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Agreement. SECTION 8: COOPERATION IN THE EVENT OF LEGAL CHALLENGE In the event of any legal action instituted by a third party or other governmental entity or official challenging the validity of any provision of this Agreement, the parties hereby agree to cooperate in defending said action. Page 16 I SECTION 9: GENERAL 2 3 9.1 Enforceability. The County agrees that unless this Agreement is amended or 4 canceled pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement and the Adopting Ordinance, this 5 Agreement shall be enforceable by any party hereto notwithstanding any change hereafter in 6 any applicable general plan, specific plan,_ airport land use plan --except as specified in Section 7 3.4, zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance or building regulation adopted by County, or by 8 initiative, which changes, alters or amends the rules, regulations and policies applicable to the 9 development of the Property at the time of approval of this Agreement, as provided by this 10 Agreement and, as specified in Section 2.3.1, by Government Code Section 65866. 11 12 9.2 '.o n Finding.. The County hereby finds and determines that execution of this 13 Agreement is in the best interest of the public health, safety and general welfare and is 14 consistent with the General Plan and North Chico Specific. Plan. 15 . 16 9.3 Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole 17 protection and benefit of the Landowner and the County and their successors and assigns.. No 18 other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision in this Agreement. . 19 20 9.4 Severability. Except as set forth herein, if any term, covenant or condition of 21 this Agreement or the application thereof to any person, entity or circumstance shall, to any 22 extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement and all Entitlements to 23 which it refers, or the application of such term, covenant or condition to Entitlements, persons, 24 entities or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall 25 not be affected thereby and each term, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be valid 26 and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law; provided, however, if any provision of 27 this Agreement is determined to be invalid or unenforceable and the effect thereof is todeprive 28 a party hereto of an essential benefit of its bargain hereunder, then such party so deprived shall 29 have the option to terminate this entire Agreement from and after such determination. 30 31 9.5 Construction. This Agreement shall be subject to and construed in accordance 32 and harmony with all Butte County Codes, as they may be amended, provided that such 33 amendments do not affect or conflict with the rights granted to the parties by this Agreement 34 consistent with the'requirements of this Agreement and Government Code Section 65866. 35 Page 17 1 11/2/98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35' 9.6 Other Necessary Acts. Each party shall execute and deliver to the other all such other further instruments and documents as may be reasonably necessary to carry out this Agreement in order to provide and secure to the other party the full and complete enjoyment of its rights and privileges hereunder.. -- 9.7 Estoppel Certificate. Either party may, at any time, and from time to time, deliver written notice to the other party requesting such party to certify in writing that, to the knowledge of the certifying party, (1) this Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding .obligation of the parties, (ii) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally I r in writing, or if so amended, identifying the amendments, and (iii) the requesting party is . not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, to -describe therein the nature of such default. The party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate within thirty (30) days following the receipt thereof. County acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by transferees and mortgagees of Landowner. SECTION 10: NOTICES All notices required -by this Agreement, the enabling legislation, or the procedure adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 65865, shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid. Notice required to be given to the County shall be addressed as follows: Director Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965 Notice required to be given to the Landowner• shall be addressed as follows: Douglas N. Gunn . Gunn Accountants 250 West Crest Street, Suite E Escondido, California 92025-1715 Page 18 11!2198 Either party may change the address stated herein by giving notice in' writing to the other party, and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. H. ASSIGNMENT Landowner shall have the full right upon written notice to and consent by County, which consent shall not be unreasonablywithheld, to assign this Agreement as to the Property, or any portion thereof, in connection with any sale, transfer or conveyance thereof, and upon the' express written assignment by Landowner and assumption by the assignee, of such : assignment in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "E" and the conveyance of Landowner's interest in the Property related thereto, Landowner shall be released from any further liability or obligation hereunder related to the portion of the Property so conveyed and the assignee shall be deemed to be the "Landowner," with all rights and obligations related thereto, with respect to such conveyed property. M. FORM OF AGREEMENT, EXHIBITS This Agreement is executed in two duplicate, originals; each of which is deemed to be an original. This Agreement consists of 18 pages and 7 exhibits, which constitute the entire understanding and agreement of the parties. Approved this 27th day of October, 1998, by the Board of Supervisors of Butte County. COUNTY: LANDOWNER: BUTTE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of California By: By: Fred C. Davis, -Chairman Board of Supervisors DOUGLAS N. GUNN, Trustee of the Robert and Ann Stephens Charitable Remainder Unitrust ATTEST: John Blacklock, Clerk Board of Supervisors By: Page 19 11r2N8 1 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Susan Minasian, County Counsel 3 By: Page 20 11/2/98 1 2 LIST OF EXMBITS 3 4 5 Exhibit A - = Property Description 6 A-1 - - . Legal Description of Property ...... . 7 A-2 - - Diagram of the Property 8 Exhibit B - - Drainage Easement diagram .9 Exhibit C - - ALUC consistency findings transmittal 10 Exhibit D - Zoning diagram 11. Exhibit E - - Form of Assignment 12 13 -- 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 " h s Page 21 11/7198 HP OfficeJet Fax Log Report for Personal Printer/Fax/Copier butte county planning 530 538 7785 Nov -13-98 08:15 AM Last Fax Identification Result Pages Tvne Date Time - Duration Diagnostic 919169251127 OK 11Sent Nov -13 08:09A 00:05:29 002582030022 1.3.0 2.8 +BUTTE IAI PORT LAND USACOMMISSION �- 7 County Center Drive; Oroville, CA.96966 • (530) 538-7601 FAX(5M) 538-T185 • Butte County Board of Supervisors Butte County DDS'Planning Division -; >,. 'Robert and Ann Stephens George Kammerer sCity of Chico Airport/City,Manager Office "1 City of Chico Airport Commission s Other Public Agencies and Interested Parties FROM: % Butte County'Airport Land Use Commission SUBJECTS REVISED NOTICE OF -PUBLIC MEETING REGARDING: Butte County Developrr•ttent Agreement (D 9-01 Robert and Ann StephenslGeorge Kammerer) on 'APN 047-250-141. DATE NOTICE MAILED: November 13, -1998 ' This is your official notice that the Airport Land Use Commission will hold a public meeting on . T. the,following matter at the time and place listed below: : R HEARING DATE: November 18, 19981 ` TIME: :' 9:00 a.m. PLACE: Board of Supervisors' Room y Butte CountAdministration Center f j • 25 County Center Drive -' Oroville, CA 95965 Butte Coun , Development Agreement (DEV99-01 Robert"and Ann Stephens/George 4-' Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141: A request for Consistency Findinds for a Development Agreement to .define the development rights fo_ r a 230 acre .portion .of a'300` acre site. + ` Proposed entitlements include a rezone from SR -1 and SR- 1/OS�to Planned Development SR- -` .1/PD on"126 acres and from OS to OS/PD on .103 acres. The project site is located on the ; west side of Hick's'Lane immediately adjacent'to the Chico,Municipal Airport,,generally between ' Keefer Slough and Mud Creek. Staff recommends that the Commission find the project' " inconsistent with the 1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan based upon the findings :{ presented in the attached If you have any further questions or desire additional information, please call Laura Webster, - ;+ of the ALUC staff; at (916) 533-1131.6 At the meeting, the Commission will consider oral and *written testimony by any interested person - or affected agency and the report of staff. The-. project file may be reviewed at the Department:of Development Services, 7 County Center _ Drive, Oroville, "Califomia. r , •fib< . • Butte County a Airport Land Use ' Commission e +B . UTTE coUNTIAaiiPoRT LAND uSIPcoa2MdSsaoN + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (SM) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 EXHIBIT A BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR: Butte County Development Agreement (DEV99-01- Robert and Ann Stephens/George Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141 The Airport Land Use Commission has prepared the following findings based upon data contained within the 1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. This data, in turn is based upon the findings of a number of studies, documents.and reports generated by individuals firms and agencies recognized as having expertise in the field of Airport Land Use Planning and land use compatibility. The following findings have been prepared at the direction of the ALUC and are for the consideration of the County of Butte (local agency) when making a decision on the project. If the local agency does not accept the findings -of the ALUC, it may override the Commission's decision with a 2/3 vote of the governing body provided it makes specific findings that theproposed action is consistent with the State Aeronautics Act as stated in Section 21670. Overriding findings cannot be adopted as matters of opinion, but instead must be supported by new substantial factual evidence introduced into the public record. Section 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS A. No environmental documentation was submitted for the current project at the time of review. Section 2: PROJECT CONSISTENCY FINDINGS A: Chapter 3 of the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook identifies four functional categories that address airport land use compatibility concerns. These include: Noise, Safety, Airspace Protection, and Overflight Protection. The applicant's proposal has been found to be inconsistent with protection measures and policies contained in the 1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan which are designed to address Overflight Protection and Safety. Overflight Protection 1. An Overflight Protection Zone (OPZ) has been adopted as part of the CMAEP (Drawing CIC -14) which prohibits new single family residential development'in Zone A and Zone B of the • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission 1 e fr. L. , • fir` + OPZ to minimize'" thepublics exposure to excessive noise and J �� safety hazards within areas around the Chico Municipal Airport , C4 that are subject to the most intense aircraft overflight activity.' The applicant's proposal would permit up`to,160,single family °. o E residential units within the Overflight Protection Zone. , E. P o t ., f, E U a LL 2 Application of the Overflight Protection Zone and - its . 11 �„ corresponding policies has been designed.to protect the public , health, safety and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of the Chico Municipal Airport and the continued viability of ,w iy1 i aircraft operations to and from that facility. I • . M , , o co Safe y V a based upon data generated by the3. Accident scatter mapsr University of California Berkeley,- Institute of Transportation ' • Studies (1 993)and Hodges and Shutt, have been adopted as part of the'CMAEP (Drawings CIC -17 and CIC -18) and support • . the finding ,that the project site is located in an -area which has, ` an elevated likelihood of being, impactedby aircraft{ accidents t F• involving both arrivals and departures. .- Section 3: OTHER COMMISSION COMMENTS ' 4V Al ; . A The prohibition of new single family residential development within . , Zones A and B of the Overflight Protection Zone will ensure, to'the ' •fullest extent currently possible, that no -new incompatible land uses '• h are developed which may interfere with future extension of either of the existing runways at.the Chico Municipal Airport. The City of Chico j •Airpp t Commission is currently in the#process of conducting an Airport Master, Plan Update that will 'at minimum recommend the r reservation of additional lands for lengthening existing runways -and ` other constructionprojects designed to accommodate lieavier�aircraft.. = Both,of'these activities could result in modifications to the -location of . • _- current safety zones and projected noise contours.. B. The area encompassed by the project site,is likely. to be exposed to single .'event noise levels and other episodes which exceed the levels. noted , in Exhibit 4-4 as "normally acceptablen for residential -development. Noise levels in excess of the recommended CNEL are , likely to occur in conjunction with intensive CDF air tanker operations during campaign fires, occasional military activities and other aircraft engine testing or maintenance procedures.' e Butte County' • Airport Land Use Commissions 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 916-538-7601 [fax 916-538-7785] f @FWDa x 44 to: George Kamerer -fax #: 916-925-1127 from: Paula Atterberry date: November 12, 1998 subject: FNovember 18, 1998 ALUC Agenda pages: 4 includin cover sheet NOTES: Good Morning George: Here is the November 18, 1997 ALUC Agenda I told you'd I would fax today. However, there were revisions to the staff report, and Tom.is going over them this morning and so soon as -I get it I'll be making th packets up to send out. I'm sure we.will do as planned regarding the overnight exp- ress mail. Sincerelyj Paula ➢rve-¢ Vii,14 +Bl[T`I["T E COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • TO: Butte County Board of Supervisors Butte County DDS, Planning Division Robert and Ann Stephens George Kammerer. City of Chico Airport/City Manager Office City of Chico Airport Commission Other Public Agencies and Interested Parties FROM: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING REGARDING: Butte County Development Agreement (DEV99-01 - Robert and Ann Stephens/George Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141. DATE NOTICE MAILED: November 9, 1998 This is your official notice that the Airport Land Use Commission will hold a public meeting on the following matter at the time and place listed below: HEARING DATE: November 18, 1998 TIME: 9:00 a.m. PLACE: Board of Supervisors' Room Butte County Administration Center 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Butte Countv Development Aareement (DEV99-01 - Robert and Ann Stephens/George Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141: A request for Consistency Findings for a Development Agreement to define the development rights for a 230 acre portion of a 300 acre site. Proposed entitlements include a rezone from SR -1 and SR-1/OS to Planned Development SR- 1/PD on 126 acres and from OS to OS/PD on 103 acres. The project site is located on the west side of Hicks Lane immediately adjacent to the Chico Municipal Airport, generally between Keefer Slough and Mud Creek. Staff recommends that the Commission find the project, inconsistent with the 1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan based upon the findings presented in the attached "Exhibit A." If you have any further questions or desire additional information, please call Laura Webster, of the ALUC staff, at (916) 533-1131. At the meeting, the Commission will consider oral and written testimony by any interested person or affected agency and the report of staff. The project file may be reviewed at the Department of Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\ALUC\11-18-98.MTG\STEPHENS.NOT • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • �d +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USP S BION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA.95965.e (530) 53877601 fAX (530) 538-77,85+ EXHIBIT A BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR: Butte County Development Agreement. DEV99-01- Robert and Ann Stephens/George Kammerer) on APN- 047-250-141 The .following -findings have. been- prepared -at, the -direction of-the.ALLIG-and.are-for the consideration of the County of Butte (local agency) when making a decision on the project.. If the local agency does not accept the- findings- of the ALUC; it may override_ the Commission's decision., The override process involves three mandatory steps, including: (1-) The- holding- of a public hearing. (2) The making of specific findings that the action proposed is consistent with the purposes -of the- State -Aeronautics -Act -as -stated- in -Section -2 -1670. -of -the- Public Utilities Code and summarized below: "... to -provide -for the. -orderly -development -of each -public -use -airport -in this state..." "... to- provide -for- the- orderly development -of ... the -area- ur_rounding-thpse airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport- noise -standards...:" "... to provide -for the orderly, development of..... the area surrounding these airports -so. as- ,... to-prevent-the-creation-of--new-noise- aad-safety-problems." - "... to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports'..." - . "... to protect -the. public-health, safety, and -welfare -by.... the -adoption -of. Land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around -public airports., to the -extent that -these areas are not already devoted to incompatible land uses." (3) Approval of the proposed action -by a two-thirds vote of the local agency's governing body. Overriding- findings -cannot be adopted as -matters --of opinion, but -instead must be supported by new substantial factual evidence introduced into the public record. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 1 The Office of Planning and Research -offers several- guidelines regarding what constitutes sound legally sufficient findings. The most basic among these guidelines is that findings must -be substantive not just recitations -of the law. "Generally, findings are -not -sufficient if they merely recite the very language of the local'ordinance or state statute that requires them:" In -other words, findings - must -bridge -the -analytical -gap between -raw -data -and -the, ultimate decision. This assertion was affirmed in the 1992 court case, California Aviation Council -v. City of Ceres. In this- case-the-court-found-that.the-Ceres city.council-had-merely referred to the ALUC statutes and then concluded that the proposed land uses minimized public -exposure -to excessive noise and -safety -hazards -in the airport area.. Theefindings did not document the critical links between'the proposal, the finding and the facts. The Airport Land Use Commission has -prepared. -the -following -findings -based -upon -data contained within the 1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. This data, in turn. is f based -upon the. findings of a- number of studies documents -arid reports-generated,by individuals firms and agencies recognized as having expertise in the field of Airport Land Use -Planning -and land use compatibility. - It is the opinion of the ALUC, which is supported by both1egal statutes and case law," that agencies wishing to override the Commission's findings must: (1) provide factual- data -and - evidence from qualified sources which essentially refutes the data examined,by the ALUC and -the conclusions reached by the Commission; and, (2) demonstrate how the -agency's actions will adequately meet the purposes of the State. Aeronautics Act -as specified in Section 21670 of the Public Utilities Code. Section 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS A. No -environmental documentation- was -submitted- for- the- current- project- atthe-time: of review. Section -2: PROJECT CONSISTENCY- FIND-IN.GS A: Chapter 3 of the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook identifies four functional categories that address -airport- land use compatibility concerns. These include: Noise, Safety, Airspace Protection, and Overflight Protection:. The applicant's proposal has- been -found -to -be. -inconsistent- with protection -measures , and policies contained in the 1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan which -are designed -to -address Overflight -Protection; Noise -and -Safety. Overflight Protection 1. An- Overflight Protection Zone-(O.PZ)-has-. been adopted -as -part- of the--CMAEP (Drawing CIC -14) which prohibits new single family residential development in Zone A and -Zone B of the OPZ to, minimize -the -public's -exposure -to -excessive -noise -and Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 2 safety hazards within areas around the Chico Municipal Airport that are subject to the most intense aircraft overflight activity. The applicant's proposal would permit up to 160 single family residential units within the,Overflight Protection Zone. 2. Application of the Overflight Protection Zone and its corresponding policies has been designed to protect the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of the Chico Municipal Airport and the continued viability of aircraft operations to and from that facility. 3. The prohibition of new single family residential development within Zones A and B of the Overflight Protection Zonewill ensure, to*the fullest extent currently possible, that no new incompatible land uses are developed which may interfere with future extension of either of the existing runways at'the Chico Municipal Airport. The City of Chico Airport Commission is currently in the process of conducting an Airport Master Plan Update that will at minimum recommend the reservation of additional lands for lengthening existing runways and other construction projects designed to accommodate heavier aircraft. Both of these activities could result in modifications to the location of current safety zones and projected noise contours. Noise 4.' Future 55 dB CNEL contours shown in Drawings CIC -3 and CIC -15, corrected by methodology accepted by Caltrans' and depicted in Exhibit 4-5 of the CMAEP, results in a "normalized" contour of 65 dB CNEL over the northeast corner of the 126 acre area proposed as SR-1/PD. Exhibit 4-4 indicates that the maximum .exposure normally considered acceptable for single family residential development is 60 dB CNEL. 5. The -area encompassed -by- the_projecl-site--is_Iike1-y-to..be_exposed_to_singl.e_event noise levels and other episodes which exceed the levels noted in Exhibit 4-4 as itnormallyacceptable" for residential -development.. poise-levels-in-excess-of.the recommended CNEL are likely to occur in conjunction with intensive CDF air tanker operations__ which are.. necessacy—during__campaign-fires- and -occasional -military activities. In addition, Aero Union and other businesses under contract with CDF and the U.S. Department of Forestry- find- it necessary to- run- up- their- aircraft engines as much as 60% to 100% at night while the aircraft'is stationary. These operational tests are an- essential part_ of the.. maintenance activities for piston engine aircraft. Operational tests are typically conducted at the,north end of the main runway on a fairly routine basis during -the -summer months when. -the -aircraft are most heavily utilized. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 3 Safety 6. Accident scatter maps, based upon data generated by the University of California Berkeley, Institute,of Transportation Studies (1 9,93)and Hodges, and. Shutt, have. been' adopted as part of: the CMAEP (Drawings CICA T and CIC -18) and support thefinding that the project site is located in an area which has an elevated likelihood of being_. impacted-b-y-aircraft_acci.dents_involving_both ,arr-rvals_and • -departures. Figure CIC -18, which is based upon the Hodges and Shutt data,, i s- the same figure that the Butte County Board-of=Super-visors-used_to-over-ude-the-Airport Land Use Commission's finding of. inconsistency during adoption of.the North Chico Specific -,Plan in March. 1995.. r' 7 a List -of- References Data supporting the ALUC's-findings-,have_been-generated_from-studies_and_reports prepared by recognized professionals and agencies with expertise in Airport Land Use Planning -and .land- use. compatibility. these-include,.but_not-limited to: . R. Dixon -Speas Associates -Prepared 1978 Chico Municipal AirportEnvirons-Plan. ' P &-D-Aviation -,.Established. the- OverfliOt-Protection--Zone-.(QPZ-) within -the -City of Chico's 1995 FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program and Environs Plan and the Generalized -Flight Tracks- Map- discussed-within-the-,pr-oject-staff.report. Although..the ALUC did not adopt the entire FAR Part 150 Study, the OPZ and corresponding policies Were -adopted. bythe- Commission- on- October .2.1_, 1.998-as,Drawing-.C-lC-1-4.of.the-CMAEP. Caltrans. Division of Aeronautics - 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. University of California- Berkeley,- Institute of Transportation-- Studies -.(-1-993) Prepared accident scatter data presented in Figure 9E on page 9-13 of the 1993 Airport Land -Use -Planning Handbook ; This- data-was_-used_to-: develop- Drawing.-C-1-C-47-.-of-the . CMAEP. Hodges.and. Shutt-- Prepared -accident -scatter-. datapresented. in=C.hapter_8_of_-the--1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. This data was usedto develop Drawing CIC -18 of the--CMAEP. i A • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 4 r r COUNTY OF BUTTE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of September 16, 1998 D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA Commissioner Gerst requested that the Stephens' property be put back on the agenda with Business Item E.1., for the following reason: The Chico Airport Commission held a meeting on September 3, 1998, on the update of the Airport Master Plan, and the City's Consultant spoke about the possibility of extending one or both of the runways by 2,500 to 3,000 feet. He said this would affect the Stephens' property, and should be addressed at this time. Alternate Koch said that under the Brown Act the Commission can only add the item to the agenda upon a two-thirds majority vote, making the appropriate finding that these issues arose after the August 19, 1998 meeting, and that action needed to be taken on it. The fact that the Board of Supervisors will be taking action on this project next week could be used to justify an emergency. Commissioner Rosene agreed with Commissioner Gerst that at the Airport Master Plan meeting there was information presented by the Consultant that was not made available to the Commission at the August 19, 1998 meeting. It was moved by Commissioner Gerst, seconded by Alternate Papadakis, to add discussion of the new information presented on the Stephens property since the last ALUC meeting held August 19, 1998, to the agenda as item E.1B. Alternate Koch was concerned with the potential -legal consequences of placing the item on the agenda at this time. He was interested in hearing Commissioner Gerst's points on this item, to see if they are legally adequate to support the motion that the Commission was about to take. Commissioner Gerst stated that the underlying conflict has to do with the Inner Turning Zone and the Noise Contours. Alternate Koch asked if this information was available to the Commission at the'last meeting? Commissioner Gerst said that it was included in the materials provided for the item, but it was not spelled out. He feels this was very important information that failed to get discussed. Alternate Koch said that procedurally the information was available at the last meeting, but was overlooked, and not discussed. The Brown Act specifically states that certain criterion needs to be met to add something to the agenda. Commissioner Gerst said that the Commission can hear the information he has, and if it is not adequate the Commission can dismiss it after it is heard. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of September 16, 1998 ■ Page 1 ■ Mr. Parilb mentioned that there would need to be reason to put it on today's agenda. He stated that because the information was available to the Commission during the last meeting suggests that it is not appropriate to add to today's agenda, under the Brown Act. He further mentioned that the Board is scheduled to hear, but will not be taking final action on the Development Agreement on September 22, 1998. He suggested placing this on another agenda for the Brown Act requirements to, be met. Chairman Hennigan said that the Commission can discuss the new information presented. The Commission can then relay this information•to the Board under the resolutions that the ALUC has already passed: The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Alternate Papadakis, and Chairman Hennigan NOES: Alternate Koch ABSENT: Commissioners Hatley and Causey ABSTAIN: None E. BUSINESS ITEMS: , ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS I.A. Clarification of Required Condition for DEV99-01 Consistency Finding (Development Agreement for Robert and Ann Stephens'/George Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141 Commissioner Gerst read Assembly Bill 2920 from 1982, and emphasized that the California League of Cities states that zoning is not the only criterion the ALUC must consider. He said that the density set in 1978 CLUP was a'minimum lot size of 8,125 square feet, and that ALU_ C needs to look at it. that way when considering if the Stephens' project is compatible' or not. Mr. Parilo said the land surrounding the Chico Municipal Airport was zoned A-2 at the time of the 1978 CLUP. In the A-2 zone, a minimum lot size of 6,500 square feet would be possible if both water and sewer systems were available, and at the time the 1978 CLUP was adopted the A-2 zone was compatible. He reminded the Commission that ALUC is not looking at SR -1. The plan reflects that the zoning was A-2 at the time and that that zoning was compatible with the CLUP. The A-2 zone allowed a 6,500 square foot lot size, and this minimum coincides with the Required Conditions that the Commission included in identifying that future development of the site shall be consistent with the CLUP. Mr. Parilo referred to, the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan A-2 zoning on page 6-7, and CIC -7 map, which shows the zoning- . Chairman Hennigan said that the ,existing zoning was A-2, but the existing parcel sizes were at least 40 acres or more. An applicant would -have to go through the normal process to subdivide, and would be required to subdivide to be consistent with Compatible Land Use Zone (CLUZ) V. Discussion ensued on the land use recommendations under CLUZ V shown on page 8-20 of the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. Alternate Koch further questioned whether the adoption of the CLUP changed the zoning, or did the County change the -zoning to comply -with the CLUP? ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of September 16, 1998` ■ Page 2 ■ Mr. Parilo said that the County zoning should have changed to reflect the CLUP, but he wasn't sure whether that was what actually took place. There was a statement in the plan that stated the zoning then was consistent with the CLUP. Chairman Hennigan said that was a Recommended Condition on the Stephens' property, and should be Required Condition, because of the 1978 CLUP. He asked what the property was zoned today? Mr. Parilo said currently SR -1; and the rezoning is to add a planned development. Chairman Hennigan said that at sometime the County brought the zoning into conformity with the 1978 CLUP. Nina Lambert said that the rezone took place in 1979 or 1980 to SR -1. Alternate Koch asked if Commissioner Gerst wanted to remove the 6,500 square foot minimum lot size comments from the Required Conditions? Commission Gerst said yes. Mr. Parilo went on to read page 6-8 from the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan, which read: The evaluation of the existing county zoning classifications specified for properties located within the study area revealed the entire area is generally compatibly zoned based on the land use guidelines set forth in Exhibit .4-4 (Noise Analysis). Specifically, no residential zoning is located within the 65 CNEL noise exposure contour and only small amounts of low density residential developments are currently permitted within the 55 CNEL contour. Even the least compatible R-2 zone, which is located near the 55 CNEL contour, could be judged to be compatible based on these guidelines if interior noise levels are attenuated to reasonable levels. Alternate Papadakis suggested that staff research this and report back to the Commission with their findings. Mr. Parilo said that as this discussion goes forward he is sharing staff's preliminary research on this issue with the Commission. Page 8-20 from the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan 8.3.6 CLUZ V. reads: The CLUZ V category includes those peripheral parcels which are within the airport influence area, i.e., within the CNEL 55 boundary. This area requires the least restriction on development and, for the most part, carries a suitable zoning classification at the present time. He said that the suitable zoning was A-2 at the time, and that is how the 6,500 square foot minimum lot sizes occurred at the August 19, 1998 meeting. The Commission's review under the Development Agreement concerns the consistency of the 34 units with the CLUP at the time it was placed into effect. Commissioner Gerst said that he thinks there was no A-2 zoning left after the adoption of the 1978 CLUP. However, at the time the CLUP was adopted the area was zoned SR. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of September 16, 1998 ■ Page 3 ■ Alternate Koch said to have a better understanding, he would like to see a copy of the Code in place at that time, before changes are made to the Required and Recommended Conditions. Because there are certain things that tie zones together in terms of what you can and cannot do. It was moved by Commissioner Gerst, to amend the Required Condition to read 8,125 square feet as the minimum lot size, and to delete the 6,500 square feet requirements until such time as a different evaluation is brought to the Commission. Commissioner Rosene asked what effect this would have on the County's contract with the Stephens', and what Mr. Kammerer could do if this happens to pass? Mr. Parilo said that Mr. Kammerer was aware that this issue was on the agenda today, but could not attend. He told the Commission that there is not a contract in effect at this time. There were questions regarding the SR -1 zoning definition at the time of the.1978 CLUP. The Commission called a meeting break at this time, and Mr: Parilo phoned the office to speak to Ms. Leasure regarding the zoning in place at that time. Mr. Parilo reported to the Commission that the 1976 Zoning Ordinance states that under the SR zoning there was a minimum lot size of 8,125 square feet, except that parcels served by public water and sewer could be as small as 6,500 squarefeet if it was an interior lot. If it was a corner lot, it would have to be a minimum of 7,500 square feet. This Zoning Ordinance Code was revised again in 1981. The motion did not pass for lack of a second. Alternate Koch suggested moving to Item I.B. at this time. 1.B. Discussion of additional information on DEV99-01(Development Agreement for Robert and Ann Stephens'/George Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141 Commissioner Gerst referred to State Aeronautics Act Public Utilities Code Chapter 4, Article 3.5, Government Code 21670 section (1) and (2), which states: (1) It is in the public interest to provide for the orderly'development of each public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. (2) It is the purpose of this article to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of September 16, 1998 ni Page 4 ■ He said the Commission should refer to Government Code 21670, and address the proposed expansion of the airport and its impacts on adjacent land uses. He mentioned that without that information available to the Commission, the Stephens' project should be found inconsistent. Alternate Koch agreed with Commissioner Gerst; that the Commission should consider these issues. However, the expansion of airport facilities is based on a preliminary report by the City of Chico Consultant, and that the runway extension in fact may never happen. He said that within the next ten months there is an environmental review, Chico Airport Commission, and City Council discussion process, and to act now on something that may not happen in the future puts the Commission in a weak position in terms of how the ALUC actually based their decision. Legally, Alternate Koch did not think the Commission could change their consistency finding based on something that has not occurred, and may never occur. Mr. Parilo said that at the August 19, 1998 meeting, the Commission recommended that the Board delay any action on the Stephens' Development Agreement until the CLUP is updated.. He said that additional language could be added to make the Board aware that changes in the safety and turning zones, along with the noise contours are a possibility with future runway extensions. Chairman Hennigan directed staff to draft a letter to the Board fully explaining the Commission's concerns involving the possible future expansion. The letter should also include the preambles discussed at the August 19, 1998 meeting, and describe the essential services provided by the Chico Municipal Airport including emergency, medical, freight, and passage services, disaster relief, law enforcement, and natural resource's management. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of September 16, 1998 ■ Page 5 ■ COUNTY OF BUTTE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of August 19, 1998 1 2. ButteCounty_Development Agreement (DEV99-01- Robert,and,Ann Stephens/George 2 'Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141 3 4 Ms. Webster summarized the Staff Report and Draft Agreement. 5 6 Mr. Parilo said that in previous presentations to the Board the applicant's representative committed 7 to a requirement that ALUC review the Tentative Map for the 34 units, however, the current draft of 8 the agreement does not say that. 9 10 Ms. Webster suggested the removal of the top portion of Section 3, Item J. of the recommended 11 conditions, because the agreement is connected to the completion of the CLUP update. She also 12 recommended that the second half of Item J. be modified to delete the current procedures language, 13 and that it be replaced with "the applicants previous commitment to the Board of Supervisors 14 regarding Airport Land Use Commission review of the tentative subdivision map for the 34 "density 15 transfer units" (DTU's):" 16 17 Commissioner Papadakis asked if the promise of an easement for drainage by the applicant, could 18 be the reason the ALUC is reviewing this project again? 19 20 Mr. Parilo stated that an easement has nothing to do with a recommendation for finding of 21 consistency. However, the applicant is offering an easement to the County for purposes of creating 22 a canal, along the western portion of the property. A drainage bypass canal from Keefer Slough to 23 Mud Creek could possibly be the solution to drainage problems in the area. At this time, the issue 24 being addressed is flooding within the North Chico Specific Plan Area. The Department of Public 25 Works is currently engaging in a planning process with the Corp. of Engineers to develop a solution. 26 The earliest that a plan will be in effect will be a six months to one year time from the time the Corp. 27 of Engineers starts their planning effort in October of this year. 28 29 Commissioner Gerst suggested holding off on the project until there are answers to the problems that 30 exist in that area. 31 32 Mr. Parilo pointed out that it is ultimately a policy decision for the Board of Supervisors. 33 34 Commissioner Koch asked if the Commission finds this project inconsistent, would the Board have 35 to make an overriding finding? 36 37 Mr. Parilo said that this was a legislative action and if the Commission finds it inconsistent, they 38 would have to state why. Then, the Board would have to make overriding findings to approve the 39 agreement. 40 ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of August 19, 1998 ■ Page 1 ■ 1 Commissioner Gerst feels that the project is inconsistent with the 1978 CLUP, and the Commission 2 could make that finding. He would like the new CLUP to be completed before making a decision. 3 4 Chairman Hennigan opened the hearing to the public 5 6 George Kammerer, Attorney and representative for the applicant, said there have been several 7 conditions added to make the project consistent with the current 1993 Caltrans Handbook. He 8 pointed out that not only is it consistent with the 1978 CLUP, but also with requirements specified 9 within the Caltrans Handbook. He wanted to clarify that the terms of the development agreement 10 regarding the subdivision map for the additional 34 units will be modified so that the project will 11 voluntarily be brought back to ALUC for review. He said that the applicant will agree with the two - 12 acre limitation in the Inner Turning Zone as proposed by staff. 13 14 Chairman Hennigan read a letter dated August 19, 1998, to the Chairman from Wendy Coggins, a 15 member of the City of Chico Airport Commission, on questions and concerns she had with the ,16 development of the Stephens property. 17 18 Barbara Hennigan presented a copy of a map used by the Board when they made overriding findings 19 to adopt C.S.A. 87, and an accident scatter map for the Chico Municipal Airport that is based on the 20 Caltrans Handbook. . 21 22 Mr. Kammerer stated the project is shown as potentially affected by the accident scatter map. 23 However, the scatter map is theoretical not actual. He noted that on page 9-17 of the Caltrans 24 Handbook based per acre in the Inner Turning Zone with a runway length of 6, 000 feet or more there 25 is a three hundredth of 1% chance that an accident would occur. 26 27 Chairman Hennigan mentioned that the best thing that could happen is an extension of the runway 28 at the Chico Municipal Airport, in which case the project would become sideline property instead of 29 approach zone property. Mr. Kammerer agreed. He further stated to the Commission that he is here today for ALUC to find the proposal consistent with the 1978 CLUP, but welcomed the Commission to make recommendations to increase airport land use compatibility. Chairman Hennigan suggested that an 8,125 square foot minimum lot size be established as a requirement of consistency with the 1978 CLUP. 38 Mr. Parilo noted that the minimum lot size was tied to the type of sewage -disposal that is provided 39 and that the minimum would be 6,500 square feet if the lots were serviced by a public sewer system. 40 Mr. Parilo also brought up the fact that a Tentative Map is not required to be reviewed by ALUC. 41 Once an action has been found consistent with the CLUP, ALUC has no jurisdiction. However, the 42 applicant is giving ALUC jurisdiction on the 34 units. This concession should be reflected in the 43 Development Agreement. 44 45 The hearing was closed to the public. 46 ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of August 19, 1998 ■ Page 2 ■ 1 Chairman Hennigan suggested that a preamble be prepared describing..the essential services; 2 emergency, medical, freight, and passage services, disaster relief, law enforcement, and natural 3 resource's management that the Chico Municipal Airport makes possible and to request the Board 4 not act until the CLUP has been completed. 5 6 Commissioner Koch said that the emphasis on the preamble should be that the Master Plan and CLUP 7 process are underway. 8 9 It was moved by Commissioner Rosene, seconded by Commissioner Hodges, and carried 10 unanimously that a recommendation be made that the Board of Supervisors delay action on the 11 Development Agreement until the new CLUP is complete, and that a preamble be added describing 12 the essential services provided by the Chico Municipal Airport as listed above. 13 14 There was discussion of the recommended conditions listed in Section 4, and the Commission's 15 changes to several of them. The Commission also discussed the concept that if the 34 units were 16 found to be inconsistent. The agreement could be modified to allow those units to be transferred to 17 some other property within the Specific Plan area if the applicant would give up the right to a Board 18 override, and agree to ALUC having the final project review. 19 20 Mr. Kammerer said that as a show of good faith the applicant would be willing to do that. 21 22 It was moved by Commissioner Hodges, seconded by Commissioner Papada kis, that the project be 23 found consistent with the 1978 CLUP subject to the following: 24 25 Required Conditions: 26 27 A. The consistency finding for the project is contingent upon the -requirement that the minimum 28 lot size for any parcel is not less than 8,125 square feet if served by individual wells and on - 29 site sewage disposal systems, or 6,500 square feet if public sewage disposal service is 30 provided. 31 32 Recommended Conditions: 33 34 A. Residential development shall be restricted to those portions of the 126 acre SR-l/PD area 35 that are located outside of the projected 55 dB CNEL contour a depicted on Drawing (CIC -3) 36 within the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. 37 38 B. Residential densities within the Inner Turning Zone shall be restricted to the densities 39 recommended within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (no more than one 40 dwelling unit per two acres) to protect the safety of aircraft and persons on the ground. 41 Residential densities within the Traffic Pattern Zone shall not exceed 6 units per acre. 42 43 C. Residential dwelling units shall be designed and constructed to achieve an interior noise level 44 of 45 dB. 45 ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of August 19, 1998 ■ Page 3 ■- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 D. The property owner shall sign an avigation easement granting the right of continued use of the Chico Municipal Airport in the airspace above the subject parcel and acknowledging any and all existing or potential airport operational impacts. E. The project proponents and the County shall devise enhanced airport operations disclosure measures which include deed notices, public notices, inclusion of information in the Department of Real Estate Public Report, and signage along the entrances to the project. F. All land uses shall be restricted from creating large' concentrations of people that would result in the gathering of more than 25 persons per acre at any one time. G. Land uses shall be prohibited that create bright lights, smoke, particulate emissions, or allow for the storage of hazardous, flamable or explosive materials above ground. H. All project lighting shall be directed within the project site and shielded to prevent adverse impacts on adjacent properties and aircraft flight activities. I. Section 3.3 of the Development Agreement shall be modified to reference those conditions required and recommended in Sections 3. A and 4. "A through H" in the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission's August 19, 1998 Findings relative to the Draft Development Agreement. J. Section 3.4 of -the Development Agreement shall be revised to reflect the applicant's commitments to the Board of Supervisors and the ALUC regarding the Airport Land Use Commission's review of the tentative subdivision map to create the 34 Density Transfer Units (DTU's) within the 126 acre portion of the property or other property located within the North Chico Specific Plan Area. The Development Agreement shall stipulate that the tentative subdivision map to create 34 DTU's within the 126 acre portion of the subject property is to be reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission for consistency with the Updated CLUP for the Chico Municipal Airport when adopted or the existing Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan, if the CLUP Update has not be completed within 24 months from the date that the Development Agreement is executed. If the proposal to create the 34 DTU's within the 126 acre portion of the property is found by the ALUC to be inconsistent with the applicable Airport Land Use Plan, the property owner/applicant waives their right to request that the Board of Supervisors adopt Overriding Findings to approve the project. However, if a finding of inconsistency is made .by the ALUC to create the 34 DTU's within the 126 acre portion of the subject property, the property owner/applicant may submit a subsequent tentative subdivision map to create the 34 DTU's within another property that is located within the North Chico Specific Plan Area. The Tentative Subdivision Map for such a transfer must also be reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission for consistency with the applicable Airport Land Use Plan. The property owner/applicant agrees to waive their right to request that the Board of Supervisors adopt Overriding Findings to approve the transfer of the units to another property if that proposal is also found to be inconsistent by the ALUC. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of August 19, 1998 ■ Page 4 ■ 1 The motion passed by the following vote: 2 AYES: Commissioners Hatley, Hodges, Papadakis, and Chairman Hennigan 3 NOES: Commissioner Gerst, Koch, and Rosene 4 ABSENT: None 5 ABSTAIN: None 2 ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of August 19, 1998 ■ Page 5 ■ ''llD�J u 11® UA ll AIuOlt"®1t0T LAND USE ]E cCO SSION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 � TO: Public .Agencies and Interested Parties FROM: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING FINDINGS AND/OR COMMENTS: BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT *LAND USE COMMISSION CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR: Butte County Development Agreement (DEV99-01 - Robert and Ann Stephens/George Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141 A draft Development Agreement to define the • development rights fora 230 acre site proposed for a Rezone from SR -1 and SR-1/OS to Planned Development (PD)/SR-1 on 126 acres and from OS (Open Space) to ?D/SR-3/OS on 103 acres." The project site is located on the • west side of Hicks Lane immediately adjacent to the Chico Municipal Airport, generally between Keefer Slough and Mud Creek. DATE NOTICE MAILED: August 20, 1998 This is your official -notice that the Airport Land Use Commission held a public meeting on August 19, 1998 and approved the findings and/or conditions attached as Exhibit(s) A. If you have any further questions or desire additional information, please call Laura Webster, of the ALUC staff, 'at (530) 533-1131. The project file maybe reviewed at the Department of Development Services, 7 County Center Drive,.Oroville,,California. • Butte County *Airport Land Use Commission 0 +B TILT E COUAk AIIPOE T LANID USE COMMISSION. + 0 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • EXHIBIT A BUTTE COUNTY AIItPORT LAND USE COMNUSSION CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR: Butte County Development Agreement DEV99-01- Robert and Ann Stephens/George Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141 The following findings have been prepared at the direction of the ALUC and are for the consideration of the County of Butte when making a decision on the project. Section 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS A. No environmental documentation was submitted for the current project at the time of review. However, the ALUC did find that the environmental documentation prepared for an earlier version of the project that would have permitted approximately 20 residential dwelling units within the 103 acre Opens Space area and approximately 58 new dwelling units within the north half of the 126 acre portion of the site currently zoned SR-1/OS did not adequately address potential impacts related to the aircraft operations of the Chico Municipal Airport. Section 2: PROJECT CONSISTENCY FINDINGS A. 'The ALUC finds the project consistent with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and that the project is.compatible with the viable, responsible operation of the Chico Municipal Airport subject to the following required condition. Recommended conditions have also been provided to improve land use compatibility with airport operations. Section 3: REQUIRED CONDITION A. The consistency finding for the project is contingent upon the requirement that the minimum lot size for any parcel is not less than 8,125 square feet if served by individual wells and on-site_ sewage disposal systems, or 6,500 square feet if public sewage disposal service is provided. Section 4: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS A. Residential development shall be restricted to those portions of the 126 acre SR-1/PD area that are located outside of the projected 55 dB CNEL contour a depicted on Drawing (CIC -3) within the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. *Butte County •Airport Land Use Commission 0 B. Residential densities within the Inner Turning Zone shall be restricted to the densities recommended within the .1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (no more than one dwelling unit per two acres) to protect the safety of aircraft and persons on the ground. Residential densities within the Traffic Pattern Zone shall not exceed 6 units per acre. C. Residential dwelling units shall be designed and constructed to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dB. - D. The property owner shall sign an avigation easement granting the right of continued use of the Chico Municipal Airport in the airspace above the subject parcel and acknowledging any and all existing or potential airport operational impacts. E. The project proponents and the County shall devise enhanced airport operations disclosure measures which include deed notices, public notices, inclusion of information in the Department of Real Estate Public Report, and signage along the entrances to the project. F. All land uses shallbe restricted from creating large concentrations of people that would result in the gathering of more than 25 persons per acre at any one time. G. Land uses shall be prohibited that create bright lights, smoke, particulate emissions, or allow for the storage of hazardous, flamable or explosive materials above ground. H. All project lighting shall be directed within the project site and shielded to prevent adverse impacts on adjacent properties and aircraft flight activities. I. Section 3.3 of the Development Agreement shall be modified to reference those conditions required and recommended in Sections 3. A and 4. "A through H" in the Butte County Airport Land Use m Comission's August 19, 1998 Findings relative to the Draft Development Agreement. J. Section 3.4 of the Development Agreement shall be revised to reflect the applicant's commitments to the Board of Supervisors and the ALUC regarding the Airport Land Use Commission's review of the tentative subdivision map to create the 34 Density Transfer Units (DTU's) within the 126 acre portion of the property or other property located within the North Chico Specific Plan Area. The Development Agreement shall stipulate that the tentative subdivision map to create 34 DTU's within the 126 acre portion of the subject property is to be reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission for consistency with the Updated CLUP for the Chico Municipal Airport when adopted or the existing Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan, if the CLUP Update has not be completed within 24 months from the date that .the Development Agreement is executed. If the proposal to create the 34 DTU's within the 126 acre portion of the property is found by the ALUC to be inconsistent with the applicable Airport Land Use Plan, the property owner/applicant waives their right to request that the Board of Supervisors adopt Overriding Findings' to approve the project. However, if a finding of inconsistency is made by the ALUC to create the 34 DTU's within the 126 acre portion of the subject property, the property owner/applicant may submit a subsequent tentative subdivision map to create the 34 DTU's within another property that is located within the North Chico Specific Plan Area. The tentative subdivision map for such a transfer must also be reviewed aButte County &Airport Land Use Commission • ` by the Airport Land Use Commission for consistency with the applicable Airport Land Use Plan. The property owner/applicant agrees to waive their right to request that the Board of Supervisors adopt Overriding Findings to approve the transfer of the units to another property if that proposal is also found to be inconsistent by the ALUC. A:\8-19-98.MTG\STEPHENS.FDG a , r e • Butte County *Airport Land Use Commission 0 . +B=lE COLJNI'Y AIRPORT LAND g7S?COMMISSdOlV + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • TO: Public Agencies and Interested Parties FROM: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission SUBJECT: AMENDED NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING REGARDING: Butte:County Development Agreement (DEV99-01 - Robert and Ann Stephens /George Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141 DATE NOTICE MAILED: August 12, 1998 This is your official notice that the Airport Land Use Commission will hold a public meeting on the following matter at the time and place listed. below: HEARING DATE: August 19, 1997 TIME: 9:00 a.m. PLACE: Board of Supervisors' Room Butte County Administration Center 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Butte County Development Agreement (DEV99-01 - Robert and Ann Stephens/George Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141: A request for Consistency Findings for a Development Agreement to define the development rights for a 230 acre site proposed for a Rezone from SR -1 and SR-1/OS to Planned Development (PD)/SR-1 on 126 acres and from OS (Open Space) to PD/SR-3/OS on 103 acres. The project site is located on the west side of Hicks Lane immediately adjacent to the Chico Municipal Airport, generally between Keefer Slough and Mud Creek. Recommended Action: Find consistent with the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. If you have any further questions or desire additional information, please call Laura Webster, of the ALUC staff, at (916) 533-1131. At the meeting, the Commission will consider oral and written testimony by any interested person or affected agency and the report of staff. The project file may be reviewed at the Department of Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. A:\STEPHENS.NOT • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • +B=1E COg7NIk AIIIEtIE'OR°1[[' ]LAND URCOMMISSION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • EXHIBIT A The following findings have,been prepared at the direction of the ALUC and are for the consideration of the County of Butte when making a decision on the project. Section 1:ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS A. No environmental documentation was submitted for the current project at the time of review. However, the ALUC did find, that the environmental documentation prepared for an earlier version of the project that would have permitted approximately 20 residential dwelling units within the 103 acre Opens Space area and approximately 58 new dwelling units within the north half of the 126 acre portion of the site currently zoned SR-1/OS did not adequately address potential impacts related to the'aircraft operations of the Chico Municipal Airport. Section 2: PROJECT CONSISTENCY FINDINGS A. The ALUC finds the project consistent with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and that the project is compatible with the viable, responsible operation of the Chico Municipal Airport. The following conditions are recommended to improve land use compatibility with airport operations. Section 3: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS A. Residential development shall be restricted to those portions of the 126 acre 8R- 1/PD area that are located outside of the projected 55 dB CNEL contour. B. Residential densities within the Inner Turning Zone shall be restricted to the densities recommended within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (no more than 'one dwelling unit per two acres) to protect the safety of aircraft and persons on the ground. C. Residential dwelling units shall be designed and constructed to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dB. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission. • 7 D. The property owner shall sign an avigation easement granting the right of continued use of the Chico Municipal Airport in the airspace above the subject: parcel and acknowledging any and all existing or potential airport operational impacts. E. The -project proponents and the County should devise enhanced disclosure measures that may include deed notices, public notices, inclusion of information in the Department of Real Estate Public Report,and signage along the entrances to the project. F. All uses shall be restricted from;creating large concentrations of people that would result in the gathering of more than 25 persons per acre at any one time. G. Uses shall be prohibited that create bright lights, smoke, particulate emissions, or allow for the storage of hazardous, flamable or explosive materials above ground. H. All project lighting should be directed.within the project site and shielded to prevent adverse impacts on adjacent properties and aircraft flight activities. I. Section 3.3 of the Development" Agreement shall be modified to reference those conditions recommended as Items "A" through °H" by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission in conjunction.wifh its review of the Draft Development Agreement. J. Section 3.4 of the Development Agreement shall be modified to stipulate that the subdivision application for the 34 density transfer units (DTU's) shall not. .be submitted until the updated Airport Master Plan -for the Chico Municipal Airport has been adopted. This Section should also be revised to reflect current procedures'regarding the Airport Land Use Commission's review of the tentative subdivision map for the 34 DTU's and the need for Overriding Findings if the proposal is found by the ALUC to be inconsistent with the Updated CLUP or existing Environs Plan, whichever is applicable within 24 months of the agreement's execution. *Butte County *Airport Land Use Commission �. 8 • 1 • +BUTT E COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • AGENDA ITEM - E.2. TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: Laura Webster, ALUC Staff DATE: August 7, 1998 ITEM: Butte County Development Agreement (DEV99-01 - Robert and Ann Stephens/George Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141: A request for Consistency Findings for a Development Agreement to define the development rights for a 230 acre site -proposed for a Rezone from SR -1 and SR-1/OS to Planned Development (PD)/SR-1 on 126 acres and from OS (Open Space) to PD/SR-3/OS on 103 -acres. The project site is located on the west side of Hicks Lane immediately adjacent to the Chico Municipal Airport, generally between Keefer Slough and Mud Creek.. FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of August 19, 1998 SUMMARY: The County of Butte is presently processing the above mentioned project and has submitted a copy of the Draft Development Agreement to ALUC for review and comment. Staff recommends that the Commission find the project consistent with the - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. Staffs review consisted of land use compatibility and noise sensitivity. ANALYSIS: This Butte County project involves a 230 acre portion of a 300 acre site. According to Section 4.1 -on page 16 of the draft agreement, vested .entitlements would include a Specific Plan Amendment and Rezone to Planned Development PD/SR-1 on the western 126 acre portion of the site. This area is currently zoned SR -1 and SR-1/OS. The agreement would also establish a fully vested Specific Plan Amendment and Rezone to Planned Development PD/SR-3/OS on the eastern 103 acre portion of the site. This area is currently zoned OS. The entire project is located within the North Chico Specific Plan Area. The Commission has previously reviewed another similar development scenario for the site. As noted in Section E. (2) on page 3 of the draft agreement, the proposed rezoning from SR -1 and.SR-1/OS to PD/SR-1 would allow 126 single family residential lots to be developed within the 126 acre portion of the site. The proposed rezoning from OS to PD/SR-3/OS would allow up to 34 additional single family units within the project area. As described in Sections 3.4 (page 12) and 4.1 (page 16), the 34 units would be considered "density transfer units" (DTU's) which would require a'separate subdivision map to create and be located entirely within the PD/SR-1 zone (126 acre portion of the site). None of the density transfer units would be permitted within the PD/SR-3/OS zone (103 acre portion • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • of the site). -The end result of the agreement, Specific Plan Amendment and Rezone would be the development of up to 160 single family units within the 126 acre portion of the site. Comments from Butte County Planning Division staff indicate that some modifications are likely to be recommended by their agency, such as a stipulation that the 34 density transfer units would only be permitted if the first 126 lots are created as a Planned Development (clustered lots less than one acre in size). Under this scenario, if the first 126 lots are created at standard SR -1 densities (1 unit per acre), a subsequent map could not be submitted for the additional 34 units. Although these comments are, informative, they are not yet reflected in the current draft of the agreement. Other aspects of the current draft of the agreement that may be of particular interest to the ALUC include: Section 3.4 on page 12 Proposes�that the subdivision map for the 34 DTU's may only be submitted after the adoption of the ALUC's CLUP update for the Chico Municipal Airport. Proposes that the compatibility of the subdivision map for the 34 density transfer units be brought before the Board of Supervisors for a determination of whether a significant airport compatibility issue exists or whether they have otherwise been satisfactorily mitigated by subdivision design criteria. If the Board determines by a simple majority vote that the subdivision map for the DTU's adequately addresses airport compatibility issues specified in California Public Utility Code Section 21670, the subdivision map shall be processed and approved in accordance with the entitlements of the agreement. In the event that the Board makes a finding by a simple majority vote that the subdivision map for the DTU's may not be in substantial compliance with the requirements of PUC Section 21670, the Board shall refer the subdivision map to the ALUC for a determination of airport compatibility under the noise and safety criteria in the CLUP • Update. If the ALUC makes a finding of inconsistency under these criteria; the subdivision map for the DTU's shall automatically be referred to the Board of Supervisors for a public hearing in which the Board will make the ultimate determination of compatibility with the Chico Municipal Airport. pursuant to PUC Section 21670. Specifies that if the CLUP update has not been adopted within 24 months of the .effective date of the development agreement, the compatibility of the subdivision for the 34 DTU's with the Chico Municipal Airport would have to be evaluated pursuant to the CLUP which is in existence as of the effective date of the agreement. Staff Comment. /t appears that the portion of the agreement summarized under the second bullet item attempts to make the Board of Supervisors responsible for_ activities which typically fall within the ALUC's statutory • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 2 • responsibilities. It also appears to'relieve the Board from standard ALUC override procedures including a 2/3 majority'vote and the generation of specific findings. Section 3.3 on page 11 States that the landowner will comply with the six (6) Airport Land Use Commission Proposed conditions from the ALUC's December 9, 1997 Memorandum to the Board of Supervisor's in order to minimize noise and safety concerns regarding the Chico Municipal Airport for the subdivision map for up to 126 lots described in Section 3.4. The referenced conditions have been listed below for the Commission's convenience. In order to minimize the noise and safety impacts to workers or residents in the development, an open space flight corridor should be established and maintained along the western boundary of the airport where it abuts the project site. 2. The project proponents and the County should devise enhanced disclosure measures that may include deed notices, public notices, inclusion of information in the Department of Real Estate Public Report, and signage along the entrances to the project. Signage should provide adequate information concerning the operation of fire- fighting tankers such as the times of operations, height of aircraft above ground and the noise levels associated with such.. operations. 3. The County should provide public education materials concerning the aerial fire -fighting tankers including informational bulletins, interpretive displays at the airport, and other measures devised for this intended purpose. 4. The flight corridor may impact some areas of the project that are designated for residential development. Development proposed in these areas should be clustered away from the flight corridor, include sound attenuation features in the building design. and provide limited or reduced sized windows along the flight corridor. The safety of future inhabitants should be considered in the overall design of the project. —5. 5. All uses shall be restricted from creating large concentrations of people that would result in the gathering of persons that would result in more than 25 persons per acre at any one time. 6. Uses shall be prohibited that create bright lights, smoke, particulate emissions, or allow for the storage of hazardous, flamable or explosive materials above ground. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 3 Staff Comment. These conditions were prepared in response to an earlier version of the project which would have allowed some residential development within the 103 acre portion of the site that. is currently zoned Open Space. While many of the conditions will undoubtedly still apply to the current proposal, the Development Agreement should be modified to reflect the conditions recommended by the Commission as part of its review of the project reflected in the Draft Development Agreement. Staff reviewed the request pursuant to the currently adopted Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP) and a determination was made that with the exception of the northwest and southwest corners of the property, the entire site is located within the Light Aircraft Traffic Pattern shown in Figure CIC -2 of the CMAEP. In addition, the northeast corner of the site is located within the Tanker Practice Drop Pattern depicted on the Generalize Flight Tracks Map prepared for the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program and Environs Plan and incorporated within the North Chico Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report. The remainder of the site is located within the Light Aircraft Pattern shown on the same map. A majority of the project site is located within the Horizontal Surface depicted on Figure CIC -5, and a portion of the northeast section of the property (currently zoned Open Space) is located within the 7:1 Transitional Surface. The. project site is located within Compatible Land Use Zone. (CLUZ). Category (V) on Figure CIC -13. — Section 8.3.6 of the CMAEP states that CLUZ Area V "... requires the least restriction on development and, for the most part, carries a suitable zoning classification at the present time. The exception would be the parcels included in the so-called Hays Re -Zone area. The one parcel. in this area which is included in the Interim Zone area should be constrained to an SR -1 zoning to limit the density of development. ,The remaining parcels could carry the zoning classification SR as the least restrictive category. Recommendations in Section 8.3.6 of the CMAEP include: (1) A zoning classification of SR -1 should be applied to the single parcel east of CIC contained within the Interim Zone boundary. Note. This item does not apply to the Stephens' property. (2) . The least restrictive zoning for the remaining parcels should be SR. Where public sewage disposal service is provided, this zoning classification permits minimum lot sizes between 6,500 and 7,500 square feet. In areas served by individual wells and on-site sewage disposal systems, the minimum lot size is regulated by sewage disposal requirements, however, in no case shall lots be less than 8.125 square feet in size. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 4 • (3) The parcels with segments intruding into the flight corridor should not be developed in these segments. Note - This item does not apply to the Stephens' property. (4) Noise control construction procedures should be distributed for applications in this area at the time of the building plan check.- While heck: While conducting the project review, staff also consulted Chapter 9 of the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook to obtain additional guidance regarding acceptable residential land use densities within various airport safety zones. The application of safety zones identified within the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook indicates that the southern half of the project site is located within the Traffic Pattern Zone. The north half of the 103 acre portion of the project site that is currently -zoned Open Space and most of the north half of the 126 acre portion of the property that is currently zoned SR-1/OS are located within the projected Inner Turning Zone ,for Runway 31 R/1 3L. As described within the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, the Inner Turning Zone encompasses locations where aircraft are typically turning from the base to final approach legs of the standard traffic pattern and are descending from traffic pattern altitude. It also encompasses the area where departing aircraft normally complete the transition from takeoff power and flap settings to a climb mode and have begun to turn to their en route heading. The Inner Turning Zone reflects the historical distribution of accident site patterns, developed by the University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies (1993). The minimum lot size recommended in the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook for residential land uses located within the Inner Turning Zone is between 2 and 10 acres. The recommended density for residential land uses within the Traffic Pattern Zone is 4 to 6 dwelling units per acre. If all 160 proposed dwelling units were constructed within the 126 acre area, the overall project density would be 1 dwelling unit per 0.78 acres. Utilization of the PD option could allow the majority of the units to be clustered within the southern half of the 126 acre area outside of the Inner Turning Zone. It should also be noted that the City of Chico is currently in the process of preparing a new Master Plan for,the Chico Municipal Airport. This project may involve plans for lengthening existing runways or other construction projects designed to accommodate heavier aircraft. Both of these activities could result in significant modifications to the location of current safety zones and project noise contours. Section 3.4 of the Development Agreement stipulates that a subdivision map for the 34 DTU's will not be submitted until 24 months after execution of the agreement. This time frame should be adequate to accommodate the completion of the Airport Master Plan Update so that anticipated improvements can be considered. According to Figure CIC -3, most of the 103 acre portion of the parcel that is currently zoned Open Space and the northeast corner of the. 126 acre portion that is currently zoned • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 5 SR-1/OS are located within the future 55 dB CNEL Contour. However, it should be noted that residents may be exposed to single event noise levels which exceed 55 dB. In order to reduce the potential for complaints from residents, future subdivision designs should ensure that all dwelling units are constructed outside of the 55 dB CNEL contour. All residential dwelling units should. also be designed to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dB. r � RECOMMENDATION: 'Staff recommends that the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission find that the proposed Butte County Development Agreement DEV99-01 (Robert and Ann Stephens/George Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141 is consistent with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan subject to the following findings and recommended conditions in attached Exhibit "A". If the ALUC would like to take additional action on this project it would be limited to a recommendation to the Butte County Planning Commission that although the project is consistent with the currently adopted Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan, the ALUC does have additional concerns. ` Attached: A: Findings B: Location Map (depicts Chico Airport Area of Influence Map and Inner Turning Zone) C: Noise Contour Exhibit D: Generalized Flight Tracks Map E: Draft Development Agreement • , w • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 6 +BU= COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • EXHIBIT A The following findings have been prepared at the direction of the ALUC and are for the consideration of the County of Butte when making a decision on the project. Section 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS A. No environmental documentation was submitted for the current project at the time of review. However, the ALUC did find that the environmental documentation prepared for an earlier version of the project that would have permitted approximately 20 residential. dwelling units within the 103 acre Opens Space area and approximately 58 new dwelling units within the north half of the 126 acre portion of the site currently zoned SR-1/OS did not adequately address potential impacts related to the aircraft operations of the Chico Municipal Airport. Section 2: PROJECT CONSISTENCY FINDINGS A. The ALUC finds the project consistent with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and that the project is compatible with the viable, responsible operation of the Chico Municipal Airport. The following conditions are recommended to improve land use compatibility with airport operations. Section 3: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS A. Residential development shall be restricted to those portions of the 126 acre SR- 1/PD area that are located outside of the projected 55 dB CNEL contour. B. Residential densities within the Inner Turning Zone shall be restricted to the densities recommended within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (no more than one dwelling unit per two acres) to protect the safety of aircraft and persons on the.ground. C. Residential dwelling units shall be designed and constructed to achieve an interior noise level'of 45 d6. — • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 7 D. The property owner shall sign an avigation easement granting the right of continued ,use of the Chico Municipal Airport in the airspace above the subject parcel and acknowledging any and all existing or potential airport operational impacts. E. The project proponents and the County should devise enhanced disclosure measures that may include deed notices, public notices, inclusion of information in the Department of Real Estate Public Report, and signage along the entrances to the project. F. All uses shall be restricted from creating large concentrations of people that would result in. the gathering of more than 25 persons per acre at any one time. G. • Uses shall be prohibited that create bright lights, smoke, particulate emissions, or allow for the storage of hazardous, flamable or explosive materials above ground. r H. 'All project lighting should be directed within the project site and.shielded to prevent, adverse impacts on adjacent properties and aircraft flight activities. I. Section 3.3 of the Development Agreement shall be modified to reference those conditions recommended as Items "A" through "H" by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission in conjunction with its review of the Draft Development Agreement. J. Section 3.4 of the Development Agreement shall be modified to stipulate that the subdivision application. for the 34 density transfer units (DTU's) shall not be submitted until the updated Airport Master Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport has been adopted. This Section should also be revised to reflect current procedures regarding the Airport Land Use Commission's review of the tentative subdivision map for the 34 DTU's and the need for Overriding Findings if the proposal is found by the ALUC to be inconsistent with the Updated CLUP or existing Environs Plan, whichever is applicable within 24 months of the agreement's execution'. • Butte County *Airport Land Use Commission • SUMMARY: At the February 12, 1998 meeting, the Planning Commission completed the third public .hearing on this project and recommended that the Board of Supervisors deny this request.. The primary concern voiced by the public at the hearings related to compatibility of the increased residential density with the Chico Municipal Airport. BACKGROUND: The 300 acre site is located within the North'Chico Specific Plan and the current zoning reflects the adoption'of that plan. The original project request made in December of 1996, proposed two different land use alternatives for the Stephens property. Both involved -the conversion of approximately 103 acres of open space to land use designations allowingsignificant new development The table below shows the existing land use designation and both alternatives. Existing Land Use Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Acreage Open Space BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA REPORT - April 29, 1998 SR -1 or M-1 103 acres SR-1/OS Applicant: Robert & Ann Stephens File #: SP97-01, GPA97-02 Request: An amendment to the North Zoning: SR -1, SR-1/OS, OS 42 acres. Chico Specific Plan to change No change R-1 the land use designation on APN: `047-250-141 R-2 230 acres from SR -1, SR-- 43'4 acres BP 1/OS, and OS to either SR- Location: Located on .the west side of 2.6 acres 1/PD (Planned Development) Hicks Lane, approximately ''/z and OS/PD or M-1 Industrial. _ to 1 mile south of Keefer Lane, north of Chico G.P.: Agricultural Residential Parcel Siie: 300 ac. Zone date: March, 28, 1995 SUMMARY: At the February 12, 1998 meeting, the Planning Commission completed the third public .hearing on this project and recommended that the Board of Supervisors deny this request.. The primary concern voiced by the public at the hearings related to compatibility of the increased residential density with the Chico Municipal Airport. BACKGROUND: The 300 acre site is located within the North'Chico Specific Plan and the current zoning reflects the adoption'of that plan. The original project request made in December of 1996, proposed two different land use alternatives for the Stephens property. Both involved -the conversion of approximately 103 acres of open space to land use designations allowingsignificant new development The table below shows the existing land use designation and both alternatives. Existing Land Use Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Acreage Open Space SR -1 SR -1 or M-1 103 acres SR-1/OS R- l SR -1 84 acres SR -1 R-2 No change 42 acres. R-2 No change R-1 25 acres NI -1 R-2 No change 43'4 acres BP BP No change 2.6 acres Total 300 acres Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report 0 Page 1 In reviewing the initial application, staff pointed out several difficulties with Alternative 1. After discussions with the applicant's representative, it was agreed that Alternative 1 would be not be feasible given the location of the property adjacent to the airport. The increased density of Alternative 1 would have also required the preparation of a supplemental EIR. An initial study was prepared for Alternative 2 using M-1 as the preferred land use designation for the 103 acres of open space. The conclusion reached in the initial study was that a supplemental EIR be prepared for the project (Attachment "F"). The primary issues were loss of open space, traffic generation, drainage, land use compatibility, and the need for extending urban services north of Mud Creek. A General Plan Amendment would also be needed to consider Industrial uses. After lengthy discussions with the applicant's representative, a residential land use alternative was developed that would allow up to 34 more dwellings to be developed within the project boundary. This figure was arrived at by calculating a 1 dwelling unit per 3 acre -density for the 103 acres of open space. Development of the units came with the caveat that no more than 20 dwelling could be developed within the Open Space area. The zoning proposed for the Open Space area was SR-3/PD. The remaining 14 dwellings would be developed in the SR -1 and SR-1/OS area, now proposed to be designated SR-l/PD. The PD suffix stands for Planned Development, an option that would need to be used to achieve the increase in density and transfer of development'to the adjacent parcel. The revised application includes criteria to be used when exercising a Planned Development project. At a hearing on October 19, 1997, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) reviewed this residential proposal as well as the possibility of industrial land uses for the 103 acres. ALUC found that, though the Chico Airport Environs Plan suggests that development of this property at a 1 acre residential density may be consistent with airport operations, the Planned Development option could not be found to be consistent. This finding was primarily based on the out-of-date status of.the Environs Plan and it's inconsistency with current Cal Trans airport requirements. The Industrial option was also found to be inconsistent since the Environs Plan made no provision for industrial development on this land. ALUC indicated to the applicant that they would be much more likely to endorse industrial development if a suitable development plan was proposed. The Planning Commission first heard this project in November of 1997 and again in December 1997. Direction from the Commission during these hearings clearly indicated that there was not support for any alternative that encroached into the Open Space lands. It was suggested to the applicant that any increase in density would have to occur on lands that were already planned for' some type of development. Based on the Commission's concerns, the following revisions were offered by the applicant: The 103 acres currently zoned OS (Open Space) will be designated OS/PD (Open Space/Planned Development). The new designation will assign a development credit for up to 34 dwelling units (1 dwelling unit per 3 acres) to the 103 acres. The credit for the units may only be used if the adjacent SR-1/PD property is developed as a Planned Development 0 Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report 0 Page 2 0 and all of the dwellings must be within the SR-1/PD boundary. No development will be permitted on the 103 acres to be zoned OS/PD 2. The entire acreage currently zoned SR -1 and SR-1/OS (126 acres±) will be designated SR- 1/PD. Development within this designation may occur using 1 acre lot subdivisions or by utilization of the PD option. Lots in a PD subdivision will not have to meet the 1 acre minimum. Clustered development will be required. A minimum of 25% open space will also be required. With this scenario, the maximum number of dwelling units will be set at 160, which includes the 34 units of transferred density. The result will be a gross density of 1 dwelling unit per .78 acres within the SR-1/PD area. AIRPORT ISSUES As discussed previously in this report, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) found any increase in residential density on the project site to be inconsistent with the Chico Airport Environs Plan. The two main issues with the airport are noise and safety from overflights. According to the NCSP EIR, all of the land proposed to be developed is outside of the 55dB noise contour and the proposed densities are compatible with this noise level. The site is underneath a light aircraft approach and take -off pattern and is subject to a higher degree of overflight than most other properties in the NCSP area. According to the Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics Airport Land Use Planning Handbook the Stephen's property is in a Traffic Pattern zone. Acceptable land uses may include residential densities of 4 to 6 dwelling units per acre. In giving examples of accepted land uses, the handbook does make it clear that the handbook gives recommendations/suggestions. Individual ALUCs should use these as a starting point and, based on what is considered an "acceptable risk", may adopt different standards. When adopted, portions of the NCSP were also found inconsistent with the Environs Plan by ALUC. In adopting the NCSP, the Board of Supervisors made findings to override the ALUC. One specific finding that allowed the NCSP to be adopted, was the fact that open space land was provided along the westerly boundary of the airport, north of Mud Creek. This project retains that open space and also appears to be consistent with'the other overriding findings made by the Board. Since the project constitutes a change to the North Chico Specific Plan, the County must re -visit the overriding findings and re -affirm the previous findings or issue new findings, to approve the project. The applicant's representative has submitted information that he feels supports the position that the over- ridding findings adopted for the NCSP can be used for this project without the need for a new vote on the issue. See attachment "A", Resolution 95-47, (page 10). The future expansion plans for Chico's airport raises a larger issue that needs to be considered. The City has recently initiated a work program to prepare a new master plan for the airport. Initial proposals include the potential for lengthening the existing runway to the north and constructing a parallel runway just west of the existing runway, with the purpose of attracting new air carrier services including passenger, business, freight, and general aviation. If successful, Chico Municipal Airport would be upgraded from a local airport to one serving larger regional needs. The result would Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report Page 3 A • 1 1 0 be larger planes and more flights. The airport represents an important contribution to both the local and regional economies. Until this Master Plan is completed, careful consideration should begiven to projects that could potentially affect the expansion of the airport and its economic development potential. The Master Plan process is just beginning and it is expected to be at least 8 months before it is known what direction the airport expansion will take. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Commission, considered the above proposals as well as the applicants argument that they were unfairly burdened with the majority of the open space requirements of the NCSP. Prior to approval of the North Chico Specific Plan, the Stephens property was zoned SR -1. The theoretical maximum development potential was 300 dwelling units. This maximum could not have been achieved with I acre parcels due to physical constraints such as Mud Creek and Keefer Slough traversing the property, and some wetlands setbacks. Developing 300 dwellings would have only been possible through a rezone to PUD. While the adoption of the NCSP did restrict development on 103 acres of the Stephens property, it also increased the density and development potential on the balance, as follows.- Land ollows: Land Use Acreage Dwellinus Comm/IndDevelopment Open Space Open Space 103 acres 0 SR-IIPD SR-1/OS 84 acres 26-71 R-2 SR -1 42 acres 42 M-1 R-2 25 acres 175 BP M-1 43.4 acres 0 up to 1;134,000 sq. ft. BP 2.6 acres 0 up to 6 900 sq. ft. Total 300 acres 243-288 1,201,900 sq. ft. The proposed amendment, if approved, would allow for the potential development scenario as follows: Land Use Acreap-e DWellinQs CommAnd Development Open Space 103 acres 0 SR-IIPD 126 acres 160 R-2 25 acres 175 M-1 43.4 acres 0 up to 1,134,000 sq. ft. BP 2.6 acres 00 up to 67.900 sq. ft. Total 300 acres 335 1,201,900 sq. f Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report ❑ Page 4 Based on these figures, the Commission determined the Stephens' were not unfairly deprived of development potential for their property by the Open Space designation. The Commission also considered testimony from 3 people regarding impacts to on-going operations at the Chico Municipal Airport. In making a recommendation for denial of this project, the Commission also cited the newness of the plan and the extensive work that went into its adoption. The project site, being on the upper stretch of Keefer Slough does offer at least the potential for a partial solution to downstream flooding. The NCSP calls for a detention basin to be constructed within the open space area to attenuate peak flows on Keefer Slouah. The westerly portion of the site is also a possible ditch location for a diversion facility to utilize the old quarry as a detention basin. The applicant has indicated a willingness to participate in these drainage solutions by donating land for drainage facilities and mitigating development associated drainage impacts above project impacts in order to help reduce peak downstream flows. However, the ultimate construction of drainage improvements or acquisition of drainage easements can still be achieved either through acquisition or as a condition of future a entitlement. BOARD OPTIONS: The Board can uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission in this matter and deny the project, or approve the project as proposed. If the Board recommends an alternative that the Planning Commission did not consider, the project would have to be sent back to the Planning Commission'for their review. If approval is going to be considered, it is recommended that a Development Agreement be entered into with the applicant to stipulate what improvements or easements shall be constructed or granted. The timing of said improvements will also have to be specified. Additionally the Development Agreement could also include the development criteria for using a PD subdivision (See the Feb. 12, 1998 agenda report page 3-7, for proposed development criteria.) If the Board chooses to approve the project, a motion of intent should be made to allow staff time to make the necessary findings, including an assessment of the need for overriding findings of ALUC. Staff has identified one policy issue that needs to be addressed if approval is intended (See Attachment "A", Planning Commission Agenda report, page 7). MOTION: If the Board chooses to uphold the Planning Commission recommendation, the following motion would be appropriate: A: Environmental Findings 1. Find that the requirement of CEQA have been complied with; and Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report ❑ Page 5 B: Action 1. Deny the request to amend the North Chico Specific Plan , SP97-01 - Stephens. If the Board chooses to approve the request, it would be appropriate to make a motion -of intent to approve the request and direct staff to prepare findings addressing the adoption of environmental documents, ALUC consistency, and project findings. attach: A - Planning Commission report 2/12/98 B'- Planninu Commission report 11/13/97 C - Planning Commission minutes 02/12/98 D - Planning Commission minutes 12/11/97 E - Planning Commission minutes 11/13/97. F - Initial study 04/23/97 G - Initial study 09/22/97 H - Letter - Kammerer 04/28/98 I - Letter City of Chico J - Letter, Cal Trans, Division of Aeronautics K - Exhibit map L - Letter - Kammerer 02/06/98 _ M - Letter - North. Valley Pilot Assoc. 02/07/98 K:\PRUIf.:C'TS\(,l'AT-A\ M IZER.GPA\KAMM.BOS Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report ` Page 6 FIGURE 2: ALT. 1 ZONING CATEGORIES FOLLOWING REZONE STEPHENS PROPERTY KEY SR -1 / PD (Portion of yield from SR -3 area to be transferred to SR-1/PD) SR -3 / PD (Actual development to occur at density equivalent to SR -5) -,'RECEIVI�.' ,' 50' Creek Buffer PAR CEl..) / & Native Habitat (TRA Creation Area P)EVELO (Creek widths are conceptual - for illustrative purposes only) .......... ...... ... 103.1 1000, 1" = 1000' t Robert & Ann Stephens - proposed Negative Declaration with mitigation measures regarding environmental impacts and an amendment to the North Chico Specific Plan to change the land use designation on 230 acres from SR -1 (Suburban Residential - 1 acre minimum), SR-1/OS (Suburban Residential - 1 acre parcels/Open Space), and OS (Open Space) to either SR-1/PD (Suburban Residential - 1 acre minimum/Planned Development) and OS/PD (Open Space/Planned Development) or M-1 (Light Industrial) on property located on the west side of Hicks Lane, approximately '/z to 1 mile south of Keefer Lane, identified as APN 047-25-141, north of Chico. (CS) (GPA97-02) (Continued open) Mr. Sanders submitted a new agenda report dated 2/12/98. He gave a brief summary of the revised report that encompasses what was discussed at the last meeting. He said if this request is approved, the changes would be included in the text of the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) for this property only: Commissioner Mooney said he noticed that the open space now includes setback along the drainage. He said the 103 acres boundary was an airport land use line, and now the open space includes setbacks along the creek. Mr. Sanders said the setbacks along the creeks were always a part of the NCSP, it does not apply to the open space because it is open and there is no need for a setback. Commissioner Mooney said his point is, there are 103 acres of open space, is that with or without the creek. Mr. Sanders said the 103 acres includes the creek. Prior approval had the same number of units, but the proposal was to develop up to 20 of those units in the open space area and transfer the remaining 14 to the SR -1 and SR-1/OS areas. Commissioner Leland said this is a request for higher density. The applicant states that the property owner's land was burdened with a higher share of open space than other property. He said they need to determine how unfair. He discussed how the NCSP moved residential land use from the Open Space area to an area south of Mud Creek. How much should the Commission increase the density? Commissioner Leland did not think the density should be increased. Mr. Sanders said the changes in density are listed on Page 2 of the Agenda Report dated February 12, 1998. Commissioner Leland said he was not willing to change the density from the original NCSP. Commissioner Nelson said it looks like its an inequatible allocation of land when you just look at the open space portion by itself, but when you look at the whole parcel, it averages out to one dwelling unit per acre. Commissioner Cage discussed the airport's issues on Page 7. Butte County Planning Commission Minutes - February 12, 1998 0 '" `` Mr. Sanders discussed the future extension of the runway Industrial on the west side of the airport. He said the City plans to develop Commissioner Leland asked -how to treat the decision by ALUC to deny this request? Chairman Lambert said that ALUC found the NCSP inconsistent with the Airport Environs Plan and the Board had to make overriding findings to approve the NCSP. If this change is recommended for approval, by the Commission, the Board will again have to make overriding findings for approval. Neil McCabe, Depute County Counsel, said ALUC made a determination that this project would be inconsistent with the ALUP. He questioned if ALUC had the opportunity to look at the revised plan. If ALUC finds the project inconsistent, the County can proceed with an action. He said they would have to make overriding findings by a 2/3 vote at the Board for this request to be approved. He said the main concern is with ALUC and safety. He noted the letter from Mr. Kammerer refuting the findings from ALUC. He said the Commission needs to take a detailed look at Mr. Kammerer's letter. There was a brief decision on whether or not this should be sent back to ALUC and whether it would make any difference in ALUC's findings. Commissioner Nelson said this proposal is still in the same flight path and he did not think ALUC's determination would change. Commissioner Mooney asked if the boundary of the Open Space was determined by the sound line? Mr. Sanders said it appears to coincide with the noise line on the map. He said protection of the airport is important. Mr. McCabe said the legal question is how ALUC makes it determination. He said the Public Utilities Code states when findings are made overruling ALUC they must be specific, but does not address how ALUC makes its determination. Mr. Sanders noted a letter submitted from the City of Chico Airport Commission asking that this application be denied. The hearing was opened to the public. George Kammerer, representing the Stephens, said he did not think anything would be served by sending this back to ALUC or to continue it. He asked the Commission to make a decision today. He said ALUC does not want to approve residential development in this area. He believed the analysis in his letter is sound. He said he took pains to work with Planning staff to make this proposal consistent with the operation of the airport. He asked for support and a recommendation for approval to the Board. Norm Rosene, lives two miles north of the airport, said he is a pilot and an alternate on ALUC. He said he was there as a supporter of the airport. Airport is important to the County. He said safety Butte County Planning Commission Minutes - February 12, 1998 5 is the issue -and that all fatal crashes have been in the. over flight zones. He said this property is one of the busiest over flight zones in the County. He discussed airport noise. He objected to the proposed increase of density near the airport. He did not think the Stephens were treated unfairly. Brian Baldridge, President of the North Valley Pilot's Association, said he was concerned with encroachment near the airport. Encroachment is the number one reason for the loss of airports. He discussed general aviators and the needs they serve. He said they need to protect transportation infrastructure. He said that this proposal should be denied. Jeremy Kenyon, pilot, said if development is put in this location, it will be harmful to the City of Chico. He discussed the different businesses that use the airport. Mr. Kammerer said he is not insensitive to the airport. He said he has worked closely with staff on safety and noise concerns. He said 3 out of 4 crashes are in the approach zones and not in the overflight zones. He said they do not want to change the 103 acres of Open Space. He agreed with the 6 conditions from ALUC regarding noise and safety. Mr. Sanders said the ALUC flight track shows light traffic over the residential area. Mr. Kammerer said the bombers go over the open space flight track. Mr. Sanders pointed out that flight tracks are conceptual. The hearing was closed. Chairman Lambert asked if this could go to ALUC at their next weeks meeting? Mr. Lucas said yes. Commissioner Leland said his inclination is to reject this project. He said a lot of compromises and community work went in the NCSP. He did not feel it was unfair to the applicant. Commissioner Nelson said they should reject this proposal or work something out. He said based on the information they have, he is willing to deny this project. It was moved by Commissioner Leland, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, and carried to deny this application in its entirety by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Leland, Cage, Nelson, and Chairman Lambert NOES: Commissioner Mooney ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: No one E Butte County Planning Commission Minutes - February 12, 1998 '-' Commissioner Nelson suggested findings for denial based on the concerns from ALUC and the City of Chico. ; The motion was carried without findings. 0 Butte County Planning Commission Minutes - February 12, 1998 0 ; . ' BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT -. February 12, 1998 Applicant: Robert & Ann Stephens File #: SP97-01, GPA97-02 Request: An amendment to the North Zoning: SR -1, SR-1/OS, OS Chico Specific Plan to change the land use designation on APN: 047-250-141 230 acres from SR -1, SR- 1/OS, and OS to either SR- Location: Located on the west side of 1/PD (Planned Development) Hicks Lane, approximately '/z and OS/PD or M-1 Industrial.' to 1 mile south of Keefer Lane, north of Chico G.P.: Agricultural Residential Parcel Size: 300 ac. Zone date: March, 28, 1995 DISCUSSION: At the December 11, 1997 meeting, the Planning Commission requested revisions to this project. The primary objection voiced by the Commissioners at the meeting was the loss of any -existing, designated open space land. The Commission directed that if any increase in residential density is allowed, that it takes place on lands already planned for development. Based on the Commission's concerns, the following revisions are offered by the applicant: 1. The 103. acres currently zoned OS (Open Space) will be designated OS/PD- (Open Space/Planned Development). The new designation will assign a development -credit for up to 34 dwelling units (1 dwelling unit per 3 acres) to the 103 acres. The credit for the units may only be used if the adjacent SR-1/PD property is developed as a Planned Development and all of the dwellings must be within the SR-1/PD boundary. No development will be permitted on the 103 acres to be zoned OS/PD 2. The entire acreage currently zoned SR -1 and SR-1/OS (126 acres*) will be, designated SR- 1/PD. Development within this designation may occur by conventional subdivision design requiring a minimum lot size of 1 acre. The exact development yield under this scenario is currently'unknown, but is estimated to be between 68 and 113 dwellings.' If more dwellings are desired, the applicant or future land owner may use a Planned Development subdivision. Lots- in this type of subdivision will not, have to meet the 1 acre minimum. Clustered development will be required. A minimum of 25% open space will f Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report C Page 1 ❑ ' be required. With this scenario, the total number of dwelling units can be calculated as follows; 1 dwelling per gross acre for the SR -1 lands which equals 126 dwellings, plus the additional 34 "bonus" units from the OS/PD lands for a total of 160 dwelling units. The result will be a gross density of 1 dwelling unit per .78 acres within the'SR-1/PD area. Prior to approval of he North Chico Specific Plan the Stephens property was zoned SR -1 by Ordinance 2184 adopted in January of 1981. The theoretical maximum development potential was 300 dwelling units. This maximum could not have been achieved with 1 acre parcels due to physical constraints such as Mud Creek and Keefer Slough traversing the property, and some wetlands setbacks. Achieving 300 dwellings would have only been possible through a PUD rezone. By comparison, the Current Land Use Designations in the North Chico Specific Plan allows for the following development potential for the Stephens property: Land Use Acreage Open Space 103 acres SR-1/OS 84 acres SR -1 42 acres R-2 25 acres M-1 43.4 acres BP 2.6 acres Total 300 acres Dwellings Development 0 26-71 42 175 0 up to 1,134,000 sq. ft. 0 up to 67,900 sq. ft. 243-288 1,201,900 sq. ft. The proposed amendment, if approved, would allow for the potential development scenario as follows: Land Use Acreage Dwellings Development Open Space 103 acres 0 SR-1/PD 126 acres 160 R-2 25 175 M-1 43.4 acres 0 up to 1,134,000 sq. ft. BP 2.6 acres 0 up to 67,900 aq. ft.. Total 300 acres 335. 1,201,900 sq. ft. Approval of this project will require several amendments to the North Chico Specific Plan including the creation of the SR-1/PD and OS/PD zoning categories that will be exclusive to the Stephens property. The following is the proposed text for the two categories: SR 1/PD 0 Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report 0 Page 2 0 Within the NC SP the SR-1/PD zone shall be applied exclusively to the area depicted on Figure 3-1 of the Plan. General Provisions Property designated SR -1/ PD may be developed in one of two ways: 1. Development within this designation may occur by conventional subdivision design requiring a minimum lot size of 1 acre, according to the provisions of the SR -1 zone. 2. A Planned Development option may be used; subject to the following development criteria: a. No more than 160 dwelling units will be permitted within this designation. All development shall be as single family dwellings on individual lots. b. The area designated OS/PD (approximately 103 acres), immediately adjacent to the east, will become an integral part of the Planned Development project as continued open space. c. A.minimum of 25% of the gross acreage within the SR-1/PD designation will be retained as open space and made available to residents of the Planned Development. This area may be larger than 25% if significant wetlands or other sensitive biotic resources are retained on-site. The retained open space shall be protected by a conservation easement or other mechanism that will preclude development in perpetuity. Uses permitted within the OS area shall be as provided in the OS zone in the North Chico Specific Plan provided that all sensitive habitats are adequately protected and preserved. d. The Planned Development must include a community sewage disposal system approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and Butte County Environmental Health Division. e. The submission of a Tentative Subdivision Map shall be preceded by a pre - development conference to review the proposed lot design and ensure the project meets the site design criteria below. A concept plan, shall be submitted that addresses the site design criteria below. Site Design Criteria As noted above, if,, the subject parcel is developed under the Planned Development (PD) option, a portion of the land will be preserved as permanent open- space. The following offers guidelines for the preservation of such open space: D Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report D Page 3 D. Primary Conservation Areas: The .features enumerated below are defined as Primary Conservation Areas. These areas shall be used to determine the location and extent of the open space area within the development area to achieve the 25% requirement. 0 Wetlands preserved within -the SR-1/PD area, with 50' of surrounding buffer area. Protection of wetlands is of primary concern throughout the entire parcel. Buffer areas can perform many significant functions, including filtering stormwater runoff, providing critical habitat at the land -water interface, and offering opportunities for wildlife travel corridors and informal walking trails for the immediate neighborhood. If wetland preservation area, including buffers cannot be feasibly retained and integrated into the Planned Development area, alternative mitigation must be performed. Creation of new wetlands area within the OS/PD lands or within other open space area of the Planned Development shall be the accepted mitigation, subject to approval from the California Department of Fish and Game as well as the Army Corp of Engineers. Destroyed wetlands shall be replaced on a 2 to 1 ratio as provided for in the North Chico Specific Plan. 0 Approximately 100'setbacks on either side of Mud Creek and Keefer Slough. Development within these setbacks for passive recreational uses (such as trails) should be carefully located to preserve the functioning of these riparian ecosystems. The creek side setbacks through the development area may be reduced from 100' to 50' if, as a component of the Planned Development, a habitat improvement plan is undertaken to significantly enhance the value of these buffer strips. The habitat improvement plan shall be submitted with the Tentative Subdivision Map application. 0 Any meadowfoam communities discovered during formal springtime site delineation. No Butte County Meadowfoam was found during previous springtime site, surveys. Additional surveys will be required prior to site development. 0 Existing trees used for nesting by raptors present on the site. Trees within the Mud Creek and Keefer Slough riparian areas shall be preserved. Improvements to creekside habitat, including new tree plantings, may be a component of the Planned Development. 0 Any areas deemed to be of high archaeological value by the investigating archaeologist, which are not otherwise mitigated 0 Stormwater detention area as conceptually designated in NCSP, or other appropriate stormwater detention configuration. Secondary Conservation Areas 0 Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report 0 Page 4 0 The features enumerated below shall be defined as Secondary Conservation Area, those areas to be carefully considered during site design to minimize development impact and maximize the benefits of the resultant open space amenity. 0 The most suitable soils for filtering effluent. Since an on-site community wastewater treatment system is planned, suitable soils will be one of the site's most significant resources, and organizing development to best utilize these is appropriate. 0 Areas connecting Primary Conservation Areas. Wildlife movement corridors. will be combined with other open space functions to the maximum extent feasible. Development Appropriate in Open Space Areas 0 Circulation system. Looped, meandering footpaths along the edges of open space areas, and abutting some lots, connect open spaces with residential development and access streets. 0 Community wastewater treatment facilities. Facilities are planned to be located in the open space area in a way that is sensitive to the specific features of the chosen location. 0 Some internal neighborhood open spaces. Greens, small play lots, and a "mini -park" (as designated for this site in the NCSP) would be appropriately located in open space areas. Residential development The following elements are envisioned for residential development on this site: ❑ Lots abutting or facing onto open spaces. Where feasible, such lot siting will take advantage of the amenity value of the open space. The adjoining open space creates a buffer on at least one boundary of the lots, which is preferable to being closed in on all sides by others' yards. ❑ A variety of lot sizes to accommodate the designated yield. Adjoining open space will psychologically enlarge smaller lot dimensions to include some of the meadows, wetlands, or stream corridors within direct view of the house. 0 Access to individual lots from interior local streets. The major arterial along the perimeter of the site is not appropriate for individual lot access. ❑ Appropriate tree plantings. These will create a landscaped `canopy' to shade streets and yards, and to provide some natural buffering between houses. 0 Development focused away from major public routes adjacent to this area (specifically Hicks Lane). This will preserve views from these roads and buffer residences from associated traffic 0 Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report ❑ Page 5 ❑ and noise. ❑ Development sited to take advantage of any views out from the site. 0 Single -loaded streets, where feasible. These can create buffers between development, define an edge between open space and development, and add value overall. Infrastructure 0 Gently curving rural residential lanes These will provide access to residential development and the open space system. ❑ Individual water wells or, if more efficient, a community water system. If California Water Services Company does not extend its lines to this site, a community water system using wells will be used to provide water. ❑ Community wastewater treatment system. A community wastewater treatment system is required. 0 Street Lighting appropriate to the rural character of the setting. 0 Drainage system designed to filter concentrated stormwater runoff before it reaches sensitive areas such as wetlands. OS/PD Designation General Provisions Property designated OS/ PD as depicted in a revised figure 3-1 for the North Chico. Specific Plan shall remain as open space in perpetuity. If the SR-1/PD does not develop using the Planned Development option, this ' OS/PD property will remain as Open Space subject to the provisions of the OS designation in the North Chico Specific Plan. If the PD option is used, this land will still be required to remain open space, but a density bonus of 34 dwelling units (1 dwelling unit per 3 acres) may be transferred to the SR-1/PD land. The retained open space shall be protected by a conservation easement or other mechanism that will preclude development in perpetuity. Under the PD option, the use of the open space will be made available to the general public. Permitted Uses The permitted uses in the OS/PD designation shall be the same as listed in the OS (Open Space) designation in the North Chico Specific Plan with the addition that underground leachfield areas, stormwater detention basins, and wetlands mitigation replacement areas are also a permitted uses. o Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report 0 Page 6 0 Leachfields and detention basins may be installed in areas that do not contain sensitive botanical habitat or species. The installation of above ground sewage treatment facilities shall not be permitted int the OSIPD area. One other specific policy in the North Chico Specific Plan must also be amended if approval of this project is recommended. _ Policy 7.1.-6 states "Outside the Village Core boundaries, any revision to increase the number of dwelling units within a particular designation shall be offset by a corresponding decrease in another designation so that the total number of units in the entire planning area is not exceeded." Approval of this proposal would allow up to 160 dwellings on property that, according to the Plan, would be developed with only 68 dwellings. This is an increase of 92 dwellings. As stated in the previous agenda report for this project, the above policy is difficult to apply to the SR-1/OS lands because the extent of the constraints and, therefore, the development potential was not determined at the time of Plan adoption. If the Commission wishes to make a recommendation of approval, the following change' to policy 7.1-6 is recommended "Outside the Village Core boundaries, except for the lands designated SR-1/PD and SR -1/0S, any revision to increase the member of dwelling units within a particular designation shall be offset by a corresponding decrease in another designation so that the total number of units in the entire planning area is not exceeded. " AIRPORT ISSUES: As discussed in the previous agenda report, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) found any. increase in residential density on the project site to be inconsistent with the Chico Airport Environs Plan. When adopted, portions of the NCSP were also found inconsistent with the Chico Airport Land Use Plan by the ALUC. In adopting the NCSP, the Board of Supervisors made findings to override the ALUC. One specific finding that allowed the NCSP to be adopted was the fact that open space land was provided along the westerly boundary of the Airport, north of Mud Creek. This project will retain that open space and currently appears to meet the other overriding findings made by the Board. Since the project constitutes a change to the North Chico Specific Plan the County must re -visit the overriding findings and re -affirm the previous findings or issue new findings, to approve the project. If the City lengthens the runway to the north, as is currently contemplated, densities greater than 1 dwelling unit per acre will be within 3,700' of the runway centerline, an inconsistency with finding #3 on page 5 of the adoption resolution for the North Chico Specific Plan, attached. The City of Chico Airport Commission has also commented on the project and attached is a letter urging the Planning Commission to deny this request due to air traffic safety issues. Recommendation: Staff is still not recommending a specific course of action regarding this project. It is the opinion of the Planning Division that there are several unresolved issues with regard to the implementation = Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report _7 Page 7 the North Chico Specific Plan that must be addressed (see agenda report of 12/11/97). The status of the airport runway extension is also unknown at this time. In light of these concerns, approval,of this amendment is seen to be premature. . If the Commission wishes to make a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors,the motion should include findings regarding environmental issues, land use compatibility and airport compatibility. With direction from the Commission, a motion of intent would probably be appropriate to allow staff time to prepare those findings. attach: Res. 95-47 BEC letter 12/10/97 City of Chico letter 1/7/98 Laura Page letter 11/10/97 K:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\GPA\KAMNMRER.GPA\KANDAERRPT 0 Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report 0 Page 8 0 George T. Kammerer - proposed Negative Declaration with mitigation measures regarding environmental impacts and Specific Plan Amendment - Amendment to the North Chico Specific Plan to change land use designation to allow for the consideration of . increased residential density and/or industrial land on approximately 230 acres of land located on the west side of Hicks Lane, approximately 1/2 to 1 mile south of Keefer'Ro,ad, .identified as AP 047-250-141, north Chico area. (CS) (SP97-01) (Continued open from November 13, 1997) Mr. Sanders said staff has provided three recommendations, one to deny the proposal, one to require a supplemental EIR for industrial, or one to increase the residential. The hearing was opened to the public. Mr. Lucas said the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) could not make a consistency finding for this proposal. He briefly discussed the overriding findings that would have to be made by the Board of Supervisors if this is approved. He said the Board has to focus on the purpose and intent of the law under which ALUC operates. He said they look at safety primarily. Commissioner. Mooney asked why the land was designated Open Space and not an Airport Protection Zone? Commissioner Leland said the Open Space designation protects the wetlands, wildlife, etc. Chairman Lambert said she had a meeting with Mr. Kammerer and Mr. Leland. Commissioner Nelson said he also had met with Mr. Kammerer Chairman Lambert said ALUC has made a finding of non -consistency of the entire North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) and was over ruled by the Board. Commissioner Leland said that the Stephens, the owners of this property, were not compensated for the amount of open space designated. The hearing was opened to the public. George Kammerer, representative of the land owner, said he met with individual Commissioners. He said staff has worked very hard on this application.. He said _'the application should be under the Stephens name and asked that it be changed in the Agenda Report before this goes to the Board. He said the request before the Commission is a Specific Plan Amendment, General Plan Amendment to Industrial, and Rezone. He asked for an answer as to -how this change would affect the NCSP. Mr. Sanders said conversion of Open Space to Industrial has more far reaching impacts to. the NCSP. The residential change would affect the property rather than the whole NCSP. Open Space was meant to mitigate factors in the Plan. Loss of Open. Space would trigger the need for a Supplemental EIR and with Industrial the traffic would have to be _ addressed in that Supplemental EIR. D Butte County Planning Commission Minutes -December 11,-1997 0 X Mr. Kammerer said this was a two part application, one for residential the other for industrial. The residential proposal, envisions retention of open space. He said Mr. Stephens .was saddled with the largest amount of open space over other land owners in the.NCSP area. He said the Stephens property is surrounded by SR -1 zoning. He asked if the Open Space was there for a reason or because the Stephens were -not present at the' meeting. r Mr..Kammerer said the Stephens live in So. California and were not able to be involved in the NCSP process. He said the Stephens were told by consultants that they would be 'treated fairly, which did not happen when the final Plan was adopted. Mr. Sanders said the Stephens did have some limited input into'the original NCSP. Mr. Lucas discussed how the map was arrived at for the open space. He said some of We . lines were drawn on the 55 d6 contours. Commissioner Leland asked why a designation of Open Space only. Mr. Lucas said it is an airport approach area. Mr. Kammerer said the residential proposal is to rezone OS to SR-3/PUD, 1 unit per 3 acres. He said under the PUD they can be creative. He discussed build out on the east side of 1 unit per 5 acres. He discussed clustering of residential units. He said .the proposal would save most of the Open Space that is there now. Commissioner Nelson said he understands Mr. Kammerer is: asking for residential along with the open space and if he can not get that, he wants Industrial Mr. Kammerer said correct. Chairman Lambert asked if the NCSP was in the Nitrate Action Plan area? Mr. Sanders said no. There was a brief discussion on nitrates and sewage disposal. Mr. Kammerer said he wants to do some clustering to change the density from one side to another of the parcel. Mr. Sanders said in the Specific Plan to apply PD criteria would not have to go back to the Commission, it would allow some transfer of density. Chairman Lambert said two maps, were. sent to the Commission; one has .open space in the NE area and one has SR-1/OS. She said in the NCSP,`SR-1 is different than SR -1 in other parts of the County, Mr. Sanders said yes the SR -1 uses are'different in the NCSP. . 11 Butte County Planning Commission Minutes - December 11, 1997 0 i ` " Commissioner Leland asked if this proposal would change the NCSP. He was concerned with setting a precedent. He said they also have to look at the fairness issue. He said they need to deal with traffic and density. He did not see a big problem with traffic with the proposed change. Commissioner Mooney asked if staff knew how much Open Space has been "provided to date? Mr. Sanders said no information at this time. He said a lot of the development has not occurred. Commissioner Cage said there should be open space in this area because of the concerns . of the airport and the fire fighters flying over this area. Mr. Kammerer said the Specific Plan and General Plan are designed to be modified where necessary. He discussed the Specific Plan not being as specific as it should have been. Ted Crawford, CDF, was concerned with airport practice runs from water carriers. He said they go over this area and he would like to see this area remain undeveloped. Mr. Parilo said the Stephens own 300 acres. He said they owned the largest acreage when the Plan was adopted and would be assessed the most open space. He said generally speaking all the larger parcels within the Plan have designated open space. He said the land abutting the airport is more sensitive and in need of open space, more than other land in the Plan area. He said there has been a shifting of density on this property to accommodate Open Space and he did not think the property owner was being discriminated against. Mr. Kammerer said the Open Space area lost the SR -1 designation. He just wants to move the density over to the other side of the property. Commissioner Leland said he would not want to change the Open Space. He wanted no houses on the Open Space side. He.said the question is to allow an increase in density on the other side of the property. Mr. Kammerer noted that, Mr. Stephens has more designated Open Space than any other land owner In the Plan area. " Commissioner Nelson said the bottom line is does the County want to give a density bonus and if we do, how much? Commissioner Nelson asked how many units are we talking about? Mr. Sanders said it is.'a very broad range. There was a discussion on how many units are allowed now and how many are -proposed. Mr. Kammerer said the applicant wants 160 units total. 0 Butte County Planning Commission Minutes December 14,:1997.0' Commissioner Leland said if the land is left as is the Stevens get 113 units Commissioner Mooney said with 103 acres of open space, he was not against giving the Stevens 160 units. Commissioner Leland said he was leaning towards the low side of 11.3 dwellings. Mr. Parilo said staff needs to comeback with `specifics of a PUD. He said it will have to be reviewed with ALUC again and re -noticed at the Commission. Mr. Kammerer asked why go back to ALUC? He asked if there was any reason to not .recommend 160 units? Mr. Sanders said all development to take place within the areas currently designated SR - 1 & SR-1/OS, 5 acre density on OS to be transferred over to SR -1 area and all development will be subject to a "PD" Planned Development requirement. The 103 acres OS can be retained and be made more publicly available by requiring a conservation easement. Direction from Commission to come back with the above scenario, count OS along creeks and sloughs. Mr. Sanders said acreage includes creeks and sloughs. Staff will bring this back, re- _ publish and re -notice. It was moved by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Mooney, and unanimously carried to direct staff to prepare revisions to the project based upon•the statements above in lines 8 through 16 by Mr. Sanders. M 0 Butte County Planning Commission Minutes- December 11,'1997 0 }Yl *�BZJ'�'�� IO AIS®R'I' LAND ` COSI BION + • DepaMo Center Onve, OWN% oWMOTFAX MIW.W r f Me TO: Lead Agency FROM: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING FINDINGS AND�70j MEbli Butte County Specliflc Plan Amendn*nt #97-0t ( ter) on APN 047- 250-141: DATE NOTICE MAILED: December 9, 1997. This- is your official -notice that the Airport Land Use Col mission held a`public miWAg on l *Vember X11, 1997 and approved the findings and/or conditions attached as Exhibit(s) A. If you have any further questions or desire additional information,! please call PaulaLeasure,, 'of,the ALUC staff, at (916) 538-7601. The project file may be reviewed at the Department of Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, Califo�mia k:/a l ucKorms/n otice.fdg Butte County Airport Land Use Commission • DEC 11 97 07:46 PAGE.001 T k:/a l ucKorms/n otice.fdg Butte County Airport Land Use Commission • DEC 11 97 07:46 PAGE.001 ► -��J°T'TI� CO AIRPORT LAND U`60.,CO SSION + • Department of Devewprne+n Ser*As e 7 county center Drive, OrwAge, CA 95965. (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785. EXHIBIT A BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR: County of Bufte General Plan Amendment #97-02 and Specific Plan Amendment #97-01 (Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141 The following findings have been prepared at the direction of .the ALUC and are for the consideration of the County of Butte (local agency) when making a decision on this project. Section 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS A. The Initial Study prepared for the project does not adequately address impacts related to the aircraft operations of Chico Municipaf Airport. ' Section 2: PROJECT CONSISTENCY FINDINGS A. The ALUC finds the project is inconsistent with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. r Reviewed and Approved by: Stephen Lucas, Associate Planner, ALUC • Butte County # Airport Land Use Commission • 4 DEC 11 ' 9.7 07:48 PAGE. 005 +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE OOMMISSION + • Departrnent of Development Services • 7 County Center Orive. Orovllle, CA 95965 • (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538.7785 • EXHIBIT A BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR: County of Butte Specific Plan Amendment #97-01 (Kammerer) on APN 047-250.141: The following findings. have been prepared at the direction of the ALUC and are for the consideration of the County of Butte (local agency) when making a decision on this project. Section 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS A. Find that the .Initial Study prepared for the project does not adequately address the .. potential impacts related -to -th"r-craft -operations=of=th6- Chico Municipal- Airport as identified below. 1. There is no discussion of the safety impacts related to the overflight of aircraft as shown on CIC -2 of the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan; and 2. There is no discussion of single event noise impacts resulting from low-flying aircraft and no discussion of noise impacts related to the night-time maintenance functions involving the "run-up" of aircraft engines that is critical to the ongoing operation of the airport; and 3. There is no discussion of the impact of residential noise complaints related to the potential alteration, reduction or loss of unrestricted aircraft operations at a public facility; and 4. There is no discussion of the .safety impacts related to the overflight of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection tankers following the Tanker Practice Drop Pattern as identified in the North Chico Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report; and 5. There is no discussion of the unique hazards related to the use of the airspace above the project site by student pilots; and 6. There is no discussion of the inconsistency with the City -of Chico Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program which recommends that no residential uses shall be allowed on the project site. Section 2: PROJECT CONSISTENCY FINDINGS A. The ALUC finds the project is inconsistent with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP) as identified below. The CMAEP indicates the project is located within the Study Area as depicted in Figure CIC -0 and in Compatible Land Use Zone V (CLUZ V) as depicted in CIC -13; and • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 4 DEC 11 '97 07:46 PAGE. 002 2. The project site is located under the light aircraft traffic pattern as shown on CIC -2 and the Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) patterns for both runways; and 3. The project site is"located in the horizontal surface as shown on CIC -5, and a portion of the northeast section of the project site is located in the 7:1 transitional surface as shown on CIC -5; and 4. The CMAEP and CLUZ V zone indicates that parcels that are affected by the overflight of aircraft should not be developed in order to reduce the potential for safety concerns of both the aircraft and persons on the ground; and 5. The current open space designation represents fewer potential impacts than any other proposed use. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will increase the population and building density of the project area above that of the existing zoning. Based on this foundation, the Commission finds that residential development should be prohibited on this parcel in any configuration; and 6. Find that a current noise study was not conducted to detemmtine the single event noise levels that would be found at the project site. This lack of noise level information forces the approving authority to speculate as to the actual noise impact related to this project. Reviewed and Approved.by: Stephen Lucas, ALUC Staff KlalucW"Ungs\novt 1-97lstephens.res • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 5 -DEC 11 .'.97 07 47 ' . PAGE. 003 Projccl: Kan mcm, File SENIOR PLANNER 97.01, OPA 97-02 COUNTY OF BUTTE INITIAL STUDY EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .. ...... _ I. BACKGROUND: 1. Name of Proponent: George Kammerer 2. Address: 2710 Gateway Oaks Dr. Suite 300-S, Sacramento, CA 95833 Phone: (916) 3. Name of Proposal, if applicable: - 4. Type of Project: Amendment to an existing specific plan ( North Chico Specific Plan). This project, i will also result in a change in zoning on a portion of the project site 5. Project Description and Location of Parcel(s): This project is an amendment to the North Chico Specific Plan adopted March 28,1995 by the Butte County Board of Supervisors. The request affects approximately 230 acnes of land located on the westerly side of Hicks Lane, approximately 1 mile south of Keefer Road in the north Chico area. The Butte County General Plan designates this area as Agricultural Residential. The North Chico Specific Pian (NCSP) implements this land use designation through the following combination of zoning designations: 42.4 acres zoned SR -1; 83.7 acres zoned SR-1/OS (land subject to an unknown amount of biotic impacts); and 103 acres of OS -,Open Space designation. This project is a request to change the zoning in the following manner. The SR -1 and SR - 110S will be changed To SR-1/PD and the OS designation will be changed to SR-3/PD. These zoning designations will give future developers the option of either developing the land with conventional subdnrisions with minimum parcels sizes indicated by the zoning or utilize a PD -Planned Development option which will allow for smaller parcels, require a community sewer and water systems in the SR -1 area and require at least 30% open space in the SR -1 and 50% open space in the SR -3 area. As planned, the PD option will allow the developer to maximize the number of dwelling units by allowing the full potential density of the zoning to be developed while avoiding constrained lands which would otherwise reduce density in a conventional lot layout. Within the SR-3/PD area the total number of dwelling units shall not exceed 20 under any circumstance. However,,if the PD option is utilized, the full density credit of 34 units will be given, with the additional 14 units being developed as part of the planned development on the SR -1 lands. The applicant has provided an initial biotic and wetlands assessmentto supportthe changes for the area north of Mud Creek which was identified in the NCSP EIR as having wetlands resources. 6. Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 047-250-141 T. Date Checklist Submitted: II. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ■ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X 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 the mitigation measures described on an attached ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division ❑ PAGE. 001 OCT 07 '97 17:33 0 Project: Kanner, File SENIOR PLANNER 97-01. GPA 97-02 Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Use non-renewable resources in a X wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Conflict with the extraction of identified, significant mineral X resources? Response: No significant mineral resources efton site or within the Plan area. Development allowed 5y the NCSP will meet building code requirements for energy efficiency._ - Mitigation: None required 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, X pesticides, chemicals, or radiation) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency X evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard : �_ or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing X sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with X flammable brush, grass, or trees? Response: A portion of the site is located under an approach zone for the Chico Municipal Airport. Homes located in this zone have an incrementally higher chance of being impacted by a plane crash. Consistent with the Airport Environs Plan, no concentration of homes should be located under this approach zone. Mitigation: Residential density under the approach zone to the Chico Municipal Airport shall not exceed 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? X— b) . Exposure of people to severe noise X levels? ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division 0 11 OCT 07 '97 17:40 PAGE. 002 Project: Kanunem, File SENIOR PLANNER 97-01, GPA 97-02 Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact - Impact Response: Hicks Lane is designated as an arterial street in the NCSP. The Plan calls for noise attenuation measures for residential adjacent to arterial roads to reduce interior noise levels to no more than 45 dB. 'This can be accomplished through various methods. No further mitigation is required. The entire site is subject to noise related to the overflight of aircraft and from operations of the Chico Municipal Airport. The northeast comer of the site is currently within the CNEL 55 dB noise contour and most of the OS area will be in a 55 dB in the year 2010. The NCSP EIR concluded that both rural residential and industrial uses would be compatible within a 55 dB noise level and found the impact , to be less than significant. Mitigation: Adhere to noise attenuation requirements for residential structures adjacent to arterial roads, as contained in the NCSP. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. yyould the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? -- c) Schools? . X d) Maintenance of public facilities, X including roads? e) Other governmental services? X Response: Mitigation measure to provide public service are contained within the NCSP EIR are adequate to•meetthe demands of this project. However, on-going funding of several elements of the Plan are now in question due to the passage of proposition 218. The.plan calls for the formation of CSA, assessment districts, •or other financing mechanisms that will now require a majority or 2/3 vote of residents to continue funding. s Mitigation: None required 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or . substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? x— b) Communications systems? x c) Local or regional water treatment X or distribution facilities? . 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 12 PAGE. 003 OCT 07 1 97 17: 41 . . . . . . , . . .:.. .1 r. & `*`*, ,,� , . I - , . �. .. . . I . . . . , .... . :; ;.,. -, . ,:.. ..�..-.;iillli&...,, t::-,-,�-l-,.-;.-,..� . . .. . . I... . . .. . . , ... - ., , * . .., ,:,," 7. ...... ... . . . .. I . . : . . . ... . - : .. ...,Ak " --., ,.: . a , ., - -- , . . ., . . . . . - .... ... . - .. .. . .. . . ll�- .. lw..z. ..., .,:,., : ,� . : .. . . . 4. . ,; r: .. 1. 9 _ ;;< r° `;.. :ti- it l-�:E ., `l::I Fina orimenta. ac " - ort r P. . ,O' :: . , . .. . p ... . �. , .. . .. . 1.:o n amendment.:o :ahe:G `neral -P lan:. - ::.. l: .f.. . and ad 0 Mori:: o :t I I- •:: _ f. h e' -...., I. ,..: a .:.. r. .. totter X1:::4 j, .% . 99 . ,._ ;, ......:..:.:.. . :°.,.. -- . ;;:::. ....... .. ... . ..... ,. „ _ �, ., : ..., ,; .. .. a. ., .. -. . . r- .. .:f : . . :' A a �' r : ; ,. - .. ,.. . .. .... . {'.. ..:` .. `( ..,.r.., ... .. .. _ ...... ... .�.•. ., .. .. ' .. - _ .. .. '.' ;.. .:r .:' , t :! '!{�' 2.'• .. . _ _ _•�' _ _ > 77, r... }. -,. :11 ....:,.. -..... ... ...... ...:..: J .(- ^.. ....,.. 0 .. ':t': x.: .- •. .... . .._ r-�.•r.. . :: ... .....,. . . r. ..,. ... .. -..- l �_ i., :.NOR�'H:: . _ r:: ._.... r 1 :. - .. - v-': ,... - - - - 1-:: -:%,-,,-,.;,.... �. .....: .. .. :. *'.-"L�:%.*",:���*'-.....�l.:''.�,:�..I*--:. . --:-: ---. ,_ - -; - - - - ...,.,....,....... .r.! --:*-.-.�:..,....,..-!,:i::';.-""''�... . ".1;i...,,-,!-�,�--.. ..-,.-;-�:-�-.::,,,� ".. . .�. .... �.,., . ..r- . ..........,�:- 4. - �.-.. , , .� -.....,, -:: - - , '' ­ , : - ­... ,r ----T--,!--*-: _t. , - �, - � ; ... � -- .,'- - .....: ` ,. .- - , ,,--,;�;�,` "" ,`�` , `-.,..:. ' - I �_; .... *"", -.."!., ., �. .... ,.. ... - - . -,---,-:t�,-.� .... `'• .1. ---f,-. -.. � ,. Lf"" -,-N.,t--.*...--'..--'.:r...,..,.. E C -. �. :, ,:.. :.w.. :.. ,:,:.. ". ,..A ..,. :..: t�- -- ,S ,-...... I .... ,. t ..S : 1.a.".' : -,... -..... .----4i, . . .. .-.. . . * ....- --.:: -� ,-,�� ---,--.-:.-.,.-,l - -:,�.--... .. ,,.,.--, �,-... ----,,.-:-:-. ,;,.. .--�. I -, - ---�:..-,.�.. ,- ik,, "I"', .. .'', , . - . ...ll,�, - "'' -- " "'"'"' -,:* f ,�-,,- .- .... ... . .. �.�:,i!.,.,f.,.,;,"-.^'.�.�.!:�..,;��., �. I -,.: ... ..,:...-. .... .., .. . - . ... - .....s, . . , I.*- I I '! �, ,,,.�,. , . -... ... ,- - .1-11 'I.: ..: - , I , , , ''--:--,,-.-,-:_:--.-,.-., i * -""',='... , ., - '' - - -'! , .,,.,...-,-,.�... -, �!',-:--,,��" , •'-..-:,., - - - . . . -�:.� ".... .'i...-,;. , - ,�, , ` "-- -, - ..', ,,--!,�,-,.--.,::.- -:---:.. �:.. :! . . .......... .: -j... -:,� s i� -. _ .:' y .. ti. , . ,.:':.' .. _ . . is :. f:'. :.i.:r�' .- _ :�. - j. -... . •). '..` . , . :, . . .. :: ..4 ... ` - •: - . '" '. . . — .: C. *,.,.�:, . '! �:. - s. - .. -s,• ,. a" - - .' Prepared by:`, . .. .. - . ' '';1. Heritage Partners` - . , :,; : .Y ; t---.-`-,:- . r: r `` -:;! . W. .:*W�,.i 9 . . ... .�. . , - . aced for:: . I.—. �. ** -Pre.., P .. . Y.. .. . , ... -:-� 1 .....- -;-,�-.. -f--..: � - ..., ,:: ::The Coun of Butte.:.... .. .. I , . , , - .. .: :. ' . h'.�. , " . . '' - , .,1: . ... .. :';. . . ,.. , .:. . . . :. . ,O' :: :;' -: l: r. .. totter X1:::4 j, .% . 99 �'. ,. „ _ . , . . . .. . .. .... . .. . :.. . _ :: ., .:_ :. ::: :..... ., :' '... ,�r' .. ..... ... .. .: ..-.: ,... .,-:: ::-,,:.. ..i' _ .. .. . .. rr'" . t'. .:.. ...t :i . , , SCH#.:930..,430 - ' . . ;,:., . ,' =, '' .... *"", A: :;r. :...•.,... :,;: , t :.. .r :.:.. .. ...::.... � :. „:.:.: . . North Chico Specific Plan FLIGHT TRACKS IN RELATIONSHIP TO PROPOSED LAND USE AS SET FORTH IN "ALTERNATIVE LAND USE PLAN" 0 1500 7000 SCALE �r • LEGEND © ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FIRE STATgN mODLONNRY PARK - mID:gIfSOPo100D PARK SPECIFIC PIAN AREA BOUNDARY - ... SPHERE OF INFLUENCE . (CITY OF CNICO) - o0o STREET WITH FLEMLE ALIGNMENT o STREET WITM FIXED ALIGNMENT GENERALIZED FLIGHT TRACKS HEAVY AIRCRAFT PATTERN •���• TANKER PRACTICE DROP PATTERN LIGHT AIRCRAFT PATTERN •••••.••• HELICOPTER PATTERN SOURCE: FAR PARE MOAIRPORINdBE COMPATBIITY PROGRAM: AINCRAFTNOISE EXPOSURE MAP REPOW FOR CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT M.CU NTOCK. BECKER 8 ASSOCIATES DECEMBER 1002 it�ge Pumm l i FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program - and Environs Plan For Chico Municipal Airport F5nal Report Prepared by P&D Aviation San Mateo, California A Division of P&D Consultants, Inc. February 10, 1995 The preparation of this report was financed in part through an Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant from the Federal Aviation Administration under provisions of Section 505 of the airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982. j 1 [J a r Table 1-1 FAR Part 150 Land Use Compatibility Designations* Yearly Day -Night Average Sound Level (I,dn) in Decibels** I-5 Belo Over Land Use. Class: w 65- -70- 75- 80- 85 FAR Part 150 -Land Use Categories 65 70 75 80 85 Residential Y N(a) N(a)` N N N Residential, other than mobil homes and transient lodgings Y N N ' N N N Mobile home parks Y N(a) N(a) ' N(a) N N . Transient lodgings - - - Public Use Y N(a) 'N(a) N _ N N Schools Y 25 30 N N N Hospitals, and nursing homesY ?S 30, N N N Churches, auditoriums and concert halls Y Y 25 30 N N. Governmental services Y Y Y(b) Y(c) Y(d) Y(d) Transportation _ Y Y Y(b), Y(c) `Y(d) N Parking commercial Use Y y 25 30 N N Offices, business and. professional Wholesale and retail -building materials, hardware and farm equipment Y Y Y(c) 30 Y(d) N , N N ° Retail trade -general Y � Y Y Y 25 2 5 Y(b) Y(c) Y(d) . N Utilities Y Y 25 30 N N Communication Manufacturing and Production Y Y Y(b) Y(c) Y(d) N Manufacturing general Y Y 25 30 • _ N N Photographic and optical Y Y(o Y(g) Y(h) Y(h) Agriculture (except livestock) and forestry Y Y(f) Y(g) N N N N Livestock farming and breeding Y Y Y • Y Y Y Mining sand fishing,. resource production and extractions a Recreation Y Y(e) Y(e) N _. N N Outdoor sports arenas and spectator sports Y N N N N N Outdoor music shells, amphitheaters Y Y N N N N Nature exhibits and zoos Y Y Y N N N Amusements, parks, resorts and camps Y Y 25 30 N N Golf courses, riding stables and water recreation • FAR Part 150, Appendix A, Table 2, "Land Use Compatibility With Yearly Day -Night Average Sound Levels." .The based upon the abovo-referenced source, and in. neither case represent a Federal designations contained in this table are or unacceptable determination that any use of land covered by the Part' 150 program is acceptable. under Federal, State, or local law. The responsibility. for determining the acceptable and permissible land uses remains determined land uses for those with local authorities. FAA determined to be ° determinations under Part 150 are not intended to substitute federally appropriate by, local authorities in response to locally determined needs and values in achieving noise compatible land use. a* For comparative purposes,. letters in parentheses and numbers refer to notes (see following page) and noise level reductions (NLR),respectively. Ldn' is deemed equal to CNEL "Source: Federal Aviation Administration and P&D Aviation, October 1994. I-5 (e) Land use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed. (� Residential buildings require an NLR of 25. (g) Residential buildings require an NLR of 30. (h) Residential buildings not permitted. I-6 • KEY TO Table I-1 Y Yes, land use and related structures compatible without restriction. " No, land use and related structures are not compatible, and should be prohibited. N Noise Level Reduction (outdoor to indoor) to be achieved through incorporation of noise NLR attenuation into the design and construction of the structure. 25,30 or 35 ruction a structures to achieve Land uses and related structures generally considered compatible; incorporated into design an NLR of 25, 30, or 35 must be a () Where the community determines that residential uses -musteasures to at least allowed, (NLR) ddB and 30 dB -- - achieve outdoor to indoor Noise Level Reduction thus, the and,be considered in individual approvals. on be incorporated into. building codpsovide should a NLR of 0 dB, educt Normal construction can be expected to p construction and normally requirements are often stated as 5, 10, or 15 dB over standard and closed windows year-round. However, the use of assume mechanical ventilation NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems. (b), ion Measures to achieve NLR of 25 dB must be incorporated intothe design anin sensitive buildings where the public is reserved, of portions of these where the normal noise. level is low. areas, or ( c) Measures to achieve NLR of 35 dB must be incorporated into ffice areas,the ganoi construction ensve buildings were the public is of portions of these or where the normal noise level is low. areas, d O Measures to achieve NLR of 35 dB must be incorporated intodesign construction eive buildings were the public is of portions of these the normal noise.level is low. areas, or where (e) Land use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed. (� Residential buildings require an NLR of 25. (g) Residential buildings require an NLR of 30. (h) Residential buildings not permitted. I-6 • example, noise levels not exceeding CNEL 65dB are normally acceptable for residential development under the HUD guidelines. Levels above CNEL 65dB, but not exceeding CNEL 75, require special approvals prior to the start of any construction. Such ap- provals are contingent upon. the attenuation of noise either at its source, or through noise insulation or other construction techniques. California Airport Noise Standards. According to the State Airport Noise Stan- dards, 14 the level of noise acceptable to a "reasonable" person residing in the vicinity of an airport is CNEL 65dB. This criterion was chosen for persons residing in urban resi- dential areas where houses are of typical California construction and may have win- dows partially open. The CNEL 65dB level was selected with reference to speech, sleep, and . community reaction. The stated purpose of these standards is to provide a basis for resolving existing noise problems in communities surrounding civil airports (note that military aircraft operations are excluded from the regulations) and to prevent the development of new noise problems. All existing -and future_aixports ki_JZWifornia are subject to the regulations. California Noise Insulation Standards. State "Noise Insulation Standards, "15 which are required to be adopted as part of local building codes, apply to residential structures located in noise critical areas (defined as CNEL 60dB or greater), such as those near airports. Once the standards are adopted, new residential structures must be designed to prevent the intrusion of exterior noise so that, with all exterior doors and windows closed, the noise level attributable to exterior sources does not exceed a level of CNEL 45dB in any habitable room. Proper design to achieve this goal can include, but is not limited to, orientation of the structure; setbacks; shielding; and sound insulation of the building itself. The State Noise Insulation Standards specify minimum insulation re- quirement in terms of Impact Insulation Class (IIC) and Sound Transmission Class (STC) for wall and floor -ceiling assemblies. Local Noise Standards. Community .noise standards may vary from agency to agency. Several independent agencies influence or control land use decisions in the Chico Municipal Airport environs. These include the City of Chico, Butte County, and j the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). ■ The General Plans of Chico and Butte County set forth maximum exterior noise levels for residential and other noise sensitive uses to be CNEL/Ldn 65dB.16 The intent of these standards is to establish guidelines and methods for determining the acceptability of specific land uses with respect to various noise levels since these levels usually allow normal outdoor and indoor activities such as communication and sleep to occur without interruption. CNEL 65dB is the criterion noise level above which residential and other noise sensitive land uses (e.g. schools, churches, hospitals and libraries) should not be allowed unless noise attenuating construction is utilized. Airport Environs Plan. Adopted in 1978, the Airport Environs Plan for Chico Municipal Airport defines areas of impact due to noise and overflight. Modest growth and accelerated growth scenarios were developed for future aviation forecasts and utilized in the determination of potential impact areas. The plan projected that total 14 State of California, Code of Regulations, Title 21, Subchapter 6, "Noise Standards." 15 California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Chapter 1. 16 City of Chico and Butte County General Plans. r I-8 N s' o£ SZ N N o£ SZ A A uolleajoaa Jolem 12 'sesinoo 'solgels 6ulpIM Iloo N N N sdweo. 'sluawasnwy 18 sPosaa 'sued N ,.N N N soot V sllglyx3 a.inleN N N N N N seuajy olsnw jooP1no N N N (0)A WA A sliods joleloods N N N (9)A (9)A somy sliods joopin0 uoi;eaaoaa A A A Ioejlx3 V*pnpad aomosau A A Bulgsld 19 BululW. N N N (B)A G)A A Bulpaaje'g Buluued 100lsan!-I MA WA. (6)A O)A A tilsa�od'8 amllnou6y ..(q)A N N of 8Z A A . Imlldo'S o!gdeJ6o10yd -N (P)A (o)A (4)A A A 6uunl3ejnuew lejaua0 uoilonpoad 's Bul in;aelnueW N N ..0£ SZ A Jl uolleolunwwoo N (P)A WA (q).A A A sallllRn N N o£ SZ A A apeJlll81921leaaua0 N (P)A (o)A (g)A A A sales luawdlnb3 weed N (P)A (o)A (q)A A A' sales aJemNeH N (P)A (o)A (g)A A A sales leualeIN Bu!PI!n8 'seo61O N N o£ SZ A 'ssa;ad g ssoulsn8 ash lehaawwoo N (P)A (P)A o (o)A g (g)A . A A unwed uolle}�odsue�l . N N o£ SZ A A saolnaas )uawwano0 N N N 0£ SZ A slleH Paou00 N N N 0£ SZ A swnuollpny 'sagojngo N N N o£ SZ A sawoH 6ulsmN V slelldsoH N N N (e)N (e)N A slooyoS asn•:oilgnd N--.., N -. e N (B)N(BIN _ A �, s u! poj.lualsuejl N N N. N N A svued awoH al!goW N N N WN WN lelluaplsa2i leiluepisa2l 08 Ja^O 08 -SL 9L -OL OL -99 99-09 09 Moles :sselo ash pue-i slagioaQ ul (-13NO) lanai Jualenlnb3 asloN Allunwwoo :podaid jedpiunw ooiy:o suoijeuBisaa /4111qiledwo:) ash pue-1 papueww000N 6-111 algel Y 4 r • KEY TO TABLE III -1 ~ Y Yes, land use and related structures compatible without restriction. N No, land use and- related structures are . not compatible and should be - ` prohibited. NLR Noise Level Reduction (outdoor to indoor) to be achieved through incorporation of noise attenuation. into the design and construction of the o structure. K _ 25,,,30 _ Land uses and related -structures generally considered compatible; .measures. or 35 to achieve NLR of 25, 30, or 35 must be incorporated into design and Cconstruction of structures. '(a) Where the community determines that residential uses must be allowed, measures to achieve out door to indoor Noise Reduction Levels (NLR) of at least 25 dB and 30 dB should be incorporated into building codes and be considered in individual approvals. Normal construction can .be expected to provide a NLR of 20 dB, thus, the reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10, or 15 dB over standard construction and normally assume mechanical ventilation and closed windows year4ound. However, the use of NLR criteria I will not eliminate noise problems. (b) Measures to achieve NLR of 25 must be incorporated, into. the design and j construction of portions of these buildings where the public is recieved, office areas, noise sensitive areas, or where: normal noise level is low. I I (c) Measures to achieve NLR of 30 must be incorporated into the design and construction of. Portions of these buildings where the public is recieved, office . ureas, noise sensitive areas, or where normal noise level is low. (d) Measures to achieve NLR of 35 must be. incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these'buildings where the public is recieved, office areas, noise sensitive areas, or where normal noise level is low. (e) Land use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed. (f) Residential buildings require and NLR of 25. (g) Residential buildings require and NLR of 30.. (h) Residential buildings not permitted. i f Appendix A SINGLE -EVENT NOISE AND ANNOYANCE Prepared for CITY OF CHICO Chico Municipal Airport Prepared by P&D Aviation San Mateo, California February, 1993 ti Sleep interference is another cause of annoyance associated with aircraft. operations. A 1975 research paper assessed the.impacts of aircraft noise on. sleep using criteria based . on the combined effect of the loudness of a noise and its duration.4 The technical term for the combination of these two factors is, the sound exposure level or SEL. 'SEL can be thought of as the total noise within IOdB of the peak. noise level ofa given noise event compressed into a 1 -second period. In this respect SELs always result in a higher number than the maximum noise level associated with the event. The SELs given in Table A-1 represent the level measured inside a bedroom. The relationship between the indoor and outdoor SEL depends on whether the bedroom windows are closed, the type of windows,. the exterior wall construction, of the home, and the presence of any other penetrations -in the wall. As an example, a California home of normal construc- - tion, with windows partially open generally affords an exterior -to -interior -noise level reduction of about 20dB. Table A-1 A-1 SOUND EXPOSURE LEVEL AND SLEEP DISTURBANCE Indoor SEL Percents �. (dB) 66 .20 69 '30 72 40 75 50 78 60 j '82 70 . 85 80 Sleep disturbance* studies have also been conducted by Charles M. Salter Associates, a San Francisco -based acoustical consulting firm, for hospitals undergoing remodeling to determine the potential for construction noise to interfere with hospital activities. During these studies, many measurements were made within various hospitals. One of the conclusions of the study was that ambient noise levels in`hospitals are not low. Typical -levels ' range from 40 to •7OdBA in hospital rooms. There is also a significant number of interruptions of patients' rest by nurses, etc., during their daily routine. The study concluded that if intrusive noises that occur on a sporadic, basis do not ex- ceed 65dBA, then significant impacts on hospital activities would, not be expected. Speech interference is another source of annoyance associated with aircraft noise. In offices where speech interference would be the primary criterion, studies have shown that if noise levels exceed 60dBA, there would be some disruption of speech at normal. . 4. Jerome Lukas, 'Noise and Sleep: A Literature Review and a Proposed Criterion for Assessing Effect,' Journal of the Acoustical. Society of America, Volume 58, No. 6, 1975. -5. Percent'of subjects experiencing sleep disturbance. �. A-3 % 1� 1;11�kjl 13 �q .. .. ...... A. Tl 10' A -7� . ........... ti . .. ........ • ft . .— 1 7— eV LWA, k I r A-= I -1MCHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT fa FAR PART 150 AIRPORT NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM AND ENVIRONS PLAN SCALE nrl, NORTH 0 1000 2OW 3000 4000 LEGEND AkPorl BoudWY Chi.. Sprwe of bdk—cs ON06" Swomwe LWW U" AIWU- E---d- J V. c. J& 41' EXH481T 1-1 NOISE EXPOSURE MAP: 1990 BASELINE 17 CONDITIONS &D Aviation t N UWE-� vim• ■ sY O� •..I W .\� n rn Z1 Z T Oiny m > =<m x om = -� x °D OT9 '� °ion N0N w fi O ..mm L5 e,a �Dm d ��n o§ • OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITYaCHICO we urt '. • Robert E. Koch Risk and Administrative Projects Manager ' 196 East Fifth Street P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 (916) 895-4820 r CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ENVIRONS PLAN CITY OF CHICO BUTTE COUNTY, CA.LI -FOR N I A AUGUST 1978 PREPARED BY:- R. DIXON $PEAS ASSOCIATES, INC, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA '`. EXHIBIT 8-1 y COMPATIBLE LAND USE ZONE (CLUZ) CRITERIA I. CNEL 65 OR HIGHER IN OR OUT OF CORRIDOR: Residential land use prohibited after 1985 by California Administrative Code Title 4, Subchapter 6, Article 2.. Other land uses subject to guidelines for appropriate criteria as recommended by State of California Department of Health.. Acceptability of commercial office development determined primarily by degree of noise insulation.. - Transient lodging development will require indoor level of CNEL 45 under CAC Title 25 (Noise Insulation Standards). II. CNEL 60-65 IN CORRIDOR: Residences -other than detached single family units (3 feet or more from property line, 6 feet -or more between buildings ) require indoor CNEL 45 under California Administrative Code Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4 (Noise Insulation: Standards). Transient lodging required to achieve CNEL 45 (indoor) under CAC Title 25: New single family *residences.require indoor CNEL 45 by Butte County/ Chico City Ordinance.* Ordinance should follow CAC Title 25. No mobile home park development by Butte County/Chico City Ordinance.* Disclosure of aircraft noise environment via deed attachment and voluntary action of real estate board.* Publish map of record in recorders office. to be addressed in Title Search. IIP. CNEL 60-65 IN CORRIDOR: PROTECTED AREA Same criteria as Category I for those areas immediately bounding the - CNEL 65 isoline. *Recommended actions III. CNEL 60-65 OUT OF CORRIDOR: Residences other than detached.single family units require indoor CNEL 45 under CAC Title 25. Transient lodging required to achieve indoor CNEL 45 under CAC Title 25. -No mobile home park development by Butte County/Chico City Ordinance.* Recommend noise control measures.in building permit plan check.* Disclosure of aircraft noise environment via deed attachment and voluntary 4 action of real.estate board.* Publish map of record in recorders office to be addressed in Title Search. IV. 'CNEL 55-60 IN CORRIDOR: Recommend noise control measures in building permit 'plan check.* Disclosure of aircraft noise environment via deed attachment and voluntary action of real-estate board.* - No mobile home park development by Butte County/Chico City Ordinance.* V. CNEL 55-60 OUT OF CORRIDOR: Mobile home park required to-achiev_e indoor CNEL..45 by Butte County/ Chico City Ordinance.* ` 11 • .(4) Voluntary action by the Chico Real Estate Board should disclose the prevailing -noise and safety environment in CLUZ IV areas. (5) Guidelines for construction methods and procedures for improved noise reduction should. be distributed to builders through.the building plan check .procedure. 8.3.6' CLUZ Area V the CLUZ V category -includes those peripheral parcels which are within the airport influence area, i.e., within the CNEL 55 boundary. This area requires the least restriction.on development and, for. the most part, carries a suitable zoning classification at the present time. The ex- ception would be.*the parcels included in the so-called Hays Re -Zone area. The one parcel- in this area which is incl6ded'in the Interim Zone area -- ' 51160& -be constrained to an:SR 1 zoning to limit the density of ddvelop- ment. The remaining parcels could carry the zoning classification S -R. as' the least restrictive category. Recommendations: '(1) A zoning classification -of SR -1 should be applied to the single parcel east of CIC contained within the Interim Zone boundary. (2) The least restrictive zoning for the remaining parcels should be SR. - (3) The parcels with segments intruding into the flight corridor should not be developed in these segments., .(4) Noise control construction procedures should be distributed for applications in this area at the time of the building plan check. 8-20 i LEGEND INTERIM ZONING `• B® FUGHT CORRIDOR OMPATIBLE LAND USE ZONE (CLUZ) CATEGORIES CNEL 63 OR HIGHER, IN OR OUT OF CORRIDOR i • . - Y r . IIP CNEL 60 - 65 : PROTECTED AREA - - - :. • • ' ••i /\FT's*� Y a 0 33r CNEL 60 - 83. DI CORRIDOR ' .• ` \ j 2 -�,� y� F 7M CNEL 80 • 65, OUT OF CORRIDOR �$ CNEL 55 - 60, IN CORRDIDRAT f ..i I � ! T . i r f f'� s Z�4'J. : � .., �' 'r..... • / CNEL 55 • 60. OUT OF CORRIDOR �'�%' - F '..t ��1 .% .. . , / i• X i r I •5 fl1 / b I `���� 6 r n� / �i s.. S,•--r*- IIP FUGHT�j CORRIDOR ... •'��/ `! ., ly h` CNE4Sz5 _ csalp•vim M, rte'; NEL is Y Jssr ` �,,%: • r r - I � � Y �_� vy .'moo - - � .. I N/C� •� � y �``` / .. ' . g9 i.. .. •STATE t - SOURCE : R. DIXON SPEAS ASSOCIATES rra r m -- _Approvod:prc D°''°°°d AIRPORT ENVIRONS PLAN DRAWIW.W I" REA 'RN LAND USE COMPATIBILITY MAP CIC-I3 • °"°" ... •"°°'•"' 10 geCked CIiICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Reviei0n By APDr. Date Oele _.__ JEP JULY 518 . . 2 .. � .. `V r tet, � 7� .zr,'.`�"-. t-• t �� + ..a� ` � .�,y tea'+• �w�•' '', � , ::� ~;,orf � �� � s, ��.•. � ...• ME AIRPORT-• • LAN CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT :• • �`TI J7 99SLATE OPAWOOM.: CIC- 6 y. q AIRPORT BOUNDARY CLOSURE POW 15,500' FROM RUNWAY END 13L f \ 47e 99 ,A%GKWA*f +eao STATE Apprmad: Deeigned Or— AIRPORT By--- pm JEP Tms AIRPORT ENVIRONS PLAN DRAWING No. a. .. ............. e. Ct4ckad Data C Co FUTURE CNEL NOISE CONTOURS Dote Date =1 CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT IEP AP.I.. CIC- 3 .......... HEAVY AIRCRAFT PATTERN 1500' AGL 8� 00s, is • ;r}.;.. )' .r ..'.i V,,(� � ..:•'jam• t" 1 J•I��P . 0p"pO,,�{ty1�1 9/ .•� / \ s `r r +r st1'W r +y�� 'I Ct-'',7fd _"eYs' O 09 y )' LIGHT AIRCRAFT PIITTEIW ]000. AGL4 xS. ?:mow . I .. t ,.•'tt�ti �„! '�' �` } ,. .�di.: � ,.i,.`,, ;1 R- l.�q ��� -f i... :r:... b � ::priia ,,y '.z s�' � .•s.':+`„'.•`i'� a. .i{i. 1 .x .n•� :i�a� .iCc: Y ;ra k• t °N ice•' - '.,,. z"i'Sf'{' � J.I '� ti.a+- 2 Ji' � f1 u'•l r�,�, . j;�:t. , ! I ' � ; t--' ' tpm• t . c • Sia;: t .�..�p •.A'� ��,•, .t AIRPORT BOUNDARY '( ... �' r.,ay�j- q.•!�{. i' 2 .t :. CLOSURE POINT 13100 ' ' •• � {,r ,.•�•� �i0" FROM RUNWAY END 13L ' 10=—NJ •� �'�C�y c `�� J F G ' TYPICAL DC 9 ROTATION ON RUNWAY13 %O .++,�"�♦ e ''I ...{'<���� ;j'�N+r� NEL BWNDARY ri{ ¢ - •�`'{G -/ ,art y . '• - Cly �; x (�?' < �.� r:. q 4 M {'F LEGENDI ; < ,�'. y. LIGHT AIRCRAFT PATTERN 7000' AGL 0 12 4 14•_�� 1 ^�.NOISE CONTOURS 13 OISE MEASUREMENT LOCATION AIRPORT BOUNDARY L FLIGHTTRACKS a,STABR• DIXON SPEAS ASSOCIATES INC. < — AppraeA: ^ O9signed 7Dr—By Pry JEPAIRPORT ENVIRONS PLAN Re isp`hftkd CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT By A9M.D°I!Date JEP 99 NIGMNA'f 1977 CNEL NOISE CONTOURS °w"""GNI cic AND MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS 2 r BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES November 19, 1997 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - II. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Ger st, Hennigan, Causey, Campbell, Alternates Koch and Papadakis and Chairman Franklin ALSO PRESENT: Stephen Lucas, Planner Diana Shuey, Secretary Norm Rosene, Alternate 111. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA Mr. Papadakis said the Chico Area Economic Planning Corporation is involved with the City in requesting federal funds for some infrastructure improvements on the west side of the airport arid he would like to have that on a future agenda for discussion along with the other four items he mentioned previously and which are listed in the Staff Summary as follows: the ,realignment of SR 32,.the Chico Municipal Airport Master Plan, the widening of Cohasset Road'and the Chico 5 year Capital Improvement Plans. Mr. Lucas said when the City of Chico provides the information, the above items will be placed - on the agenda for discussion. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of: October 15, 1997 It was moved by -Commissioner Hennigan, seconded by Alternate Papadakis, and carried unanimously for approval of the'minutes as submitted. V. BUSINESS.FROM THE FLOOR ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA None VI., BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Butte County General Plan Amendment #97-02 and Specific Plan , Amendment #97-01 (Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141: A Request for Consistency Findings for a General Plan Amendment and an amendment to the North Chico Specific Plan changing the land use designation on approximately 103 acres located on the west side of Hicks Lane, approximately 1 mile south of Keefer Rd., north Chico area. The proposed General Plan Amendment will l ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ November 19, 1997 m Page 1 ■ be from Agricultural Residential to.lndustrial. The Specific Plan Amendment will change the zoning from Open Space to M-1 (Light Industrial). Recommended Action: No Recommendation. CONTINUED FROM SPECIAL MEETING OF NOV. 11, 1997 Mr. Lucas explained that at the Special Meeting on November 11, 1997, a quorum was present, but a majority of the full membership was not obtained for taking an action. There was discussion at that meeting that the industrial portion of the application could not be found either consistent or inconsistent with the environs plan, because the environs plan did not envision an industrial use. There was also discussion of sending a letter to the Board of Supervisors indicating that industrial uses would be potentially compatible with the airport, and indicating that funding for updating the CLUP is important. Mr. Lucas referred, to the project map and said that residential uses were found to be inconsistent by ALUC. He noted that certain areas were left as Open Space as part of the findings made by the Board of Supervisors in their over ride of ALUC's finding of inconsistency with the North Chico Specific Plan. Mr. Lucas said there was discussion that certain industrial uses might be compatible with the airport environment, although not uses involving bright lights, smoke or concentrations of people. He indicated on the map where the City of Chico is proposing industrial development. Commissioner Hennigan explained that although a consistency finding cannot be made for industrial, industrial might be the best use as long as it doesn't create a hazard. Commissioner Campbell said industrial is not consistent with the plan even though the use is appropriate. He would find it difficult to express consistency by not acting on the project. He was in favor of the Caltrans approach of updating the environs plan before acting on more projects using an outdated plan. Chairman Franklin said that actually, according to the 1978 environs plan, a case could be made for residential uses. Commissioner Gerst was in favor of following the recommendation of Caltrans and not taking an action until the CLUP is completed. He noted that one residential unit per 5 acres would actually be safer than an industrial use that could have a concentration of 25 people. He felt getting the CLUP done is the highest priority. George Kammerer, representing the applicant, asked that today either a consistency finding on industrial be made, or no finding be made, but a letter be sent explaining the compatibility of industrial uses in the area. He would prefer not to have an inconsistency finding. Mr. Kammerer agreed that an updated CLUP is very important for everyone and he would support updating the CLUP to the Board of Supervisors, but he asked that this project not be held up in order to bring the matter to the Board's attention. He felt industrial uses are compatible from a noise and safety standpoint in this location He would prefer that a finding of ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ November 19, 1997 ■ Page 2 ■ consistency be made or a recommendation of no recommendation, but not a finding of inconsistency or a moratorium. Commissioner Herinigan felt that a letter of transmittal to the Board of Supervisors expressing ALUC's opinion that industrial use is appropriate in the area would be more significant that the actual finding in this case. Alternate Koch felt that a finding of inconsistency would have to be made, but was in favor of sending a letter to the Board of Supervisors stating that industrial uses would be appropriate as long as they don't create a safety hazard. He suggested that there be a buffer area along the western boundary of the Clear Zone so that industrial buildings and parking would not be next the fence. Alternate Papadakis was in favor of a finding of inconsistency along with a letter expressing concern for the future design of the airport in twenty years or more. He said projects cannot be approved piecemeal with the hope that they will fit into jigsaw puzzle. Mr. Kammerer did not understand why the project would be inconsistent. Alternate Koch said the project is inconsistent because the plan, although outdated, does not ` call for industrial uses in the project area. Mr. Kammerer said the current plan is.neutral and the draft policy plan says industrial is expressly consistent for noise and safety considerations. Alternate Koch said the draft policy plan does not supersede the current plan'although ALUC may agree that the industrial designation could be more appropriate. There was discussion that the current plan actually calls for residential although ALUC thinks residential would not be appropriate., Mr. Kammerer said by supporting industrial uses, ALUC could help ensure that there would not be residential uses on the property. . Commissioner Hennigan said the current plan needs to be amended before a finding of consistency can be made for this project. He thought a letter to the Supervisors would be the most effective course of action. Mr. Sanders said that some use should be consistent with the current plan. He said the zoning in 1978 was A-2, not A-40. A-2 was a general zone that allowed industrial, commercial, residential and ag uses. The plan envisioned residential uses for the property at up to 4 units per acre. He suggested sending a letter stating what is technically consistent with the plan and what would be more appropriate. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission.■ November 19, 1997 ■ Page 3 ■ L 1 Alternate Koch noted the staff report. for' the residential use described the project as inconsistent. Mr. Kammerer said that industrial is consistent under A-2 zoning. There was a discussion of what was allowed under A=2 zoning without a Use Permit. Alternate Koch said the 1978 airport environs plan is the relevant document. There was discussion about the zoning in 1978. Mr. Kammerer said that the residential proposal would have been consistent, but the applicant is willing to work with the county and is proposing industrial which -is also consistent with county policies. Alternate Koch asked what policy Mr. Kammerer thinks the proposal consistent is with. Mr. Kammerer said the A-2 zoning would have allowed industrial and residential uses. Alternate Koch said the zoning is not what ALUC is concerned with. ALUC is only concerned with the 1978 plan. Mr. Kammerer felt ALUC can make a finding of consistency using the available documents if they are willing to do, so. Alternate Koch was in favor of making a finding of inconsistency, and making a recommendation for industrial uses with a buffer along the edge of the Clear Zone, avoiding concentrations of people and hazards such as smoke and lights. Commissioner Campbell asked what the 1978 plan calls for the in the area and if it shows SR and SR -1 zoning, what did that allow? Mr. Lucas said the zoning at the time the 1978 plan was put in place was A-2 as well as most of the County outside of urbanized areas. However the land use was shown as grazing and vacant land and agricultural lands with homes. SR -1 would allow one acre lots and SR•would allow smaller lots on sewer -- which is not available. Land overflown by aircraft would be inconsistent for development. ALUC found residential uses to be inconsistent on the property due their being overflown. When_ the 1978 plan was drafted, the actual use of the land - not the zoning -- was grazing, open space and agriculture. Apparently the writers of the plan thought residential uses would eventually occur, which should not occur because of the flight corridor. Although industrial uses would have been permitted under A-2 it was not there in 1978 and apparently not envisioned at the time. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ November 19, 1997 ■ Page 4 ■ Commissioner Campbell asked if the adopted map shows SR and SR -1. Mr. Lucas said it shows A-2. Chairman Franklin said the environs plan shows it as SR and SR -1. Mr. Lucas said the plan shows it as A-2 at the time it was adopted. Commissioner Hennigan said, the zoning is A-2 but the map shows it as -low. density residential. " . r Commissioner Campbell asked if it is on the map as low density residential. Mr. Lucas said that is correct. Mr. Kammerer asked if that precludes industrial from being consistent. Mr. Lucas said it would be hard to say industrial is consistent because itis not mentioned., Mr. Sanders said the General Plan had agricultural -residential for the property at that time and did not envision industrial uses. -At a subsequent date the A-2 zoning was rezoned to SR -1 which was consistent with that General Plan designation, prior to the North Chico Specific Plan. Commissioner Campbell thought the designations of the plan should not be ignored even. though ALUC would prefer to have industrial uses on the property. ALUC has to go by the existing plan or change it and and cannot pick and choose what parts to follow. Commissioner Gerst said the Open Space designation came about as part of the environmental documentation for CSA 87. ALUC's finding of consistency for CSA 87 was overridden. What relation would that action have on the 1978 environs plan? Mr. Lucas said the Open Space designation came about only partly because of airport safety. Other concerns were habitat protection and biological issues which both turned out to not be significant. Airport safety was just one of the criteria used as part of the over-riding findings. Commissioner. Gerst said there should be some environmental documentation in order to change the designation to industrial. Mr. Lucas said that is correct. Commissioner Gerst was not opposed to industrial uses but felt the project should be found inconsistent and the project should be'addressed when the CLUP is updated. J ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission s November 19, 1997 ■ Page 5 ■ a Alternate Koch said that as part of the CSA 87 over -ride it was decided that discretionary projects are to come to ALUC —. is that for consistency or just review? Mr. Lucas said he would have to check the exact wording of the over -ride finding. Alternate Koch said even if ALUC finds inconsistency, there are parts of the property which can,be developed under the current designation It was noted that 103 acres are involved in this request. Altemate Koch moved for a finding of inconsistency with ALUC to send forward their. concerns and considerations, should the matter be considered for over -ride, stating, that certain conditions should be applied, such as: a 500 foot buffer from the boundary of the clear zone, an industrial density not to exceed 25 persons per acre, and facilities should not generate hazards such -smoke or lights or create high obstructions, and also avigation easements should be required. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Campbell. Commissioner Papadakis wanted to amend the motion to include an additional paragraph that this item brings out the need for a master plan and CLUP to.be moved ahead expeditiously. Alternate Koch.did not accept the amendment to his'motion and suggested that staff should be directed to move ahead with the RFP process. Mr. Kammerer objected strongly to a 500 foot buffer, which he said would preclude development of the property. He asked if the City has such a buffer zone on their industrial area. Alternate Koch explained his reasoning for wanting a buffer zone.` Norm Rosene said that student pilots make turns over the Open Space area and he was in favor of a buffer zone. Chairman Franklin said that if Chico wanted more clear zone they should have bought it. He did not see why the applicant should provide the land for free. Alternate Koch said the land is already Open Space and there should be a buffer zone. Mr. Kammerer thought.that would be unnecessary overkill and extremely unfair. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission n November 19, 1997 ■ Page 6 ■ Commissioner Hennigan thought review of a specific site'plan at a later date would be more appropriate since some things such as asphalt and outside storage and other uses would not be a problem. I I Alternate Koch said he was not sure ALUC would have opportunity for later review of a site plan. Commissioner Hennigan did not,think ALUC should impose a buffer zone at this time. Commissioner Campbell said there are not..specifics to thin request for a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment. He was opposed to requiring, a buffer zone without seeing any specifics. Commissioner Hennigan said there are things which would-be indifferent or even synergistic to the airport. Alternate Koch asked for other language which might indicate ALUC's concerns. Chairman Franklin said a finding of consistency would be enough without "muddying the waters:,, `l Commissioner Gerst said ALUC cannot make a recommendation for amending the land use l without amending the environmental documents. Alternate Koch changed his motion to only making a finding of inconsistency. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Campbell. , Commissioner Hennigan thought a letter should be prepared calling attention to the restrictions which ALUC thinks are important on the property such as heights of structures, no smoke or lights. Chairman Franklin and Commissioner Gerst were in favor of only a finding of inconsistency with no elaboration. Alternate Koch and Commissioner Campbell said the motion is.only to make a finding of inconsistency. The motion for a.finding of inconsistency on the project was carried unanimously. Commissioner Hennigan said he wants to write.a letter including all concerns but not requiring. a buffer. Concerns to include: dust, smoke, noise, lights, density, etc— ■ Butte Count Ai ort Land Use Commission ■ November 19 1 Y rP 997 ■. Page 7 ■ Mr. Lucas asked if the finding for inconsistency is for inconsistency with the city's proposed land use of agriculture, and the county's proposed land use of grazing and open land. Chairman Franklin said that is correct. Commissioner Hennigan made a motion to transmit the opinion that industrial is an appropriate use at the site provided it meets all the applicable criteria for industrial development in proximity to the airport Commissioner Campbell wanted to send the message that ultimately industrial uses might be the most appropriate after the appropriate processes have been accomplished. It was hoped that if an over -ride is made, the draft policy plan is followed Commissioner Hennigan.agreed that his motion would be more succinct to refer to the draft policy plan as the guiding document. There was a discussion about whether or not the draft policy plan which has not been adopted should be referred to in the letter. Mr. Lucas suggested enumerating the specific concerns which are part of the draft policy plan, and should be considered, rather than including a plan which has not been adopted. There was more discussion of the wording of the letter to the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Campbell was in favor of enumerating the basic concerns: glare, dust, height, density, etc. Commissioner Hennigan agreed to include enumerated items in his motion, which was seconded by Commissioner Campbell. Alternate Papadakis was in favor of a buffer zone, with the applicant being the one to solve the problem. Mr. Lucas suggested rather than asking for a buffer, to express concern regarding open space in the North Chico Specific Plan being replaced with development. The motion as clarified by Commissioner Hennigan was to transmit ALUC's concerns in a letter -- the items which have been discussed, and including the concern for open space -- which should be addressed in the project. The motion passed by the following vote: J ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ November 19, 1997 ii Page 8 ■ AYES: Commissioners Hennigan, Campbell, Causey, Alternate Papadakis and 'Chairman Franklin NOES: Commissioner Gerst and Alternate Koch VII. ALUC COMMISSION ITEMS: A., Commissioner Hennigan requested that the Commission discuss the status of the CDF Air Attack Base at the Chico Municipal Airport. 4 Commissioner Hennigan reported that CDF will have to make substantial investments to meet environmental constraints and to serve larger tankers than the base was originally designed for. The base needs to be updated and enlarged. There is concern by CDF about inappropriate development that has taken place especially on the south end of the runway. The "S" turn as illustrated on the map is unflyable, although Commissioner Hennigan has provided the formula for the turn radius to the City of Chico. Alternate Koch said various people have been meeting on .the issue. CDF has said they don't care about the radius turns because they don't want to fly the 1,000 foot corridor, but would prefer to fly in a straighter line over the Bidwell Ranch property. The sharp right turn down the channel is particularly what CDF objects to. Commissioner Campbell asked what the plans are for the Bidwell Ranch property. Alternate Koch said no decision has been made on that property as yet. There was discussion that the property would probably be developed some day, but has certain environmental restraints. Vlll. Correspondence: 1. 10/24/97 letter from Gary Ross, Unit Chief, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to Tom Lando, Chico City Manager regarding the CDF Air Attack Base at the Chico Municipal Airport. 2. 10/26/97 letter from Rick Keene, Mayor of Chico to Marlin Beckwith, Program " Manager, Caltrans Aeronautics Program regarding the release of airport planning grant. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ November.19, 1997 ■ Page 9 ■ George T. Kammerer - proposed Negative Declaration with mitigation measures regarding environmental impacts and Specific Plan Amendment - Amendment to the North Chico Specific Plan to change land use designation to allow for the consideration of increased residential density and/or industrial land on approximately 230 acres of land located on the west side of Hicks -Lane, approximately'/z to 1 mile south of Keefer Road, identified as AP 047-250-141, north Chico area. (CS) (SP97-01) Mr. Sanders gave a brief summary of the project. He said the applicant wants to, amend the North. Chico Specific.Plan to allow increased residential development or t additional industrial land uses. - Mr. Lucas said this item went in front of the Airport Land Use Commissioner (ALUC) at a special meeting. The Commission voted that residential is inconsistent with the North Chico Airport Land Use Plan. He said practice runs from the airport go over this area. He said staff was not able to eeceive a majority vote at the meeting on the Industrial proposal and the item was continued to, November .19, 1997. He said an industrial use could be considered a compatible use under certain conditions. He said the inconsistency for residential was the area proposed. He said ALUC did not look at the, whole property. Mr. Sanders said the applicant plans to enhance the buffer area along Keefer Slough and Mud Creek if it is reduced from 100 ft. to 50 ft. He said policies in the NCSP on the number of dwelling north of Mud Creek, Page 3 & 4, were written before the SR-1/OS designation was adopted. Commissioner Nelson•asked if all OS areas in the NCSP are going to be in conflict with . the airport. The question was not answered. Commissioner Leland asked how much should the Commission change the NCSP. A lot of work went into the Plan. Commissioner Mooney asked if there is a retention basin in the OS. Mr. Sanders said yes. Mr. Sanders discussed flexible density lot design. He said there is not a,lot of property subject to flooding. He discussed a supplemental EIR being required if any reduction in OS. The hearing was opened.' George Kammerer requested that this hearing be continued to December 11, 1997, after the November 19, 1997, ALUC hearing. He discussed entitlements received M-1 & 2 and BP were added to the south = not as valuable as SR -3 or SR -1. He said Plans', are changed all the time. He said he will have a written summary at the next meeting on why this plan should be revised. I- - 0 BUTTE COUNTY,PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 13, 1997 0 It was moved by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Cage, and unanimously carried to continue this hearing open to December 11, 1997, at 2:00 p.m. q- ,, U BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMTBER 13, 1997 D t a, i - -..ut r . t,,•, •i t ti Y S, it r✓f.y s.. a-x3�ie fir. a"•lS ; rrl..'� ar {. 1 t.6 1 Ali. LI. i BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT -'November 13, 1997 Applicant: George Kammerer File #: SP97-01, GPA 97-02 Request: An amendment to the North G. P.: Agricultural Residential Chico Specific Plan to change the land use APN: 047-250-141 designation on 230 acres from SR -1, SR -1/ OS, and Zoning: SR -1, SR-1/OS, OS OS to either PD- Planned Development or M-1 Parcel Size: 300 ac. Industrial. Zone date:. March, 28, 1995 Location: Located on the we'st side of Hicks Lane, approximately 1/2 to 1 mile south of Keefer Lane, . north of Chico. INTRODUCTION: This project is a request to amend the North Chico Specific Plan.. The applicant is asking the commission to consider at least two different land use scenarios for the subject property. Because the proposals lack a degree of specificity and there are multiple options for the Commission to consider, this should be treated as a policy.review hearing. As a policy review hearing, the Commission will be asked to consider the request in light of current policies contained in the NCSP and give the applicant direction in preparing a more specific request. This report will try to focus on. the policy questions surrounding the two proposed options. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant_ for this project, representing the property owners George and Ann Stephens, is seeking an amendment to the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP); The Stephens property encompasses approximately 300 acres adjacent to the Chico Municipal Airport.' The current General Plan land use designations for the site are Agricultural'Residential on the 230 acres north of Mud Creek,- Industrial on 43 acres, Medium Density Residential on 25 acres, and 2.6 acres of Commercial. The NCSP implements these land use designations with the following zoning: North of Mud Creek: 43 acres SR -1 Suburban Residential 1 ac parcels 84 acres SR -1/0S (Land subject to unknown biotic impacts) . 103 acres OS - Open Space designation 0 Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report 0 Page 1 ❑ 0 • South of Mud Creek 25 acres R-2 Medium Density Residential 43.4 acres M-1 Light Industrial 2.6 acres BP - Business Professional 71 acres total This request is primarily directed to the lands north of Mud Creek. As adopted, the NCSP for this -area plans for 68 dwelling in this area, 42 in the SR -1 area and 26 in the SR -1 /OS. The applicant has proposed changes to the zoning and/or general plan designed to increase the potential development of the site. Two options have been proposed by the applicant. The first seeks to rezone the 103 acres of OS to SR-3/PD and all of the SR -1 and SR-1/OS to SR-1/PD. These zoning designations will give future developers the option of either developing the land with conventional subdivisions or utilize a PD - Planned Development option which will accommodate clustered development. Community sewer and water systems would be required to serve this type of development. The PD option proposes a minimum of 30% open space on the SR -1 lands and 50% open space in the SR -3 area. The PD option will better enable the developer to maximize the number of dwelling units while avoiding constrained lands which would otherwise reduce density in a conventional lot layout. Within the SR-3/PD. area the proposal provides that the maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 20. However, if the PD option is utilized, the full density credit of 34 units can be utilized, with the additional 14 units being transferred to the SR -1 lands. The total number of dwelling units under this scenario would not exceed 160 dwellings for the 230 acres. The second option for the site proposes a General Plan Amendment on the 103 acres of OS land from Agricultural Residential to Industrial and a rezone to M-1. This scenario effectively eliminates the retention of any viable open space land on this site. In addition, both plans seek to reduce the creekway setback buffer from 100' to 50'. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: A change in land use designation from Agricultural Residential to Industrial for any portion of the site will require approval of the General Plan Amendment, including appropriate California Environmental Quality Act determination, and applicable rezoning. The specific Sections most pertinent are as follows: Butte County Code Section 24-30: Outlines the procedure for a General Plan Amendment California Government Code Section 65454 - No Specific Plan may be adopted or amended unless the proposed plan or amendment is consistent with the General Plan CEQA ISSUES: An EIR was certified for the adoption of the NCSP. Initial studies prepared for this project identified several areas of concern including some significant impacts. The impacts varied with the proposed land uses, with residential clustering resulting in the least significant issues and a change to Industrial resulting in the most 11 Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report 11 Page 2 0 significant issues. The certified EIR for the NCSP identified the loss of open space as a significant unavoidable impact and required overriding findings when the Plan was adopted. Any loss of additional open space would also be significant and would require a supplemental EIR and new overriding findings. The proposed change in land use, particularly the change from Open Space to Industrial, has the potential to significantly increase traffic in the area. The majority of the trips will utilize Hicks Lane. The NCSP EIR identified an increase of approximately 63,000 daily trips resulting from the specific plan build out. Elements of the plan to reduce the impacts of increased traffic included a new arterial road from Highway 99, traversing the plan area easterly across Hicks Lane to a new intersection on Eaton Road, east of the existing Hicks Road intersection, improvements to both Garner and Hicks Lanes, and restricted turning movements at the existing Hicks Lane/Eaton Road intersection. Revisions to the plan significantly changed these elements, eliminating the new arterial from Hicks Lane to Eaton Road, sending virtually all traffic from the Village Core area through the Hicks Lane/Eaton Road intersection. No additional traffic analysis was performed for these changes. There'is no evidence in the record to show that the level of service at this intersection was reassessed to show that impacts will be mitigated to an acceptable level. A portion of the traffic generated by this change in land use will go north to Keefer Road and the west to access Hwy. 99. The intersection was identified as having a LOS of F during peak AM hour traffic and was a significant unavoidable impact of the NCSP. The Butte County General Plan Circulation Element sets the minimum acceptable Level of Service (LOS) at "C" for rural roadways. Any increase in traffic to this intersection will exacerbate this problem and will require new findings of overriding considerations. Until the information is available, the analysis of this project's impacts can not be adequately determined. As proposed, the change to allow a Planned Development option can be considered with a mitigated negative declaration supplementing the NCSP EIR. A change in land use from Open Space to Industrial will require a supplemental EIR to address several issues. ANALYSIS: This project seeks to amend, in some manner, a portion of the NCSP to allow additional development potential over approximately 230 acres, including the potential of converting all or a portion of 103 acres of open space to another use, prospectively to allow limited residential development or industrial land uses. The adopted Specific Plan contains several policies that should be taken into account when considering these proposals. "Create integrated open space, parks and recreation amenities which will result in improved quality of life for residents of both the Plan area and greater Chico area." The loss of the 103 acres of open space on this site could compromise the linking of path/trail system that will follow both Keefer Slough and Mud Creek. 0 Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report 0 Page 3 ❑ "Provide open space, parks and recreation facilities proportionate to the needs of the area and coordinate as appropriate with other Plan elements including wetland and riparian habitat protection, educational facilities, and natural resources." One of the goals of this policy is to locate open space where it can serve multiple functions. The potential wetlands value of the 103 acres made it a prime candidate for open space. A subsequent survey performed by the applicant indicates that wetlands are rather limited on the property. However, wetlands preservation was only one of the purposes of this open space. It was also intended to function as a land use and noise buffer to the Chico Municipal Airport; provide foraging area for the Black Shouldered Kite and Swainson's Hawk; mitigate impacts to visual and cultural resources; mitigate demand for increased recreation services for. future residents; mitigate impacts to loss of open space; and help maintain the rural atmosphere of the Plan area. Policy 7.1-6 - "Outside the Village Core boundaries, any revision to increase the number of dwelling units within a particular designation shall be offset by a corresponding decrease in another designation so thatthe total number of units in the entire planning area is not exceeded." Approval of option 1 would allow up to 160 dwellings, an increase of 92 dwellings over the 68 called for in the Plan. The above policy is difficult to apply to the SR-1/OS lands because the extent of the constraints and therefore the development potential was not determined at the time of Plan adoption. A broad assumption was made 70% of the SR-1/OS area was undevelopable. The subject property appears to have significantly more development potential than the plan assumed. Staffs opinion is that a more accurate estimation is between 100 - 115 dwellings for the SR -1 & SR-1/OS lands. Though not specifically stated, one of the fundamental provisions of the NCSP is to locate all of the core urban land uses south of Mud Creek, which was intended to be used as a natural physical barrier to higher urban densities and associated infrastructure.. The associated urban infrastructure ( underground storm drainage, sidewalks and curbs, sewer and water) will also be limited to this area. Industrial land uses north of Mud Creek should not be considered without this additional infrastructure. The soils in the'area are not well suited for on-site sewage disposal systems. Industrial uses may be severely limited by a lack of community sewer. If allowed to develop on septic systems, industrial uses may initially be limited in size, employees, etc. Over time, monitoring these uses to ensure they do not out grow the sewage disposal system becomes highly impractical. The extension of sewer and water north of Mud Creek also has the potential to increase the development of other lands to the north. OTHER NCSP ISSUES: Since the adoption of the NCSP in 1995, little development has occurred within the boundary of the plan. Three subdivisions of 19, 30, and 43 lots have been approved in the SR -1 area, along with a few parcel maps. The processing of these projects has provided staff with the opportunity to apply the policies and provisions of the NCSP to real life projects and the results have indicated that several refinements to the plan should be considered. Several policies lack specific direction for implementation, other issues, particularly drainage and development within 0 Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report 0 Page 4 0 the flood plain do not appear to have -been adequately addressed in the Plan. Not all of these issues pertain directly to this project, but should be considered prior to formally amending the NCSP. 1. Road Alignments - Several road alignments have come into question as a result of new development proposals, including the new proposed arterial. The City of Chico is pursuing grant funding to extend sewer, water, and road infrastructure to the west side of the airport. The current proposal is to locate the new roadway east of Hicks Lane, similar to the original NCSP plan. This could affect roadway improvements required by the Plan and change the funding required. It is anticipated that the City will. attempt to align the new road to the new arterial called out in the NCSP. 2. Zoning Standards - The Plan utilizes the same zone designations titles found in Butte County Code Chapter 24 but has different permitted uses and in some cases different standards. For example, the R-1 within the NCSP has a different minimum lot size than the R-1 zone for the balance of the County. The SR -1 has different uses. Having to remember and know that the NCSP zones are not the same as the zones for the rest of the County is confusing to both the public and staff. The Plan should be amended to provide new names for the NCSP zones or use existing County zones standards. 3. Flooding - The NCSP area is traversed by several drainage courses, Mud Creek, Sycamore channel, Keefer Slough, and Rock Creek. All are seasonal and carry significant flows in the winter. Of particular concern are Keefer Slough and Rock Creek since these two drainage courses are for the most part un -levied and have significant flood plains associated with them. The Rock Creek Reclamation District (west of Highway 99) has recently requested a development moratorium until flooding and drainage issues are properly addresses/resolved. The significant majority of the watershed that feeds both Rock Creek and Keefer Slough is outside of the NCSP. The area is mainly comprised of the Cohasset Ridge, which receives significantly higher rainfall than does the valley. In addition,'the slopes within the watershed are generally steep and runoff is high once the soil is saturated. The goal of the NCSP with regard to flooding was to incorporate design features into new subdivisions that will not increase peak flows downstream as well as protecting new development from flood impacts. This is to be accomplished through the use of several retention areas within the boundaries of the Plan and through individual on-site design of subdivisions. Retention basins would store and help meter the discharge of flood waters downstream. . The NCSP allows development within the 100 year floodplain, but restricts development within the floodway. Both the Hauselt and Liptrap subdivisions were designed as conventional one acre subdivisions on lands that are partially within the 100 year flood plain. Neither project adequately addressed the flooding potential. The ability to develop within the flood plain without affecting flood levels 0 Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report 0 Page 5 0 • on adjacent properties became a central point of contention during those public hearings. It is not fully known how either -,of the proposed options would affect flooding problems in the NCSP. 4. Design features - The Plan calls for a variety of design features to be incorporated into new development, including, enhanced street entries at several locations, paths and trails, and street frontage landscaping. Limited design guidelines are given for these features. The plan often times leaves the design up to the developer. This can lead to these features being inconsistent throughout he plan area. 5. Financing - The Plan calls for several financing mechanisms including Mello -Roos districts, Special assessment districts, County Service Areas, and Landscaping and Lighting Districts, to name a few. None of these financing methods are in place. With the passage of Proposition 218, some methods may not be feasible for long term funding due to the uncertainty interjected by the requirement for property owner approved fee changes. Developer impact fees have also not been adopted. A draft development impact fee ordinance is currently being reviewed by County Counsel. These fees are needed to finance much of the core infrastructure within the Plan. AIRPORT ISSUES: The project site is located directly adjacent to the Chico Municipal Airport. Portions of the NCSP were found to be inconsistent with the Chico Airport Land Use Plan by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). In adopting the NCSP, the Board of Supervisors made findings to override the ALUC. One of the specific findings that allowed the NCSP to be adopted was the fact that open space land was provided along the westerly boundary of the Airport, north of Mud Creek. Changes to the Plan removing this open space will require additional review from ALUC and may require new overriding findings from the legislative body. The Chico Airport Environs Plan, adopted in 1978, finds development of this property in 1 acre residential parcels consistent with airport. operations. However, at a hearing held October 19, 1997, the ALUC indicated that they would not find the Planned Development option consistent with current airport operations. The ALUC indicated to the applicant that they would be much more likely to endorse industrial development if a suitable development plan was proposed. SUMMARY: Policy conflicts for residential project option Increasing residential density without reducing it elsewhere north of Mud Creek. 2. Elimination of multiple purpose OS to offset development in NCSP. 3. Lack of overall NCSP implementation,-i.e. failure of County to adopt development impact fee. 0 Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report 0 Page 6 0 4. Unknown impact in flooding problems known to exist. 5. Conflicts with Chico Municipal Airport NCSP Policy Conflicts for Industrial 1. Loss of multiple purpose OS to off -set development in NCSP. 2. Possible conflict with adjacent residential land uses. 3. Expansion of urban uses and services north of Mud .Creek. 4. Introduction of commercial traffic and increase traffic impacts on Keefer Road'which is projected to be LOS F. 5. Potential loss of trail connection RECOMMENDATION: Three options exist for the Planning Commission:' 1. Deny the amendment to the Specific Plan and General Plan. 2. Direct that a Supplemental EIR be prepared to consider industrial uses. The EIR should focus on ways to mitigate loss of open space, changes in the volume and type of traffic, and possible conflicts with adjoining residential .uses. 3. Proceed with a recommendation for increased residential density. This will require policy changes to the NCSP or the demonstration that the overall development potential of the SR -1 area in the NCSP will not increase and the amount of open. space will remain unchanged within the Plan area. Due to the number of other issues surrounding the implementation of the NCSP, the Commission should carefully consider the effects of amending,the.Plan until these issues have been resolved. Any action pursuant to options 2 or 3 above, should also include the Commission's direction on revisions to the NCSP, as well. t _ 11 Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report 0 Page 7 ❑ il Ji I ivi I !OA BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND UsE COMMISSION ■ Department of Development Services ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ■ (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 ■ SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES November 11, 1997 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Gerst, Hennigan, Causey, Alternate Papadakis and Chairman Franklin ABSENT: Commissioner Campbell and Alternate Koch ALSO PRESENT: Stephen Lucas, Planner Diana Shuey, Secretary Terry Hodges (Alternate) Nina Lambert (Commissioner) III. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Butte County Specific Plan Amendment #97-01 (Kammerer) on APN 047- 250-141: A Request for Consistency Findings for an. amendment to the North Chico Specific Plan changing the land use designation on approximately 187 acres located on the west side of Hicks Lane, approximately 1 mile south of Keefer Rd., north Chico area.. The proposed change will be from SR -1 (Suburban Residential -1 acre min.) and SR-1/OS (Open Space) to SR-1/PD (Planned Development) and OS to SR -3 (Suburban Residential -3 acre min,)/PD. Recommended Action: Find inconsistent with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. Mr. Lucas summarized the staff report. HEARING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC George Kammerer, representing the applicants, explained that he had worked with Planning staff to prepare a proposal which he believes is fully consistent with airport land use policies, including the 1978 CLUZ, the Airport Environs Plan, the FAR PART 150 noise study and the draft policy plan. He explained how the proposal is to have densities no higher than one unit per 5 acres near the airport, and transferring densities so the more dense areas will be further from the airport. The applicants are agreeable to airport protection measures such as avigation easements and signs. He felt that all the concerns which have been raised have been addressed, including land use, noise, and open space. They are not trying to restrict future expansion of the airport. They are trying to get a reasonable rate of return on the property, which otherwise takes the brunt of the open space requirements adopted as part of the North Chico Specific Plan. ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ November 11, 1997 ■ Page 1 ■ There was a discussion of the previous zoning of the property and wetland concerns which were addressed by the North Chico Specific Plan. Commissioner Hennigan said that residential uses are clearly not consistent with the North Chico Specific Plan or the existing CLUP. It was moved by Commissioner Hennigan, seconded by Commissioner Causey, and carried, to make a finding of inconsistency for the Specific Plan Amendment 97-01, with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan, the FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Plan and the North Chico Specific Plan airport protection policies based upon the analysis of the staff report dated November 5, 1997. AYES: Commissioners Gerst, Hennigan, Causey, Alternate Papadakis and Chairman Franklin NOES: 0 ABSENT: Commissioner Campbell and Alternate Koch Mr. Kammerer disagreed that findings can be made for inconsistency with the existing 1978 CLUP, since in his opinion, the project is fully consistent. with the CLUP. B. Butte County General Plan Amendment #97-02 and Specific Plan Amendment #97-01 (Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141: A Request for Consistency Findings for a General Plan Amendment and an amendment to the North Chico Specific Plan changing the land use designation on approximately 103 acres located on the west side of Hicks Lane, approximately 1 mile south of Keefer Rd., north Chico area. The proposed General Plan Amendment will be from Agricultural Residential to Industrial. The Specific Plan Amendment will change the zoning from Open Space to M-1 (Light Industrial). Recommended Action: No Recommendation. Mr. Lucas summarized the staff report. He said industrial uses would be potentially consistent with the compatible land use zone plans, the draft policy plan and the FAR PART 150. Noise up to 70 dB would not be incompatible with industrial uses around the airport. It appears that industrial uses will be perpetuated under the new Master Plan for the Chico airport. Mr. Kammerer noted that the property does not come near the 70 dB contours. Chairman Franklin supported industrial uses, because open space would eventually be pressured for development and industrial uses are more appropriate around the airport whereas residential uses are not at all. Commissioner Hennigan said ALUC is in the awkward position of not being able to approve of what the Commission is in favor of, which emphasizes the urgency of bringing the CLUP ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ November 11; 1997 m Page 2 ■ up to date. Alternate Papadakis said ALUC needs to know what the City of Chico is planning to do in several areas, such as the possible realignment of Highway 32, the Master Plan update, possible widening of Cohasset Road, new infrastructure in the airport area and the Five Year Capital Improvements Program. Commissioner Hennigan said that previously ALUC, in a similar situation, on a project within city limits south of the airport, took no action rather than making a finding of inconsistency for a use of which they approved. ALUC could not make a finding of consistency, but did not want to make a finding of inconsistency. If no action is taken, then the project goes on to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors who would be in the position of having to make an over -ride, which would be a lengthy process if done right. Mr. Lucas said it would be appropriate to comment to the Planning Commission that a consistency finding with the Environs Plan cannot be made, since that plan did not envision industrial uses on this site, however industrial uses would be an appropriate use based on the draft policy plan. The Planning Commission can take ALUC's recommendations into consideration. As Mr. Papadakis pointed out, the City's plans and projects should be taken into consideration. Commissioner Hennigan suggested that a letter should be written to the Board of Supervisors that ALUC is in an untenable position because of having conflicting documents, conflicting plans and an out of date CLUP. He said that apparently no one was serious about the land around the airport remaining A-40. Chairman Franklin thought ALUC should make it very clear that industrial uses would be appropriate, instead of finding inconsistency with residential uses and making no comment on industrial at all. Commissioner Gerst felt the new CLUP should be completed before making land use decisions in the airport area. The industrial application should have the same consideration as the residential application. He agreed a letter should go to the Board of Supervisors emphasizing the need for an updated CLUP. It was moved by Commissioner Gerst to make a finding of inconsistency for the GPA 97-02 and Specific Plan Amendment 97-01 and review the applications at the time of completion of the new CLUP. The motion died for lack of a second. It was moved by Commissioner Hennigan to take no action and to' transmit ALUC's concurrence with the staff report regarding smoke, noise, density, and to trust the Planning Commission to impose those appropriate conditions, and for ALUC to let the project go forward without action, and further to write a letter explaining ALUC's lack of action to the ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commissions November 11, 1997 ■ Page 3 ■ Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, and urging them to support ALUC's efforts to move forward with all due speed to achieve a contemporary CLUP. Chairman Franklin asked if the motion includes the recommendation that M-1.zoning would be appropriate. r Commissioner Hennigan said that is correct. ALUC cannot find the project consistent, and if a finding of inconsistency is made, the Board of Supervisors would have -to go through the over -ride procedure which would be almost as difficult as writing. a new CLUP. He thought ALUC's lack of action should be explained in a letter of transmittal. Mr. Lucas agreed that ALUC could communicate what type of land uses, such at M-1, that. they consider compatible to the airport. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Causey. Commissioner Gerst was not in favor of the motion. He said there are ~too many unanswered questions including the items mentioned by Alternate Papadakis. He said M-1 would probably by the ideal zoning for the property, but he cannot support the motion until he has seen more factual information. :Vote on the Motion: .AYES: Commissioner Hennigan and Causey and Chairman Franklin NOES: Commissioner Gerst and Alternate Papadakis ABSENT: Commissioner Campbell and Alternate Koch Commissioner Hennigan asked that the following items by put on the next.agenda:: 1. Discussion of the CDF air attack base problems with the City of Chico Z. Documentation for the assertion by the City of Chico that the Noise Study was approved 'by the FAA 3. Information on the UC Berkeley class on airport noise Commissioner Gerst noted that a majority of the full ALUC membership is necessary in order to take any action, which means that the above action cannot be taken without four votes in favor. CHAIRMAN FRANKLIN LEFT AT THIS TIME COMMISSIONER HENNIGAN WAS CHOSEN CHAIRMAN PRO TEM BY ACCLAMATION Mr. Lucas read from the Public Utilities Code Section 21671.5e "the Commission shall meet at the call of the Commission Chairperson or at the request of the majority of the Commission members. The majority of the Commissioner members shall constitute ,a quorum for the transaction of business. No action shall be taken by the .Commission except by the recorded vote of the majority of the full membership.". ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ November 11, 1997 ■ Page 4 w• There was a consensus that the above action taken was invalid since there were not 4 votes in favor of the motion. Commissioner Gerst was in favor of making a finding of inconsistency and sending a letter to the Board of Supervisors regarding the urgent need for a new CLUP. Commissioner Hennigan explained that if ALUC makes a finding which the Board of Supervisors wants to over -rule, there is a long complicated process to go.through. The Public Utilities Code does not allow an opinion only to justify an over -ride -- there has to be substantial evidence leading to a different conclusion: It would be not much more difficult to update the CLUP. Commissioner Gerst was in favor making known'the urgent need for a CLUP. He thought a finding of inconsistency would be appropriate since there are not documents to justify consistency. There are no environmental documents available or information -about City of Chico projects as, Alternate Papadakis noted. Mr. Lucas said the Public Utilities Code language says "no action shall be taken" and in fact the motion by Commissioner Hennigan was to take no action on a consistency finding. If the motion is separated into two parts, a letter could be prepared expressing the concerns separately. There was a discussion of the implications of taking no action on the project — if that would be an action itself. Commissioner Gerst objected to using conflicting documents to review projects and selecting out parts. He thought industrial might be an appropriate use on the property, but the documents are not available to make that decision. Commissioner Causey suggested sending the concerns being expressed by Commissioner Gerst should be written in a letter to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Kammerer thought it would be a good idea to write a letter to the Board of -Supervisors using his project as an example of the need for a CLUP. Mr. Lucas noted that it appears that the Master Plan will have to be updated before work on the Chico CLUP can begin. He noted that this application will go forward through county processing with or without ALUC's input. Commissioner Hennigan thought that taking no action and not explaining the reason for taking no action was a very bad idea. There was a discussion of talking the situation over with County Counsel. Commissioner Hennigan said that if no action was taken, the matter is still pending and can be discussed at the next regular ALUC meeting.. In his opinion, the 3 to 2 vote constituted ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ November 11, 1997 ■ Page 5 ■ no action." Mr. Lucas suggested that the item be formally continued 'rather than having a situation of "failing to take an action." It was moved by Commissioner Causey, seconded by Alternate Papadakis and carried unanimously (4 votes) to continue the item to the next regular meeting on November 19, 1997. AYES: Commissioner Causey, Gerst, Alternate Papadakis, and Chairman Pro Tem Hennigan ABSENT: Commissioner Causey, Alternate Koch and Chairman Franklin IV: JOUR M`hairm John Franklin inutes by Diana Shuey J:\DRCWLUCWOV-11.97 ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ November 11, 1997 ■ Page 6 ■ T -` .: }iBUTT E COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE cCOMMISSION+ ■ Department of Development Services ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ■ (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 ■ SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA November 11, 1997 ' 9:00 a.m. PLACE: Board of Supervisors' Room 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT L PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Butte Countv Specific Plan Amendment #97-01 (Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141: A Request for Consistency Findings for an amendment to the North Chico Specific Plan changing the land use designation on approximately 187 acres located on the west side of Hicks Lane, approximately 1 mile south of Keefer Rd., north Chico area. The proposed change will be from SR -1 (Suburban Residential -1 acre min.) and SR-1/OS (Open Space) to SR-1/PD (Planned Development) and OS to SR -3 (Suburban Residential -3 acre min,)/PD. Recommended Action: Find inconsistent with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. B. Butte County General Plan Amendment #97-02 and Specific Plan Amendment #97-01 (Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141: A Request for Consistency Findings for a General Plan Amendment and an amendment to the North Chico Specific Plan changing the land use designation, on approximately 103 acres located on the west side of Hicks Lane, approximately 1 mile south of Keefer Rd., north Chico area. The proposed General Plan Amendment will be from Agricultural Residential to Industrial. The Specific Plan Amendment will change the zoning from Open Space to M-1 (Light Industrial). Recommended Action: No Recommendation. IV. ADJOURN • Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact Paula Leasure at (916) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you. * Any person may address the Commission during the "Business. From the Floor" segment of the Agenda. * Copies of the Agenda documents relative to and Agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of $.08 per page. RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte ALUC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chairman at the appropriate time. ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ 2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for "Public Comment" on'the agenda. The Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until a meeting at which the matter can be put on the agenda. 3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon recognition by the Chair. ` 4. After receiving recognition, please stand and state your name and address before making your presentation, so that the Cleric may take down this information. 5. All documents, to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk'of the Commission (original and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to the Commission and made available for public inspection. - This Agenda was -mailed to those requesting notice and posted 24 hours'in advance of the meeting at the following locations: r Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case. KWLUC\MEETINGSW OV11-97.MTGWGENDA t ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ +BU'Il"1[']E COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION + •5epartment of DevelopmentServices • 7 CountyCenter Dfive, Oroville, CA 95965 • • I AGENDA ITEM III.A TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: Department of Development Services DATE: November 5, 1997 REQUEST: Butte County Specific Plan Amendment #97-01 (Kammerer) on APN 047-250- 141: A Request for Consistency Findings for an amendment to the North Chico Specific Plan changing the land use designation on approximately 187 acres located on the west side of Hicks Lane, approximately 1 mile south of Keefer Rd., north Chico area. The proposed change will be from SR -1 (Suburban Residential -1 acre min.) and SR-1/OS (Open Space) to SR-1/PD (Planned Development) and OS to SR -3 (Suburban Residential -3 acre min,)/PD. FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of November 11, 1997 SUMMARY: This project was initially submitted to ALUC for review at the April 16, 1997 meeting at which time no action was taken because the applicant had not presented a complete application and environmental documents were not available. The revised project was presented to the Commission at its October 15, 1997 meeting. The Commission provided direction to staff and the applicant that residential uses would not be acceptable and industrial uses would be considered. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An amendment to the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) changing the land use designation on approximately 187 acres located on the west side of Hicks Lane, approximately 1 mile south of Keefer Rd. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will change the zoning from Open Space to SR-3/PD on 103 acres and from SR-1/OS to SR-1/PD on 84 acres. Pursuant to the NCSP, the open space land is to remained undeveloped and the SR-1/OS land was to result in a 30% yield to protect potential wetlands. The resulting change of from this proposal will be approximately 20 new dwelling units in the open space area and approximately 58 new dwelling units in the SR-1/OS area. The applicant is suggesting the potential for transferring development rights in a more complex configuration, which still provides for additional dwelling units where they are not permitted under the current NCSP. The Commission should consider that the open space area was created in response to concerns raised during the NCSP hearings that the development of the general area could result in negative impacts to the operation of the Chico Municipal Airport. By removing the open space designation, the crafted balance of uses in the NCSP would be disturbed and the Commissions original action based on this compromise may have been altered. ANALYSIS: Staff review consisted of land use compatibility and noise sensitivity with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP) and with the draft Policy Plan. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • Land Use Compatibility Staff reviewed the request pursuant to the currently adopted Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP). A determination was made that the project site is located within the Chico Municipal Airport Study Area as shown on CIC -6 in the CMAEP. Most of the project site is located in the horizontal surface as shown on CIC -5, and a portion of the northeast section of the project site is located in the 7:1 transitional surface as shown on CIC -5. The project site is located within Compatible Land Use Zone (CLUZ) V as depicted on CIC -13. The'project site is located under the light aircraft traffic pattern as shown on CIC -2 and the Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) patterns for both runways. The CMAEP has four recommendations for development of parcels located in a CLUZ V zone: (1) A zoning classification of SR -1 should be applied to the single parcel east of CIC contained within the Interim Zone boundary. (2) The least restrictive zoning for the remaining parcels should be SR. (3) The parcels with segments intruding into the flight corridor should not be developed in these segments. (4) Noise control construction procedures should be distributed for applications in this area at the time of the building plan check. The project site is currently zoned in the North Chico Specific Plan as OS (Open Space). Figure 1 contains a map that shows the current zoning of the project site. Figure 2 shows the zoning changes proposed by the applicant. The CMAEP and CLUZ V zone does clearly indicate that parcels that are affected by the overflight of aircraft should not be developed in order to reduce the potential for safety concerns of both the aircraft and persons on the ground. It is reasonable to conclude that the current open space designation does represent fewer potential impacts than any other proposed use. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will increase the population and building density of the project area above that of the existing zoning. Based on this foundation, staff is recommending that the Commission find that residential development be prohibited on this parcel in any configuration. The FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program adopted for the airport by the City. of Chico recommends in Exhibit III -1 and the text on page 111-4, that residential uses be prohibited in the area proposed for this land use change. Noise Sensitivity According to CIC -2 (1977 CNEL noise contours), approximately half of the project site is located within the 55 dB CNEL noise contour. CIC -3 (future CNEL noise contours) shows that approximately 75% of the project site will be within the 55 dB CNEL noise contour. The proposal will result in a change of land use on the north portion of the project site from open space to suburban residential (1 dwelling unit per acre). The proposal will result in an increase in the use of that area, and subject people living in that area to a 55 to 60 dB CNEL noise level. Exhibit 4-4 in the CMAEP shows that single family residential uses are normally acceptable in these areas. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • Exhibit 4-4 also states that single family residential uses are conditionally acceptable in areas with a 55 to 70 dB CNEL noise level, provided that noise insulation features are included in the design of the homes this area. The FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program prepared for the City of Chico was also reviewed for additional noise impact evaluation. The study shows that approximately 25% of the project site is currently within the 55 dB CNEL noise contour. The study also shows that approximately 35% of the project site will be within the 55 dB CNEL noise contour in 2010. It should be noted that all of the above data does not address single event noise levels over the project site. Draft Policy Plan The project site is located in the horizontal surface, which is also referred to as the overflight zone. A portion of the project site is located within the 7:1 transitional surface area, which can be considered to be an approach zone. The change from OS to SR-3/PD on the northeastern half of the project site will result in dwelling units at a density of one per five acres being placed in the 7:1 transitional surface area. The draft Policy Plan that is presently under consideration indicates that single-family detached residential dwelling units are compatible for safety considerations in the approach zone, provided that the density is not less than five acres per single family dwelling unit. Most of the SR-1/PD zone will be located in the overflight area. Single-family detached residential dwelling units are compatible for safety *considerations in the overflight zone. The draft Policy Plan states that single-family detached residential dwelling units are not compatible when the noise level exceeds 55 dB CNEL. Portions of the project site are located in areas that have a 55 to 60 dB CNEL noise level. This Plan is only in draft form and has not been adopted nor does it replace the existing Environs Plan. However, this Plan does provide the baseline for the Chico Municipal Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan update that will direct land use compatibility in the area. California Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division The Caltrans Aeronautics Division commented on this project (letter attached). They recommend that all general/specific plan amendments and zoning decisions in the Chico Municipal Airport area be placed on temporary hold until: (1) the consistency issues facing the City of Chico have been satisfactorily answered, and (2) the county's airport land use plans are brought up to date as required by PUC Sections 21674.7 and 21765. These sections require the ALUC to prepare and adopt CLUPs that are based upon a,20 -year master plan or an Airport Layout Plan, as determined by the Aeronautics Program. They also require that the ALUC use the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook in the preparation of a CLUP. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the proposed project be found inconsistent with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan, the FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Plan and the North Chico Specific Plan airport protection policies and direct staff to prepare appropriate findings and comments for submittal to the Butte County Planning Commission. 1.. Attached: 1: Figures 1 and 3 submitted by the applicant. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 3 • FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION & EXISTING CONDITIONS STEPHENS PROPERTY KEY d "> SR -1 t oS ® m„ •� m °S wry 20p SR -1 Existing Roads �. Wetlands 83.7 Ac. I 103.1 Ac. J I I , I I I � 42:4 Ac. I / i Regional Location No Scale Keefer Road K elerS ° SITE . m AIRPORT .12 9 cr y� Nott) Hwy. Creek ton oa _ N Cz s+y ; • i I'� # 0; 1000 20O0' 3 1" — 1000' I 1 ' .- FIGURE 2:ALT. 1 r T •ZONING CATEGORIES .;FOLLOWING REZONE- • . STEPHENS PROPERTY' KEY F7 SR -1 PD (Portion of yield from SR -3 area l `" to be transferred to SR-1/PD)�Or SR -3 PD (Actual development to occur. at density equivalent to SR -5) -, 'RECEIVING' !r 'SEN ' 50'.. Creek Buffer \ > PACK PA EL &Native HabitatAz. .. (TRANS Ot` Creation Area (Creek widths are conceptual = DEVELOP ! ; UNITS) for illustrativeu oses only) P rP .` -103.1 ._ . Ac _ '`• -• '�;`` 126.1 'Ac : r 03 0 \ y` •\. 1000' ' - 1" __ 1000' - r T i `'BU .11 Jl E COUNTY AIRPOR'T LANR US, 60M• UA.JSION f ■ Department of Development Services ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ■ (916) 53877601F AX (916) 538-7785 ■ . MINUTES October 15, 1997,. f ~ . .l. PLEDGE OF -ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL: r PRESENT Commissioners L m ert, er t, mpbell, Hennigan, Alternate Koch and , Chairman Franklin ` ABSENT: - Commissioner Causey r ALSO PRESENT: Stephen A. Lucas,, Planner ' - David Doody, Planner 14 4 John Papadakis (Alternate) 4 Norm Rosene (Alternate). r. Nick Ellena, Chico Enterprise Record Diana Shuey, Secretary III. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA h a r It was moved by£ommissioner Lambert, seconded'by-Alternate.Koch, and carried unanimously to . accept the.agenda. AYES: F.Commissioners Lambert, Gerst, Campbell, Alternate Koch and Chairman r Franklin ' ABSENT: Commissioners Causey and Hennigan_ IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of: September. 17, 1997 It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Alternate Koch, and carried unanimously for. approval of tl'e minutes. . I Y AYES: Commissioners Lambert, Gerst, . Campbell, Alternate Koch and ' Chairman Franklin ABSENT: Commissioners Causey and Hennigan V. - BUSINESS FROM THE -FLOOWON 'ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA None . - 1 : • 't ' • - • VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A.. Butte County Specific Plan Amendment 1#97-02 (Kammerer) on APN 047-250=144: A request by the Planning Division fora preliminary review`of an amendment to the North -.Chico ■ Bulte County Airport Land Use Commission_ ■ October 15, 1997 ■ Page 1 Specific Plan changing the zoning designation on approximately 230 acres located on the west side of Hicks Lane, approximately 1 mile south of Keefer Rd., north Chico area. The proposed change will be from SR -1 (Suburban Residential -1 acre min.) and SR-1/OS (Open Space) to SR-1/PD (Planned Development) and OS to SR -3 (Suburban Residential -3 acre min,)/PD. RECOMMENDATION: Informational item only, staff is not proposing a recommendation for this project. Mr. Lucas said staff has not prepared a recommendation due to time constraints, but the Commission may take action on the item if they wish to do so. HEARING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC George Kammerer, representing the applicants, said the proposal has been dramatically modified by working closely with County staff in order to address concerns that may exist regarding airport compatibility and to achieve the "highest and best" potential use of the property. They have looked, at transferring densities away from the airport and concentrating densities elsewhere in order to get some development value from the property. The property owners did not participate in the North Chico Specific Plan process and consequently took the "largest hit" regarding Open Space protection of any landowner in the NCSP because of their absence. His clients should be on a par with what other property owners obtained from the Specific Plan, while still being sensitive to protection of the airport. He said the applicants no longer live on the property since retiring and moving to Southern California. COMMISSIONER HENNIGAN ARRIVED AT THE MEETING AT THIS TIME Alternate Koch said the North Chico Specific Plan went through extensive public hearings and the FAR PART 150 plan, which recommends no residential uses in this area, also went through an extensive public review process, so lack of participation by the applicants is a poor argument for their proposal. ' Mr. Kammerer said he is only asking that the applicants be put on a par with other landowners in the area in order to obtain a reasonable rate of return on their property. They paid their share of fees for the NCSP. Alternate Koch said that although ALUC has not approved the FAR PART 150 Plan, the City of Chico Airport Commission has approved the plan. Mr. Kammerer said the request is for either residential zoning of the property or for additional M-1 Industrial zoning for the property. The reason for not applying exclusively for the industrial zoning is because County Planning staff said there is lack of the necessary infrastructure -- primarily sewer. Alternate Koch said the City of Chico has the potential to receive an Economic Development Administration grant for installation of the infrastructure in a year or two. He said this project might be better off waiting until such time as the infrastructure is in place. Mr. Kammerer said they are aware of the grant and the current study being conducted, but the applicant is requesting that his proposal be approved in either form now. If industrial use is approved, the approval could be conditional upon actual construction of infrastructure. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ October 15, 1997 ■ Page 2 ■ Chairman Franklin said he would never approve of residential uses in Part A, but he would consider industrial uses. Mr. Kammerer said they are not proposing residential development up to the airport boundaries, but rather to leave open space adjacent to the airport and transfer the density to the area furthest from the airport, away from the noise contours that should be a concern. He noted that building technology is available which. can reduce noise impacts. The reason for the residential proposal is also because of the SR -1 properties which have been approved and been built out to the north. Chairman Franklin said he would be favorable to industrial uses but would be very restrictive towards residential uses. Commissioner Hennigan was in favor of commercial/industrial uses near the airport -- not bedrooms or large groups of people as in churches and schools. Chairman Franklin said despite what has happened to'the north and south of the airport he is strongly against residential uses near the airport. Commissioner Lambert did not understand why the applicant feels his property has been downsized. She noted that the draft policy plan calls for 5 acres per dwelling unit and that open space with the housing clustered in a small area is not necessarily safe. Mr. Kammerer said the residential proposal is fully compatible with existing airport policy, according to his conversations with staff. . Norm Rosene said the property would be a very bad place for residences. The south is blocked off, the foothills are to the east and there are four flight corridors over the property, including those used by crop dusters. Alternate Koch said that appears to be a consensus against the proposal for residential uses, but industrial uses might be looked on favorably. - Mr. Lucas said since a request for consistency findings was made, the Commissioners should direct staff to prepare findings for the next ALUC meeting. Mr. Kammerer asked for consistency findings on both proposals: the residential proposal and the industrial M-1 zoning proposal. Mr. Campbell said the plan does not show both proposals in sufficient detail for a Specific Plan. He would need to see more detail in order to make a consistency finding. Alternate Koch said the a consistency finding cannot be made at this meeting regarding industrial zoning since it was not agendized as such. The agenda only refers to a residential proposal. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ October 15, 1997 ■ Page 3 ■ +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION+ ■ Department of Development Services ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ■ (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 ■ Mr. Kammerer said the industrial proposal would simply be for industrial rather than residential zoning. Mr. Lucas said that the proposal presented to the Planning Division was for residential uses only. Alternate Koch said that consistency findings could be made for both industrial and residential proposals if they are properly agendized. Mr. Lucas suggested that Mr. Kammerer notify Planning staff that the applicants would consider industrial zoning. Mr. Kammerer said his proposal is already familiar to Planning staff, and the administrative draft of the initial study has already been prepared, which analyzes both industrial and residential uses. Mr. Lucas said the proposal came to ALUC as a residential proposal only. Commissioner Lambert asked if 229 acres would be proposed for industrial zoning, and if so, more details need to be provided, including open space. Mr. Kammerer said the project has already been scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing on November 13, and if the next ALUC meeting is not until November 19, he did not want the Planning Commission hearing for this property delayed until December. There was a discussion 'of possibly holding a special meeting of ALUC prior to the next Planning Commission meeting to hear the industrial proposal for the property. Mr. Papadakis suggested that ALUC, in making a finding on the residential proposal, could at the same time make a recommendation on industrial uses. There was discussion about the possibility of communicating to the Planning Commission that ALUC favors industrial uses for the property rather than residential uses prior to ALUC actually reviewing the industrial proposal. Mr. Parilo said the most recent submittal was for a residential project, The original application was amended, but the original application was for industrial. Staff identified inconsistencies with the North Chico Specific Plan and environmental impact issues that would have to be addressed because the proposal is a departure both from the Specific Plan and the General Plan. Mr. Parilo noted that the issue of industrial use having compatibility with the airport, is somewhat separate from the issues of the General Plan and the Specific Plan. After discussions with staff, the applicant began considering residential use, which is consistent with the County General Plan. The EIR for the NCSP reflected higher levels of traffic generation that what the Plan currently calls for, so in theory the project falls within the boundaries of the ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ October 15, 1997 ■ Page 4 ■ 0 +BU'] T E COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE C®MMISSION+ ■ Department of Development Services ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ■ (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 ■ EIR prepared for the NCSP. Mr. Parilo said he can understand why the applicant would want to keep the industrial option open., but it does create complications for the review process. The initial study primarily deals with a residential project as it was defined in September. Commissioner Campbell said a more definite plan is necessary prior to making any finding. Commissioner Lambert suggested holding a special ALUC meeting prior to the next Planning Commission meeting to consider both industrial and residential proposals, so the Planning Commission can consider the whole picture at one time. Mr. Kammerer said he would appreciate that procedure. Mr. Parilo said residential uses would be consistent with the General Plan, but not the Specific Plan. Industrial uses would require an amendment to both the General Plan and Specific Plan. The Specific Plan did not consider industrial land uses on the property or associated impacts, although industrial uses would be a better neighbor for the airport. ALUC's focus is more limited than the General or Specific Plan. Commissioner Campbell said if residential is found to be inconsistent and industrial would be preferable, the applicant would have to start all over with a General Plan change, not just a Specific Plan change. Mr. Kammerer said the application already includes a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment request for the industrial component of the original application. Chairman Franklin thought that making a finding of inconsistency for the residential uses would move things along for the applicant. Mr. Kammerer said residential uses are consistent with everything except the airport policies and industrial uses are a more involved process. Mr: Parilo suggested that ALUC's message of residential uses being inconsistent with available Planning documents, and industrial uses being preferable, could be forwarded to.the Planning Commission. If the applicant prefers industrial uses, a more elaborate process would be involved and ALUC would have an opportunity for additional comment. Mr. Kammerer said that since the industrial component has been discussed at this public hearing and commented on, language can be included to the Planning Commission regarding ALUC's recommendations for industrial uses. It was moved by Commissioner Hennigan and seconded by Commissioner Gerst to find that residential use is not consistent with the airport plan and in the comments, indicate that ALUC believes that low density commercial or industrial is more appropriate. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ October 15, 1997 ■ Page 5 ■ 0'' 1. .1 � • +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION+ ■ Department of Development Services ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ■ (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 ■ Alternate Koch agreed with the concept of the motion, but was hesitant to make a commitment .to commercial/industrial and have the applicant believe it would be a "slam dunk" later on. He noted that any changes to the General Plan or Specific Plan would have to come back to ALUC anyway. Mr. Campbell did not think action should be taken today since it was not advertised for a consistency finding. Mr. Hennigan agreed and withdrew his motion. Mr. Kammerer asked if ALUC would hold a special meeting for the project.. There was a consensus that ALUC would hold a special meeting, with a bettergmore detailed map. Commissioner Lambert was in favor of ALUC reviewing whatever goes forward to the Planning Commission. VII: ALUC COMMISSION ITEMS: A. Consideration and Adoption of an MOU between the Airport Land Use Commission, the City of Chico, and the County of Butte to Establish Project Review Procedures. Update on meetings of Chico City council (Oct 7) and Board of Supervisors (Oct 14). Mr. Parilo reported that the City of Chico rejected the'MOU on a 3-3 vote. There were concerns about their position that they don't need to make over-riding findings, and a concern about how, the MOU would, be affected by the lawsuit by the California Pilots Association. Alternate Koch said there was a concern that the MOU could provide a platform for future lawsuits by ALUC. If the MOU-contained language that the City would not be sued by ALUC.for future over -rides it might be looked upon more favorably. Another option would be for ALUC to review projects submitted by the City for review but not consistency findings. Commissioner Campbell asked if the failure to complete the MOU would affect the funding of the CLUP's by Caltrans. , Mr. Parilo said it appears that the MOU being in place was necessary for the state to fund the CLUP's. An item on today's agenda deals with preparation of the CLUP's using in-house staff. Relative to the CLUP's for the Chico and Oroville airports, once the costs are determined, a formal request for funding to the state should be made. - ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ October 15, 1997 ■ Page 6 ■ +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION+ ■ Department of Development Services ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ■ (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 ■ Alternate Koch said an item on the October 21 agenda of the Chico City Council will be a discussion of loaning the County money for preparation of the CLUP. There is a desire to move the CLUP forward, and the connection of the CLUP to the MOU did not seem appropriate to some of the Council members. At this point the money is being discussed as.a loan. Mr. Rosene said he would like to hear what the California Pilots Association has to say about the lawsuit. Mr. Rosene was concerned that ALUC has no ability to protect the airport without the threat of the lawsuit. He is concerned that ALUC cannot protect the airport "without any teeth," and he would like to know what basis there is for the lawsuit and possibly joining of the lawsuit by ALUC. Chairman Franklin asked if the MOU would have an effect on the funding from the state. Mr. Parilo said it appears that the state has linked funding to the adoption of an MOU, although there may be additional hurdles. Alternate Koch suggested writing a letter to the state, explaining that ALUC made the effort on the MOU but the City of Chico did not agreed to it, and request release of the funds for preparation of the CLUP. Mr. Parilo agreed that would be a good approach once it is know what the costs are. Once the RFP process is completed within 30 to 45 days, the estimated costs of preparation of the Chico and Oroville CLUP's should be known, and at that time the state can be approached. Mr. Parilo noted the MOU was pulled from the Board of Supervisors agenda since it was not signed by the City of Chico. There was a consensus that further discussion of the MOU was unnecessary. B. Consideration of an MOU Between the County of Butte and the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission to Establish Staffing Agreement: Report from subcommttee of John Franklin, Tony St. Amant and Bob Hennigan on language of MOU (continued from Oct 15). Mr. Parilo said the meeting of the subcommittee resulted in an MOU with which he is in agreement with the addition of some minor revisions suggested by the County Administrator's Office. Mr. Parilo distributed a revised MOU contained an additional item #7 and modified wording on item #4. There was a discussion of the modified wording of item #4 which added the following portions in bold: The staff assigned, subject to item 3 above, shall be directly responsive and responsible to the ALUC when engaged in Commission business mandated by the requirements of the Public Utilities Code. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ October 15, 1997 ■ Page 7 ■ • +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION+ ■ Department of Development Services ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ■ (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7765 ■ Commissioner Lambert wanted clarification of the "mandated requirements.", Mr. Parilo said that all the items on the agenda, except the MOU with the.City of Chico, would be mandated items. Changes in the General Plan and zoning and the Bylaws would be included. The County Administrator wants to make sure that staff is provided to ALUC for essential support to carry out the requirements of the PUC, but if there is ever a situation where ALUC requests staff to. perform duties outside that boundary, it will be clear where that boundary lies. Item #4 clarifies what is stated in item #3. Commissioner Lambert recommended, for the sake of consistency, to use the'word "shall" through the memo where appropriate. There was -general consensus that the modification to item #4 and the addition of item #7 were acceptable. It was moved by Alternate Koch, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, and carried for approval of the revised version of the MOU received at today's meeting, including changing the word "will" to "shall" where appropriate. AYES: Commissioners Gerst, Hennigan; Lambert, Campbell, Alternate Koch and Chairman Franklin NOES: 0 ASSENT: Commissioner Causey C. Consideration and Adoption of the Airport Land Use Commission By -Laws, Version 7: (Continued from Oct 15). Alternate Koch said that if the Board of Supervisors approves the MOU with ALUC, staff should be directed to prepare a version of the bylaws that is adjusted to relfect the MOU. He said the April 16, 1997, minutes_ contain changes up to Page 6, line 24, and line 11 on -Page 7 -- changes which did not relate to staffing. Commissioner Hennigan suggested rather than deleting all references to staff, to make the references to staff appropriate to the MOU. There was agr - ment that identification as ALUC staff after the staff person's name and title, on ALUC letterhead wo dl uffice for official correspondence. The consideration and adoption of the ALUC bylaws was continued to the meeting .of December 17 7; with proper notification. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ October 15, 1997 ■ Page 8 ■ +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION+ ■ Department of Development Services ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ■ (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 ■ D. Consideration of Tentative Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLOP) Work Program: The Commission will discuss the process of preparing the CLUP's, including consultant selection, scheduling and the status of grant funding. . Commissioner Lambert proposed to direct staff to circulate, publish and return for public hearing, the draft policy plan, so it will not continue to be a draft which has never been circulated. She was in favor of making the document an adopted document within the next 30 days, so that can be done along with getting out the RFP. Commissioner Hennigan said the CLUP which Chico has prepared should not'be provided to consultant as authorative since ALUC has not yet seen.it. . Commissioner Lambert said there are some inconsistencies which should be rectified cocnerning the FAR PART 150. Mr. Parilo said if the draft policy plan has. been reviewed by ALUC it is a public document. He recommended proceeding with the RFP, which can include the document in a draft form. In the meantime, a public hearing can be held on the document and it can be refined. The consultants participating in the FRP process can be notified that the document is subject to final action by ALUC. The RFP process would take about 30 to 60 days to select and contract with a consultant. He suggested not waiting for finalization of the policy plan to begin the RFP process. - Commissioner Lambert agreed both process should proceed simultaneously There was a discussion of the environmental review process which would apply to the policy plan and the CLUP. There was agreement that it would be useful to hold at least one public hearing to solicit public comments which can be provided to the consultant along with the policy plan. There was a consensus that staff should proceed with the publication for public hearing of the draft policy plan. Commissioner Gerst asked if the CLUP would include the noise study and the flight paths. Mr.. Parilo said all existing published documents regarding airport operation, including noise studies, would be made available to the consultant. Commissioner Gerst was concerned with the conflict between the FAR PART 150 noise study and the noise study associated with the Environs Plan. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ October 15, 1997 m Page 9 ■ • • +Bg7"l T E COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE C®1MISSION+ ■ Department of Development Services ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ■ (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 ■ Alternate Koch said the FAR PART 150 study is FAA approved and is the official noise study. Barbara Hennigan suggested not scheduling a major public hearing on the policy plan during the Christmas holidays, and suggested that base data be made available on which the consultant's recommendations are made so the facts that go into a decision can be checked. Norm Rosene said the FAR PART 150 study is flawed since it does not address the tankers or other large aurplanes. The noise study was not made during the season the tankers fly. If the FAR PART 150 study is used, there should be an addendum that addresses the noise of tankers and military aircraft. There was a consensus that the public hearing on the draft policy plan could commence on December 17, 1997. Commissioner Hennigan said regarding proposed Path One, he objected�to item #8 in that -the first coritac ALUC would ,have with the consultant is proposed for June 17, 1997, along with presentation of the draft plan. He thought ALUC coudl be involved in selection of the consultant. Alternate Koch did not think ALUC would need to participate in selection of the consultant but did think contact with the consultant in the way of updates or to express ALUC's expectations was a good idea. Commissioner Campbell thought ALUC should be involved in communicating the scope of the work to the consultant. Commissioner Hennigan thought ALUC should have the authority to approve the selection of the consultant. Chairman Franklin said there are two issues that need to be separated and discussed separately. He asked about the process of making a contract with a consultant. Mr. Parilo explained that a list would be formed of experts in the field of aeronautics and land use. He suggested that a subcommittee from ALUC could be particpate in formation of the list, with staff making the ultimate selection. A scoping meeting could be required by ALUC so that members of the public and Commissioners acting independently or as a Commission could identify issues that should be addressed in the preparation of a CLUP. Such a scoping meeting could take place between steps 3, 4 and 5 of Path One. A subcommittee was formed of Chairman Franklin, Commissioners Hennigan and Campbell, noting that any two of the members could meet as the subcommittee. It was agreed to hold the scoping meeting sometime in February between Steps 3 and 4. The subcommittee could perhaps meet with the consultant on the same day the staff meets with him. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ October 15, 1997 ■ Page 10 ■ +BU'I T E COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION+ ■ Department of Development Services ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ■ (916) 538-7601 FAX (916):538-7785 ■ Alternate Koch objected to Step 2 -- he did not think the list of consultants should be limited to those with Caltrans approval. , There was a discussion of the way in which Caltrans recommends consultants and that although Caltrans does not provide an official list, they will provide names of consultants who they believe meet the needs of airportplanning. I Mr. Parilo said a "short list" should be developed of three to five consultants. Alternate Koch asked who would develop the short list. Mr. Parilo said Caltrans would be asked for recommended consultants with the expertise to do the work, and if necessary other agencies would'be asked for referrals. There was more discussion of a list of Caltrans recommended consultants of perhaps six names. Mr. Parilo said Caltrans would be asked fora list of recommended consultants as well as a list of public agencies who have recently recently completed CLUP's. Commissioner Campbell was in favor of opening the list of consultants up beyond just those approved by - Caltrans as stated in Step 2. Comissioner Campbell asked if, regarding Step One, the RFP with its outline of what is wanted in the way of a finished document, would be reviewed by ALUC before it is sent out. Mr. Parilo said it is not his intention to bring the RFP back to ALUC for review.. Chairman Franklin said review by ALUC. would result in another 30 day delay, which if done on every item would result in a great deal of delay. He said he has faith in staff to select a consultant and prepare the RFP. Commissioner Lambert thought the subcommittee just formed would be addressing the scope of work. Chairman Franklin thought the subcommittee would have input on the choice of consultants, but the scope of work should come back to ALUC. Mr. Parilo said a scoping meeting co help define the emphasis of the work and provide the opportunity for discovery of relevant items which ave not been included, in which case, the scope of work might be modified or the contract revised. a Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ October 15, 1997 ■ Page 11 ■ ■ Department of Development Services ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ■ (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 N Commissioner Lambert said either the subcommittee or ALUC should have input up front so as to avoid revisions. Commissioner Hennigan said if the RFP is well defined, there should not be* surprises in the scoping session. Commissioner Campbell asked if the noise studies, which would be costly, would be included in the RFP? Commissioner Hennigan said that to do a noise study all over again would be expensive and time consuming. There was a discussion of what would be done in the way of noise studies"and would staff be doing a noise study for Oroville and what would Step One include. Mr. Lucas said Step One means that a consultant will prepare the entire Chico CLUP with staff review and ALUC approval. Step One also means the consultant will look at the staff prepared CLUP for Oroville. Commissioner Campbell asked if staff could do a noise study for the Oroville airport. Mr. Lucas said. staff could not do a noise study, but it could be done by an outside consultant -- not necessarily the same consultant. I Commisioner Lambert said at some point more.money would be needed for the noise study. Mr. Parilo said the goal of the RFP is to make available to the consultant all the relevant studies that exist, some of which may be fine and others may need refinement. It well to define in the RFP any specific studies, such as noise studies, which are required for any of the CLUP's. A decision could be made up front if the noise study should be done by the same consultant or not. Commissioner Hennigan thought the consultant should only identify what would need to be done for Oroville, but not to do the work. However, in the case of Chico, the consultant could identify the work that needs to be done and propose to do it or or have someone else do it. Any necessary studies would have to be done before a CLUP can result. Chairman Franklin thought a consultant would be able to identify what needs to be done in preparation of a CLUP without input from ALUC. The subcommittee can select a consultant based upon what the subcommittee think needs to be done. He said hte subcommittee would participate in selection of the consultant and look at the'scope of work the consultant proposes. It was agreed that Step. Three should consist of "staff and subcommittee." A scoping, session with the Commission should come between Steps Three and Four. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ October 15, 1997 ■ Page 12 ■ +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION+ ■ Department of Development Services ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ■ (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 ■ It was agreed that ALUC would not want to review the draft CLUP until it is completed. Commissioner Lambert asked if review by "key persons" is a part of all CLUP's. Mr. Lucas said Step 3 for the Paradise and Ranchaero airports is basically the same as Step 6 for the Chico and Oroville airports, involving review of the administrative draft document: Mr. Parilo said procurement of funding should be added to process. Altenate Koch asked if ALUC wants to encourage the Chico City Council to loan or grant funds for CLUP preparation. There was a discussion of the offer by the City of Chico and general agreement that the offer wouldnot be turned down. Staff was to prepare a letter, which Chairman Franklin would sign, that ALUC would not have a problem accepting the money. Commissioner Gerst asked if the airport layout plan provided at the previous meeting if the official plan that will be used for the CLUP. Alternate Koch said the map is the currently adopted layout plan adopted by the FAA and meets the minimum requirements of the Utilities Code. The City of Chico will begin work on the Master Plan which might be done in six to tenth months. Commissioner Gerst said if it takes $200,000 to do a Maser Plan, $41,000 might not be enought for a CLUP. Alternate Koch agreed the cost might be greater than $41,000 for a CLUP. Mr. Lucas said Caltrans has the authority to judge whether the Master Plan is adequate upon which to base a CLUP. Altenate Koch said that hopefully, with FAA approval, the Master Plan should be acceptable to Caltrans. Commissioner. Hennigan said the City of Chico will have to make policy decisions about the future of the Chico airport, *as they go through the Master Plan process. Once the policy decisions have been made, the CLUP "can be built to protect the airport. The current layout plan shows what exists, so it can be protected, but there is no document to see into the future. Alternate"Koch said the CLUP can always be amended. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission m October 15, 1997 m Page 13 ■ • • +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION+ ■ Department of Development Services ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ■ (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 ■ Commissioner Gerst did not think the layout plan is adequate for the next 20 years, which is required by the Government Code. Alternate Koch said the plan does meet FAA requirements. Commissioner Hennigan said the Chico City Council has to decide if'they want the airport -to remain unchanged over the next 20 years. Commissioner Gerst suggested sending a letter to clarify that idea might speed things up. Commissioner Hennigan agreed it might be helfpul in preparation of a CLUP to know what the City of Chico wants protected. Policy decisions need to be made for the status quo or something more ambitious for the airport. Alternate Koch said that policy decisiions would probably not be made until the Master Plan is complete. He asked if the CLUP would have to wait for the Master Plan to be completed. Commissioner Hennigan said that technically that is probably the way to go, but no one wants the delay. ALUC would be pointing out to the City Council that before either the CLUP or Master Plan can for forward intelligently certain policy decisions have to be made -- what will be done with the airport? The consultant can't go forward with a plan without being told what is wanted. Alternate Koch said that the documents are subject to the public review process, so if a policy decision is made, which after the public review process turns out to be not what the public wants, the CLUP would be based on a preliminary policy which would not end up in the final Master Plan. Preliminary direction given to the consultant would be subject to changes. Getting the CLUP done would deal with the immediate issues, and then the CLUP can be amended as needed by the Maser Plan, when it is completed in maybe a year from now. Commissioner Gerst thought a simple sketch would suffice for a layout plan in the meantime. Alternate Koch disagreed, because something like a runway extension would have to go through the whole Master Plan process -- something like a 2,000 foot runway extension cannot just be a. sketch. There was more discussion and disagreement about using the current airport layout plan for the Chico airport to do the CLUP, until a Master Plan is complete. Commissioner Hennigan said in the RFP the consultant should be informed that the CLUP may be done using the existing layout plan, but if the City moves quickly and makes policy decisions, the CLUP may be done for something more ambitious. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ October 15, 1997 ■ Page 14 ■ I. l .. I .. I . I ' � c�► I . �.. l . � . •� I I', f�' c�► I'; . I . I . •� \ 11► � � I : c c�► �I _�I J � � I c�► \ � ■ Department of Development Services ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ■ (916) 536-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 ■ Chairman Franklin said the RFP will have to deal with the existing layout plan. There would have to be an addendum if a new plan is provided, which might take years. Mr. Rosene agreed the CLUP would have to be based on the existing layout plan and it should be made clear that the the CLUP does not address future growth, or else future growth should be addressed, which there doesn't seem to be time enough to do. Commissioner Gerst said maybe the City Council should provide a statement that the current airport layout plan is as "far as they are going to go." Mr. Lucas suggested asking Caltrans if the airport layout plan will be adequate to move forward with the CLUP or will the process have to be delayed until completion of a Master Plan. " Chairman Franklin asked that a letter be sent asking Caltrans exactly that question. Mr. Parilo agreed that there is no,point expending public funds if Caltrans will not accept the airport layout plan. Commissioner Campbell said it would not look good to spend a year doing the CLUP and it is obsolete the day it is adopted. Mr. Parilo said staff would provide a letter to Caltrans for the Chairman's signature. Chairman Franklin asked if the RFP can be done concurrently with the letter to Caltrans. Mr. Lucas said the RFP is substantially completed already. Mr. Parilo said the RFP could presume that the airport layout plan will be used, and in the meantime obtain the opinion from Caltrans. ' Commissioner Hennigan said if the airport plan is used, and in the meantime a Master Plan is created that involves substantial expansion, it will take several years to "pour. concrete" and the CLUP would have to be updated anyway. CLUP's are supposed to be updated periodically. Mr. Lucas said the CLUP could be based upon the airport layout plan, acknowledging the need for a Master Plan and noting that future expansion would need amendment of the CLUP. VIII. Correspondence: IX. ALUC Staff Summary ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ October 15, 1997 ■ Page 15 ■ +BU"I T E COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION+ ■ Department of Development Services ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ■ (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 ■ X. ADJOURN Chairman John Franklin F:\CLI ENTS\DIANAS\D RC\ALU C\OCT-15.97 ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ October 15, 1997 ■ Page 16 ■ r,i ,.�B L=]E COUNTY AIRPORT ][ems USE COMMISSIO + 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23, 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ■ Department of Development Services ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ■ (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 ■ MINUTES October 15, 1997 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Lambert, Gerst, Campbell, Alternate Koch and Chairman Franklin ABSENT: Commissioner Causey ALSO PRESENT: Stephen A. Lucas, Planner David Doody, Planner John Papadakis (Alternate) Norm Rosene (Alternate) Nick Ellena, Chico Enterprise Record Diana Shuey, Secretary Ill. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA Hennigan, It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Alternate Koch, and carried unanimously to accept the agenda. AYES: Commissioners Lambert, Gerst, Campbell, Alternate Koch and Chairman Franklin ABSENT: Commissioners Causey and Hennigan IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of: September 17, 1997 It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Alternate Koch, and carried unanimously for approval of the minutes. AYES: Commissioners Lambert, Gerst, Campbell, Alternate Koch and Chairman Franklin ABSENT: Commissioners Causey and Hennigan V. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA None VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Buie County Specific Plan Amendment #97-02 (Kammerer) on APN 047- 250:141: A request by the Planning Division for a preliminary review of an amendment to the North Chico Specific Plan changing the zoning designation on approximately 230 acres located on the west side of Hicks. Lane, approximately.1 mile south of Keefer Rd., north Chico area. The proposed change will be from SR -1 (Suburban Residential -1 acre min.) and ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ October 15, 1997 ■ Page 1 ■ 1 SR-1/OS (Open Space) to SR-1/PD (Planned Development) and OS to SR -3 2 (Suburban Residential -3 acre min,)/PD. RECOMMENDATION: 3 Informational item only, staff is not proposing a recommendation for 4 this project. 5 6 Mr. Lucas said staff has not prepared a recommendation due to time constraints, but the 7 Commission may take action on the item if they wish to do so. s 9 HEARING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC 10 11 George Kammerer, representing the applicants, said the proposal has been dramatically 12 modified by working closely with County staff in order to address concerns that may exist 13 regarding airport compatibility and to achieve the "highest and best" potential use of the 14 property. They have looked at transferring densities away from the airport and 15 concentrating densities elsewhere in order to get some development value from the 16 property. The property owners did not participate in the North Chico Specific Plan process 17 and consequently took the "largest hit" regarding Open Space protection of any landowner 18 in the NCSP because of their absence. His clients should be on a par with what other 19 property owners obtained from the Specific Plan, while still being sensitive to protection of 20 the airport. He said the applicants no longer live on the property since retiring and moving 21 to Southern California. 22 23 COMMISSIONER HENNIGAN ARRIVED AT THE MEETING AT THIS TIME 24 25 Alternate Koch said the North Chico Specific Plan went through extensive public hearings 26 and the FAR PART 150 plan, which recommends no residential uses in this area, also 27 went through an extensive public review process, so lack of participation by the applicants 28 is a poor argument for their proposal. 29 30 Mr. Kammerer said he is only asking that the applicants be put on a par with other 31 landowners in the area in order to obtain a reasonable rate of return on their property. 32 They paid their share of fees for the NCSP. 33 34 Alternate Koch said that although ALUC has not approved the FAR PART 150 Plan, the 35 City of Chico Airport Commission has approved the plan. 36 37 Mr. Kammerer said the request is for either residential zoning of the property or for 38 additional M-1 Industrial zoning for the property. The reason for not applying exclusively 39 for the industrial zoning is because County Planning staff said there is lack of the 40 necessary infrastructure -- primarily sewer. 41 42 Alternate Koch said the City of Chico has the potential to receive an Economic 43 Development Administration grant for installation of the infrastructure in a year or two. He 44 said this project might be better off waiting until such time as the infrastructure is in place. 45 ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ October 15,,1997 ■ Page 2 ■ 1 Mr. Kammerer said they are aware of the grant and the current study being conducted, but 2 the applicant is requesting that his proposal be approved in either form now. If industrial 3 use is approved, the approval could be conditional upon actual construction of 4 infrastructure. 5 s Chairman Franklin said he would never approve of residential uses in Part A, but he would 7 consider industrial uses. 8 ,.. 9 Mr. Kammerer said they are not proposing residential development up to the airport 10 boundaries, but rather to leave open space adjacent to the airport and transfer the density 11 to the area furthest from the airport, away from the noise contours that should be a 12 concern. He noted that building technology is available which can reduce noise impacts. 13 The reason for the residential proposal is also because of the SR -1 properties which have 14 been approved and been built.out to the north. 15 16 Chairman Franklin said he would be favorable to industrial uses but would be very 17 restrictive towards residential uses. 18 19 Commissioner Hennigan was in favor of commercial/industrial uses near the airport -- not 20 bedrooms or large groups of people as in churches and schools. 21 22 Chairman Franklin said despite what has happened to the north and south of the airport 23 he is strongly against residential uses near the airport. 24 25 Commissioner Lambert did not understand why the. applicant feels his property has been 26 downsized. She noted that the draft policy plan calls for 5 acres per dwelling unit and that 27 open space with the housing clustered in a small. area is not necessarily safe. 28 29 Mr. Kammerer said the residential proposal is fully compatible with existing airport policy, 30 according to his conversations with staff. 31 32 Norm Rosene said the property would be a very bad place for residences. The south is 33 blocked off, the foothills are to the east and there are four flight corridors over the property, 34 including those used by crop dusters. 35 36 Alternate Koch said that appears to be a consensus against the proposal for residential 37 uses, but industrial uses might be looked on favorably. 38 39 Mr. Lucas said since a request for consistency findings was made, the Commissioners 40 should direct staff to prepare findings for the next ALUC meeting. 41 42 Mr. Kammerer asked for consistency findings on both proposals: the residential proposal 43 and the industrial M-1 zoning proposal. . 44 45 Mr. Campbell said the plan does not show both proposals in sufficient detail for a Specific 46 Plan. He would need to see more detail in order to make a consistency finding. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ October 15, 1997 ■ Page 3 ■ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 • 0 Alternate Koch said the a consistency finding cannot be made at this meeting regarding industrial zoning since it was not agendized as such. The agenda only ^refers to a residential proposal. Mr. Kammerer said the industrial proposal would simply be for industrial rather than residential zoning. Mr. Lucas said that the proposal presented to the Planning Division was for residential uses only. Alternate Koch said that consistency findings could be made for both industrial and residential proposals if they are properly agendized. Mr. Lucas suggested that Mr. Kammerer notify Planning staff that the applicants would consider industrial zoning. Mr. Kammerer said his proposal is already familiar to Planning staff, and the administrative draft of the initial study has already been prepared, which analyzes both industrial and residential uses. Mr. Lucas said the proposal came to ALUC as a residential proposal only. Commissioner Lambert asked if 229 acres would be proposed for industrial zoning,' and if so, more details need to be provided, including open space. Mr. Kammerer said the project has already been scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing on November 13, and if the next ALUC meeting is not until November 19, he did not want the Planning Commission hearing for this property delayed until December. There was a discussion of possibly holding a special meeting of ALUC prior to the next Planning Commission meeting to hear the industrial proposal for the property. Mr. Papadakis suggested that ALUC, in making a finding on the. residential proposal, could at the same time make a recommendation on industrial uses. There was discussion about the possibility of communicating to the Planning Commission that ALUC favors industrial uses for the property rather than residential uses prior to ALUC actually reviewing the industrial proposal. Mr. Parilo said the most recent submittal was for a residential project, The original application was amended, but the original application was for industrial. Staff identified inconsistencies with the North Chico Specific Plan and environmental impact issues that would have to be addressed because the proposal is a departure both from the Specific Plan and the General Plan. Mr: Parilo noted that the issue of industrial use having compatibility with the airport, is somewhat separate from the issues of the General Plan and the Specific Plan. After discussions with staff, the applicant began considering ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ October 15, 1997 ■ Page 4 ■ • 0 .1 residential use, which is consistent with the County General Plan. The EIR for the NCSP 2 reflected higher levels of traffic generation that what the Plan currently calls for, so in 3 theory the project falls within the boundaries of the EIR prepared for the NCSP. Mr. Parilo 4 said he can understand why the applicant would want to keep the industrial option open, 5 but it does create complications for the review process. The initial study primarily deals s with a residential project as it was defined in September. 7 s Commissioner Campbell said a more definite plan is necessary prior to making any finding. 9 10 Commissioner Lambert suggested holding a special ALUC meeting prior to the next 11 Planning Commission meeting to consider both industrial and residential proposals, so the 12 Planning Commission can consider the whole picture at one time. 13 14 Mr. Kammerer said he would appreciate that procedure. 15 16 Mr. Parilo said residential uses would be consistent with the General Plan, but not the 17 Specific Plan. Industrial uses would require an amendment to both the General Plan and 18 Specific Plan. The Specific Plan did not consider industrial land uses on the property or 19 associated impacts, although industrial uses would be a better neighbor for the airport. 20 ALUC's focus is more limited than the General or Specific Plan. 21 22 Commissioner Campbell said if residential is found to be inconsistent and industrial would 23 be preferable, the applicant would have to start all over with a General Plan change, not 24 just a Specific Plan change. 25 26 Mr. Kammerer said the application already includes a General Plan Amendment and 27 Specific Plan Amendment request for the industrial. component of the original application. 2s 29 Chairman Franklin thought that making a finding of inconsistency for the residential. uses 30 would move.things along for the applicant. 31 32 Mr. Kammerer said residential uses are consistent with everything except the airport 33 policies and industrial uses are a more involved process. 34 35 Mr. Parilo suggested that ALUC's message of residential uses being inconsistent with 36 available Planning documents, and industrial uses being preferable, could be forwarded 37 to the Planning Commission. If the applicant prefers industrial uses, a more elaborate. 38 process would be involved and ALUC'would have an opportunity -for additional comment. 39 40 Mr. Kammerer said that since the industrial component has been discussed at this public 41 hearing and commented on, language can be included to the Planning Commission 42 regarding ALUC's recommendations for industrial uses. 43 44 It was moved by Commissioner Hennigan and seconded by Commissioner Gerst to find 45 that residential use is not consistent with the airport plan and in the comments, indicate 46 that ALUC believes that low density commercial or industrial is more appropriate. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ October 15, 1997 ■ Page 5 ■ c Alternate Koch agreed with the concept of the motion, but was hesitant to make a commitment to commercial/industrial and have the applicant believe it would be a '°slam (� dunk" later on. He noted that any changes to the General Plan or Specific Plan would have to come back to ALUC anyway. Mr. Campbell did not think action should be taken today since it was not advertised for a consistency finding. Mr. Hennigan agreed and withdrew his motion. Mr. Kammerer asked if ALUC would hold a special meeting for the project. There was a consensus that ALUC would hold a special meeting, with a better more detailed map. Commissioner Lambert was in favor of ALUC.reviewing whatever goes forward to the Planning Commission. VII. ALUC COMMISSION ITEMS: A. Consideration and Adoption of an MOU between the Airport Land Use Commission the City of Chico and the County of Butte to Establish Project Review Procedures. Update. on meetings of Chico City council (Oct 7) and Board of Supervisors (Oct 14). Mr. Parilo reported that the City of Chico rejected the MOU on a 3-3 vote. There were concerns about their position that they don't need to make over-riding findings, and a concern about how the MOU would be affected by the lawsuit by the California Pilots Association. Alternate Koch said there was a concern that the MOU could provide a platform for future lawsuits by ALUC. If the MOU contained language that the City would not be sued by ALUC for future over -rides it might be looked upon more favorably. Another option would be for ALUC to review projects submitted by the City for review but not consistency findings. Commissioner Campbell asked if the failure to complete the MOU would affect the funding of the CLUP's by Caltrans. Mr. Parilo said it appears that the MOU being in place was necessary for the state to fund the CLUP's. An item on today's agenda deals with preparation of the CLUP's using in- house staff. Relative to the CLUP's for the Chico and Oroville airports, once the costs are determined, a formal request for funding to the state should be made. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ October 15, 1997 ■ Page 6 ■ + BC'I T E COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION + • Department of Development Services • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 • AGENDA ITEM VLA TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: Department of Development Services DATE: September 23, 1997 REQUEST: Butte County Specific Plan Amendment #97-02 (Kammerer) on APN 047-250- 141: A request by the Planning Division for a preliminary review of a an amendment to the North Chico Specific Plan changing the zoning designation on approximately 230 acres located on the west side of Hicks Lane, approximately 1 mile south of Keefer Rd., north Chico area. The proposed change will be from SR -1 (Suburban Residential -1 acre min.) and SR-1/OS (Open Space) to SR-1/PD (Planned Development) and OS to SR -3 (Suburban Residential -3 acre min,)/PD. FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of October 15, 1997 SUMMARY: This project was initially submitted to ALUC for review at the April 16, 1997 meeting. No action was taken because the applicant had not presented a complete application and environmental documents were not available. The revised, project was submitted to staff on October 7, 1997, which did not provide adequate time to review the proposal. It is presented to the Commission to review and provide comments to the applicant and the County planning staff as to its general acceptability. All Commission concerns and comments will be compiled by ALUC staff and incorporated into a formal Consistency Finding for the November 19, 1997 meeting. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached Modification to Application for Specific Plan Amendment and Rezone. County planning staff and the applicant will present the project. ANALYSIS: Staff review consisted of land use compatibility and noise sensitivity with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP) and with the draft Policy Plan. Land Use Compatibility Staff reviewed the request pursuant to the currently adopted Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP). A determination was made that the project site is located within the Chico Municipal Airport Study Area as shown on CIC -6 in the CMAEP. Most of the project site is located in the horizontal surface as shown on CIC -5, and a portion of the northeast section of the project site is located in the 7:1 transitional surface as shown on CIC -5. The project site is located within Compatible Land Use Zone (CLUZ) V as depicted on CIC -13. The project site is located under the light aircraft traffic pattern as shown on CIC -2. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • The CMAEP has four recommendations for development of parcels located in a CLUZ V zone: (1) A zoning classification of SR -1 should be applied to the single parcel east of CIC contained within the Interim Zone boundary. (2) The least restrictive zoning for the remaining parcels should be SR. (3) The parcels with segments intruding into the flight corridor should not be developed in these segments. (4) Noise control construction procedures should be distributed for applications in this area at the time of the building plan check. The project site is currently zoned by the North Chico Specific Plan as OS (Open,Space), SR- 1/OS. Attachment 1 contains a map that shows the current zoning of the project site. Attachment 2 shows the zoning changes proposed by the applicant. The project will increase the density on portions of the project site due to the change in zoning. The northeastern portion of the project site adjacent to Hicks Lane is currently zoned OS. With this project, the zoning would change to SR-3/PD with an actual density of one unit per five acres. This will change the land use from open space to single-family dwelling units on 5 acre parcels or to clustered development creating the potential for conflict between the airport and the new land uses. The SR-1/OS zoning in the northwest portion of the project site would be changed to SR-1/PD. Overall, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and Rezoning will increase the population and building density of the project area above that of the existing zoning. Noise Sensitivity According to CIC -2 (1977 CNEL noise contours), approximately half of the project site is located within the 55 dB CNEL noise contour. CIC -3 (future CNEL noise contours} shows that approximately 75% of the project site will be within the 55 dB CNEL noise contour. The proposal will result in a change of land use on the north- portion of the project site from open space to suburban residential (1 dwelling unit per acre) or light manufacturing. The proposal will result in an increase in the use of that area, and subject people living or working in that area to a 55 to 60 dB CNEL noise level. Exhibit 4-4 in the CMAEP shows that single family residential uses are normally acceptable in these areas. Exhibit 4-4 also states that single family residential uses are conditionally acceptable in areas with a 55 to 70 dB CNEL noise level, provided that noise insulation features are included in the design of the homes this area. Exhibit 4-4 states that manufacturing uses are a normally acceptable in areas that have a 55 to 75 dB CNEL noise level. The FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program prepared for the City of Chico was also reviewed for additional noise impact evaluation. While it is understood that this document has not been accepted or adopted by the ALUC as a recognized noise study or environs plan, it does provide additional information to assist staff in the review of projects. The study shows that approximately 25% of the project site is currently within the 55 dB CNEL noise contour. The study also shows that approximately 35% of the project site will be within the 55 dB CNEL noise contour in 2010. It should be noted that all of the above data does not address single event noise levels over the project site. Draft Policy Plan • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 2 The project site, is located in the horizontal surface, which, is also referred to as the overflight zone. A portion of the,project site is located within the 7:1 transitional surface area, which can be considered to be an approach zone. The change from OS to SR-3/PD on the northeastern half of the project site will result in dwelling units at a density of one per five acres being placed in the 7:1 transitional.surface area. The draft Policy Plan that is presently under consideration indicates that single-family detached residential dwelling units are compatible for safety considerations in the approach zone, provided that the density is not less than five acres per single family dwelling unit. Most of the SR-1/PD zone will be located in the overflight area. Single-family detached residential dwelling units are compatible for safety considerations in the overflight zone. The draft Policy Plan states that single-family detached residential dwelling units are not compatible when the noise level exceeds 55 dB CNEL. Portions of the project site are located in areas that have a 55 to 60 dB CNEL noise level. This Plan is only in draft form and, has not been adopted nor does it replace the existing Environs Plan. However, this Plan does provide the baseline for the Chico Municipal Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan update that will direct land use compatibility in the area. I California Department of Transportation. Aeronautics Division The Caltrans Aeronautics Division commented on this project (letter attached). They recommend that all general/specific plan amendments and zoning decisions in the Chico Municipal Airport area be placed on temporary hold until: (1) the consistency issues facing the City of Chico have been satisfactorily answered, and (2) the county's airport land use plans are brought up to date as required by PUC Sections 21674.7 and 21765. These sections require the ALUC to prepare and adopt CLUPs that are based 'upon a 20 -year master plan or an Airport Layout Plan, as determined by the Aeronautics Program. They also require that the ALUC use the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook in the preparation of a CLUP. RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to_prepare consistency findings and continue item to the November 19, 1997 meeting. Attached: 1: North Chico Specific Plan Existing Land Use Map 2: Modification to Application for Specific Plan Amendment and _ Rezone. 3. Caltrans Aeronautics Program, April 3, 1997. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 3 FISTING NCSP LAND USE DESIGNATI I c O I S" 3"o I C SCALE LAND USE Q BRd SUBURBAN RESL 3 AC. MH. Q SWI SUBURBAN REEL 1 AC. MIN. L] RI LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ® 142 MED.DENSITY RESIDENTIAL _ RJ NCIH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL _ AL2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ® M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL _ C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL C-1 LIMITED COMMERCIAL ® BP BUSINESS A PROFESSIONAL - PO PUBUC/OUASI-PUBLIC ® GS GREENBELT/OPEN SPACE THE PRECISE BOUNDARY OF THE 'GREENBELT / OPEN SPACE* LAND USE DESIGNATION SHALL BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT. CROSSHATCH INDICATES LANDS TWAT MAY CONTAINBIOLOGICAL RESOURCE. OR SENSITIVE HABITAT AND REQUIRE SITE-SPECIFlC PLANNING AND REVIEW PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT. ALTERNATING COLOR INDICATES UNDERLYING LAND USE CATEGORY. saw -1°S. North Chico Specific Plan LAND USE MAP LEGEND e19""TAR16010OL ®". VAT1ON ®' COMIAJNITT PARK NBOBORNOOD PARI( SPECIFIC RAN AREA SOUNOAR I ... WHERE OF osLUFHCE f0TT OF CpCOI ^"^ SWEET WITH FLE)IBU AUONMEKT o STREET WITH Fl)® ALIGNMENT LAND USE Q BRd SUBURBAN RESL 3 AC. MH. Q SWI SUBURBAN REEL 1 AC. MIN. L] RI LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ® 142 MED.DENSITY RESIDENTIAL _ RJ NCIH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL _ AL2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ® M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL _ C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL C-1 LIMITED COMMERCIAL ® BP BUSINESS A PROFESSIONAL - PO PUBUC/OUASI-PUBLIC ® GS GREENBELT/OPEN SPACE THE PRECISE BOUNDARY OF THE 'GREENBELT / OPEN SPACE* LAND USE DESIGNATION SHALL BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT. CROSSHATCH INDICATES LANDS TWAT MAY CONTAINBIOLOGICAL RESOURCE. OR SENSITIVE HABITAT AND REQUIRE SITE-SPECIFlC PLANNING AND REVIEW PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT. ALTERNATING COLOR INDICATES UNDERLYING LAND USE CATEGORY. saw -1°S. North Chico Specific Plan LAND USE MAP 'A ,. .. �• PETEWIL • S•iATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY WILSON. Gover. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION — AERONAUTICS PROGRAM M.S. #40 1130 K STREET - 4TH FLOOR :).0. BOX 942873 SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001 (916) 322-3090 TDD (916) 654-4014 FAX (916) 327-9093 April'), 1997 ` Mr. Thomas Parilo, Director. Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Division 7 County Center, Drive Oroville, CA 9596573397 Dear Mr. Parilo: We have received a request for comments from your office regarding an application to amend the Butte County General Plan and the North Chico Specific Plan. "The request was .forwarded to us by our District 3, Office of Transportation Planning -Rural.. We apologize for the .delay in our response, and note in the interim, that our district office has indicated some concerns regarding the potential for flooding and impacts on traffic operations on the State Route 99 in their review of the proposed amendments. Our comments are related to the Chico Municipal Airport (CIC) and. associated issues. Since this parcel of land is located adjacent to CIC and lies within the plahning.boundary for the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), the project. is ultimately, subject to the' review of the ALUC for a determination of consistency with the airport's comprehensive land use plan-(CLUP). In accordance with -Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21676 (b), the ALUC review of an amendment to a general or specific plan is a mandatory action. We would like to comment on the specifics of this project, however; we feel that the larger consistency issues as they relate to Government Code (GC) Section 65302.3 and Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21676 should first be resolved. GC Section 65302.3 requires that city and county general/specific plans be consistent with the airport CLUP. PUC Section 21676 requires, among other things, that a finding of inconsistency by the ALUC must be, overruled with specific findings based upon substantive evidence in order for a local agency to poceed. We understand that counsel to the ALUC has concerns and has asked the City of Chico for clarification on these issues. , Mr. Thomas Parilo April'), 1997 Page In view of the unanswered questions, we recommend that all generaUspecific plan amendments and zoning ordinance decisions be placed on temporary hold until: (1) the consistency issues facing the City of Chico have been satisfactorily answered, and (2) the county's airport land use plans are brought up to date as required by PUC Sections 216.74.7 and 21675. These code sections require that the ALUC prepare and adopt CLUPs that are based upon a 20 -year master plan or an Airport Layout Plan, as determined by the Aeronautics Program. They also require that the ALUC use the'l993 Ai=rt Land Use Planning Handbook in•the preparation of a CLUP. It is our view that these basic requirements have not been met.y Although we could provide your agency with specific comments related to this project, our response would not be adequate without an airport CLUP that reflects current policies and the 1221 OLroort Land Use Planning Handbook. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance in these matters. Sincerely, ` CHRISTA-MARIA ENGLE Aviation Planner cc: Fred Gerst, Chair Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Chico City Council c/o Tom Lando, City Manager Terri Pencovic Caltrans, District 03 -Office of Transportation Planning -Rural -Jay White, President California Pilots Association BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES April 16, 1997 9:00 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Franklin, Hennigan, Lambert, Campbell, Alternates Koch and Combs and Chairman Gerst ,ALSO PRESENT: Paula Leasure, Principal Planner Thomas A. Parilo, Director Development Services Stephen Lucas, Planner Stephen Betts, Planner Diana Shuey, Records Secretary Art Hatley (Alternate) John Papadakis (Alternate) APPROVAL OF MINUTES of: March 19, 1997 It was moved for approval of the minutes by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Combs and carried unanimously. IV. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA None V. BUSINESS ITEMS: There was a discussion of changing the order of discussion of the items on the agenda, but the agenda order was not changed. A. A Request for ConsistencY_Findinas for Butte Countv General Plan Amendment #97-02 & Specific Plan 97-01 (Kammerer) on APN 047-250- 141: This proposal will amend the Butte County General Plan & the North Chico Specific Plan, changing the land use designation on 300+ acres.from Agricultural -Residential to Industrial, Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential, and from Industrial to Medium Density Residential, and from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential on property zoned SR -1, M-1, & R-2 (Suburban Residential, Light Industrial, & Residential) located on the west side of Hicks Lane, approximately .5 to1 mile south of Keefer Rd., north Chico area. Staff is not proposing a recommendation for this project. (Continued from March 19, 1997.) Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - April 16, 1997 0 • Stephen Betts summarized the staff report noting that Caltrans recommends that ALUC take no action until the consistency issues facing the City of Chico have been answered and the CLUP is brought up to date. Mr. Lucas said that in the 1978 Environs Plan the area is grazing and open land and residential or industrial uses are not addressed at the project* location. Caltrans has indicated the Environs Plan is outdated and is not adequate for project review. The Commission is faced with reviewing projects close to the airport with an inadequate plan. ALUC could find it possible to. make findings based on the existing Environs Plan and the Caltrans Handbook, or find that the Environs Plan is inadequate, dealing with it as a separate matter, and choose to invalidate the Environs Plan, falling back on the Caltrans Handbook as the primary source for information on consistency, or using the FAR PART 150 study for a noise analysis and some information. The clearest action would be to find the project cannot be reviewed based on the Environs Plan because it did not address residential or industrial uses at the location. Mr. Sanders said the Environs Plan did contemplate SR -1 land uses in the area. Mr.. Lucas said that some residential use was contemplated. A portion of the project is perhaps in question and a portion may not be as in question. Mr. Sanders said the industrial use would potentially be consistent with the draft Policy Plan. Ms. Leasure said industrial uses would have to meet height and density limitations. Commissioner Campbell asked what portion of the property is in the approach zone. Mr. Lucas said the vague maps of the Environs Plan don't address the approach zone configuration as does the Caltrans Handbook, which has a higher standard of review. He said about 25% of the northeast portion of, project overlaps the Approach Zone fan. M-1 uses would probably be compatible with the Handbook in those areas, based on density and height restrictions. Residential uses would be problematic in that area. Alternate Koch said the area proposed for SR -1 would be appropriate according to the North Chico Specific Plan. Mr.:Lucas said projects in the.NCSP are still required to have ALUC review. Alternate Koch said use or non-use of the Environs Plan should be consistent for all projects. He said the Environs Plan could be used for a finding of inconsistency since the land is designated as OS or SR which would not be consistent with. M-1. Mr. Lucas said the Environs Plan is inadequate for all areas Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes April 16, 1997 1 Alternate Koch said if the Plan is inadequate for this project, it should be inadequate for all projects, and no findings can be made based upon the Plan. Commissioner Lambert asked if the project would be consistent with the Handbook. Ms. Leasure said the densities, height restrictions and 'recommended zoning of the . Handbook could be used. Alternate Koch said ALUC has .previously determined that the Handbook does not substitute for the CLUP's or Environs Plan, Ms. Leasure said consideration of invalidation of the Environs Plan, would have to. be placed on a future agenda and public hearings be held. If a decision cannot be made on this project because of inadequacy of the existing Environs Plan, the project could be' continued until after the invalidation is considered. Commissioner Lambert felt the Caltrans Handbook is the only document available to use, not the out of date Environs plan, the unadopted Far Part 150 or the uncirculated draft policy plan. Commissioner,'Combs felt the:1978 Environs Plan is inadequate and should be junked. There was a discussion of whether the Caltrans guidelines would be adequate for project review and could serve as a de facto CLUP. Alternate Koch said the Handbook does not contain standards such as noise contours, so it cannot be used as a CLUP. Mr. Lucas said the outdated Environs Plan'can continue to be used to review projects which were not anticipated bythe Plan in .1978: Caltrans and Planning staff think the 'document is outdated and should not be used. The Caltrans Handbook can be used as a guidebook, in absence of a current CLUP. The unadopted noise study can be used to ',deal with noise: Commissioner Hennigan said the FAR PART 150 Noise Study has twice been presented to ALUC as a CLUP and been rejected. It has never been submitted as a Noise Study. It could then be adopted as a Noise Study, which would be one of the four elements of an Environs Plan. Commissioner Franklin said that in order to use the Caltrans Handbook, the"current Environs Plan needs to be agendized, found outdated and rejected. Could the Caltrans Handbook then be accepted as an interim CLUP with the FAR PART 150 Noise Study? Mr. Lucas said that would be an appropriate course of action. If the current Environs Plan is not going to be used, the item could be continued until a decision is made on what document to use. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - April 16, 1997. 2 Commissioner Campbell asked the status of the updated CLUP. Mr. Lucas said staff is in the process of reviewing the draftCLUP which has been prepared. Chairman Gerst asked if there is a consensus to place consideration .of invalidating the existing Environs Plan on the next agenda. Alternate Koch thought a legal opinion would be helpful. Ms. Leasure said invalidation of the CLUP and adoption of FAR PART 150 could be placed on the next agenda at which time discussion of the invalidation could take place. Public notice would be required.' Alternate Koch thought environmental review might be required if stricter standards are adopted, because in absence of a CLUP every single activity has to come before ALUC. Commissioner Franklin said discussion of that issue could take place next month. Ms. Leasure said staff will have to do research and contact legal counsel It was moved by Commissioner Hennigan and seconded by Commissioner Lambert to place the invalidation of the 1978 Environs Plan on the next agenda, as a public hearing and including the FAR PART 150 as a Noise Study.' The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Franklin, Hennigan, Lambert, Combs and Chairman Gerst NOES: Commissioner Campbell and Alternate Koch Alternate Koch suggested that the project (Kammerer) should be continued to the June meeting. Mr. Sanders said that if the current Environs Plan was used to make findings on the North Chico Specific Plan, that is the document that should be used for this project. Basically the change from OS to SR -1 is not a significant change. The OS designation had to do with wetlands which were thought to exist. Commissioner Hennigan said the OS designation was a result of negotiations with Steve Honeycutt. That area is a heavily used flight track and was added for the aviation community. Mr. Sanders said the SR-1/OS is flexible depending on what type of biotic resources are found on-site. Alternate Koch thought there is a conflict having M-1 across the street from single family homes. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - April 16, 1997 3 Mr. Sanders said that issue should be addressed in the environmental documents. Ms. Leasure suggested the Commission could delay a decision until the environmental documents have been completed. HEARING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC John Papadakis said a 3 mile extension to accommodate the future extension of the main runway has been discussed.. Mr. Papadakis suggested allowing for extension of the second runway which would come close to the proposed revised zoning. A clear zone should be provided for the second ary_runway. Also a passenger terminal on the west side should be considered, since it would be easily accessible. The route to the current terminal is not very safe. Mr. Papadakis thought that with the extension of BART to the San Francisco Airport, commuter traffic from Chico could increase. He noted that Hicks Lane is not parallel to the runway and should not be used as a demarcation line between zones. He supported maintaining open space areas around the airport. HEARING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC Commissioner Lambert felt there should be open space between residential and industrial areas. Commissioner Franklin said other than land uses that impact the airport, this commission should address zoning issues. K Alternate Koch said certain percentages of open space need to be retained for emergency landing potential. Commissioner Franklin felt existing open space designations should remain as open space. He said manufacturing would be alright, but he was opposed to residential uses. There was an agreement that any findings should be made on the entire application, not a portion of it. .Mr. Sanders said the Planning Commission may choose to approve some of the proposed changes, but not all of them. Mr. Lucas said the applicant might change his application if the current proposal does not meet with the approval of the Planning Commission. He suggested continuing the hearing until the specifics of the proposed zoning are known and the environmental documentation with proposed mitigations has been done. He recommended making a finding of inconsistency in concept since adequate findings cannot be made without the other information available, but the applicant could go forward knowing the ALUC does not endorse the proposed changes. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - April 16, 1997 4 C�1 Commissioner Franklin was opposed to a change to SR -1 in the project area because of impact on the airport. Commissioner Lambert asked what the time lines are on`the project. Mr. Sanders said Planning staff will probably be making a recommendation for the applicant to prepare a supplemental EIR to the North Chico Specific Plan EIR, which will allow for additional time. Ms. Leasure recommended the Commission take no action on the item and place the item on the agenda when the Specific Plan revision and the environmental documents are available. It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, and carried unanimously to take no action on the item and place the item on the agenda when the Specific Plan revision and the environmental documents are available. B. Consistency Findings and Review of Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Foothill Park East Project: A request for comments from ALUC and staff review of the documents. (Continued from March 19, 1997.) Mr. Lucas summarized the staff report. He said that in addition to inconsistency findings, ALUC recommended that five items should be addressed and implemented as mitigations of the project. The Recirculated EIR was written based upon ALUC's concerns, but it did not recommend adopting ALUC's recommendations as mitigations. Staff recommends ALUC strongly urge the City of Chico to recognize the five conditions ALUC feels are critical for the project. Alternate Koch said ALUC's comments will be in the final EIR so it might be redundant to restate ALUC's concerns. Mr. Lucas said that since the EIR addresses the, impacts, but does not have mitigations to address the impacts, the comments should be restated. Alternate Koch asked what are the mechanics to implement ALUC's recommendations Mr: Lucas said the legal requirement is for responses to the comments. Alternate Koch thought that the same comments from ALUC might generate the same response. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes -April 16, 1997 5 +B 'ITE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSI®N+ ■ Department of Development Services •■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ■ (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 ■ j AGENDA ITEM - V. A TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission DATE: April 8, 1997 ITEM: Butte County General Plan Amendment #97-02 & Specific Plan 97-01 (Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141: A request for consistency findings for an amendment to the Butte County General Plan & the North Chico Specific Plan changing the land use designation on 300+ acres from Agricultural -Residential to Industrial, Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential, and from Industrial to Medium Density Residential, and from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential on property zoned SR -1, M-1, & R-2 (Suburban Residential, Light Industrial, & Residential) located on the west side of Hicks Lane, approximately .5 to 1 mile south of Keefer Rd., north Chico area. Staff is not proposing a recommendation for this project. FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of April 16, 1997 SUMMARY: The, County of Butte is presently processing the above mentioned project and has submitted a comment sheet and map to ALUC for review and comment. Staff is not making a recommendation to the Commission, and requests that the Commission direct staff to prepare findings for consistency or inconsistency with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. ANALYSIS: This Butte County project is an amendment to the Butte County General Plan & the North Chico Specific Plan changing the land use designation on 300+ acres from Agricultural -Residential to Industrial, Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential, and from Industrial to Medium Density Residential, and from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential. This project will also rezone portions of therprojectsite from SR-1/OS to SR -1, OS to M-1 or SR -1, and R-2 to R-1. The project site is located on the west side of Hicks Lane; approximately .5 to 1 mile south of Keefer Rd., north Chico area, and is within the North Chico Specific Plan area. The project description was referred to the Airport Land Use Commission staff on February 5, 1997 for comment as part of the routine Request for Comments. Staff review consisted of land use compatibility and noise sensitivity with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP) and with the draft Policy Plan. Staff is not proposing a recommendation for this project. Land Use Compatibility Staff reviewed the request pursuant to the currently adopted Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP). A determination was made that the project site is located within the Chico Municipal Airport Study Area as shown on CIC -6 in the CMAEP. Most of the project site is located in the horizontal surface as shown on CIC -5, and a portion of the northeast section of the project site is located in the 7:1 transitional surface as shown on CIC -5. The project site'is located within Compatible Land Use Zone (CLUZ) V as depicted on CIC -13. The project site is located under the light aircraft traffic pattern as, shown on CIC -2. ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ w . • The CMAEP has four recommendations for development of parcels located in a CLUZ V zone: (1) A zoning classification of SR -1 should be applied to the single parcel east of CIC contained within the Interim Zone boundary. (2) The least restrictive zoning for the remaining parcels should be SR. (3) The parcels with segments intruding into the flight corridor should not be developed in these segments. (4) Noise control construction procedures should be distributed for applications in this area at the time of the building plan check. The project site is currently zoned by the North Chico Specific Plan as OS (Open Space), SR-1/OS, SR - 1, R-2, M-1, and BP (Business & Professional). Attachment 1 contains a map that shows the current zoning of the project site. Attachment 2 shows the zoning changes proposed by the applicant. The project will increase the density on portions of the project site due to the change in zoning. The northeastern portion of the project site adjacent to Hicks Lane is currently zoned OS. With this project, the zoning would change to either M-1 or SR -1, depending on the applicant's preference. This will change the land use from open space to single-family dwelling units on 1 acre parcels; or to light manufacturing. In either case, this currently open, space will be developed, which will create the potential for conflict between the airport and the new land uses. The current M-1 zoning adjacent to Hicks Lane, south of Mud Creek, would remain as M-1. The SR- 1/OS zoning in the northwest portion of the project site would be changed to SR -1, while the SR -1 zoning just north of Mud Creek will remain SR -1: The R-2 zoning south of Mud Creek would change to R-1, reducing the density of people in that area. The BP zoning on the southern edge of the project site will remain as BP. Overall, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and Rezoning will increase the population and building density of the project area above that of the existing zoning. The change from R-2 to R-1 would result in less density on that portion of the project site. Noise Sensitivity According to CIC -2 (1977 CNEL noise contours), approximately half of the project site is located within the 55 dB CNEL noise contour. CIC -3 (future CNEL noise contours) shows that approximately 75% of the project site will be within the 55 dB CNEL noise contour. The proposal will result in a change of land use on the north portion of the project site from open space to suburban residential (1 dwelling unit per acre) or light manufacturing. The proposal will result in an increase in the use of that area, and subject people living or working in that area to a 55 to 60 dB CNEL noise level. Exhibit 4-4 in the CMAEP shows that single family residential uses are normally acceptable in these areas. Exhibit 4-4 also states that single family residential uses are conditionally acceptable in areas with a 55 to 70 dB CNEL noise level, provided that noise insulation features are included in the design of the homes this area. Exhibit 4-4 states that manufacturing uses are a normally acceptable in areas that have a 55 to 75 dB CNEL noise level. ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ The FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program prepared for the City of Chico was also reviewed for additional noise impact evaluation. While it is understood that this document has not been accepted or adopted by the ALUC as a recognized noise study or environs plan, it does provide additional information to assist staff in the review of projects. The study shows that approximately 25% the project site is currently within the 55 dB CNEL noise contour. The study also shows that approximately 35% of the project site will be within the 55 dB CNEL noise contour in 2010. It should be noted that, all of the above data does not address single event noise levels over the project site. Draft Policy Plan The project site is located in the horizontal surface, which is also referred to as the overflight zone. A portion of the project site is located within the 7:1 transitional surface area, which can be considered to be an approach zone. The change from OS to SR -1 on the northern half of the project site will result in dwelling units, at a density of one per acre, being placed in the 7:1 transitional surface area. The draft Policy Plan that is presently under consideration indicates that single-family detached residential dwelling units are compatible for safety considerations in the approach zone, provided that the density is not less than five acres per single family dwelling unit. This project will result in one dwelling unit per acre, which is below, that required by the draft Policy Plan. Most of the SR -1 zone will be located in the overflight area. Single-family detached residential dwelling units are compatible for safety considerations in the overflight zone. The change from OS to M-1 will also increase the density of a portion of the project site. Manufacturing uses are compatible for safety considerations in the overflight and approach zones, provided that there is no more than 25 persons per acre. This project may lead to a large concentration of people, with the amount of people per acre depending on the number and types of manufacturing businesses located in the M-1 zone: The draft Policy Plan states that single-family detached residential dwelling units are not compatible when the noise level exceeds 55 dB CNEL.- Portions of the project site are located in areas that have a 55 to 60 dB CNEL noise level. Manufacturing uses are compatible in areas with a noise level of 55 to 60 dB CNEL. This Plan is only in draft form and has not been adopted nor. does it replace the existing Environs Plan. However, this Plan does provide the baseline for the Chico Municipal Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan update that will direct land use compatibility in the area. California Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division The Caltrans Aeronautics Division commented on this project (letter attached). They recommend that all general/specific plan amendments and zoning decisions in the Chico Municipal Airport area be placed on temporary hold until: (1) the consistency issues facing the City of Chico have been satisfactorily answered, and (2) the county's airport land use plans are brought up to date as required by PUC Sections 21674.7 and 21765. These sections require the ALUC prepare and adopt CLUPs that are based upon a 20 -year master plan or an Airport Layout Plan, as determined by the Aeronautics Program. They also require that the ALUC use the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook in the preparation of a CLUP. A ■ Butte County . Airport Land Use Commission ■ RECOMMENDATION: Staff is not submitting.a recommendation to the Commission for this project. Staff requests that the Commission direct staff to prepare findings for consistency or inconsistency with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan: Attached: 1: Existing Land Use Map 2: Proposed Land Use Map change KIPLANNINGWLUCIAPR97UCAMMERER.RPT ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ LC -21 'AMENDED . USE DESIGNATIONS -- ALTE7AW ` TWO Attachment 2 I s" 3000 -Ati 7. 1 SCALE 4 • L - ' - _•_ `_1. . '\ - 7'F11 •r: 1 `. mss'•. - �:-�. _ .�`-:; V• \y dlr Q. ` �•.`f\:`�j7i.r� �I i .1 .1. r'_TTTI --Ly •�--- .:• Aq..l ♦ ^ .. 99 ,_ � : •` ��w�: `, `• ♦♦: - �. ��' is 1 � ::tar �� ib '' • v"':r.•: a..," :>, •.: � ...- .. � .I • \.. .acv •9'. j. jy: t..:� ;;.... 1 [.��_� , , 1' \ \ \.. i I♦ r•.r I T N :..r.<.,, .:. ,i�� in„r."�.:w:;.:•:: 1 .�. Y� .• -�(:. 1 .......... wJYr �•••.:� . , Mr � A. LEGEND •, ELEMENTARY SCMOOL - w • i r �... .. '__``\ -- i .a`crMPZ>Y' .1�_. :�1se. °o�'�'A'•''•,a��',o ii •••_ ,`•p; .\�,� FIRE STATION 9 COMMu TYPARK �'\\ t It ev:;:�c�in••. ,�., h�• ° ` •',, y. Ei NOGHBORNOOD PARK - • .:\� Y' ` v.p, 6w ii ` - `l 1�c:• :;�, Y -° _ ___ .. ' SPECIFIC RAN AREA BOUNDARYSPHERE OF - `, 'A.• N.i%Yi.:V ` "`.'_Y >:H•' \: �Jj�+ -t \ i '1 INFLUENCE • ♦♦ ' ,1 / y».. :��, • `''"v� Ise .¢h�, ` . (CITY OF 011001 ; o. M`•" �'•ws, :` :x, ' • ' ♦, c LE BLE AU \ .... ..1.��:.,',�e\t• _ • nnn STREET MYMf N GNMENI ,•, %s,• ,.�:�t• �`•�,. "t;. __ ••� ` • • t� STREET WITH FI)® AUGNMENT :Z• J•}'' 1 - �� .'`I:` , '3Y. #•'?\ 1 : . LAND USE "' �:, _♦ Sao .' � SUBURBAN RESI.] AC. MK i - - 1 T � • ': ___ •_.�y,ly�. •C,.�, �T�r^• ^• j. •'— . O Sal ` SUBURBAN RESI.1 C. MK I r 1 :j�'�' •�? : •_L ,'\. 'y 'r'' at lOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL L_, •; ♦ % _ .I �� - _ ; .. • '* •i'' ; •Cv. •, ; 66L i' P-2 MED. DENSITY RESIDENTIAL _ • RJ HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL _ ,M3 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL M•I LIGHT INOUSTRIAI _ C-2 . GENERAL COMMERCUI C•1 LIMITED COMMERCIAL _ BP BUSINESS A PROFESSIONAL • ` J ♦ ' _ North Chico Specific .Plan_ PO PUBUCIGUASI•PU13LIC F. {_x<Fjj Y OS GREENBELT/OPEN SPACE 1 • ` * - THE PRECISE BOUNDARY OF THE 'GREENBELT r LAND � D '� ^ �• w w OPEN SPACE* LAND USE DESIGNATION SNAIL BE I'✓ HJ '\Y/' OETERIAMED AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT. i - - - AP CROSS•HATCH INDICATES LANDS THAT MAY ,FAINBIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OR SENSITIVE AT ANO REQUIRE SITE-SPECIFIC PLANNING_ '� _ • + r �« REVIEW PRIOR TO `DEVELOPMENT. ' • _ � ' • � � i'/ RNATINO COLOR INDICATES UNDERLYING IA - NO USE CATEGORY. STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATI AND HOUSING AGENCY • PETE WILSON, Goverrc DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AERONAUTICS PROGRAM M.S. #40 .' 30 K STREET - 4TH FLOOR .0. BOX 942873 SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001 (916) 322-3090 - TDD (916) 654-4014 FAX (916) 327-9093 Mr. Thomas Parilo, Director Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Division 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 Dear Mr. Parilo: April'), 1997 Amendments to the Butte County General Plan & the North Chico Specific Plan GPA 97-02 SP 97-01 We have received a request for comments from your office regarding an application to amend the Butte' County General Plan and the North Chico Specific Plan. The request was forwarded to us by our District 3, Office of Transportation Planning -Rural. We apologize for the delay in our response, and note in the interim, that our district office has indicated some concerns regarding the potential for flooding and impacts on traffic operations on the State Route 99 in their review of the proposed amendments. Our comments are related to the Chico Municipal Airport (CIC) and associated issues. Since this parcel of land is located adjacent to CIC and lies within the planning boundary for the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), the project is ultimately subject to the review, of the ALUC fora determination of consistency with the airport's comprehensive land use plan (CLUP). In accordance with Public Utilities Code (PUC) -Section 21676 (b), the ALUC review of an amendment to a general or specific plan is a mandatory action. We would like to comment on the specifics of this project, however, we feel that the larger consistency issues as they relate to Government Code (GC) Section 65302.3 and Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21676 should first be resolved. -GC Section 65302.3 requires that city and county general/specific plans be consistent with the airport CLUP. PUC Section 21676 requires, among other things, that a finding of inconsistency by the ALUC must be overruled with specific findings based upon substantive evidence in order for a local agency to proceed. We understand that counsel to the ALUC has concerns and has asked the City of Chico for clarification on these issues. Mr. Thomas Parilo April 3, 1997 Page 2 In view of the unanswered questions, we recommend, that all generallspecific_plan amendments and zoning ordinance decisions be placed on temporary hold until: (1) the consistency issues facing the City of Chico have been satisfactorily answered, and (2) the county's airport land use plans are brought up to date as required by PUC Sections 21674.7 and 21675. These code sections require that the ALUC prepare and adopt CLUPs that are based upon a 20 -year master plan or an Airport Layout Plan, as determined by the Aeronautics Program. They also require that the ALUC use the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook in the preparation of a CLUP. It is our view that these basic requirements have not been met. Although we could provide your agency with specific comments related to this project, our response would not be adequate without.an airport CLUP that reflects current policies and the 1M Amort Land Use Planning Handbook. Please let us know if we can be of further,assistance in these matters. Sincerely, C CHRISTA-MARIA ENGLE Aviation Planner cc: Fred Gerst, Chair " Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Chico'City Council . c/o Tom Lando, City Manager Terri Pencovic Caltrans, District 03- Office of Transportation Planning -Rural Jay White, President California Pilots Association f A. Property owner shall sign an avigation easement granting the right of continued use of the Chico Municipal Airport in the airspace above the subject parcel and acknowledging any and all existing or potential -airport operational impacts. B. North Chico Specific Plan conditions shall apply to this project, including the placement of "Aircraft Overflight Zone" signs at the north and south ends of Garner Lane. G: Review of Foothill Park East Draft Environmental Impact Report. This item was received by the Department of Development Services on March 5, 1997 and was made available to ALUC staff on March 10, 1997. A review could not be prepared in the time available. Staff has requested the City of Chico extend the review period from April 14, 1997 to April 17, 1997. Ms..Leasure said the project was received too late to prepare a staff review, but the City of Chico has extended the review period, and she recommended continuing the hearing to the April 16, 1997, meeting. It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by, Commissioner Campbell, and carried unanimously, to continue the hearing of Foothill Park East Draft Environmental Impact Report to April 16, 1997. ti H. A Request for Comments for Butte County General Plan Amendment #97-02 & Specific Plan 97-01 (Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141 • This item has recently been circulated for preliminary comments. Neither a draft specific plan nor environmental documents are available: Staff recommends the Commission continue the item to April 16, 1997 and direct staff to ' request additional information from the Department of Development Services for use in preparing consistency findings. Ms. Leasure said that additional information is needed for this item, and she recommends' a continuance to April 16, 1997. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Franklin, and carried unanimously to continue the hearing for the Butte County General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (Kammerer) to April 16, 1997. I. A Request for Consistency Findings forBufte County, Use Permit 97-17 i (Anderson Brothers Corp.) on APN 047-270-027: A Use Permit to allow a 500 unit mini -storage business on 'property zoned C-2 (General Butte County Airport Land Use Commission - March 19, 1997 4 AMENDED 7. USE MATIONS - kLTERmTju_v. TWO f73t • � 0 lsoo 0000 , - � ' SCALE ' 1. f :• • % I. - ' .............. . .. } ' • ,�.0 �r � ...� >r.;li��\�1�.h�1��'r'i I�i-{I-,. .. .L. ij:.i:_,_.7`I /.� �`\�:� .� ... !t LEGEND ♦'♦ '♦♦\` EIEMENrARTscHOGL ♦♦� ® FIRE STATION COMMUNITY PARK mNEIGHBORHOOD PARK SPECIFIC PLAN AREA BOUNOART ... SPHERE 61NFLUENCE - (OTT OF CHICO) STREET WITH FLEME LE AUGNMENI STREET WITH FIXED ALIGNMENT -- LAND USE SR -7 SUBURBAN RESI.J AC. MN., 0 SRI SUBURBAN RES'- 1 AC. MN. R -T LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R-2 MEO. DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R3 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL . _ M-2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL I �. C•2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL C-1 LIMITED COMMERCIAL ' BP BUSINESS b PROFESSIONAL PO PUBLIC/OUASI.PUBLIC •:Gv OS GREENBELT/OPEN SPACE THE PRECISE BOUNDARY OF THE -GREENBELT OPEN SPACE- LAND USE DESIGNATION SHALL BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT. CROSSHATCH INDICATES LANDS THAT MAY CONTAIN BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OR SENSITIVE 'HABITAT AND REQUIRE SITE.SPECIFIC PLANNING AND REVIEW PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT. ALTERNATING COLOR INDICATES UNDERLYING LAND USE CATEGORY. w -7w - y ' >. •: '•, J. I • TRM FITX I EEL:: - - - - - - . . . . . . . . A WIVAAME lit 00 r �t�... £ i��. :�,�.,.fs•.�,.,..�.-,..:•fit '' -_ rbr. � ������� ��`, :If .�. � .a.. V» ,;..2i- �w�S"�) ` r tea• � �`� �•,�': �``•.� i `k'ae' �.�•-ate, °.Yr:ti:'.*,�Z�°•,�s 1 c• , T . �_. � Ny;:ri't: '� � —\� kip^:;..- "'>'- 't?'• 'ta 'w �I V � �' • �•�\.' : `� � _�` Ir - �_' ��., \'`.y ••tai., '>rw �vt• ',4. ,. .> .. . Noah Chico Specific Plan LAND USE MAP'. r � -k r j 1•_ rte- • t ' _4j4 i^ . .. ^.7• r ♦ K R .t t a t J 'i _ • JTI A t P. i n t 1' • f S, i. y 1 r _ ' ti � ♦ L f l c ♦ w w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I I I I I I I ... I I I I I I I I I I I I C ; M _ _.. . . . . . . . . . . . . A&s�e, 256:- Stephens — Biotic Assessment Page 11, t. r r LAND ftE ZOI!1 (CLUZ)..tG�► l:4� y ���� � � X � � � ����� [ 4 h /�V til ,^ It�1:OR't ������RU+10� -}air _ /} �s � `�"��i j•. r t..�i�� �cI! � 1 � y 3 ti � CNEL 65'� 'k, - big ti > - z �, -{•. •�`'- ' � J, •` ` {�"�r�rt' � 1 � .. �.• � \. ..1 Sl t ,-!{��. 1 6 Ji.� {j�; �.t kY.'� � �0.�. �'�l ; �' '�t ~•* [ i •C.�� P: � • • thy. .- u a4•, T�! !n• �r ate, � Y �"rr' +. � 1 t �•#'` Ctrl ��'G,�'1 f�""t.k••�" � 1 w ��,i �' s `' '� 65th OTECT_� `�►REi�.� .amu ; � 4 � t' �f °��f�>..••��r-' / � , ,�� ,, ` CNEL ?t' 1, f t•w. e {! .:. i a R r, ' � � �'►� �'r F �. • . �« � �. :�� � �, 1 T' ' • -. 1 L'i .; Y 4 { i fff .{ > 1 /%:�' �T I i^t ''4 f ,�}!� L �.'.� { Jit • ,. c 09 Don' t 'er)�i. ..� � 4-"� � �QaRFila � • !� �~ � - r�Ml.7r } e ar�`+ < J• ,y ;r � °� >1• �®v. ' �;1'�'a`J° J� gasc^`' 'i'e:� r •:'.r -.-ay CNE55 L ' i` ! r" `- - 4' f{ � y i.�� r . �. F„•ta�,", t•t L �GYi 'G ,: ;° a ;�`��r\eQ' '•" � i CNELi ;.gpdO�yTOF CQR' DO 5 >d„g�.i ;- �' 1�'<'� \,.. t+ ` w > -Ac+•S �..w, r y ^fr �i f r'�, ': •�ih'.`.•.a �'c. •6 ':�>? ;n„C:.o•.i �'''� �£\ , o, d;y'nv'•ih�;>. .:.F :. T1 7w� 1" _�� , ,.. Cc '�, >...Y �! �k - \`\�;'J �3, w : ""Siy .�r ` ��. 1 � } - • .. ♦>C: �� 1 vi„ '`''�aEk:;.; i"'n�Ni r,Z) ,� .-'<4� A .,w.•�"-�... '! ^� r. 'St '{ J• r- • } i,tt. r v f" �- .yt��3<;;:::::'. <n. <\ >< +>�.`�<`IF • i ,�+ 's. 'F S �'�• r Ff; nh <ti Q•l`���.".ca �, •��1'► t7 , � kr' � - t� R e� Y= �'- !\«`'{ t�' � r .�,'y`, �%...:..:.>\�.�i��yf l: �,'k•.A�w r,•.t+. �. ♦ t Y' pl�"� • <j•S vf', '>'v Sw•k: / .:� n: • \ ra .us%oo• =� ✓'' � J +S. f .� yr <�>• r L F . i �� ,y,',''G. . F s. `�a . FLIGHT • [¢ a Q4�-;''"` _j•' ;,{nom T,3 • 7 i, fCt '+ilhi•M: L 5 'SAY << _- 'T y� 4J. r• III w •o.� ,•� ,. a' �!.�;yr�,��� � � \ �y;}E'' J.j j ,. > - Yk�. � �, , } �, J+a^,a\ r:. �w _ •,Jr _ e .i "E wcao�a,... rotau .t*' j(% � q�i� ><�\v, .<T- ��� 1 ,'��� T�•x; f .` ��innt��`T`�'^y � Y � M y j q . o V y Z `\ I➢ / r a r 'T \: r A i, a> iy?ya+a ry r u •gam,, ... a ?\� �� '.•• �`i2 ,: c, 4vv Y>c. M r r "� .:e K. .. ..y 1r ♦ r n.eY-,� �.. • y ' ' , J•\`a�,�F',�i ��� " sir �� < r , 1 f ;F � / � �. � �" � ...,f /` • . :�, /a3�:• to♦ :: 3�'ka,�„4 �"Sf t ` ' - S '�� gyy��'�r�•5•Q'' •^ ~-�•� � r �5' (�2y6a.\r45 mi OF 2 t< V tv ."wu.•.n"n `�• �'.,` bn ): " `• `. f -l.. ; 4 A •wy5\ hS ,. 4•r. 'yam a:::.o�!$;:4.•>ix�• '� .,�. '� b l r 'e • y. .- �: `L4 cf�"� <. a�• y ° Q•i.. S �. 4'_{<>,c - ' �•• • s ! • � 4 ' � � Ar'+>'<>yi`f\ `Vf4 Y 'r iJA`<'O� h' '•�'':�> rINY�'li\ 4 4 r'9 '{A,c �.�•� t>' \ 1 � 'G,> ..'�1,y�}�.''-r; %�''rn�hT�-br<� <� �fti� `�. CsjP�'f�M�a� �/ � ' :�. •r,. +r < .�`f�>�� . ••` t' � F?��'3 -5. , . - .r ,s-: ` ♦�, `" � t, s �; -� 7,d�+9�."'�c: .F t i' , F' 1 .�'r�:` � , ' N Fl ` ♦r' <I 'yam.^ r> n Flh , ^ ,/iC/i � :' �i.� tt -a,-. f � ,, � t '<� :�� fi .r.�• s� � < ���++ v 6>v:a ?\y n +4F >• /YYY` •,�• •C �^ i ;.: +, �- 'GY , `n_ L i `>. i SS � �. .0 ., �4.- "� t af`L hk` > r *+Vt•�s'i.'?`_ La' _ . ,. ♦ Fta �-, •t.,�.'a-! � .+F r' � �,{-.t} ��, - y`. tr r� v,'� "' �'� f, � iC�:.`c' .>{�'Z � ;;.���;-�• .. /�, �J � 1. .. tft t • ~, y .y�.yk r t•>"� '� . f�. �'',}. �y a - 1� ti• +' f ,.,-f ' r � ,}._� �♦ ��y, ••_ y �. -n%S ; f7 �•. 4 '1-`,r.I ' Y �`, •� i {� ti ,�,-. •� �'y.- �1 'C ��,. b. :1 �' • ;,{r- ! ' e �. 1, .4,': "'�f'Y s'r�t�� yr t 1 s ti� � �y � "*'� •�~ f}� R z� I <��., � <�t�f�Y .�' �.• It y • 1000 em TRAra Mssloh iiii10 POLES *POLE ' POLE.SN .. �� ,(•. POLES; .. ,'-J '•�� :�' J. s, , ,.�J/ '.'�::''•• , HOR. fZONTAL SURFAC l p� JMJf Q�-'�: v:.• r Mpn� +: ov �`` \ :� ;i' 1.J 41 .7:1 7:ITRANSLTIONALSURF CE G �,�?� / P(tOACHrSURFACE 50' PROACH SURFACE :jq= �''t fir► i� I "�';� •\ 1 7'L' T:I 7 6TRAN L TI :I 7:1 4 :1/ •,' 1 ' SURFACE P '3 :, _ '' _ . i �--x _ ;- '' �. • •,' � /� • ,,;;,:;ate—;_—•�--. :. J . lw •BVI::, _..,. :___;—� �� _ l � �` - - — , ' 1•; : �/' �" •% � � is '/ l � 'ai ,'... • �" ,�� ` � '20:I,CONICAN FACE' -2 _ _ •. � \- •, _1�_� � �'-. �l p% if - ..i �ii.Ji� . � . � %.•' . is '�C ?e!�'� , �•'� '/ PLAN TERRAIN SCALE: I"•3,000' OBSTRUCTION 10,000 0 J mm� --mm AIRPORT ENVIRONS PLAN Q m S M M N R W 3 SOCIATES. INC. 7 J RUNWAY 13L -31R 450 m mm� --mm AIRPORT ENVIRONS PLAN W=mm- SOCIATES. INC. Checked Date 0 RUNWAY 13R -31L 150 :50 150 10,000 PROFILES SCALE: HORIZ. 1"-2,000' VERT. I •100 NOTE: GROUND PROFILES ARE A COMPOSITE OF THE HIGHEST ELEVATIONS -ACROS THE WIDTH OF THE APPROACH. Designed TMS Drawn JRH AIRPORT ENVIRONS PLAN I SOCIATES. INC. Checked Date 0%1 aan^ aa" Mal ""/1mw&" A ■ •r AF rXID1011DI USE DESIGNATIONS — ALTERNATIVE TWO o ISO* 7000 . SCALE • I '77- Ji-- .� U .t \a:.•...-9.: J J ' y� �._ •' + _ tif t f 17TH, 44,: Citi L�T,— 1 e. 'n.. '•:. ear•, •per t - j :� ,, _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ .. „ _ cy;_ . _ _--�._.. 99 v� - a7 : I r u • I :::\ \., 11711.:. 1. J t•'`..i�':: .. --'I \\\»• '3'`('i'^''i x.11" , T,... y. \. f LEGEND _. ( ELEMEN TARY SCHOOL A.\. 'A's .2 �' \ '?\::: .Ii •':``''`. .I . eco -.+::6 :':• 1 FIRE STATION _\ .. \': �. '. :•'• � .wtt,;r:, . .}• , GOMINNITY PARK i ♦ \Y y'r I , —° �,� NOCHBORH000 PARK * ;\� w�;, off.;..-\ •.I f• I �• 'SPECIFIC PLAN AREA BOUNDARY ,\1.•: S �''` yr. �'?lt.` -_ ""':`.,..\: ... SPHERE OF INFLUENCE , •'.�' �,•a::.`. •.... .:. •1 ^`` • I (CITY OF CHICOI STREET WI MFLEIIDLE ALIGNMENT : ✓ .' •`� ., ;�>�!`;�}. }�'3:�}; o S7REET VAM FIXED ALIGNMENT ( :��:%:�: ,• H LAND USE --- .. \ 'aab: iii- •.__ SR7 SUBURBAN RES1.7 AC. MIN. .. Q SRT SUBURBAN REST. I AC. MN: I •. � ::.;i I .� - '.:., '•::9 _ 's PI 1 R1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL I / R3 MED. DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RJ HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL _ K2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ht'I LIGHT INDUSTRIAL • C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL D� C-1 - LIMITED COMMERCIAL • BP BUSPROFESSIONAL ® PCPUBUC/OUAS7.PUDLIC . NOiTh% LCO _ Specific C Plan, OS GREENBELT /OPEN SPACE THE PRECISE BOUNDARY OF THE 'GREENBELT ; LAND � U S E M A P f OPEN SPACE' LAND USE DESIGNATION SHALL BE I ' DETERMINED AT •THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT. r CROSSHATCH INDICATES LANDS THAT MAY ' CONTAIN BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OR SENSITIVE _ HABITAT AND REO UIRE SITE-SPECIFIC PLANNING AND REVIEW PPoOR TO DEVELOPMENT. - ALTERNATING COLOR INDICATES UNDERLYING LAND USE CATECARY. , t er FE . I AHMED ' USE DESIGNATIONS-' IALTE NAMUE TWO 0 1700 7000 SCALE .._i ... ; Ntt NO l ��q•o� c '4:..v+4•'>S orf ' ar::N ` i v 4:IX{r. '.l.!%{ G• :}Mwhnvw• ./T. :�.1--___. LEGEND � \��. � ,_„� #:-::'•%+� ' ^v lI ' t1�p :a . ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ,`\ •'� % Hl i�y{%::4� �! FIRE STATION , �i I : .:.':{ ` i^ '•}R:6 1 C+d �` „L_. COMM.INITY PARK I _`• - —_. 0 - l -� NOGNBORHOOOPAPK G-.�•}M1,\, 1 �:;:•-�,:.'`1.i-, _0 �_-___ ' .. {\:' {•..' -_—\= '> _ {r. ;F. w�.'+ Vit ' l .y} ; 1 SPECIFIC PIAN AREABOIIIIOAAY ♦ �~'' # +A�y„r —7 � ♦ •Q .�:} '' +•. - ... SPHERE OF INFLUENCE . •{ 1 '•Nib'%" O1 .'% { ,Sf.Y '{� + "\}'`:+ 1`q ``�� ••1 \ (OTT OF CIICO) `,�} I J.: •:{ J�':\:�'.V.+}�'.}�"•4,�,? , ••fc• n STREET WIM FIE%BlE AUGNMENf _ � i. •• '• \ - ti ��� .4`": +? . -_ _ . •y 'mss''`^_ .-?w7. � ?f..:r;1`� I:., +k;�+ � `'��� - -, ,, o STREET VATH FIXED AUGNM NT •� �^•" _ '! , .'''vQN`}} ,•'!iiv l�ih rl{2„ X"h G:. }4} 1 �+ •. tg}+�• }}ate\�a�- ':,e �i, ...'<'.: .'Cv � �O' '1 �<; ' . .:�.`. �V +nam{; : i ,..... _... �~^I•`•."..f' 'fi}. '. I , � T LAND USE I�...::�L: ilii ''.`' • _ SR7 SUBURBAN RESI.7 AC. MN:: , ._.-- - -- . - - \iIT•cSl r � � '—Taw aL �'—'- Q., SRT SUBURBAN RESLI AC. l.}.1 1.•.—�''{, L, Rl LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 8-2 MED. DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - RJ `HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL M-2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL :? M1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL . C12 GENERAL COMMERCIAL • '• - C -t LIMITED COMMERCIAL BP BUBUC/ 8PROFESSIONAL ® PO PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC Noah Chico Specific Plan OS GREENBELT/OPEN SPACE THE PRECISE BOUNDARY THE 'GREENBELT / OPEN SPACE- LAND USE DESIGNATION SHALL BE OETERMNEO AT THE TIMEE OF DEVELOPMENT. `A_ �, D. �� MSA P' ' A US • CROSS -HATCH INDICATES LANDS THAT MAY I - CONTAIN BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OR SENSITIVE- I \ ' 'HABITAT AND REOUIRE SITE-SPECIFIC PLANNING AND REVIEW PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT'. ALTERNATING COLOR INDICATES UNDERLYING" LAND USE CATEGORY. . " / , ISTING NCSP LAND USE DESIGNATIO a' t;0 0 1500 7000 SGLE LEGEND ® ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ® FIRE STATION. M: CONNUMTY PARK �1 NBGHBORHOOO PARK GENERAL COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AREABOUNDART , 61 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ' (CITY OF CHICON ^^� STREET WITH FLENBLE ALIGNMENT STREET WITH FIXED AUGNMENT L.AIVU UJt Q SR -7 SUBURBAN RESL 3 AC, MIN. Q SR -1 SUBURBAN RESI.1 AC. MIN. L7 R-1 LOW. DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 142 MEO. DENSITY RESIDENTIAL _ RJ HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BP BUSINESS 6 PROFESSIONAL PO PUBUC/QUASI-PUBLIC OS GREENBELT/OPEN SPACE. THE PRECISE BOUNDARY OF THE -GREENBELT / OPEN SPACE" LAND USE DESIGNATION SHALL BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT. - CROSS -HATCH INDICATES LANDS THAT MAY CONTAINBIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OR SENSITIVE HABITAT AND REQUIRE SITE-SPECIFIC PLANNING AND REVIEW PRIOR TO. DEVELOPMENT. ALTERNATING COLOR INDICATES UNDERLYING LAND USE CATEGORY. North Chico Specific Plan LAND USE MAP M-2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ® M -L LIGHTINOUSTRIAL _ C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL 61 LIMITED COMMERCIAL. BP BUSINESS 6 PROFESSIONAL PO PUBUC/QUASI-PUBLIC OS GREENBELT/OPEN SPACE. THE PRECISE BOUNDARY OF THE -GREENBELT / OPEN SPACE" LAND USE DESIGNATION SHALL BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT. - CROSS -HATCH INDICATES LANDS THAT MAY CONTAINBIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OR SENSITIVE HABITAT AND REQUIRE SITE-SPECIFIC PLANNING AND REVIEW PRIOR TO. DEVELOPMENT. ALTERNATING COLOR INDICATES UNDERLYING LAND USE CATEGORY. North Chico Specific Plan LAND USE MAP wll „z•�y•o 7:( J ? T:I T: RANqff!PNAL SURFACE PMOACH;SURFACE �• _ _.. , .� 50' ROACH`SJ�IIZFAtCE 7/SURFACE -r ITl 10 ui ✓ !� ;-- '20:I,CONICA FACE " J. !: o/ �_--may,` _— � .... � .L•:• Q� � �! tA PLAN TERRAIN SCALE: I" = 3,000' 101 RUNWAY 13L -31R X0B�m� 0 -•• � km I Kut; TION mmmmm 'i 50:1 APPROA�l mm P -.d ma [•7 PRI SCALE: . rm� FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION EXISTING CONDITIONS STEPHENS PROPERTY KEY Regional Location No Scale Keefer ROM 0 Nord Hwy, 0 ........... ... ..... ..................... ... 42.4 10,31 xaz .................. . . . . . . . . . . SR -1 / OS ED CIS ........ F-1 SR -1 Existing Roads Wetlands ................... .............. .......... — ...... ........ ... I. ........ ..... -: ......... . . ..... . .... .... .................. . ........... ........ ... V ....... ... .. ........... .. .... ..... .......... ...... ...... \.......... '\ . ........... Regional Location No Scale Keefer ROM 0 Nord Hwy, 0 ........... ... ..... ..................... ... 42.4 10,31 xaz .................. . . . . . . . . . . FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION EXISTING CONDITIONS STEPHENS PROPERTY KEY SR -1 If OS OS SR -1 Existing Roads Wetlands 83.7 li Regional Location No Scale Keeler Road AIRPORT m 42.4 Ac. 103.1 0 1000, 1" = 1000' NO j /V11, At _ � �` ?° u1 ` l I ) i!! j iC•_// r `� ,; ' ( ':'.//,1/: ,�+ . �/, i .I.y; ;-tel. ,�. �- ,J' .`l .•''/:.' -"; ! / ! ;/ P 'k X, "N4 �� �.,. lI ° �'' .... i , ' i li /Atr 0' n_� JIN� .. .. .......... AM .... ......CHICO MUNICIPAL . ... ...... . ..... Z1. . . . .......... . ..... AIRPORT 300 ti n .4 f 18. . ..... FAR PART 150 AIRPORT NOISE % COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM 'T AND ENVIRONS PLAN rG_ 411,CIRAL-JURVORT SCALE FEET NORTH 225 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 7 LEGEND 5 J Airport Boundary V A— \J, Chico Sphere of influence 7TA, — — — Overflight Protection Zone ISOM0=0 Airport Influence Ar 7: 0 ea 4% j -:j .. ..... NZ, �w Asea Iwen V 771 3S r 3: .61 _j EXHIBIT 111-1 J— & AIRPORT NOISE COMPATIBILITY PLAN P&D Aviation A Division of PSD Technologies 0 P -.Q -Q 1 I NS PROJECT- ONTOURS DAYU0 AND 411m BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION December 11, 1997 I. Important Clarifications A. Application name correction:, Robert and Ann Stephens are the true applicants. George T. Kammerer is merely the Stephens' representative. B. This is not a mere North Chico Specific Plan policy consistency determination.' You are being asked to take action on a formal application for a General Plan Amendment,. Specific Plan Amendment and rezone. II. North Chico Specific Plan Policy Consistences R A. Policy 7.1-6 "Outside of the -Village Core boundaries, any revision to increase the number of dwelling units within a particular designation shall be offset by a corresponding decrease in another designation so that the total number of units in the entire planning area is not exceeded." 1. Consistency: The North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) and its EIR assumed 3,093 dwelling units. Prior to final adoption of the NCSP, the Board of Supervisors modified the plan so that only 2,803 to 2,896 dwelling units are now actually anticipated to be constructed. The Stephens' application increase in units over the adopted plan is between 47 and 56 dwelling units. Because .the proposed and analyzed NCSP dwelling unit assumption. of 3,093 dwelling units exceeds the current anticipated development yield for the NCSP due to environmental and other constraints by between 197 and.. 290 dwelling units, the total number of units in the entire planning area is not exceeded. In fact, it remains well below the threshold of 3,093 dwelling. units assumed and environmentally analyzed in the NCSP even with, the addition of 47 to 56 units in this application. 2. Consistency: Increases in the number of dwelling units in SR-1/OS designated . areas within the NCSP should be exempt from the offset requirements of Policy 7.1-6 because the NCSP does not indicate an.intent to apply this policy to SR-1/OS designated lands.`" B. . Change in Acreage of Open Space in NCSP. 1. , "Implementation, of the Specific Plan will cause the conversion of approximately 1,630 acres of existing open space to urban/suburban uses." (NCSP DEIR, p. 2-2.) The entire acreage within the Stephens application was included in -this major foundational assumption in the NCSP DEIR, so the Stephens application is not causing the loss of open space which was not already anticipated in the NCSP and the NCSP DEIR. III. Stephens Application Benefits Over Existing NCSP. A. There will .be certainty as to exactly how much open space will remain in the cross hatched areas. Currently the NCSP only assumes that there will be a range of between 30% and 70% of this acreage that will be developed. - 1 - B. Recreational access to the public can be provided for the first time to open space: areas retained immediately adjacent to the airport and along the Mud Creek and Keifer Slough corridors which the applicant will preserve. No such access to the public exists today. This will be a milestone in achieving the County's trail master planning goals. I - 7, C. The Stephens are willing to plan for trallways along Mud Creek and Keifer Slough - as well as plan to connect a trailway and wildlife habitat corridor between these two tributaries at a location to be determined adjacent to the airport. D. Only one non-native fig tree grows today along the entire reach of Mud Creek and Keifer Slough and their tributaries where they traverse the entire 300 -acre Stephens property. In return for reducing setbacks from 100 feet to 50 feet, the Stephens are willing to provide substantial enhancement of these two creek corridors by planting native oaks, cottonwoods, willows, elderberries, bushes and native grasses which will dramatically increase the diversity of the habitat types available and the types and abundance of wildlife along these creek corridors. IV. A Supplemental EIR Is Not Required By Law. A. The NCSP DEIR assumes the inclusion (although not necessarily preservation) of approximately 500 acres to open space uses within the. NCSP. (NCSP DEIR, p. 15- 3.) The residential proposal will reduce open space by only between,30 and 90 acres (only between 6% to 18%), and the industrial proposal is estimated to reduce open space by approximately 86 acres (only 17%). Clearly, this very small • change, especially when further -offset by the open space habitat and recreational enhancement described above, need not be considered a significant. impact. (Initial Studies, pps. 3, 4.) (Also see Chapter 8 Tables - List of Assumptions, 11/12/96, NCSP.) B. Population and Housing. 1. Impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels if the sewer extension is only sized to meet the needs of the project and thus is not growth inducing. ` -C. Water/Drainage. 1. , This impact can be mitigated up front to less than significant levels with a mitigation measure requiring the detention of all project -generated incremental increases to storm water runoff during certain storm events. D. Traffic/Circulation.. 1. This impact can be mitigated -to less than significant levels by finding that the traffic levels anticipated and analyzed under the NCSP, which assumed approximately 63,000 trips/day, already includes the trips that will be generated by the Stephens application, thereby not requiring additional analysis or additional mitigation for traffic/circulation. E. Biological/Resources.. 1. This impact can also be .mitigated to less than significant levels by 50 -foot setbacks along Mud Creek and Keifer Slough from the center line with mitigation measures requiring the planting of native oak trees; cottonwoods, willows, elderberries, shrubs and native grasses. This is an equivalent mitigation measure to a 100 -foot setback without such habitat enhancement which mitigates impacts to less than significant levels.- . -2- F. Public Services. . 1,. The impacts and proposed mitigation for public services is beyond the scope and nexus of this application as the Stephens project does not trigger the need for any additional mitigation. G. Recreation. 1. This .impact can be mitigated to less than significant levels with the incorporation of a mitigation measure requiring a public .trail system along . Mud Creek and Keifer Slough and the establishment of a connector trail between the two through an open space corridor preserved along the site's boundary with the airport. No losses of recreational opportunities will occur because the property currently as designated under the NCSP is private property not open to the public for any type of passive or active recreation, nor does the NCSP identify the need, or propose, mitigation for the loss of such recreation on this. site. H. Cumulative Impacts. 1. Based upon the explanation above concerning the mitigation of all potential impacts to less than significant levels, no significant cumulative impacts are anticipated from the project. I. Mandatory Findings of Significance. 1. Otherwise, no mandatory findings of significance are required by this project because the project either incorporates adequate mitigation up front, or the project simply does not trigger the need for any mandatory finding of significance. J. Conclusion. 1. All of the above -referenced potentially -significant impacts upon the environment can be mitigated up front in a.Mitigated Negative Declaration so there is no need to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this application. gtk:et\stephens\applican.sub - 3 - MODIFICATION TO APPLICATION FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE STEPHENS PROPERTY - BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER, 1997 Prepared for: Robert and Ann Stephens Contact: George Kammerer Hefner, Stark & Marois 2710 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 300 South Sacramento, CA 95833-3505 (916) 925-6620 Prepared by: Heritage Partners Planning & Development Contact: Tom DiGiovanni 426 Broadway, Suite 205 Chico, CA 95928 - (916) 893-8982 I. INTRODUCTION Rezone This application package represents a modification requested by the Butte County Planning Department to a proposal filed on July 31, 1996 for amendments to the specific plan and zoning designations of 229 acres in Butte County, California (see original application form attached). The subject site is a portion of the 300 -acre Stephens property (Assessor's Parcel Number 047-250-141), located in northeast Chico, immediately east of the Chico Municipal Airport and Hicks Lane, and north of Mud Creek (Figure 1). Also included in this package is a brief site analysis, addressing the site's policy context and its environmental and planning - related opportunities and constraints. Lastly, site planning guidelines are set forth for the development of the site consistent with the revised zoning designations specified by the proposed amendments. II. EXISTING CONDITIONS Currently, the site is used primarily as orchard and rangeland. A residence is located just off of Hicks Lane in the southeast portion of the site, with a house and various outbuildings. The North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) currently designates approximately 42.4 acres in the southwest area of the site for suburban residential development, 1 acre minimum lot sizes (SR -1); 83.7 acres in the northwest corner. are designated for a mixture of suburban residential development, 1 acre minimum, and open space (SR -1 / OS); and 103.1 acres to the east are designated for open space (OS). Existing land uses adjacent to the subject site include the Chico Municipal Airport to the east, large -lot rural residential development to the north and west, and grazing and open space to the south across Mud Creek. The NCSP calls for low and medium density urban residential uses south of the site on the other side of a new arterial connecting Hicks Lane and Garner Lane, and additional 1 and 3 acre -minimum suburban residential development to the west and north. REZONE AND SPECIFIC PLAN MODIFICATIONS This revised application proposes the following modifications to the North Chico Specific Plan: • The 42.4 acre segment currently zoned SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre minimum) would be rezoned SR -1 / PD (Suburban Residential, 1 acre minimum or Planned Development). • The 83.7 acre segment currently zoned SR -1 / OS (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre minimum / Open Space) would be rezoned SR -1 / PD (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre minimum or Planned Development). • The 103.1 acre segment currently zoned OS (Open Space) would be rezoned SR -3 / PD (Suburban Residential, 3 -acre minimum or Planned Development), with actual development to occur at a density equivalent to SR -5 (5 -acre minimum). ' • The additional lots yielded by the SR -3 zoning (t13), but not developed on the 103.1 -acre parcel, would be transferred to the adjoining parcel zoned SR -1 / PD. The development yield for each segment is determined by applying its zoning designation across the entire gross parcel area, as opposed to determining the number of minimum -sized lots that could fit onto the unconstrained portions of the parcel. As illustrated by the yield matrix in Table 1 below, this optimizes the number of units on this site, while still preserving open space as envisioned by the Current zoning. This proposal is consistent with the density- r 4 ,..FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION e a EXISTING CONDITIONS + T STEPHENS PROPERTYgm <y ' 5 Rt KEY ss s . , �� V-" w. ® SR-1/0SRN- \ s3 �; ��i/......._..• 3 i iy£C zr 9 •` . Existing Roads.,�� i \. 42.4 Ac: Wetlands �\ � ��k£ O gl� IN ,� +"x- • Vin.$�,.;.Fi rya s a 3 '• ;� ` M 3 �� 3 1 Ac � +••. - ` . ! .� �Y 4v •'vXXX tw''ssVV �i7'.�' •a __•.� r - &y�r�k�a3u�r\�F� s RM .... . WM Regional Location :WScd.. - Neater Road ,xwr s'�•� .e,c yS< x i, Held �. / l r cu ^ •t i/J t - \ 0 \ \ 1000I A+'4Q0 1 " = 1000' Stephens Rezone Application based subdivision ordinance currently being developed for Butte County. When adopted, the ordinance will codify flexible. lot sizing for plans like this where development is designed to avoid sensitive environmental resources and maximize both development yields and the preservation of open space. The proposed policies will enable, as well, the transfer of development units between contiguous land parcels that are part of a single development proposal. As demonstrated in the Stephens application, these policies provide for the preservation of portions of the site in open space, retain riparian areas, flood zones, scenic areas, wildlife corridors and habitats. - - - Current Proposed Zoning Zoning Acreage SR -1 SR -1 / PD 42.4 SR -1 / OS SR -1 / PD 83.7 SR -3 / PD 103.1 Totals: 229.2 ac. Estimated Maximum Yield Maximum Yield Under Under Existing Policies Proposed Zoning (based on projected net (based on provisions of proposed developable area) density -based yield determination)2 42 units 55 units 3 62 to 71 units' 84 units 0 units 21 units 104 to 113 units 160 units 'Subtracting the acreage known to be environmentally constrained (approx. 9 acres for the Keefer Slough setback, plus .5 to 10 acres for wetlands protection — totaling 9.5 to 19 acres) or relegated to other uses (mini -park, trails, etc.) yields an estimated net developable area of approximately 62 to 71 acres. 2 These yields are achieved with the proposed density -based method of yield determination, in which the 1 unit per acre zoning is applied to the gross land area, as opposed to fitting 1 -acre -minimum lots into the net developable area. 3Approximately 42 units (gross yield from 42.4 acre area) plus 13 units (the units left over and transferred to this area from the SR -3 / PD area after its yield is calculated to develop this area at only SR -5 density). `Yield calculated under SR -3 / PD zoning (103.1 acres / 3 units per acre = 34 units) after it is developed as SR -5 / PD (103.1 acres / 5 units per acre = 21 units), with the remaining 13 units transferred to the 42.4 acre SR -1 / PD area. IV. SITE ANALYSIS: ISSUES, OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS The following provides an overview of the issues, opportunities and constraints relevant to the development of this site. Figure 2 illustrates applicable elements. Policy Context North Chico Specific Plan The site lies within the jurisdiction of the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP), adopted by Butte County in 1995 in response to growing development pressures in the northeast Chico area. The plan is intended to ensure orderly and responsible development of the area, especially in regard to issues of drainage, circulation and the provision of public services. Table 2 provides a matrix consistency analysis of the rezoning of the OS parcel to SR -3 / PD, under applicable NCSP policies, since this is the element representing the most significant change proposed in this application. In all instances, consistency is high. Airport Influences Because the subject site borders the Chico Municipal Airport site, this development plan takes into consideration the unique issues posed by this adjacency. The site lies outside the "Clear Zone" around the airport, which was already established to address the issues of safety posed by the interface of airport and development. Proposed development will be •ensitive to other airport -related issues such as noise and consumer awareness. Therefore, 2 . Y ►eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeoeoeee®+ �000eeeeeoeoeeeeooeoeoeeeoe®®�® .. MAX ►oeeeoeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeee��s®®e! �oeoeeeeoeo♦®®e� ►°e°e°e°e°e°e°e°e°e°e°e®®ee°e°� e°e°i°o°ii �oe000eoe°e°e°i°i°o°o®��®°s°i°i eeoeoeo, I AFo♦ .. �eoe°e°eoeeeoeee0000®eye®0000®�: . :.•.! oeeeeeeesoeeooe! (Fxmw yield from SR -3 arei°i°i°i°i°.°i°i°i°e®�°®°ioi°���e to be transfefred to SR �oeoeeeoeooeoeoo®®oee®®eeoe�o®, ` ®o®e®oee®e®e®oe®tee®e®e�®®o®�ooi SR -3 PD ®e®oo°eooeoeooeooeeeoo®oeeeoo� development to occur — i°W at�densfty equivalent to SR -5)M ►eeoe000eoeoeee♦ eooeoeoeeeeeeeo� �eoeeeeeeo°eeeoeeoeeoe eeooeo°o® ►eeeeeeeeeoeoeee .. :�.�p .. veooeoe.o®0000°e000000e000e000d �o�e�000�e�eoo�o�e�os°�o�o�e• �eeoeooeso�o�o�WIo�eo®se�oo e°o°e°o°o°o°e°o°off KW►�eee�eo�� •��o�ot eeoo�►o� ►ogee®oeo�oo•��o�e�o�� ►e W W We*eWe�eie�e�°�°�� ►o°o°®°oee°o ►oeooeeeeoeeo ♦eseeoeeeeeoe ►seeeeeeeooeeo � ,��, ►eeeieieieeeeeeeeeeee°e°i°o. � �` ,, ►oee®eeo®eeeeoeoeoeoeoeeeeee� � .. ►eeeeeeoe0000000eoe0000000eo� x. ►eoeeeeeioieeeeeeeeoeeeeoeeee��, ♦eoe000eeeeeoeey ►►eo�e�e�oe�ee"�eee�°Ie�eee��®eeWeoe�e� e°e°°°°°°°eoe�e°se�eoe�e®o eeooeoeee►ooeo�se�oo��eoe W, IF o,o 1*1e1#1MWW MA, "M eeW,WO��eeee�°���e��eoeee's����e000 o�v�e,e • ►A 4 11, 1RA"M �eee�eoe�°�o "M M"M°oee°�e�eee�e�eee% �eee°ee®°®°e°e°oso°eoe� ,oe�e�e�eoeoe�e�eee�e �oeeeeeee� ieieiei°o°ieeeee� • eso�e�o�e�eeo�; i°�e�eeee!s� k s F �y � W? .____ - ..-- LYI'9VVn 1 IVI\. ApplicablePolicy NORTHENCY WITH • Level of Consistency Low . Medium High Plan Response 1) Preserve the semi -rural lifestyle of the Suburban/rural lot types, combined with an open area. space network, will create compatibility with the rural character of the area. 2)Protect the long-term operations of the One-third of the units from the area nearest the Airport through the provision of airport will be transferred to the western area of the compatible land uses and other.measures site, so that the area nearest the airport'can be while minimizing the occurrence and developed at a lower density -- thus minimizing severity' of noise and safety issues. airport -related impacts and conflicts. The on-site open space network will offer further opportunity to _ minimize risk should an emergency landing become necessary in this area. 3) . Utilize environmentally responsible Environmental resources will be preserved within the development. open space network, where feasible, or impacts to them will be mitigated. Development is planned to be sited to take advantage of the amenity value .of these environmental resources. I 4) Place buffers between residential •uses and Development will be oriented away from nearby ' industrial uses and/or arterial thoroughfare streets. arterials, as much as feasible, and tree plantings are '+ planned to provide further buffering.. S) Limit access from 'residences along major Access to individual lots is planned from interior streets. local streets. 6) Provide for the efficient and enjoyable *and On-site path networks will be established according to circulation of pedestrians bicyclists to the NCSP proposal for this area. encourage non -vehicular access to the commercial area and throughout the area. 7) Provide open space, parks and The planned open space network, a landscaped recreational facilities proportionate to the `mini -park,' and proposed trails / paths, as needs of the area, coordinated with the designated in the NCSP, offer preservation, protection of natural resources and the . recreation and education values. provision of educational opportunities. _ t Applicable NCSP Policy Level of Consistency Low Medium High Plan Response 8) Link parks and nature preserve areas by a On-site path networks will be established according to pedestrian and bicycle circulation system. the NCSP proposal for this area, linking open space elements with residences and streets. 9) Minimize impacts to archaeological, Areas determined to be of high environmental value - biological, riparian and other natural will be encompassed, as much as feasible, within the resources, while enhancing human uses, planned open space network, and the planned path and enjoyment of these resources. network throughout the open space will make these areas accessible for human use and enjoyment. 10) Utilize development siting and mitigation Wetlands loss will be appropriately mitigated which results in no net loss of wetlands. through the development of additional wetlands off- site or on-site, or through contributionito a mitigation bank. i 11) Allow use of wetland preservation areas Open space areas that encompass wetlands will also .for recreational activities (such as walking be used for passive recreational uses such as walking trails) if compatible with protection goals. and biking trails. I 12) Storm drainage should be by means of Storm drainage system will utilize existing natural or natural, or natural -appearing, stream or - created, natural -appearing drainage courses drainage courses. Stormwater facilities integrated into the proposed open space network.. should be designed to ensure public safety, to be visually unobtrusive, and to provide wildlife habitat values, and where feasible, recreational uses. 13) Minimize release of concentrated runoff Wetlands preserved on-site will be surrounded by a , into wetland preserve areas., buffer to filter runoff before it reaches the wetland • area. • • Stephens Rezone Application according to the NCSP, avigation.easements, noise attenuation features and explicit disclosure to prospective home buyers are anticipated to mitigate these concerns. Environmental Issues and Context Biological Constraints According to a site assessment performed in May, 1996, waters of the U.S. found on this site include Mud Creek to.the south, Keefer Slough and its tributary through the northern portion of the site, and a few isolated wetlands scattered across the site (Biotic and Wetlands Assessment, 300 acre Stephens [Hicks Lane/ Site, Butte County, California, Foothill Associates, 1996). Prior to site development, a verified wetland delineation will be prepared. Listed vernal pool invertebrates (vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp) are potentially present in wetlands. The NCSP calls for a 100' development setback on both sides of Keefer Slough, and 50' development setbacks from the outer edge of the zone of influence of each vernal pool wetland. The NCSP and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act do allow for the filling of these scattered wetlands if such action is appropriately mitigated through the development of additional wetlands off-site or on-site, or through contribution to a mitigation bank. Raptors (especially American kestrel and red-tailed hawk) were observed on the site, nesting in a couple of trees and foraging across the grasslands. Although no Butte County meadowfoam was found on the site during the May site assessment and none is expected to be found there according to conditions noted by the assessing botanist, a meadowfoam population documented east of the site indicated. that it was prudent to survey the project site during peak flowering season. to make a final determination whether this species existed on the site. Archaeological Constraints The NCSP has identified corridors approximately 1000' wide along Keefer Slough and .approximately 1500' wide along Mud Creek as areas of high potential archaeological sensitivity. For this reason, a qualified archaeologist will likely conduct a survey of the recorded archeological and historical accounts of this area, perform a field survey, prepare a written report of the findings, and, if applicable, develop plans to mitigate any impacts to archaeological resources prior to site development. Planning Issues Access Regionally, access to the site will be provided by Highway 99 to the west, Keefer Road to the north, Cohasset Road to the east, and Eaton Road to the south. The NCSP designates two direct vehicular accesses to the site, one from the new alignment of Hicks Lane on the east, and one from a planned new arterial southwest of the site. Planned bike and pedestrian paths could also provide access to the site from along Keefer Slough and Mud Creek. Circulation The main on-site circulation opportunity exists in developing a connection spine between Hicks Lane and the new arterial planned to the southwest of the site. This spine has been designated in the NCSP as a collector road of Type C -I, an urban -type street within a 60' right-of-way. Environmental constraints and site design will determine the appropriate alignment of this road and an appropriate circulation pattern from this spine to the developed areas of the site. -3- 0 • Stephens Rezone Application Parks and Open Space The NCSP designates this site for the location of a 1-2 acre landscaped `mini -park,' providing a small playfield and picnic areas to serve surrounding neighborhoods. It also calls for the construction of a network of bike paths / pedestrian trails. A path or trail is planned for the north side of Keefer Slough along the outside of the riparian buffer. This connects across the Slough to an open space greenway and Class 1 bike path traversing the site. The greenway trail links to a path / trail heading west along the north side of Mud Creek, and to two other Class 1 bike paths, one heading east along the north side of Mud Creek, and one crossing the creek and heading south to connect into other development. Drainage The NCSP prefers that stormwater drainage be provided through the preservation of natural drainage courses throughout the property, as indicated by site topography and wetland patterns. Also, an approximately 19 -acre stormwater detention area is conceptualized for this site. It is intended to mitigate a 10 -year 24-hour post -development storm runoff from Keefer Slough. Wastewater Treatment This site is outside the area served by the urban sewer system. Therefore, the best wastewater treatment system -compatible soils on the site will be identified and an appropriate community disposal system established to serve any new develo t Utilities Amen . Electricity is available to the site; currently, natural gas is not. The California Water Service Company serves the airport immediately east of the site and the developed residential areas south of Eaton Road, but does not extend to this site, so water in this area is provided by Private wells. The City of Chico is in the process of developing conceptual plans to extend water service to north of Mud Creek, but the implementation timeline of these plans is unknown. V. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES Development of this site could occur in one of two ways: a conventional suvon with minimum parcel sizes consistent with specified zoning, either SR -1 or SR -5; or development using the PD / Planned Development concept. Development using conventional subdivis' 3 design would have to meet all current lot configuration requirements of SR -1 and SR -Ps well as addressing existing environmental constraints on-site. Based on current information, this may result in development potential that is significantly less that the optimum yield calculated by dividing the gross acreage by the respective minimum lot sizes of the individual zones. The utilization of the PD option will not only enable the property to potentially develop to the maximum yield of the zoning, but will also allow for up to 13 additional dwelling units to be developed within the SR -1 area of the property. As proposed, the development of the SR -3 / PD segment would acctually occur at a density equivalent to SR -5 (5 -acre minimum), and the additional lots yielded by the SR -3 zoning (±13), but not developed on the 103.1 -acre segment, would be transferred to the adjoining parcel zoned SR -1 / PD and built there instead. In order to take advantage of the PD option, applicants must generally adhere to the following design requirements when submitting a Tentative Subdivision Map: 1. Approximately 30% of the SR -1, and 50% of the SR -3 zoned area should be retained as open space protected by a conservation easement or other mechanism that will adequately -4- Stephens Rezone Application restrict development in perpetuity. Open space can be utilized for community leachfield areas, and passive recreation purposes consistent with any environmental constraints. 2. No lot shall be less than 15,000 square feet in size, so long as this will not result in less than 160 buildable lots. 3. The development will utilize some form of community sewage disposal system approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and Butte County Environmental Health Division. 4. The submission of a. Tentative Subdivision Map application will be preceded by a pre - development conference to review the proposed map to ensure the development meets the site planning guidelines listed below. The following sections provide a set of site planning guidelines and an explanation of their potential application to the Planned Development option. These emanate from policies governing the site, analysis of the site itself, as presented above, and from established development practices that have been demonstrated to result in a desirable and aesthetically - pleasing residential built environment. Open Space As noted above, if the subject parcel is developed under the Planned Development (PD) option, a portion of the land will be preserved as permanent open space. The following offers guidelines for the preservation of such open space: Primary Conservation Areas The features enumerated below would be appropriately defined as Primary Conservation Areas, those areas envisioned as permanent open space, where feasible: • Wetlands that are preserved on site, with 50' of surrounding buffer area. Buffer areas can perform a number of significant functions, including filtering stormwater runoff, providing critical habitat at the land -water interface, and offering opportunities for wildlife travel corridors and informal walking trails for the immediate neighborhood. • Approximate 100' setbacks on either side of Mud Creek and Keefer Slough. Development within these setbacks for passive recreational uses (such as trails) should be carefully located to preserve the functioning of these riparian ecosystems. • Any, meadowfoam communities discovered during formal springtime site delineation. No Butte County meadowfoam was found during springtime site surveys. • Existing trees used for nesting by raptors present on the site. Trees within the Mud Creek and Keefer Slough riparian areas are planned to be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. • Any areas deemed to be of high archaeological value by the investigating archaeologist, which are not otherwise mitigated. • Stormwater detention area as conceptually designated in NCSP, or other appropriate stormwater detention configuration. Secondary Conservation Areas The features enumerated below would be appropriately defined as Secondary Conservation Areas, those. areas to be carefully considered during site design in order to minimize development impact and maximize the benefits of the resultant open space amenity. • The most suitable soils for filtering effluent. Since an on-site community wastewater treatment system is planned, suitable soils will be one of the site's most significant resources, and it is appropriate to organize development to best utilize these. 5 iuluuaiuIJ Stephens Rezone Application • Areas connecting Primary Conservation Areas. Wildlife movement corridors will be combined with other open space functions to the maximum extent feasible. Development Appropriate in Open Space Areas • Circulation system. Looped, meandering footpaths along the edges of open space areas, and abutting some lots, connect open spaces with residential development and access streets. • Community wastewater. treatment facilities. Facilities. are planned to be located in the open space area in a way that is sensitive to the specific features of the chosen location. • Some internal neighborhood open spaces. Greens, small play lots, and a "mini -park" (as designated for this site in the NCSP) would be appropriately located in open space areas. Residential Development The following elements are envisioned for residential development on this site: • Lots abutting or facing onto open spaces. Where feasible, such lot siting will take advantage of the amenity value of the open space. The adjoining open space creates a buffer on at least one boundary of the lots, which is preferable to being closed in on all sides by others' yards: • A variety of lot sizes to accommodate the designated yield. Adjoining open space will psychologically enlarge smaller lot dimensions to include some of the meadows, wetlands, or stream corridors that are within direct view of- the house. • Access to individual lots from interior local streets. The major arterials along the perimeter of the site would not be appropriate for individual lot access. -• Ample street frontage for each lot. The NCSP expresses a preference for 120' of street frontage for each lot. • Appropriate tree plantings. These will create a landscaped `canopy' to shade streets and yards, and to provide some natural buffering between houses. • Development focused away from major public routes adjacent to this area (specifically Hicks Lane and the arterial planned for southwest of the site). This will preserve views from these roads and buffer residences from associated traffic and noise. • Development sited to take advantage of any views out from the site. Single -loaded streets, where feasible. These can create buffers between development, define an edge between open space and development, and add value overall. Infrastructure • Gently curving rural residential lanes. These will provide access to residential. development and the open space system. • Individual water wells or, if more efficient, a community water system. If California Water Services Company does not extend its lines to this site, wells can be used to provide water. Community wastewater treatment system. A community wastewater treatment system is planned. Street lighting appropriate to the rural character of the setting. Drainage system designed to filter concentrated stormwater runoff before. it reaches sensitive areas such as wetlands. -6- ~~ BUTTE uNg'ORM APPLI TION I.r c,%14 T: -AMt infarmadon to be emv sick UCAN-r•S NAME ( U vph=t is diffc=t hom a.r= as affidavit is wquimd) ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMS :orge T. Kammerer,'Esq., Hefner, Stark-fi Marois, LLP 047-250-141 )RF.SS: CITY. STA= -A ZIP CODE FILE :�'3`�•' r ��w—.�Sfsc�'OT'v;"±ice.../ 110 ^ateway Oaks Drive, Suite 3005 Sacramento CA 95833 ' • `�"'' =^="="=`'�' AE.. ROPOSFD PROJECT (It any) TELEPHONE :AVON OF PROJECT (Wjar cw= sneers w9 Addsa, !f aay ) )01/4186 Hicks Lane Chico California 95926 GENERAL DMRMATION REQUYItID OWI�i'S NAME TELEPHONE Robert & Ann Stephens c/o Douglas N. G nn Trustee (619) 747-4866 ADDRESS: CITY. STATE A ZIP CODE 250 West Crest Street, Suite E. Escondido, California 92025-1715 20I,1E.(,`F1 1tAL PLAN DQSMO LAND USE SITESly(i4Sga ee Feaar ) Various Various North Chico Sp ecific Plan 300± acres E=S wG STRUCTURES ( is S"= rva) PROPOSED SMC MW (im Sgaate Fen) 2,044 None (Cbcck Orie) (Cb=k OW) ❑ PROPERTY IS ORPROPOSEDTO BE SEWERED• ❑ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON PUBLIC WATER XW PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON SEMC ❑ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON WELL WA'1T•$ U aDaU AL PLAN AMIENDMENT 11 REZONE ❑ USE PERMTr r3 MINOR USE PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE L1 MINOR VARL*NC E ❑ ADMDaSTRATWE PE RMri ❑• DEVELOPMENT AGR1>EMIWT APPLICATION REQUESTED ❑ TENTATM PARIM M" : ❑ TENTATIVE SUBDTV1S'1ON MAP ❑ WAIVER OF PARCH. MAP ❑ MMG AND RECIAMATION PUN ❑ BOUNDARY T MODWICATION ❑ LEGAL LOT DErEI NATION ID CERTIFICATE OF MERGER X OTHER Specific flan Amendment Mr%mr,T r%rvr`DTvwnw �c'�•'oc`�'�a.•'�LCL7'«it^TSi�'••'�bt�. tiV'!:"llis-..L!iP.7�i:L"SE ----------------- ltbv�•r--.+.nv:� � �y-5•:�.rJeF•'�7G"!`"S.4�Lii:'�hCta-Y.��.a+ FULL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED P=F-CT (AMwh Utes= shwa) See attached description �l� J'�'q- •:�iry rY may. ►w- �J. w•:.�/•-•-_ -w 6':.•ii'�' �'•T: •, -. .'. ,,+:.•moi ..��;. c, •r.f:;;,.. ��•5�4. � _� OWNER CERTIRCATION -r^•:_.:�•=%::,t.�..��•..��: �::.s-c,:?'? �:• .a"k..;� �•. I CERTIFY THAT I AM PRESFRILY THE LDOAL OWNER OF TiIB ABOVEDESCRIDED PROPERTY. EZlltiil M I ACIWOWLEDGETIE FMJNG OF Tins AVPucA=zi AND CF Mff THAT ALL OFTHE ABOVE DUMMATION IS TRUE AND ACCURATE (It u oa be =d=1=d awMw me ankUyh of wmaiautoaa0 tin ccvQ,c s' ) DATE -711 $f19G SIGNATURE ����%cW�F�o / ! • J� Tr u S fE e El AGENT Ai TM0R2AT10N PO.,,N . TO Butte County, Depaa of DevelOMerit Se•vICBs; George T:-Ram=erer. Esq. (916) 925-6620 Perot None of AMM and Phone Member Hefner, Stark b Marois. LLP, 2710 -Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 3005 Sacramento, CA 95833 MsrWq Address ; is hereby authorized toprocess thir.application for a Specific Plan Amendment and Rezone on my property, identified as Butte County A sesors Parcel Number 047-250-141 lift &Ati0rbmffdn allows rep resentation fior all applications hearings, appeals, etc. and to sign all documents necessary for said Processing,, but not inducing document(s) relating to record title interest Owners) of Record: (Sign and Print Nome) fint Rune A13 Pnm Name t 5gnatwe � - - 5gnawre AtChitect and or g neer: Print Name of ArchkOW/Fngineer and Phone Number MellTng Addre= FOR OFFICE USE ONLY " Verify: Date received Total amount received • s - AP Number(s) ' Legal Description Owners Authorization ` Zoningrequirements Project Description - Coplesof plot plan - - - Taken by _ Receipt No. ` . LD Pian Payment of the currerrUy required Applic aton Fee and/or Deposit (Any unused portion of a deposit will be returned upon final action). Current fee for this application is $ . as of MODIFICATION TO APPLICATION FOR SPECIFIC ' PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE STEPHENS PROPERTY BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER, 1997 , Prepared for: Robert and Ann Stephens • Contact: George Kammerer Hefner, Stark & Marois 2710 Gateway Oaks.. Drive, Suite 300 South Sacramento, CA 95833-3505 (916) 925-6620 Prepared by: Heritage Partners Planning & Development Contact: Tom DiGiovanni . 426 Broadway, Suite 205 Chico, CA 95.928 (916) 893-8982 • .I. INTRODUCTION Rezone This application package represents a modification requested by the Butte County Planning Department to a proposal filed on July 31, 1996 for amendments to the specific plan and zoning designations of 229 acres in Butte County, California (see original application form attached). The subject site is a portion of the 300 -acre Stephens property (Assessor's Parcel Number 047-250-141), located in northeast Chico, immediately east of the Chico Municipal Airport and Hicks Lane, and north of Mud Creek (Figure 1). Also included in this package is a brief site analysis, addressing the site's -policy context and its environmental and planning - related opportunities and constraints. Lastly, site planning guidelines are set forth for the development of the site consistent with the revised zoning designations specified by the proposed amendments. II. EXISTING CONDITIONS Currently, the site is used primarily as orchard and rangeland. A residence is located just off of Hicks Lane in the southeast portion of the site, with a house and various outbuildings. The North Chico Specific -Plan (NCSP) currently designates approximately 42.4 acres in the southwest area of the site for suburban residential development, 1 acre minimum lot sizes (SR -1); 83.7 acres in the northwest corner are designated for a mixture of suburban residential development, 1 acre minimum, and.open space (SR -1 / OS); and 103.1 acres to the east are designated for open space (OS). Existing land uses adjacent to the subject site include the Chico Municipal Airport to the east, large -lot rural residential development to the north and west, and grazing and open space to the south across Mud Creek. The NCSP calls for low and medium density urban residential uses south of the site on the other side of a new arterial connecting Hicks Lane and Garner Lane, and additional 1 and 3 acre -minimum suburban residential development to the west and north. III. REZONE AND SPECIFIC PLAN MODIFICATIONS This revised application proposes the following modifications to the North Chico Specific Plan: • The 42.4 acre segment currently zoned SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre minimum) would be rezoned SR -1 / PD (Suburban Residential, 1 acre minimum or Planned Development). • The 83.7 acre segment currently zoned SR -1 / OS (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre minimum / Open Space) would be rezoned SR -1 / PD (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre minimum or Planned Development). • The 103.1 acre segment currently zoned OS (Open Space) would be rezoned SR -3 / PD (Suburban Residential, 3 -acre minimum or Planned Development), with actual development to occur at a density equivalent to SR -5 (5 -acre minimum). • The additional lots yielded by the SR -3 zoning (±13), but not developed on the 103.1 -acre parcel, would be transferred to the adjoining parcel zoned SR -1 / PD. The development yield for each segment is determined by applying its zoning designation across the entire gross parcel area, as opposed to determining the number of minimum -sized lots that could fit onto the unconstrained portions of the parcel. As illustrated by the yield matrix in Table 1 below, this optimizes the number of units on this site, while still preserving open space as envisioned by the current zoning. This proposal is consistent with the density- -t- .5 N -FIGURE 1; SITE LOCATION r v EXISTING CONDITIONS r STEPHENS PROPERTY KEY '# SR -1 / OS' F . . OS ooe°o°e°000°o°e®o®off bdsting ►oeoe000e0000�� ®. ��000eeo� ►°°°oe®e°e� �®o°oe� Wetland ►e000ei00000•i000ee� ►ooeoo®oe�ooe°eoeoeeeeeeeeeoo ►000♦ �soeeoeoo♦ ►oo°000°o°e°e°e°o°e°e°e°e°� ►°i ►°i°i°o°i°o°e°i°i°i°e®°°i°i°� ►°i°i°i®o°i°®°i°i°�°e°o°i°i� ►°i°i°i°i°�°�°o°i°o°i°o°i! ►°e°e°e°o°e��►e®e°e°i°e°e ►°o°i°e°i°i°�°o°i°i°i°i� °i°o°i°i°i°�►o°o°i°i°i� 16, ' -103.1 ........ ...... •. "y ... 01 83.7 Ac. \ Regional Location No Scab ; Keefe. coed 3s 'i;cg: �saRPoat A�x rt R i X� Nord Nwy. Geek" eidon Road ca . 9 J - 0 1000'• ' 0..0.0' * 1 __ 1000' �` Rezone based subdivision ordinance currently being developed for Butte County. When adopted, the ordinance will codify flexible lot sizing for plans like this where development is designed to avoid sensitive environmental resources and maximize both development yields and the preservation of open space. The proposed policies will enable, as well, the transfer of development units between contiguous land parcels that are part of a single development proposal. As demonstrated in the Stephens application, these policies provide for the preservation of portions of the site in open space, retain riparian areas, flood zones, scenic areas, wildlife corridors and habitats.- - - 'Subtracting the acreage known to be environmentally constrained (approx. 9 acres for the Keefer Slough setback, plus .5 to 10 acres for wetlands protection — totaling 9.5 to 19 acres) or relegated to other uses (mini -park, trails, etc.) yields an estimated net developable area of approximately 62 to 71 acres. Y These yields are achieved with the proposed density -based method of yield determination, in which the 1 unit per acre zoning is applied to the gross land area, as opposed to fitting 1 -acre -minimum lots into the net developable area. 3Approximately 42 units (gross yield from 42.4 acre area) plus 13 units (the units left over and transferred to this area from the SR -3 / PD area after its yield is calculated to develop this area at only SR -5 density). `Yield calculated under SR -3 / PD zoning (103.1 acres / 3 units per acre = 34 units) after it is developed as SR -5 / PD (103.1 acres / 5 units per acre= 21 units), with the remaining 13 units transferred to the 42.4 acre SR -1 /'PD area. IV. SITE ANALYSIS: ISSUES, OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS The following provides an overview of the issues, opportunities and constraints relevant to the development of this site. Figure 2 illustrates applicable elements. Policy Context North Chico Specific Plan The site lies within the jurisdiction of the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP), adopted by Butte County in 1995 in response to growing development pressures'in the northeast Chico area. The plan is intended to ensure orderly and responsible development of the area, especially in regard to issues of drainage, circulation and the provision of public services. Table 2 provides a matrix consistency analysis of the rezoning of the OS parcel to SR -3 / PD, under applicable NCSP policies, since this is the element representing the most significant change proposed in this application. In all instances, consistency is high. Airport Influences Because the subject site borders the Chico Municipal Airport site, this development plan takes into consideration the unique issues posed by this adjacency. The site lies outside the "Clear Zone" around the airport, which was already established to address the issues of safety posed by the interface of airport and development. Proposed development will be sensitive to other airport -related issues such as noise and consumer awareness. Therefore, -2- Estimated Maximum Yleld. Maximum Yield Under Current Proposed Under Existing Policies Proposed Zoning Zoning Zoning Acreage (based on projected net developable (based on provisions of proposed area) density -based yield determination)z SR -1 SR -1 / PD 42.4 42 units SR -1 / OS SR -1 / PD 83.762 to 71 units' 55 units 3. 06 SR -3 / PD 103.1 84 units 0 units Totals: 229.2 ac. 104 to 113 units 21 units• 160 units 'Subtracting the acreage known to be environmentally constrained (approx. 9 acres for the Keefer Slough setback, plus .5 to 10 acres for wetlands protection — totaling 9.5 to 19 acres) or relegated to other uses (mini -park, trails, etc.) yields an estimated net developable area of approximately 62 to 71 acres. Y These yields are achieved with the proposed density -based method of yield determination, in which the 1 unit per acre zoning is applied to the gross land area, as opposed to fitting 1 -acre -minimum lots into the net developable area. 3Approximately 42 units (gross yield from 42.4 acre area) plus 13 units (the units left over and transferred to this area from the SR -3 / PD area after its yield is calculated to develop this area at only SR -5 density). `Yield calculated under SR -3 / PD zoning (103.1 acres / 3 units per acre = 34 units) after it is developed as SR -5 / PD (103.1 acres / 5 units per acre= 21 units), with the remaining 13 units transferred to the 42.4 acre SR -1 /'PD area. IV. SITE ANALYSIS: ISSUES, OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS The following provides an overview of the issues, opportunities and constraints relevant to the development of this site. Figure 2 illustrates applicable elements. Policy Context North Chico Specific Plan The site lies within the jurisdiction of the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP), adopted by Butte County in 1995 in response to growing development pressures'in the northeast Chico area. The plan is intended to ensure orderly and responsible development of the area, especially in regard to issues of drainage, circulation and the provision of public services. Table 2 provides a matrix consistency analysis of the rezoning of the OS parcel to SR -3 / PD, under applicable NCSP policies, since this is the element representing the most significant change proposed in this application. In all instances, consistency is high. Airport Influences Because the subject site borders the Chico Municipal Airport site, this development plan takes into consideration the unique issues posed by this adjacency. The site lies outside the "Clear Zone" around the airport, which was already established to address the issues of safety posed by the interface of airport and development. Proposed development will be sensitive to other airport -related issues such as noise and consumer awareness. Therefore, -2- .. _ r � r ♦ . ' ,. a �.+.. �' .��;< 7! r e � .. 4r ~,._�� ... - � .��. -� I +. Applicable NCSP Policy Level of Consistency Low Medium . High Plan Response 1) Preserve the semi -rural lifestyle of the. Suburban/rural lot types, combined with an open area. space network, will create compatibility with the rural character of the area. 2) Protect the long-term operations of the Airport through the provision of One-third of the units from the area nearest the compatible land uses and other measures airport will be transferred to the western area of the site, so that the area nearest the airport'can be while minimizing the occurrence and severity of noise and safety issues. developed at a lower density -- thus minimizing airport -related impacts and conflicts. The on-site open space network will offer further opportunity to minimize risk should an emergency landing become necessary in this area. Environmental resources will be preserved within the 3) Utilize environmentally responsible development. open space network, where feasible, or impacts to them will be mitigated. Development is planned to be sited to take advantage of the amenity value of these environmental resources. 4) Place buffers between residential uses and industrial uses and/or arterial Development will be oriented away from nearby thoroughfare streets. arterials, as much as feasible, and tree -plantings are planned to provide further buffering. S) Limit access from residences along major Access to individual lots is planned from interior streets. local streets. 6) Provide for the efficient and enjoyable circulation of pedestrians and bicyclists to On-site path .networks will be established according to encourage non -vehicular access to the the NCSP proposal for this area. commercial area and throughout the area. The planned open space network, a landscaped `mini 7) Provide open space, parks and recreational facilities proportionate to the needs of the area, coordinated with the -park,' and proposed trails / paths, as designated in the NCSP, offer preservation, protection of natural resources and the provision of educational opportunities. recreation and education values. • Applicable NCSP Policy Level of Consistency Low Medium High Plan Response 8) Link parks and nature preserve areas by a On-site path networks will be established according to pedestrian and bicycle circulation system. the NCSP proposal for this area, linking open space elements with residences and streets. 9) Minimize impacts to archaeological, Areas determined to be of high environmental .value biological, riparian and other natural will be encompassed, as much as feasible, within the resources, while enhancing human uses planned open space network, and the planned path and enjoyment of these resources. network throughout the open space will make these areas accessible for human use , and enjoyment. 10) Utilize development siting and mitigation Wetlands loss will be appropriately mitigated which results in no net loss of wetlands. through the development of additional; wetlands off- site or on-site, or through contribution I to a mitigation bank. i 11) Allow use of wetland preservation areas Open space areas that encompass wetlands will also for recreational activities (such as walking be used for passive recreational uses such as walking trails) if compatible with protection goals. and biking trails. I 12) Storm drainage should be by means of Storm drainage system will utilize existing natural or natural, or natural -appearing, stream or created, natural -appearing drainage courses drainage courses. Stormwater facilities integrated into the proposed open space .network. should be designed to ensure public safety, to be visually unobtrusive, and to provide wildlife habitatvalues, and where feasible, recreational uses. 13)Minimize release of concentrated runoff. Wetlands preserved on-site will be surrounded by a - into wetland preserve areas. buffer to filter runoff before it reaches the wetland 10 area. Stephens Rezone Application according to the NCSP, avigation easements, noise attenuation features and explicit disclosure to prospective home buyers are anticipated to mitigate these concerns. Environmental Issues and Context Biological Constraints According to a site assessment performed in May, 1996, waters of the U.S. found on this site include Mud Creek to _the south, Keefer Slough and its tributary through the northern portion of the site, and a few isolated wetlands scattered across the site (Biotic and Wetlands Assessment, 300 acre Stephens (Hicks Lane) Site, Butte County, California, Foothill Associates, 1996). Prior to site development, a verified wetland delineation will be prepared. Listed vernal pool invertebrates (vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp) are potentially present in wetlands. The NCSP calls for a 100' development setback on both sides of Keefer Slough, and 50' development setbacks from the outer edge of the zone of influence of each vernal pool wetland. The NCSP and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act do allow for the filling of these scattered wetlands if such action is appropriately mitigated through the development of additional wetlands off-site or on-site, or through contribution to a mitigation bank. Raptors (especially American kestrel and red-tailed hawk) were observed on the site, nesting in a couple of trees and foraging across the grasslands. Although no Butte County meadowfoam was found on the site during the May site assessment and none is expected to be found there according to conditions noted by the assessing botanist, a meadowfoam . population documented east of the site indicated that it was prudent to survey the project site during peak flowering season to make a final determination whether this species existed on the site. Archaeological Constraints The NCSP has identified corridors approximately 1000' wide along Keefer Slough and approximately 1500' wide along Mud Creek as areas of high potential archaeological sensitivity. For this reason, a qualified archaeologist will likely conduct a survey of the recorded archeological and historical accounts of this area, perform a field survey, prepare a written report of the findings, and, if applicable, develop plans to mitigate any impacts to archaeological resources prior to site development. Planning Issues Access Regionally, access to the site will be provided by Highway 99 -to the west, Keefer Road to the north, Cohasset Road to the east, and Eaton Road to the south. The NCSP designates two direct vehicular accesses to the site, one from the new alignment of Hicks Lane on the east, and one from a planned new arterial southwest of the site. Planned bike and pedestrian paths could also provide access to the site from along Keefer Slough and Mud Creek. Circulation The main on-site circulation opportunity exists in developing a connection spine between Hicks Lane and. the new arterial planned to the southwest of the site. This spine has been designated in the NCSP as a collector road of Type C -I, an urban -type street within a 60' right-of-way. Environmental constraints and site design will determine the appropriate alignment of this road and an appropriate circulation pattern from this spine to the developed areas of the site. , 3 Stephens Rezone Application Parks and Open Space The NCSP designates this site for the location of a 1-2 acre landscaped `mini -park,' providing a small playfield and picnic areas to serve surrounding neighborhoods. It also calls for the construction of a network of bike paths / pedestrian trails. A path or trail is planned for the north side of Keefer Slough along the outside of the riparian buffer. This connects across the Slough to an open space greenway and Class 1 bike path traversing the site. The greenway trail links to a path / trail heading west along the north side of Mud Creek, and to two other Class 1 bike paths, one heading east along the north side of Mud Creek, and one crossing the creek and heading south to connect into other development. Drainage The NCSP prefers that stormwater drainage be provided through the preservation of natural drainage courses throughout the property, as indicated by site topography and wetland patterns. Also, an approximately 19 -acre stormwater detention area is conceptualized for this site. It is intended to mitigate a 10 -year 24-hour post -development stone runoff from Keefer Slough. Wastewater Treatment This site is outside the area served by the urban sewer system. Therefore, the best wastewater treatment system -compatible soils on the site will be identified and an appropriate community disposal system established to serve any new develo me t Utilities p n. Electricity is available to the site; currently, natural gas is not. The California Water Service Company serves the airport immediately east of the site and the developed residential areas south of Eaton Road, but does not extend to this site, so water in this area is provided by private wells. The City of Chico is in the process of developing conceptual plans to extend water service to north of Mud Creek, but the implementation timeline of these plans is unknown. V. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES Development of this site could occur in one of two ways: a conventional suwvision with minimum parcel sizes consistent with specified zoning, either SR -1 or SR -5; or development using the PD / Planned Development concept. Development using conventional subdivis' 3 design would have to meet all current lot configuration requirements of SR -1 and SRas well as addressing existing environmental constraints on-site. Based on current information, this may result in development potential that is significantly less that the optimum yield calculated by dividing the gross acreage by the respective minimum lot sizes of the individual zones. The utilization of the PD option will not only enable the property to potentially develop to the maximum yield of the zoning, but will also allow for up to 13 additional dwelling units to be developed within the SR -1 area of the property. As proposed, the development of the SR -3 / PD segment would acctually occur at a density equivalent to SR -5 (5 -acre minimum), and the additional lots yielded by the SR -3 zoning (±13), but not developed on the 103.1 -acre segment, would be transferred to the adjoining parcel zoned SR -1 / PD and built there instead. In order to take advantage of the PD option, applicants must generally adhere to the following design requirements when submitting a Tentative Subdivision Map: 1. Approximately 30% of the SR -1, and 50% of the SR -3 zoned area should be retained as open space protected by a conservation easement or other mechanism that will adequately -4- Stephens Rezone Application restrict development in perpetuity. Open space can be utilized for community leachfield areas, and passive recreation purposes consistent with any environmental constraints. 2. No lot shall be less than 15,000 square feet in size, so long as this will not -result in less than 160 buildable lots. 3. The development will utilize some form of community sewage disposal system approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and Butte County Environmental Health Division. 4. The submission of a Tentative Subdivision Map application will be preceded by a pre - development conference to review the proposed map to ensure the development meets the site planning guidelines listed below. The following sections provide a set of site planning guidelines. and an explanation of their potential application to the Planned Development option. These emanate from policies governing the site, analysis of the site itself, as presented above, and from established development practices that have been demonstrated to result in a desirable and aesthetically - pleasing residential built environment.- Open nvironment. Open Space As noted above, if the subject parcel is developed under the Planned Development (PD) option, a portion of the land will be preserved as permanent open space. The following offers guidelines for the preservation of such open space: Primary Conservation Areas The features enumerated below would be appropriately defined as Primary Conservation Areas, those areas envisioned as permanent open space, where feasible: • Wetlands that are preserved on site, with 50' of surrounding buffer area. Buffer areas can perform a number of significant functions, including filtering stormwater runoff, providing critical habitat at the land -water interface, and offering opportunities for wildlife travel corridors and informal walking trails for the immediate neighborhood. • Approximate 100' setbacks on either side of Mud Creek and Keefer Slough. Development within these setbacks for passive recreational uses (such as trails) should be carefully located to preserve the functioning of these riparian ecosystems. • Any meadowfoam communities discovered during formal springtime site delineation. No Butte County meadowfoam was found during springtime site surveys. • Existing trees used for nesting by raptors present on the site. Trees within the Mud Creek and Keefer Slough riparian areas are planned to be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. • Any areas deemed to be of high archaeological value by the investigating archaeologist, which are not otherwise mitigated. • Stormwater detention area as conceptually designated in NCSP, or other appropriate stormwater detention configuration. Secondary Conservation Areas The features enumerated below would be appropriately defined as Secondary Conservation Areas, those areas to be carefully considered during site design in order to minimize development impact and maximize the benefits of the resultant open space amenity. • The most suitable soils for filtering effluent. Since an on-site community wastewater treatment system is planned, suitable soils will be one of the site's most significant resources, and it is appropriate to organize development to best utilize these. -5- • • Stephens Rezone Application • Areas connecting Primary Conservation Areas. Wildlife movement corridors will be combined with other open space functions to the maximum extent feasible. Development Appropriate in Open Space Areas • Circulation system. Looped, meandering footpaths along the edges of open space areas, and abutting some lots, connect open spaces with residential development and access streets. • Community wastewater. treatment facilities. Facilities are planned to be located in the open space area in a way that is sensitive to the specific features of the chosen location. • Some internal neighborhood open spaces. Greens, small play lots, and a "mini -park" (as designated for this site in the NCSP) would be appropriately located in open space areas. Residential Development The following elements are envisioned for residential development on this site: • Lots abutting or facing onto open spaces. Where feasible, such lot Isiting will take advantage of the amenity value of the open space.- The adjoining open space creates a buffer on at least one boundary of the lots, which is preferable to being closed in on all sides by others' yards. • A variety of lot sizes to accommodate the designated yield. Adjoining open space will psychologically enlarge smaller lot dimensions to include some of the meadows, wetlands, or stream. corridors that are within direct view of the house. • Access to individual lots from interior local streets. The major arterials along the perimeter of the site would not be appropriate for individual lot access. • Ample street frontage for each lot. The NCSP expresses a preference for 120' of street frontage for each lot. • Appropriate tree plantings. These will create a landscaped `canopy' to shade streets and yards, and to provide some natural buffering between houses. • Development focused away from major public routes adjacent to this area (specifically, Hicks Lane and the arterial planned for southwest of the site). This will preserve views from these roads and buffer residences from associated traffic and noise. • Development sited to take advantage of any views out from the site. • Single -loaded streets, where feasible. These can create buffers between development, define an edge between open space and development, and add value overall. Infrastructure • Gently curving rural residential lanes. These will provide access to residential development and the open space system. • Individual water wells or, if more efficient, a community water system. If California Water Services Company does not extend its lines to this site, wells can be used to provide water. • Community wastewater treatment system. A community wastewater treatment system is planned. • Street lighting appropriate to the rural character of the setting. • Drainage system designed to filter concentrated stormwater runoff before it reaches sensitive areas such as wetlands. -6- BUTTEUNIFORM APDL ��r FLr Tio CAN'T': ' A t infermadon to be tvv i, oddotber side: nICANT'S NAME (U Vph= is digemnt ftm owner as affidzrit is mquixW) ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUUXEL- eorge-.T. Kammerer,* Esq., Hefner, Stark•fi Marois, LLP 047-250-141 j DRESS; CITY. STATE A ZIP CODE Fm_ ~ • ." 710 Gateway Oaks Drive Suit -- :�..�_',`�•�;.. t.l'•�;.i � e 300S Sacramento CA 95833 ' • "�"' "•.r==,Sc�'c= TE OF PROPOSED PROIECr (It any) TELEPHONE cAlION OF PROJECT ( Major== sttaM aid Addtffi„ ii m7) , t 001/4+185 Hicks Lane Chico California -95926 ' y�•• Y�1�.+}r` ? t 1 "� G&MLAL DUMMA•IION REQUYtscf1 +i ';`r _+� "� 1; .Q "^� . � .f�• 1 K.�Ly .�1' 7. f. .1+'-'+�"•r... ir. . I 1 1 . QWrIE•iVS NAME '• TIISPiiONIi Robert &Ann Ste hens c/o Douglas N. Gunn, 0 G1KE:RAL PL AN AMENDMENT :9 REZONE ❑ USE PERMIT O MINOR USS PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE L] MINOR VARIANCE ❑ A15MINISIRATAE PERMIT ❑• DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ❑ TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP Q TENTATIVE SUBDrMON MAP ❑ WAIVER OF PARCEL. MAP ❑ MINING AND RECLAMATION PIAN ❑ BOUNDARY 12M MODIFICATION ❑ LEGAL LOT DEMOAINATION Ly CERTIFICATE OF KmGm X$j OTHER Specific Plan Amendment PROJECT DESCRIPTIONc -N:.,,.,ik��9�i::;.�i•&Sw:.�- FULL DESCRWnQN OF PROPOSED PROW= (Ammh necmuy sheets) See attached description Tru a (6I9) 747-4866 ADDRESS: CTTY. STATE A ZIP CODE 250 West Crest Street, Suite E. Escondido, California 92025--1715 TONE G RMAL PLAN FJQSTING LAND USE Srm STiE (ia Sgm6 Feet a Aa= ) Various Various North Chico Specific Plan 300± acres ' EJOS WG S=Cmmm ( is Sgmaa Fact) PROPOSED STRTICTURFS (im Sgme Fm) 2,044 None (Cboa OW) (CLock OW) ❑ PROVERTY IS ORPROPOSED TO BE SEWBRED• ❑ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON PUBLIC WATER PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON SEPTIC ❑ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON WEM WATER 0 G1KE:RAL PL AN AMENDMENT :9 REZONE ❑ USE PERMIT O MINOR USS PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE L] MINOR VARIANCE ❑ A15MINISIRATAE PERMIT ❑• DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ❑ TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP Q TENTATIVE SUBDrMON MAP ❑ WAIVER OF PARCEL. MAP ❑ MINING AND RECLAMATION PIAN ❑ BOUNDARY 12M MODIFICATION ❑ LEGAL LOT DEMOAINATION Ly CERTIFICATE OF KmGm X$j OTHER Specific Plan Amendment PROJECT DESCRIPTIONc -N:.,,.,ik��9�i::;.�i•&Sw:.�- FULL DESCRWnQN OF PROPOSED PROW= (Ammh necmuy sheets) See attached description O CATION ..__ 1_ �,t �.�;�;:;: x;, .y,., ...;•x. _1ri'sS%:T. .�.. rdti.'rl.?'.. ..w... .L .7. _ :7'". yah ••`� �'�.!: ..:•�.�.: .^.JQ'... -..�: :.'• I CMU:y THAT I AM PRFSFMLY THE LFJOAL OWNER OF THE ABOVE DFSIBED PROPER'T'Y. FURTIML I AMNOaILFDGETHE F¢ M OF THIS APPLICATION AND CEATWYTHAT ALL OFTHE ABOVE INFDstMAMON IS TRUE AND ACCURATE (It m tl�aot u m be altbociaed esocaro me atBd+rit o(•utbotir�tioaao m• teYex s' ) DATE: SIGNATURE TY" u s +e e AtiG" i ^4J i nUMIZA-nom Fo, .:N To Butte Cou nry; Depat of Development Services; . Geon a T. - Kammerer. Esq.. (9H) 925-6620 e of " am Phone Print nrtaPfe, Sark Marois� , 27.10 -Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 3005 Sa fduung Addma , crameito, CA 95633 Ls hereby authorized toprocess V*application icu a Specific Plan Amendment and Rezone on my property, identified as Butte County Assesors Parcel Number 047-250-141 his authorizagon allows representation 1br all applications, hearings, appeals, etc. and to sign all documents necessary for said prOcessing,, but not including documents) relating to record title interest. Owners) of Record: (Sign and Print Name) --- Print N=857-AC-6f�9"vs q., -,J • Print Nama { �i �• 59nature f Archriect and/., g neer. Print Name of AtrhROC/En9ineer and Phone Number t Wnng Address FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Verify: Date received AP Number(s) - . Owners Authorization Project Description Total amount received I • �._ regal Description Zoning requirements Copies of plot plan - - Taken by Receipt No. EH LD Plan -- �. Payment of the currently required Application Fee and/or Deposit (Any unused portion of a deposit will be returned upon final action).. Current fee for this application is $ . as of Project: Kammerer, File SP 97-01, GPA 97-02 COUNTY OF BUTTE INITIAL STUDY EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. BACKGROUND: Name of Proponent: . George Kammerer 2. Address: 2710 Gateway Oaks Dr. Suite 300-S, Sacramento, CA 95833 Phone: (916) Name of Proposal, if applicable: 4. Type of Project: General Plan amendment and amendment to an existing specific plan ( North Chico Specific Plan). This project will also result in a change in zoning on a portion of the project site 5. Project Description and Location of Parcel(s): This project is an amendment to the North Chico Specific Plan adopted March 28, 1995 by the Butte County Board of Supervisors. The request affects approximately 300 acres of land located on the westerly side of Hicks Lane, approximately 1 mile south of Keefer Road in the north Chico area. Currently, the Butte County General Plan designates approximately 230 acres as Agricultural Residential, 43 acres industrial, 25 acres Medium Density Residential, and 2.6 acres Commercial. The North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) implements these land use designations through the following combination of zoning designations: 42.4 acres zoned SR -1; 83.7 acres zoned SR-1/OS (land subject to an unknown amount of biotic impacts); 103 acres of Os - Open Space designation; 43.4 acres zoned M-1 Light Industrial; 25.1 acres zoned R-2; and 2.6 acres zoned BP - Businesigrofessional. This project is a request to'change the land use designation on approximately��res om Agricultural Residential to Industrial. This would coincide with a change to the NCSP zoning for the land from OS to. n a ' ' e applicant is requesting that the NCSP be amended to show SR -1 zoning on the 84 acres now designated SR-1/OS and changing the 25 acres of R-2 zoning to R-1. The applicant has provided an initial biotic and wetlands assessment to support the changes for the area north of Mud Creek which was identified in the NCSP EIR as having wetlands resources. 6. Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 047-250-141 Date Checklist Submitted: II. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ■ 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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION with mitigation(s) will be prepared. X I find that the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 • Project: Kammerer, File SP 97-01, GPA 97-02 Prepared by: 0Craig Sanders Reviewed by: Date For III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below could be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Land Use and Planning X Population and Housing Systems ❑ Geophysical X Water ❑ Air Quality X Transportation/Circulation ❑ Public Services X Biological Resources ❑ Utilities and Service ❑ Energy and Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics X Hazards X Cultural Resources X Noise X Recreation EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant if there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in a earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 2 • Project: Kammerer, File SP 97-01, GPA 97-02 Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? X b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? X c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? X e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? X Response: The requested changes to the NCSP, as discussed in the project description, will result in different land uses on the subject property. Approximately 86 acres of what was proposed to be open space will now be designated for industrial development. This will reduce the total open space within the NCSP by approximately 15 to 20%. This open space was incorporated as a design element in the NCSP to mitigate impacts to several areas of concern. The open space was intended to function as a land use and noise buffer to the Chico Municipal Airport, provide foraging area for the Black Shouldered Kite; mitigate impacts to visual and cultural resources; provide passive recreation for future residents; mitigate impacts to loss of open space; and to protect potential biotic and wetlands resources. Only cursory biotic and wetlands surveys were performed as part of the NCSP so the total extent of these resources was not assessed in enough detail to provide development level information. The plan deferred these surveys to future development projects. . The open space within the Plan was also intended to help maintain the rural atmosphere that currently exists, and was a component of an overall environmental strategy to mitigate development within the NCSP area. See pages 6-13 through 6-16, 7-5, 8-3, 11-8,13-7,15-3, and 15-5 of the NCSP draft EIR. The land proposed for new industrial development will be immediately adjacent to suburban residential 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 0 Project: Kammerer, File SP 97-01, GPA 97-02 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact development to the west. This has the potential to create a significant conflict in land use. Typically industrial and single family residential uses should be separated or buffered in order to be compatible. The current NCSP provides this buffer by using physical features (Mud Creek) and other land uses, (commercial designation) and open space to insulate residential uses from industrial uses. One area of exception within the Plan is the area along Hicks Lane across from Caballo Way where a designation of Industrial is separated from an existing suburban subdivision by only a road. As proposed in the original Plan, the road was a major arterial with divided lanes, a median strip with landscaping, and a right -of-way width of 110'. This potential conflict inland use can be mitigated through the use of setbacks, and landscaped buffers. The proposed changes will not significantly affect any agricultural resources. The site continues to be used for limited seasonal grazing, The 86 acres of open space could potentially be used for some grazing but the site is not an economic unit and surrounding uses will affect the suitability for continued grazing. The conversion of this land from grazing to other purposes is not considered significant loss of agricultural land. Mitigation: The loss of open space was identified as,a significant unavoidable impact of the NCSP. The designation of up to 500 acres of open space was the only proposed mitigation. The loss of even a portion of this open space is seen as a significant change to the original EIR, creating an unmitigable impact that may require overriding consideration to proceed with the project. It recommended that a supplemental EIR be prepared to address this issue. The subdivision design for lots within the SR -1 zone shall not have frontage along Hicks Lane. A building setback line of 150' from the edge of the right-of-way shall be established along the west side of Hicks Lane from Mud creek to the northerly property boundary of the subject property. Industrial uses shall be setback a minimum of 75' from the easterly right -0f -way of Hicks Lane and a landscaping buffer shall be provided along the Hicks Lane frontage to a depth of not less than 30'. The landscaping buffer shall utilize design elements described in the NCSP. Industrial uses shall be developed so that loading areas, storage yards, or outdoor work areas shall not be permitted to face Hicks Lane. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal. a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? X c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X Response: Residential development under the NCSP is estimated as follows: SR -1 42 acres 40 DU @ approx 1 du/ac. SR-1/OS 83 acres 25-75 DU varies due to wetland/biotic constraints ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 4 X Project: Kammerer, File SP 97-01, GPA 97-02 Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact R-2 25 acres 175 DU @ 7 du/.ac Total 150 acres 240 to 290 DU This proposal: SR -1 125 acres 115-120 DU @ approx 1 du/ac. R-1 25 acres 100 DU @ 4 du/ac Total 150 acres 215 to 220 DU The net result is an actual decrease in potential dwelling units. The increased development on site will come from approximately 86 acres of new industrial development in lieu of open space. The NCSP calls for urban infrastructure (sewer, storm drainage, sidewalks & curbs, etc.) south of Mud Creek. The proposed industrial land north of Mud Creek will not have sewer service available. The extension of sewer north of Mud Creek will have significant growth inducing impacts. The creek was intended to be used as a natural physical barrier to higher urban densities and associated infrastructure. The soils in the area are not well suited for leachfield and septic tank sewage disposal systems. Industrial uses may be severely limited by a lack of community sewer. If allowed to develop on septic systems, industrial uses may initially be limited in size, employees, etc. However, over the growth of these uses and the monitoring of water flows and sewage disposal becomes highly impractical. Once the septic systems fail, community sewer may have to be extended to serve the facilities. This results .in the unplanned extension of sewer service thus facilitating more intense development for the project site and potentially on surrounding lands also. Mitigation: Prepare a supplement to the NCSP EIR to address growth inducing impacts of industrial land north of Mud Creek. 3. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or erose people to potential impacts involving: a) Seismicity: fault rupture? b) Seismicity: ground shaking/ liquefaction? c) Seismicity: seiche? d) Landslides or mudslides? e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? f) Subsidence of the land? g) Expansive soils? h) Unique geologic or physical features? X X X X X X X X ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services. ❑ Planning Division ❑ 5 • Project: Kammerer, File SP 97-01, GPA 97-02 Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Response: The Butte County Seismic Safety Element does not indicate any faults in the area and the risk of ground rupture in the event of a seismic event is remote. However, all of Butte County is still classified as a Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII and potential ground shaking is possible. Construction of buildings to Uniform Building Code standards will provide adequate protection to occupants in case of seismic activity. Mobile homes are required to be anchored to the ground throughout California in accordance with Section 18613 of the Health and Safety Code. The area is also identified by the Safety Element as having low erosion potential, low landslide potential, and in not subject to subsidence. The site does contain some vernal pool wetlands, a limited and somewhat unique physical feature. Preliminary survey of the property estimates the area of these wetlands to be approximately .6 acres, significantly less than the 10 acre threshold for the Army Corp of Engineers. Filling of these wetlands would probably qualify for a Nationwide 26 permit from the Army Corp of Engineers if rare of endangered plants are not present. Mitigation: None required. 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? X c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water, quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? X d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? X f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavation? X g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ L Project: Kammerer, File SP 97-01, GPA 97-02 Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X Response: This project has the potential to significantly increase the amount of impervious surfaces on site, thus increasing stormwater runoff. Land which is currently planned for open space would be permitted to develop with industrial uses. Buildings and paved parking areas will reduce the time of concentration for rainfall and will potentially increase runoff velocity as well as volume. Comprehensive drainage plans for this area were not proposed by the NCSP. Instead, the plan calls for drainage to be addressed on an individual project basis. This could pose significant problems for property downstream, along Keefer Slough. Approximately 1/2 of the site drains into Keefer Slough. Any increase in runoff into the Keefer Slough drainage will significantly impact downstream properties which were already impacted by flood waters in 1995 and 1997. Any increase in runoff from this site will exacerbate the situation leading to potential off site property damage. Potential damage includes the flooding of several homes as well as increased flooding on agricultural lands to the west of Hwy. 99. A portion of this property, now proposed for industrial development, was identified by the NCSP EIR as a detention area needed to mitigate 10 year, 24 hour, post development runoff. This proposal does not address this issue or provide for alternative mitigation. The conclusions reached in the NCSP EIR on drainage for the Keefer Slough watershed were based upon development pattern of 1 to 2 acre residential parcels, with storm water being directed to Keefer Slough through a network of open channels thus slowing time of concentration. The zoning for the area all along Keefer Slough also calls for a maximum building coverage of not more that 15% thus limiting overcovering to an extent. Industrial development typically has a high percentage of overcovering, large areas of paving, resulting in concentrated runoff. In addition, this runoff has the potential to be carrying pollutants from industrial uses, paved areas, and landscaped areas. A significant portion of the soil on site is identified as Anita Clay Loam, which typically has poor subsurface drainage due to an impervious strata approximately 3' - 4' below the soil surface. This results in high runoff once the upper soil is saturated. The addition of new impervious surfaces will increase this runoff and will result in runoff being concentrated more quickly. The typical solution to the runoff problem is to provide for onsite detention of stormwater which can be released after peak flows have passed on Keefer Slough, thus the peak flow will remain the same but the duration will be increased. Current County requirements for detention require the facilities to be sized to hold a peak 10 year storm event plus have 1.5 feet of freeboard. This may not be adequate to protect downstream properties from increased flooding in a 100 year.storm event given the known flooding problems. Full retention of any increased flows must be incorporated into all development projects on site. Retention capacity should be sized to provide protection during 100 year storm events. Mitigation: Prepare a supplemental EIR to address cumulative drainage impacts resulting from the change in land use on Keefer Slough and the loss of storm drainage retention areas as described in the NCSP EIR. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal. a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? X ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division 0 7 t�% b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? X d) Create objectionable odors? X Response: Impacts to air quality were identified as significant unavoidable impacts in the NCSP EIR and required findings of overriding considerations. The impacts were based upon the creation of 3,093 new dwelling units and approximately 267 acres of new industrial development. As adopted, the plan provides for approximately 2,803 new dwelling units and estimates the number -of developable acres �of industrial land to be 247 acres. This last figure is based upon an assumption that only 1/3 of the industrial land that has wetlands/biotic constraints will be developed. A total of 491 acres is designated industrial within the Plan. Actual Floor Area Ratio (FAR) build out on the developable industrial land, is estimated to be 20% though nothing within the plan restricts development.in this manner. Given the original assumptions contained in the NCSP EIR, the air quality impacts of this project are not considered as a new impacts and therefore are not seen as significant. See section 10 of the NCSP EIR. Mitigation: None required.' . 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION." Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? X c) Inadequate emergency access or, access to nearby uses X d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite/ offsite? X e) Hazards or barriers for.pedestrians or . bicyclists? X 0. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? - X g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 8 - Project: Kammerer, File SP 97-01, GPA 97-02 r Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No %Impact Incorporated Impact Impact` b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? X d) Create objectionable odors? X Response: Impacts to air quality were identified as significant unavoidable impacts in the NCSP EIR and required findings of overriding considerations. The impacts were based upon the creation of 3,093 new dwelling units and approximately 267 acres of new industrial development. As adopted, the plan provides for approximately 2,803 new dwelling units and estimates the number -of developable acres �of industrial land to be 247 acres. This last figure is based upon an assumption that only 1/3 of the industrial land that has wetlands/biotic constraints will be developed. A total of 491 acres is designated industrial within the Plan. Actual Floor Area Ratio (FAR) build out on the developable industrial land, is estimated to be 20% though nothing within the plan restricts development.in this manner. Given the original assumptions contained in the NCSP EIR, the air quality impacts of this project are not considered as a new impacts and therefore are not seen as significant. See section 10 of the NCSP EIR. Mitigation: None required.' . 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION." Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? X c) Inadequate emergency access or, access to nearby uses X d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite/ offsite? X e) Hazards or barriers for.pedestrians or . bicyclists? X 0. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? - X g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 8 Project: Kammerer, File SP 97-01, GPA 97-02 Response: The proposed.change in land use, particularly the change from Open Space to Industrial, has the potential to significantly increase traffic in the area. The majority of the trips will utilize Hicks Lane. The NCSP EIR identified an increase of approximately 63,000 daily trips resulting from the proposal. Elements of the plan to reduce the impacts of increased traffic included a new arterial road from Highway 99, traversing the plan area easterly across Hicks Lane to a new intersection on Eaton Road, east of the existing Hicks Road intersection, improvements to both Garner and Hicks Lanes, and restricted turning movements at the existing Hicks Lane Eaton Road intersection. Revisions to the plan significantly changed these elements, eliminating the new arterial from Hicks Lane to Eaton Road, sending virtually all traffic from the Village Core area through the Hicks Lane/Eaton Road intersection. No additional traffic analysis was performed for these changes. There is no evidence in the record to show that the level of service at this intersection was reassessed to show that impacts will be mitigated to an acceptable level. A portion of the traffic generated by this change in land use will go north to Keefer Road and the west to access Hwy. 99. The.intersecton was identified as having a LOS of F during peak AM hour traffic and was a significant unavoidable impact of the NCSP. Any increase in traffic to this intersection will exacerbate this problem and will require new findings of overriding considerations. Until the information is available, the analysis of this project's impacts can not be adequately determined. Portions of the NCSP were found to be inconsistent with the Chico Airport Land Use Plan by the Airport Land Use Commission. In adopting the NCSP the Board of Supervisors made findings to override the Airport Land Use Commission. One of the specific findings that allowed the NCSP to be adopted was the fact that open space land was provided along the westerly boundary of the Airport north of Mud Creek. Changes to the Plan will require new review from ALUC and may require new overriding findings from the legislative body. The Chico Airport Environs Plan, adopted in 1978, finds development of this property in 1 acre residential parcels consistent with airport operations. Wustrial. uses would not be consistent. The ALUC is in the process of having a new airport land use plan prepared for Chico Municipal Airport. Based on the policy document ALUC has endorsed, a variety of different land uses would be consistent for this property including many industrial uses. However, until the new airport plan is adopted findings of consistency may not be able to be made. Mitigation: Prepare a supplemental EIR addressing the new road configurations of the NCSP and the cumulative impacts of this project, particularly to the intersections of Keefer Road and Highway 99, Hicks Lane and Eaton Road, and the new arterial and Highway 99. Address the consistency of the proposed uses with the operations of the Chico municipal airport. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division p E Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact impacts? X h) Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation services? X Response: The proposed.change in land use, particularly the change from Open Space to Industrial, has the potential to significantly increase traffic in the area. The majority of the trips will utilize Hicks Lane. The NCSP EIR identified an increase of approximately 63,000 daily trips resulting from the proposal. Elements of the plan to reduce the impacts of increased traffic included a new arterial road from Highway 99, traversing the plan area easterly across Hicks Lane to a new intersection on Eaton Road, east of the existing Hicks Road intersection, improvements to both Garner and Hicks Lanes, and restricted turning movements at the existing Hicks Lane Eaton Road intersection. Revisions to the plan significantly changed these elements, eliminating the new arterial from Hicks Lane to Eaton Road, sending virtually all traffic from the Village Core area through the Hicks Lane/Eaton Road intersection. No additional traffic analysis was performed for these changes. There is no evidence in the record to show that the level of service at this intersection was reassessed to show that impacts will be mitigated to an acceptable level. A portion of the traffic generated by this change in land use will go north to Keefer Road and the west to access Hwy. 99. The.intersecton was identified as having a LOS of F during peak AM hour traffic and was a significant unavoidable impact of the NCSP. Any increase in traffic to this intersection will exacerbate this problem and will require new findings of overriding considerations. Until the information is available, the analysis of this project's impacts can not be adequately determined. Portions of the NCSP were found to be inconsistent with the Chico Airport Land Use Plan by the Airport Land Use Commission. In adopting the NCSP the Board of Supervisors made findings to override the Airport Land Use Commission. One of the specific findings that allowed the NCSP to be adopted was the fact that open space land was provided along the westerly boundary of the Airport north of Mud Creek. Changes to the Plan will require new review from ALUC and may require new overriding findings from the legislative body. The Chico Airport Environs Plan, adopted in 1978, finds development of this property in 1 acre residential parcels consistent with airport operations. Wustrial. uses would not be consistent. The ALUC is in the process of having a new airport land use plan prepared for Chico Municipal Airport. Based on the policy document ALUC has endorsed, a variety of different land uses would be consistent for this property including many industrial uses. However, until the new airport plan is adopted findings of consistency may not be able to be made. Mitigation: Prepare a supplemental EIR addressing the new road configurations of the NCSP and the cumulative impacts of this project, particularly to the intersections of Keefer Road and Highway 99, Hicks Lane and Eaton Road, and the new arterial and Highway 99. Address the consistency of the proposed uses with the operations of the Chico municipal airport. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division p E Project: Kammerer, File SP 97-01, GPA 97-02 Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact animals, and birds)? X ' b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, etc.)? X d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? X e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X Response: The NCSP EIR identified a significant portion of the 300 acre site as having potential wetlands. This determination was made from preliminary surreys of the site performed in March and April of 1992. A subsequent, more detailed study, prepared in.1996 by Foothill Associates provides information that indicates wetlands resources to be significantly less than originally thought. This finding is also supported by Wetlands Inventory maps prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1986. The report identifies approximately .6 acres of vernal pool and seasonal drainage wetlands, significantly less than the 10 acres threshold for a Nationwide 26 Permit from the Army Corp of Engineers. The NCSP requires a 2 for 1 replacement for destroyed wetlands. Given the size of this parcel, this could be accomplished on-site or the applicant could mitigate the loss off-site. Mud Creek and Keefer Slough are watercourses that constitute jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Modification of these channels would require permits from Army Corp of Engineers and the Department of Fish and. Game. The mitigations containde in the NCSP requiring setbacks from these stream courses are adequate to provide necessary protection. ,Mitigation: Maintain a 1 00'buffer along both Keefer Slough and Mud Creek as called for in the NCSP. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? X c) Conflict with. the extraction of identified, significant mineral resources? X ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning. Division ❑ 10 • Project: Kammerer, File SP 97-01, GPA 97-02 • Potentially Significant Less Potentially IUnless Than Significant ` Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Response: No significant mineral resources exist on site or within the Plan area. Development allowed by the NCSP will meet building code requirements for energy efficiency. Mitigation: None required 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation) X b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? _. X d) Exposure of people to existing . sources of potential health hazards? X e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X Response: A portion of the site is located under an approach zone for the Chico Municipal Airport. Homes located in this zone have an incrementally higher chance of being impacted by a plane crash. Consistent with the Airport Environs Plan, no homes should be located under this approach zone. The designation of new industrial lands will result in the development of businesses that use hazardous materials. the use/abuse of these material is subject to regulations/penalties under Sate and Federal laws. Adherence to these regulations will result in this being a less than significant impact. Mitigation: No residential uses shall be permitted under the approach zone to the Chico Municipal Airport. 10. NOISE. Would, the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? X b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X Response: New industrial uses have the potential to result in increased noise levels in the vicinity. Increased truck traffic, 24 hour operations, manufacturing processes, and the general activity of employees will all contribute to potential noise conflicts with proposed residential uses to the west. ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 11 • Project: Kammerer, File SP 97-01, GPA 97-02 CJ Potentially . Significant Less Potentially Unless. Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact setbacks and buffers can reduce the noise impacts to a less than significant level. Garner Lane is designated as an arterial street in the NCSP. The proposed land use change will significantly increase traffic and associated noise along the entire length and particularly on the section just north of Mud Creek. The Plan calls for noise attenuation measures for residential adjacent to arterial roads to reduce interior noise levels to no more than'45 d6. This can be accompliched through various methods. No further mitigation is required. The entire site is subject to noise related to the overflight of aircraft and from operations of the Chico Municipal Airport. The northeast corner of the site is within the CNEL 55 d6 noise contour. The NCSP EIR concluded that both rural residential and industrial uses would be compatible within a 55dB noise level and found the impact to be less than significant. Mitigation: The subdivision design for lots within the SR -1 zone shall not have frontage along Hicks Lane. A building setback line of 150' from the edge of the right-of-way shall be established along the west side of Hicks Lane from Mud creek to the northerly property boundary of the subject property. Industrial uses shall be setback a minimum of 75' from the easterly right-of-way of Hicks Lane and a landscaping buffer shall be provided along the Hicks Lane frontage to a depth of not less than 30'. The landscaping buffer shall utilize design elements described in the NCSP. Industrial uses shall be developed so that loading areas, storage yards, or outdoor work areas shall not be permitted to face Hicks Lane. Adhere to noise attenuation requirements for residential structures adjacent to arterial roads, as contained in the NCSP. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X— e) Other governmental services? X Response: Mitigation measure to provide public service are contained within the NCSP EIR are adequate to meet the demands of this project. However, on-going funding of several elements of the Plan are now in question due to the passage ofproposition 218. The plan calls for the formation of CSA, assessment districts, or other financing mechanisms that will now require a majority or 2/3 vote of residents to continue funding. Until this is resolved, this is a significant economic issue that is directly related to the physical development of the project site and NCSP area. ❑ Butte. County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 12 • Project: Kammerer, File SP 97-01, GPA 97-02 0 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation: Prepare a supplemental EIR to address feasible funding mechanisms to ensure that infrastructure required to mitigate development impacts can be adequately maintained. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities. a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Special Districts? Response: Typically, industrial development requires energy delivering infrastructure to be attractive to users. Natural gas does not currently serve any part of the NCSP area, with the exception of a few properties along Eaton Road. Natural gas will have to be extended to serve all new industrial areas of the Plan. Typically, the extension of gas and electricity will occur within the road rights-of-way concurrent with proposed road improvements and will not represent significant environmental impacts. The NCSP identified this impact and found it to be less than significant. The provision for waste water treatment is discussed in section The NCSP call for urban infrastructure (sewer, storm drainage, sidewalks & curbs, etc.) south of Mud Creek. The proposed industrial land north of Mud Creek will not have sewer service available. The extension of sewer north of Mud Creek Will have significant growth inducing impacts. The creek was intended to be used as a natural physical barrier to higher urban densities and associated infrastructure. The soils in the area are not well suited for.leachfield and septic tank sewage disposal systems. Industrial uses maybe severely limited by a lack of community sewer. If allowed to develop on septic systems, industrial uses may initially be limited in size, employees, etc. However, over time the growth of these uses and the monitoring of water flows and sewage disposal becomes highly impractical. Once the septic systems fail, community sewer may have to be extended to serve the facilities. This results in the unplanned, and often time emergency, extension of sewer service to serve existing development.. Mitigation: See Section 2 of this document. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or designated scenic highway? X ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 .Planning Division ❑ 13 X X X X X X X Response: Typically, industrial development requires energy delivering infrastructure to be attractive to users. Natural gas does not currently serve any part of the NCSP area, with the exception of a few properties along Eaton Road. Natural gas will have to be extended to serve all new industrial areas of the Plan. Typically, the extension of gas and electricity will occur within the road rights-of-way concurrent with proposed road improvements and will not represent significant environmental impacts. The NCSP identified this impact and found it to be less than significant. The provision for waste water treatment is discussed in section The NCSP call for urban infrastructure (sewer, storm drainage, sidewalks & curbs, etc.) south of Mud Creek. The proposed industrial land north of Mud Creek will not have sewer service available. The extension of sewer north of Mud Creek Will have significant growth inducing impacts. The creek was intended to be used as a natural physical barrier to higher urban densities and associated infrastructure. The soils in the area are not well suited for.leachfield and septic tank sewage disposal systems. Industrial uses maybe severely limited by a lack of community sewer. If allowed to develop on septic systems, industrial uses may initially be limited in size, employees, etc. However, over time the growth of these uses and the monitoring of water flows and sewage disposal becomes highly impractical. Once the septic systems fail, community sewer may have to be extended to serve the facilities. This results in the unplanned, and often time emergency, extension of sewer service to serve existing development.. Mitigation: See Section 2 of this document. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or designated scenic highway? X ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 .Planning Division ❑ 13 Project: Kammerer, File SP 97-01, GPA 97-02 Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X c) Create light or glare? X Response: The proposal for up to 86 acres of new industrial lands will result in an increase in lighting/glare in the immediate area. Residential uses to the west may be affected. Many people live in this area for it's rural atmosphere which includes the ability to see the night sky. Outdoor lighiting for industrial parks are generally on from dusk to dawn, lighting up the sky.and adjacent parcels. By utilizing a separation buffer as well as shielded lighting that does not allow light to spill over to adjacent properties, this impact can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Mitigation: Require all site. on-site lighting within the industrial designation to utilize shielded exterior lighting fixtures that keep direct lighting on the individual project sites. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal. a) Disturb paleontological resources? X b) Disturb archaeological resources? X c) Affect historical resources? X d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X e) Restrict existing religious. or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X Response: The NCSP EIR identified the areas along natural stream courses a having a high potential for archaeological resources, including a significant portion of the subject property. Mitigations within the document require setbacks from Keefer Slough, and additional archaeological surveys prior to development of each site Mitigation: None required, as long as the provisions setbacks and additional surveys are adhered to as called for in the NCSP. 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreation facilities? X b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X 0 Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 14 0 Project: Kammerer, File SP 97-01, GPA 97-02 • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Response: The NCSP includes the provisions for both active parks and passive recreational open space. The Plan calls for approximately 40 acres.of park land and between 412 and 580 acres of open space. The stated function of the open space is to provide passive recreation areas, provide for path and trails, protect wetlands, and to allow for drainage corridors. The loss of up to 86 acres of open space will affect the amount of passive recreation area called for in the NCSP, decreasing that space by between 15% and 20%. Additional active recreation area could serve as a mitigation to the loss of passive recreation area, particularly if, in addition to the land dedication, the park improvements are installed. Information is not available at this time to determine the size of a suitable replacement park. Mitigation: Prepare a supplemental EIR to address loss of recreation opportunities and suitable mitigation. 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 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 wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that.are individually limited, 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 current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) X X ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 15 Project: Kammerer, File SP 97-01, GPA 97-02 Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human being, either directly or indirectly? X Response: The project site does contain some limited vernal pool habitat which could contain some. rare or endangered species. No evidence of such species was found during site reconnaissance performed in May of 1996 . The site does provide foraging habitat for the Black Shouldered Kite, a species of special concern. The loss of this foraging habitat will not affect the sustaining level of this species The loss of open space within the NCSP will be detrimental to the long term environmental goal of preserving, for a variety of needs and uses, open space, as discussed in sections 1 and 15'of this document. ti Loss of open space, 'raptor foraging habitat, and traffic impacts are identified. as a cumulative impacts, by the NCSP EIR for the Chico Sphere of Influence. Loss of raptor foraging habitat and cumulative traffic impacts are less than significant impacts subject to mitigations included in he EIR being implemented. The collection of traffic fees for the Chico Urban Area addresses the "cumulative traffic impacts. The City is currently in the process of formulating a Habitat Resource Conservation Plan for the entire Urban area. Once adopted this will address loss of raptor foraging area. As discussed in section 9 of this document, the project has the potential to place people at risk due to aircraft overflight hazards. Mitigations proposed will reduce this to a less than significant impact. ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 16 Project: Kammerer, File SP 97-01, GPA 97-02 V. MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS: As discussed above, this project had the potential to result in significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated. A supplemental EIR is recommended to address loss of openspace, compatibility with the Chico Municipal Airport, growth inducing impacts/sewer extension, land use, loss of recreation opportunities, maintainence of infrastructure, and traffic. Several potential impacts can be mitigated using mitigations and design features already found in the NCSP EIR and Plan, as discussed above in Sections 1 through 16.. In addition, the following mitigations are proposed The subdivision design for lots within the SR -1 zone shall not have frontage along Hicks Lane. A building setback line of 150' from the edge of the right-of-way shall be established along the west side of Hicks Lane from Mud creek to the northerly property boundary of the subject property. Industrial uses shall be setback a minimum of 75' from the easterly right-of-way of Hicks Lane and a landscaping buffer shall be provided along the Hicks Lane frontage to a depth of not less than 30'. The Landscaping buffer shall utilize design elements described in the NCSP. Industrial uses shall be developed so that loading areas, storage yards, or outdoor work areas shall not be permitted to face Hicks Lane. 2. No residential uses shall be permitted under the approach zone to the Chico Municipal Airport. Require all site on-site lighting within the industrial designation to, utilize shielded exterior lighting fixtures that keep direct lighting on the individual project sites. ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 17 Project: Kammerer, File SP 91-01, GPA 97-02 DATA SHEET A. Proiect Description 1. Type of Project: General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment 2. Proposed Density of Development: Industrial/Residential 3. Amount of Impervious Surfacing: Significant potential 4. Access and Nearest Public Road(s): Access to Hicks Lane 5. Method of Sewage Disposal: Individual septic systems/ Community sewer. 6. Source of Water Supply: Individual wells/Community water. 7. Proximity of Power Lines: To property. 8. Potential for further land divisions and development: None under existing zoning. B. Environmental Setting 1. Terrain a General Topographic. Character: Slightly undulating land traversed by two water courses b. Slopes: less than 3% C. Elevation: feet above sea level. d. Limiting Factors: Some vernal pools 2. Soils a. Types and Characteristics: b. Limiting Factors: Poor subsurface drainage may limit sewage disposal capacity and. restrict significant infiltration 3. Natural Hazards of the Land a. Earthquake Zone: Moderate Earthquake.lntensity Zone VIII. b. Erosion Potential: Low C. Landslide Potential: None d. Fire Hazard: Unclassified e. Expansive Soil Potential: Moderate .4. Hydrology a. Surface Water: The site is traversed by a network of minor drainage swales that feed two seasonal water courses crossing the property. b. Ground Water: Generally, an abundant supply of groundwater is available. C. Drainage Characteristics: The parcel generally drains to the southwest. Several low lying areas retain water in the form of vernal pools. d. Annual Rainfall (normal): 24 inches per year. e. Limiting Factors: Limited wetlands on site 5. Visual/Scenic Quality: Good. 6. Acoustic Quality: Fair to poor, the site is subject to noise from the Chico Municipal Airport. 7. Air Quality: Good, except when stagnant air conditions persist in the valley. 8. Vegetation: Annual grasses predominate, a small orchard exists on site, some tree exist along Mud Creek 9. Wildlife.Habitat: Small birds and animals common to valley grasslands. 10. - Archaeological and Historical Resources in the area: High sensitivity area, particularly along the two significant watercourses. 11. Butte County General Plan designation: Agricultural Residential, Medium Density Residential, 12. Existing Zoning: SR -1, R-2, M-1, BP, OS 13. Existing Land Use on-site: 1 Single family residence, grazing, small orchard 14. Surrounding Area: a. Land Uses: mixture of open lands and rural to suburban residential to the north, west, and south. Chico Municipal airport to the east. ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services '❑ Planning Division ❑ 18 • Project: Kammerer, File SP 97-01, GPA 97-02 • b. Zoning: SR -1, M-1, c. Gen. Plan Designation: Agricultural Residential d. Parcel Sizes: 1 to 300 acres 15. Character of Site and Area: Rural residential/open land 16. Nearest Urban Area: City of Chico, approximately 4 miles to the south. 17. Relevant Spheres of Influence: Partially within proposed City of Chico Sphere, CSA 87, CARD,CUSD 18. Improvement Standards Urban Area: No 19. Fire Protection Service: a. Nearest County (State) Fire Station: Station number 41, approximately miles away. b. Water Availability: Fire tankers only. 20. Schools: Union School District(s): CUSD ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL 1. Butte County Planning Department. Earthquake and Fault Activity Map 11-1. Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 2. Butte County Planning Department. Liquefaction Potential Map 11-2. Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 3. Butte County Planning Department. Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map 111-1. Safety Element. Oroville, CA CH2M Hill, 1977. 4. Butte County Planning Department. Erosion Potential Map 111-2. Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 5. Butte County Planning Department. Expansive Soils Map 111-3,'Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977., 6. Butte County Planning Department. Noise Element Map IV -1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 7. Butte County Planning Department.- Scenic Highways Map V-1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 8. Butte County Planning Department. Natural Fire Hazard Classes Map 111-4.' Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 9. Butte County Planning Department. Archaeological Sensitivity Map. Oroville, CA: James P. Manning, 1983. 10. Butte County Planning Department. School District Map. Oroville, CA. 11. Northwestern District Department of Water Resources. Chico Nitrate Study Map, Nitrate Concentration in Shallow Wells. The Resources Agency, State of California, 1983. 12. Butte County Board of Supervisors. Agricultural Preserves Map, established by Resolution No. 67-178. Oroville, CA: Butte County Planning Department, 1987. 13. National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1989. 14. USGS Quad Maps. 15. Soil Map. Chico (1925)/Oroville (1926) Area. United States Department of Agriculture. 16. Soil Survey of Chico (1925)/Oroville (1926) Area. United States Department of Agriculture. 17. Butte County Planning Department. Butte County Fire Protection Jurisdictions and Facilities Map. Butte County Fire Department and California Department of Forestry, 1989. ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 19 Project: Kammerer, File SENIOR PLANNER 97-01, GPA 97-02 COUNTY OF BUTTE INITIAL STUDY EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. BACKGROUND: Name of Proponent: George Kammerer 2. Address: 2710 Gateway Oaks Dr. Suite 300-S, Sacramento, CA 95833 Phone: (916) 3. Name of Proposal, if applicable: 4. Type of Project: Amendment to an existing specific plan ( North Chico Specific Plan). This project will also result in a change in zoning on a portion of the project site 5. Project Description and Location of Parcel(s): This project is an amendment to the North Chico Specific Plan adopted March 28,1995 by the Butte County Board of Supervisors. The request affects approximately 230 acres of land located on the westerly side of Hicks Lane, approximately 1 mile south of Keefer Road in the north Chico area. The Butte County General Plan designates this area as Agricultural Residential. The North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) implements this land use designation through the following combination of zoning designations: 42.4 acres zoned SR -1; 83.7 acres zoned SR-1/OS (land subject to an unknown amount of biotic impacts); and 103 acres of OS - Open Space designation. This project is a request to change the zoning in the following manner: The SR -1 and SR- 1/OS will be changed To SR-1/PD and the OS_designation will be changed to SR-3/PD. These zoning designations will give future developers the option of either developing the land with conventional subdivisions with minimum parcels sizes indicated by the zoning or utilize a PD - Planned Development option which will allow for smaller parcels, require a community sewer and water systems in the SR -1 area and require at least 30% open space in the SR -1 and 50% open space in the SR -3 area. As planned, the PD option will allow the developer to maximize the number of dwelling units by allowing the full potential density of the zoning to be developed while avoiding constrained lands which would otherwise reduce density in a conventional lot layout. Within the SR-3/PD area the total number of dwelling units shall not exceed 20 under any circumstance. However, if the PD option is utilized, the full density credit of 34 units will be given, with the additional 14 units being developed as part of the planned development on the SR -1 lands. The applicant has provided an initial biotic and wetlands assessment to support the changes for the area north of Mud Creek which was identified in the NCSP EIR as having wetlands resources. 6. Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 047-250-141 7. Date Checklist Submitted: II. DETERMINATION: On the basis of.this initial evaluation: ■ 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ■ 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 the mitigation measures described on an attached 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 Project: Kammerer, File SENIOR PLANNER 97-01, GPA 97-02 sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION with mitigation(s) will be prepared. X I find that the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Prepared by: Craig Sanders Date Reviewed by: For III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below could be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Transportation/Circulation ❑ Public -Services ❑ Population and Housing X Biological Resources X Utilities and Service Systems X Geophysical ❑ Energy and Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics ❑ -Water X Hazards 0 Cultural Resources 0 Air Quality X Noise 0 Recreation EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant if there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division ❑ 0 • Project: Kammerer, File SENIOR PLANNER 97-01•, GPA 97-02 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in a earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? Response: The requested changes to the NCSP, as discussed in the project description, will result in different land uses on the subject property. Approximately 103 acres of what was proposed to be open space will now be designated for rural residential development with a density not to exceed 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. If divided into 5 acre parcels, 20 new homes will be located on this land along with associated roads and out buildings. This type of development will retain approximately 17 acres of open space due to the required creek setback corridors along Mud Creek and Keffer Slough and will still allow for some habitat value on the 5 acre parcels , though it will be greatly diminmished. If the future developer chooses to utilize the PD - Planned Development option, 20 homes will still be . allowed on this land but a requirement for a minimum of 50% of the land must be retained in open space. The first scenario will reduce the total open space within the NCSP by approximately 15 to 20%. The PD option will cut the reduction in half. This open space was incorporated as a design ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division. ❑ 3 X X X X X Response: The requested changes to the NCSP, as discussed in the project description, will result in different land uses on the subject property. Approximately 103 acres of what was proposed to be open space will now be designated for rural residential development with a density not to exceed 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. If divided into 5 acre parcels, 20 new homes will be located on this land along with associated roads and out buildings. This type of development will retain approximately 17 acres of open space due to the required creek setback corridors along Mud Creek and Keffer Slough and will still allow for some habitat value on the 5 acre parcels , though it will be greatly diminmished. If the future developer chooses to utilize the PD - Planned Development option, 20 homes will still be . allowed on this land but a requirement for a minimum of 50% of the land must be retained in open space. The first scenario will reduce the total open space within the NCSP by approximately 15 to 20%. The PD option will cut the reduction in half. This open space was incorporated as a design ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division. ❑ 3 0 Project: Kammerer, File SENIOR PLANNER 97-01, GPA 97-02 • Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact element in the NCSP to mitigate impacts to several areas of concern. The open space was intended to function as a land use and noise buffer to the Chico Municipal Airport, provide foraging area for the Black Shouldered Kite; mitigate impacts to visual and cultural resources; provide passive recreation . for future residents; mitigate impacts to loss of open space; and to protect potential biotic and wetlands resources. Only cursory biotic and wetlands surveys were performed as part of the NCSP so the total extent of these resources was not assessed in enough detail to provide development level information. The plan deferred these surveys to future development projects. The open, space within the Plan was also intended to help maintain the rural atmosphere that currently exists, and was a component of an overall environmental strategy to mitigate development within the NCSP area. See pages 6-13 through 6-16, 7-5, 8-3, 114, 13-7, 15-3, and 15-5 of the NCSP draft EIR. The proposal to locate up to 20 new homes on this land is consistent with the Current General Plan Land Use designation of Agricultural Residential. The proposal would also be consistent with adjacent uses to the west and south, which are residential. Potential conflict could occur with future industrial development to the southeast and with the current Chico Municipal Airport operations to the west. The industrial to the southeast is across Mud Creek and homes will be required to be setback 1 00'from the edge of the channel. Likewise, there will be a setback on the industrial side of the channel. This will create an adequate buffer between uses. The airport generates significant amounts of noise. The majority of the existing OS designation is within the projected 55 dB CNEL noise contour for the year 2010(NCSP EIR). Residents living within the proposed development area will be subject to noise that is somewhat higher than other residents. The NCSP Final EIR determined that residential densities of 1 dwelling unit per 3 acres or less is compatible with this noise level. The northerly portion of the site is within the approach zone for the airport. The current Airport Environs Plan finds residential densities of 1 dwelling per 5 acres a compatible use. Avigation easements shall be required to be granted to the City of Chico for all future development projects, consistent with current policy and the requirements of the NCSP. The proposed changes will not significantly affect any agricultural resources. The site continues to be used for limited seasonal grazing. The 103 acres of open space could potentially be used for some grazing but the site is not an economic unit and surrounding uses will affect the suitability for continued grazing. The conversion of this land from grazing to other purposes is not considered significant loss of agricultural land. Mitigation: The loss of open space was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the NCSP. The designation of up to 500 acres of open space was the only proposed mitigation: This acreage will be reduced by 86 to 52 acres loss of even a portion of this open space is seen as a significant change to the original EIR, creating an unmitigable impact that may require overriding consideration to proceed with the project. It is recommended that a supplemental EIR be prepared to address this issue. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal. a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? X b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 4 Project: Kammerer, File SENIOR PLANNER 97-01, GPA 97-02 Potentially Significant. Less . Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact'. Incorporated Impact Impact (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? X c) Displace existing housing; .especially affordable housing? X Response: The current maximum residential development under the NCSP is estimated as follows: SR -1 42 acres 42 DU @ 1 du/ac. SR -1/0S 84 acres 25-71 DU varies due to wetland/biotic constraints Total 126 acres 67 to 113 DU This proposal using the PD option: SR-1/PD 126 acres 126 DU @ approx 1 du/ac + 14 DU bonus from SR-3/PD area. SR-3/PD 103 acres 20 DU Total 229 acres 160 DU The net result is an increase in potential dwellings ranging from 47 to 93 units. This will increase the total number of units within the plan from 2,803 to as much as 2,896, a 3.3% increase. This will not result in a signifinact change in the plan. The original EIR for the plan area was based on 3,093 dewlling units. Mitigation: None required F 3. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Seismicity: fault rupture? X b) Seismicity: ground shaking/ liquefaction? X c) Seismicity: seiche? X d) Landslides or mudslides? X e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? X f) Subsidence of the land? X g) Expansive soils? X h) Unique geologic or physical features? X Response: The Butte County Seismic Safety Element does not indicate any faults in the area and the ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 5 Project: Kammerer, File SENIOR PLANNER 97-01, GPA 97-02 Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact risk of ground rupture in the event of a seismic event is remote. However, all of Butte County is still classified as a Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII and potential ground shaking is possible. Construction of buildings to Uniform Building Code standards will provide adequate protection to occupants in case of seismic activity. Mobile homes are required to be anchored to the ground throughout California in accordance with Section 18613 of the Health and Safety Code. The area is also identified by the Safety Element as having low erosion potential, low landslide potential, and in not subject to subsidence. The site does contain some vernal pool wetlands, a limited and somewhat unique physical feature. Preliminary survey of the property estimates the area of these wetlands to be approximately .6 acres, significantly less than the 10 acre threshold for the Army Corp of Engineers. Filling of these wetlands would probably qualify for a Nationwide 26 permit from the Army Corp of Engineers if rare of endangered plants are not present. Mitigation: None required. 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? X c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? X d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? X. f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavation? X g) .Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 6 0 ' 0 Project: Kammerer, File SENIOR PLANNER 97-01, GPA 97-02 Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Response: Comprehensive drainage plans for this area were not proposed by the NCSP. Instead, the plan calls for drainage to be addressed on an individual project basis. This could pose significant problems for property downstream, along Keefer Slough. A significant portion of the soil on site is identified as Anita Clay Loam, which typically has poor subsurface drainage due to an impervious strata approximately T- 4' below the soil surface. This results in high runoff once the upper soil is saturated. Approximately '/z of the site drains into Keefer Slough. Any increase in runoff into the Keefer Slough drainage will significantly impact downstream properties which were already impacted by flood waters in 1995 and 1997. Any increase in runoff from this site will exacerbate the situation leading to potential off site property damage. Potential damage includes the flooding of several homes as well as increased flooding on agricultural lands to the west of Hwy. 99. The typical solution to the runoff problem is to provide for onsite detention of stormwater which can be released after peak flows have passed on Keefer Slough, thus the peak flow will remain the same but the duration will be increased. Current County requirements for detention require the facilities to be sized to hold a peak 10 year storm event plus have 1.5 feet of freeboard. This may not be adequate to protect downstream properties from increased flooding in a 100 year storm event given the known flooding problems. Full retention of any increased flows must be incorporated into all development projects on site. Retention capacity should be sized to provide protection during 100 year storm events. This project has the potential to incrementally increase the amount of impervious surfaces'on site, thus increasing stormwater runoff. Land which is currently planned for open space would be permitted to'develop with up to 20 homes`along with associated roads. This will not generate significant amounts of additional storm water and any additional runoff can be retained on site so as not to affect existing flooding problems downstream. The utilization of the PD option will result in up to 140 homes being constructed on approximately 88 acres once the 30% open space requirement is met. Within the NCSP a maximum building coverage of 15% has been adopted for the SR -1 zone. This same requirement will be applied to any conventional subdivisions but may. be modified for a PD development plan based on retained open space. A portion of the. OS property, now proposed for rural residential development, was identified by the NCSP EIR as a detention area needed to mitigate 10 year, 24 hour, post development runoff. This proposal recognizes this need and will make provisions to provide for this retention area as required. The retention area can be accommodated under either the 5 acre scenario or a PD development plan. Mitigation: Drainage detention facilites shall be designed to ensure that along Keefer Slough, the downstream water level for a 100 year peak storm event, is not increased. The design shall also incorporate the requirements of the NCSP. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? X b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X c) Alter air movement, moisture, or ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 7 Project: Kammerer, File SENIOR PLANNER 97-01, GPA 97-02 Potentially, Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact - Incorporated Impact Impact temperature, or cause any change in climate? X d) Create objectionable odors? X Response: Impacts to air quality were identified as significant unavoidable impacts in the NCSP EIR and required findings of overriding considerations. The impacts were based upon the creation of 3,093 new dwelling units and approbmately 267 acres of new industrial development. As adopted, the plan provides for approbmately 2,803 new dwelling units and estimates the number of developable acres of industriaLJand to be 247 acres. This last figure is based upon an assumption that only 1/3 of the industrial land that has wetiands/biotic constraints will be developed. A total of 491 acres is designated industrial within the Plan. Actual Floor Area Ratio (FAR) build out on the developable industrial land is estimated to be 20% though nothing within the plan restricts development in this manner. Given the original. assumptions contained in the NCSP EIR, the air quality impacts of this project are not considered as a new impacts and therefore are not seen as significant. See section 10 of the NCSP EIR. Mitigation: None required. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: • a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? X c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite/ offsite? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? x r , f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? X h) Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning .Division ❑ 8 C] Project: Kammerer, File SENIOR PLANNER 97-0i, GPA 97-02 public transportation services? i Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact X Response: The proposed change in land use will not significantly increase the traffic in the area. Up to 580 additional trips will be generated by this proposal. The NCSP EIR identified an increase of approximately 63,000 daily trips resulting from the development of 3,093 new dwelling units and approximately 267 acres of new industrial development. As adopted, the plan reduced the number of dwellings to approximately 2,803 and estimates the number of developable acres of industrial land to be 247 acres. Elements of the plan to reduce the impacts of increased traffic included a new arterial road from Highway 99, traversing the plan area easterly to Hicks Lane (with an additional loop to serve the west side of the airport), improvements to both Garner and Hicks Lanes including signalization and re -alignment of Hicks Lane intersection to meet Silverbell Road. Trips generated from this project will primarily take Hicks Lane south to Eaton. Some may utilize the new arterial to Hwy. 99 and others may cut west to Garner Lane and Hwy. 99 intersection to avoid congestion on Hicks. Overall, the increase in traffic generated by this project does not represent a significant increase over projected levels. Proposed improvements to Hicks Lane will handle this increase. A very small portion of the traffic generated by this change in land use will go north to Keefer Road and the west to access Hwy. 99. The intersection was identified as having a LOS of F during peak AM hour traffic and was a significant unavoidable impact of the NCSP. Any the minor amount of traffic increase at this intersection is not seen as a significant impact. Portions of the NCSP were found to be inconsistent with the Chico Airport Land Use Plan by the Airport Land Use Commission. In adopting the NCSP the Board of Supervisors made findings to override the Airport Land Use Commission. One of the specific findings that allowed the NCSP to be adopted was the fact that open space land was provided along the westerly boundary of the Airport north of Mud Creek. Changes to the Plan will require new review from ALUC and may require new overriding findings from the legislative body. The Chico Airport Environs Plan, adopted in 1978, finds development of the OS area 5 acre residential parcels, consistent with airport operations. The ALUC is in the process of having a new airport land use plan prepared for Chico Municipal Airport which could change consistent land uses in the area. Mitigation: None required 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? X b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, etc.)? X ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ D • Project: Kammerer, File SENIOR PLANNER 91-01; GPA 91-02 d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? • Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X X. Response: The NCSP EIR identified a significant portion of the 300 acre site as having potential wetlands. This determination was made from preliminary surveys of the site performed in March and April of 1992. A subsequent, more detailed study, prepared in 1996 by Foothill Associates provides information that,indicates wetlands resources to be significantly less than originally thought. This finding is also supported by Wetlands Inventory maps prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1986. The report identifies approximately .6 acres of vernal pool and seasonal drainage wetlands, significantly less than the 10 acres threshold for a Nationwide 26 Permit from the Army Corp of Engineers. The NCSP requires a 2 for 1 replacement for destroyed wetlands. Given the size of this parcel, this could be accomplished on-site or the applicant could mitigate the loss off-site. There is some potential that Butte County Meadowfoam may be located on the property. Past surveys have not identified any populations but the surveys were not performed during optimum flowering season. Mud Creek and Keefer Slough are watercourses that constitute jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Modification of these channels would require permits from Army Corp .of Engineers and the Department of Fish and Game. The mitigations contained in the NCSP requiring setbacks from these stream courses are adequate to provide necessary protection. Mitigation: Maintain a 100' buffer along, both Keefer Slough and Mud Creek as called for in the NCSP. Perform an complete wetlands delineation and botanical survey for Butte County Meadowfoam as part of any development application. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Conflict with the extraction of identified, significant mineral resources? X X X Response: No significant mineral resources ebst on site or within the Plan area. Development allowed by the NCSP will meet building code requirements for energy efficiency. Mitigation: None required ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 10 Project: Kammerer, File SENIOR PLANNER 97-01, GPA 97-02 Potentially Significant Less Potentially. Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No ` Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation) X b) Possible interference with, an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X , c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? X e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X Response: A portion of the site.is located under an approach zone for the Chico Municipal Airport. Homes located in this zone have an incrementally higher chance of being impacted by a plane crash. Consistent with the Airport Environs Plan, no concentration of homes should be located under this approach zone. Mitigation: Residential density under the approach zone to the Chico Municipal Airport shall not exceed 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? X b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X Response: Hicks Lane is designated as an arterial street in the NCSP. The, Plan calls for noise attenuation measures for residential adjacent to arterial roads to reduce interior noise levels to no more than 45 dB. This can be accomplished through various methods. No further mitigation is required. The entire site is subject to noise related to the overflight of aircraft and from operations of the Chico Municipal Airport. The northeast corner of the site is currently within the CNEL 55 dB noise contour and most of the OS area will be in a 55 dB in the year 2010. The NCSP EIR concluded that both rural, residential and industrial uses would be compatible within a 55 dB noise level and found the impact to be less than significant. ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division .❑ 11 - h Project: Kammerer, File SENIOR PLANNER 97-01, GPA 97-02 Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Mitigation: Adhere to noise attenuation requirements for residential structures adjacent to arterial roads, as contained in the NCSP. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X e) Other governmental services? X Response: Mitigation measure to provide public service are contained within the NCSP EIR are adequate to meet the demands of this project. However, on-going funding of several elements of the Plan are now in question due to the passage of proposition 218. The plan calls for the formation of CSA, assessment districts, or other financing mechanisms that will now require a majority or 2/3 vote of residents to continue funding. Mitigation: None required 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas?" X b) Communications systems? X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X d) Sewer or septic tanks? X e) Storm water drainage? X f) Solid waste disposal? X g) Special Districts? X Response: The additional development allowed within the proposed SR-3/PD area will be able to be served by individual septic tanks and.leachfield systems and individual wells. Conventional 1 acre lot ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 12 Project: Kammerer, File SENIOR PLANNER 97-01, GPA 97-02 Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact subdivisions within the SR-1/PD lands will have to prove usable sewage disposal area. Based on other subdivisions in the area,1 acre parcels may not be achieved in all areas. If the PD option is exercised a community sewage treatment facility will have to be constructed to serve the development. Disposal of wastewater maybe a problem unless discharge permits from the State can be obtained. If on-site disposal of the treated water is proposed, the best soils for accepting the water will have to be identified and included in the open space area. Mitigation: Obtain approval from Butte County Environmental Health Division and California Regional Water Quality Control Board for any community sewage disposal system. 13. AESTHETICS. Would.the proposal a) Affect a scenic vista or designated scenic highway? X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X c) Create light or glare? X Response: The development of the OS area with up to 20 homes will not have any significant aesthetic impacts. The site does not have any significant aesthetic value with the exception of some limited value along the creek corridors, which will remain as open space. Residential development will be•consistent with adjacent parcels. Mitigation: None required 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal a) Disturb paleontological resources? X b) Disturb archaeological resources? X c) Affect historical resources? X d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X Response: The NCSP EIR identified the areas along natural stream courses a having a high potential for archaeological resources, including a significant portion of the subject property. Mitigations within the document require setbacks from Keefer Slough, and additional archaeological surveys prior to development of each site ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division 0 ' 13 Project: Kammerer; File SENIOR PLANNER 97-01, GPA 97-02 Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Mitigation: None -required, as long as the provisions setbacks and additional surveys are adhered to as called for in the NCSP. 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal. a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreation facilities? X b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X Response: The NCSP includes the provisions for both active parks and passive recreational open space. The Plan calls for approximately 40 acres of park land and between 412 and 580 acres of open space. The stated function of the open space is to provide passive recreation areas, provide for path and trails, protect wetlands, and to allow for drainage corridors. The loss of between 51 and 103 acres of open space will affect the amount of passive recreation area called for in the NCSP, decreasing that space by between 8% and 20%. Additional active recreation area could serve as a mitigation to the loss of passive recreation area, particularly if, in addition to the land dedication, the park improvements are installed. Information is not available at this time to determine the size of a suitable replacement park. Mitigation: Open space created by utilization of the PD option shall be made available for recreation purposes to the greatest extent feasible. The developer will be responsible for installing all proposed recreation amenities and providing for long term maintenance. 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 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 wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term X Butte County Department of Development Services o Planning Division ❑ 14 Project: Kammerer, File SENIOR PLANNER 97-01, GPA 97-02 environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, 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 current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human being, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X X X Response: The project site does contain some limited vernal pool habitat which could contain some rare or endangered species. No evidence of such species was found during site reconnaissance performed in May of 1996 . The site does provide foraging habitat for the Black Shouldered Kite, a species of special concern. The loss of this foraging habitat will not affect the sustaining level of this species The loss of open space within the NCSP will be detrimental to the long term environmental goal of preserving, for a variety of needs and uses, open space, as discussed in sections 1 and 15 of this document. Loss of open space, raptor foraging habitat, and traffic impacts are identified as a cumulative impacts by the NCSP EIR for the Chico Sphere of Influence. Loss of raptor foraging habitat and cumulative traffic impacts are less than significant impacts, subject to mitigations included in the EIR being implemented. The collection of traffic fees for the Chico Urban Area addresses the cumulative traffic impacts. The City is currently in the process of formulating a Habitat Resource Conservation Plan for the entire Urban area. Once adopted, this will address loss of raptor foraging area. As discussed in section 9 of this document, the project has the potential to place people at risk due to aircraft overflight hazards. Mitigations proposed will reduce this to a less than significant impact. ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 15 Project: Kammerer, File SENIOR PLANNER 97-01, GPA 97-02 V. MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS: Drainage detention facilities shall be designed to ensure that along Keefer Slough, the downstream water level for a 100 year peak storm event, is not increased. The design shall also incorporate the requirements of the NCSP. Perform an complete wetlands delineation and botanical survey for Butte County Meadowfoam as part of any development application. Residential density under the approach zone to the Chico Municipal Airport shall not exceed 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. Obtain approval from Butte County Environmental Health Division and California Regional Water Quality Control Board for any community sewage disposal system. DATA SHEET A. Project Description 1. Type of Project: General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment 2. Proposed Density of Development: Indtjstrial/Residential 3. Amount of Impervious Surfacing: Significant potential ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 16 Project: Kammerer, File SENIOR PLANNER 97-01, GPA 97-02 4. Access and Nearest Public Road(s): Access to Hicks Lane 5. Method of Sewage Disposal: Individual septic systems/ Community sewer. 6. Source of Water Supply: Individual wells/Community water. 7. Proximity of Power Lines: To property. 8. Potential for further land divisions and development: None under existing zoning B. Environmental Setting '1. Terrain a General Topographic Character: Slightly undulating land traversed by two water courses b. Slopes: less than 3% C. Elevation: feet above sea level. d. Limiting Factors: Some vernal pools 2. Soils a. Types and Characteristics: b. Limiting Factors: Poor subsurface drainage,may limit sewage disposal capacity and restrict significant infiltration 3. Natural Hazards of the Land a. " Earthquake Zone: Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII. b. Erosion Potential: Low C. Landslide Potential: None d. Fire Hazard: Unclassified e. Expansive Soil Potential: Moderate 4. Hydrology a. Surface Water: The site is traversed by a network of minor drainage swales that feed two seasonal water courses crossing the property. b. Ground Water: Generally, an abundant supply of groundwater is available. c. Drainage Characteristics: The parcel generally drains to the southwest. Several low lying areas retain water in the form of vernal pools. d. Annual Rainfall (normal): 24 inches per year. e. Limiting,Factors: Limited wetlands on site 5. Visual/Scenic Quality: Good. 6. Acoustic Quality: Fair to poor, the site is subject tonoise from the Chico Municipal Airport. 7. Air Quality: Good, except when stagnant air conditions persist in the valley. 8. Vegetation: Annual grasses predominate, a small orchard exists on site, some tree exist along Mud Creek 9. Wildlife Habitat: Small birds and animals common to valley grasslands. 10. Archaeological and Historical Resources in the area: High sensitivity area, particularly along the two significant water courses. 11. Butte County General Plan designation: Agricultural Residential, Medium Density Residential, 12. Existing Zoning: SR -1; R-2, M-1,` BP, OS 13. Existing Land Use on-site:" 1 Single family residence, grazing, small orchard 14. Surrounding Area: a. Land Uses: mixture of open lands and rural to suburban residential to the north, west, and south. Chico Municipal airport to the east. b. Zoning: SR -1, M-1, C. Gen. Plan Designation: Agricultural Residential d. Parcel Sizes: 1 to 300 acres 15. Character of Site and Area: Rural residential/open land 16.. Nearest Urban Area: City of Chico, approximately 4 miles to the south. , 17. Relevant Spheres of Influence: Partially within proposed City of Chico Sphere, CSA 87, CARD,CUSD 18. Improvement Standards Urban Area: No ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 17 Project: Kammerer, File SENIOR PLANNER 97-01, GPA 97-02 ' 19. Fire Protection Service: a. Nearest County (State) Fire Station: Station number 41, approximately miles away. b. Water Availability: ,Fire tankers only. 20. Schools: Union School District(s): CUSD ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL 1. Butte County Planning Department. Earthquake and Fault Activity Map 11-1. Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 2. Butte County Planning Department. "Liquefaction Potential Map 11-2. Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 3. Butte County Planning Department. Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map 111-1, Safety Element. Oroville, CA CH2M Hill, 1977. 4. Butte County Planning Department. Erosion Potential Map 111-2. Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 5. Butte County Planning Department. Expansive Soils Map 111-3, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 6. Butte County Planning Department. Noise Element Map IV -1. Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 7. Butte County Planning Department. Scenic Highways Map V-1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 8. Butte County Planning Department. Natural Fire Hazard Classes Map 111-4. Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 9. Butte County Planning Department. Archaeological Sensitivity Map. Oroville, CA: James P. Manning, 1983. 10. Butte County Planning Department. School District Map. Oroville, CA. 11. Northwestern District Department of Water Resources. Chico Nitrate Study Map, Nitrate Concentration in Shallow Wells. The Resources Agency, State of California, 1983. 12. Butte County Board of Supervisors. Agricultural Preserves Map, established by Resolution No. 67-178. Oroville, CA: Butte County Planning Department, 1987. 13. National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1989. 14. USGS Quad Maps. 15. Soil Map, Chico (1925)/Oroville (1926) Area. United States Department of Agriculture. 16. Soil Survey of Chico (1925)/Oroville (1926) Area. United States Department of Agriculture. 17. Butte County Planning Department. Butte County Fire Protection Jurisdictions and Facilities Map. Butte County Fire Department and California Department of Forestry, 1989. ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 18