BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (BCALUC) · Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (BCALUCP)...

BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (BCALUC)

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY

BUTTE COUNTYAIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (BCALUCP) UPDATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS

FOR CHICO MUNICIPAL, OROVILLE MUNICIPAL, RANCHAERO AND PARADISE-SKYPARK AIRPORTS

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that two public hearings will be held by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (BCALUC) to consider comments on, and adoption of, the update of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (BCALUCP) and the Negative Declarations for Chico Municipal, Oroville Municipal, Ranchaero and Paradise-Skypark airports. The purpose of the ALUCP is to promote compatibility between proposed land use development that would be affected by noise, safety, airspace protection and overflight effects of aircraft operations at each airport. The BCALUCP does not propose any airport development or land use changes; nor will the plan affect existing land uses.

The first hearing will be to receive public comments on the draft BCALUCP and environmental documents. Said public hearing will be held on:

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2017 at 9:00 A.M. Butte County Board of Supervisors Room

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965

The second hearing will be to adopt the Negative Declarations and the update of the BCALUCP. Said public hearing will be held on:

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2017 at 9:00 A.M. Butte County Board of Supervisors Room

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965

The 30-day review of the Initial Study/Negative Declarations (IS/NDs) and the updated BCALUCP are on file for public review and comment starting September 2, 2017 through October 2, 2017, at the Butte County Planning Division, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA. The documents are also available for review and can be downloaded at http://www.buttecounty.net/dds/Meetings/ALUC.aspx. All persons are invited to review the documents. Comments may be submitted at the above address in writing prior to, or at, the September 20, 2017, orally at the hearing, or during the 30-day review period ending October 2, 2017. For information call or send an email to Mark Michelena, Senior Planner, Butte County Development Services Department, at (530) 538-7376 or [email protected]. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in the hearing, please contact us at (530) 538-6571. Notification at least 72 hours prior to the hearing will enable staff to make reasonable arrangements. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

http://www.buttecounty.net/dds/Meetings/ALUC.aspx

mailto:[email protected]

CEQA INITIAL STUDY

AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update –

Paradise Skypark Airport

Prepared for

Butte County Airport Land Use Commission

Prepared by

Mead & Hunt, Inc.

Windsor, California

www.meadhunt.com

September 1, 2017 Draft

INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan

1

Initial Study

1. Project Title: Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update –

Paradise Skypark Airport

2. Lead Agency Name and

Address:


7 County Center Drive

Oroville, CA 95965

3. Contact Person and

Telephone:

Mark Michelena, ALUC Staff

County of Butte, Department of Developmental Services

(530) 538‐7376

4. Project Location: Paradise Skypark Airport and its environs, including parts of the

unincorporated area of Butte County and the Town of Paradise

(See Exhibits 1 and 2)

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and

Address:


7 County Center Drive

Oroville, CA 95965

6. General Plan Designation(s): Various. County: Public, Agricultural, Resource Conservation,

Residential. City: Agricultural Residential, Rural Residential,

Town Residential, Light Industrial, Public Institution.

7. Zoning Designation(s): Various. County: Public, Agricultural, Resource Conservation,

Residential. City: Agricultural Residential, Rural Residential,

Town Residential, Industrial Services, Community Services.

8. Description of Proposed Project

The creation of airport land use commissions and preparation of airport land use compatibility plans are requirements

of the California State Aeronautics Act, Article 3.5, Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21670 et seq. As expressed by

state law, the purpose of an airport land use commission is 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 and military airports to the extent that these areas are not already

devoted to incompatible uses. An airport land use commission achieves this goal by adopting an airport land use

compatibility plan for each public‐use airport within the county.

The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC or ‘the Commission’) is established pursuant to California PUC

Section 21670.4. The ALUC consists of seven members:

Two County representatives appointed by the Board of Supervisors.

Two City representatives appointed by the City Selection Committee comprised of mayors.

Two airport representatives appointed by the managers of all public‐use airports within the County.

One member representing the public appointed by the other six members of the Commission.


2

The Butte County ALUC is responsible for preparing and adopting an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for

four affected airports within the Butte County: Chico Municipal, Oroville Municipal, Paradise Skypark (privately‐owned)

and Ranchaero Airports (privately‐owned). The countywide ALUCP contains the individual ALUCPs for each of these

airports.

The focus of this Initial study is the draft ALUCP for Paradise Skypark Airport. The proposed ALUCP will replace the

existing ALUCP for the airport adopted by the Butte County ALUC on December 20, 2000, and last amended in December

2010. A copy of the countywide ALUCP, which includes the individual ALUCP for Paradise Skypark Airport, is presented

as Attachment A to this Initial Study. The sections of the countywide ALUCP specifically applicable to Paradise Skypark

Airport include the policy chapters (Chapters 2 and 3 and Chapter 4, Policy 4.3) and background chapter (Chapter 6).

The proposed ALUCP was developed in coordination with the ALUC and its staff as well as the planning and airport staff

members from the County of Butte and Town of Paradise.

The need for updating the ALUCP for Paradise Skypark Airport is due to local and state level changes that occurred since

the plan was adopted in 2000. In 2006, the airport owner and operator—the Franklin family—changed the airport’s

status from public‐use to a private‐use airport. The private‐use status requires pilots to request permission to operate

at the airport prior to landing. Another change that occurred since the 2000 ALUCP was adopted was the shortening of

the length of the airport’s single runway (17‐35) from 3,183 feet to 3,017 feet (see Exhibits 1 and 2). The shortening of

the runway results in a slight contraction of Zone A at the north end of the airport.

At the state level, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics, published the

California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook) in October 2011. In accordance with PUC Section 21674.7,

the proposed ALUCP must be guided by the information included in the Handbook. The Handbook provides a set of

generic safety zones that are based on nationwide aircraft accident location data. The safety zones divide an airport

vicinity into as many as six safety zones, each representing a distinct level of risk:

Safety Zone 1: Runway protection zone

Safety Zone 2: Inner approach/departure zone

Safety Zone 3: Inner turning zone

Safety Zone 4: Outer approach/departure zone

Safety Zone 5: Sideline zone

Safety Zone 6: Traffic pattern zone

In general, the compatibility zones in the 2000 Paradise Skypark ALUCP adequately encompass most of the Handbook

safety zones. However, minor adjustments are needed to two of the compatibility zones to fully encompass Safety

Zones 3 and 4. The specific changes to the individual airport compatibility zones are described below and depicted in

Exhibits 1 and 2.

Zone B1 widens to the northwest and southwest to encompass Handbook Safety Zone 3.

Zone B2 lengthens to the north to encompass Safety Zone 4. The width of Zone B2 is set to maintain symmetry

with Zone B1.

Zone B2 widens to the southwest to reflect the flaring of Safety Zone 3 off the approach end of Runway 35.

Zone B2 is also established west of the runway to provide zone symmetry and to act as a buffer between the

high‐impact area of Zone B1 and low‐impact area of Zone C.

Note the published traffic pattern is located only on the west side of the airport. Therefore, no changes to the

compatibility zones are proposed for the east side of the airport.


3

Geographic Scope

The proposed ALUCP defines the Airport Influence Area as lands on which the uses could be negatively affected by

current or future aircraft operations at the Airport as well as lands on which the uses could negatively affect airport

usage and thus necessitate restriction on those uses. Paradise Skypark Airport is a 35‐acre privately owned facility

located approximately 3 miles south of Paradise town center. The proposed Airport Influence Area boundary extends

approximately 1.7 statute miles beyond the airport’s runway ends and encompasses unincorporated areas of Butte

County and lands within the Town of Paradise (see Exhibits 1 and 2). This boundary is unchanged from the boundary

set by the currently adopted ALUCP (2000).

Function of ALUCP

The function of the proposed ALUCP is to promote compatibility between the airport and the land uses in its vicinity to

the extent that these areas have not already been devoted to incompatible uses. The plan accomplishes this function

through establishment of a set of compatibility criteria applicable to new development around the airport. Additionally,

the ALUCP serves as a tool for use by the ALUC in fulfilling its statutory duty to review plans, regulations, and other

actions of local agencies and airport operators for consistency with the ALUCP criteria.

Neither the ALUCP nor the ALUC have authority over existing land uses or over the operation of the airport. Additionally,

the ALUC has no authority over federal, state, or tribal lands. The ALUCP also does not prohibit the construction of a

single‐family home on a legal lot of record if the use is permitted by local land use regulations.

The County of Butte and Town of Paradise have land use authority over the areas within the proposed Airport Influence

Area and are expected to incorporate certain criteria and procedural policies from the proposed ALUCP into their

respective general plans and zoning ordinances to ensure that future land use development will be compatible with the

long‐term operation of the Paradise Skypark Airport. These local affected agencies also have the option of overruling

the ALUC in accordance with the steps defined by state law (PUC Section 21676, 21676.5, or 21677).

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting

The airport is situated in unincorporated Butte County approximately 3 miles south of Paradise town center and is 1,300

feet above sea level. Surrounding terrain is steep and undulating. The airport is located south of the town limits but

within Paradise’s sphere of influence. The Airport Influence Area encompasses mainly lands in unincorporated Butte

County and within the City’s sphere of influence. Existing land uses include a mix of rural residential uses, agriculture,

and open space.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required

Although input from various entities is necessary, the ALUC can adopt the proposed ALUCP without formal approval

from any other state or local agency. However, a copy of the plan must be submitted to the Caltrans Division of

Aeronautics (PUC Section 21675(d)). The Caltrans Division of Aeronautics is required by state law (PUC Section

21675(e)) to assess whether the plan addresses the matters that must be included pursuant to the statutes and to

notify the ALUC of any deficiencies. The statute also requires the ALUC to establish (or revise) the Airport Influence

Area boundary only after “hearing and consultation with involved agencies” (PUC Section 21675(c)).

ALUCP policies can be implemented only by the local jurisdictions that have authority over land use within the Airport

Influence Area, or in this case, the County of Butte and Town of Paradise. State statutes require an agency to make its

general plan consistent with an ALUCP within 180 days of ALUC adoption or to overrule the ALUC (Government Code

Section 65302.3). If a jurisdiction chooses to overrule an ALUCP, the overrule procedure requires formal findings that

the jurisdiction’s action is consistent with the intent of the state airport land use compatibility planning statutes and

action by a two‐thirds vote of the jurisdiction’s governing body (PUC Section 21676).


4

11. Summary of Potential Environmental Effects

In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the purpose of this Initial Study is to inform decision

makers and the public about the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project—the adoption and

subsequent implementation of the proposed Paradise Skypark ALUCP—and to reduce those environmental impacts to

the extent feasible. The outcome of the Initial Study is to determine what type of environmental document—a Negative

Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report—is required of the proposed project.

The proposed ALUCP is regulatory in nature as it regulates proposed development, not existing land uses (PUC Section

21674, 21675 and 21675.1), and neither the project—the adoption of the Paradise Skypark ALUCP—nor its subsequent

implementation by local agencies will lead to any new development, construction, or any physical change to existing

land uses or the environment.

The proposed ALUCP does not prohibit future development in the vicinity of the airport, but rather would affect where

and what type of development could occur within the Airport Influence Area. The proposed ALUCP seeks to guide the

compatibility of future land uses by limiting the density, intensity, and height of new uses to avoid potential conflicts

with aircraft operations and to preserve the safety of those living and working around the airport as well as of those in

flight. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP may indirectly influence future land use development patterns near the airport

by enabling development in some locations (to the extent that such development is consistent with local agency general

plans) and constraining development in other locations.

Any indirect effect that may arise from shifts in future development patterns is uncertain because potential shifts

cannot be accurately predicted as to when, where, or to what extent the development may occur. The environmental

impacts of such shifts or “displacement” are speculative and, therefore, are reasonably considered to be less than

significant for purposes of this CEQA analysis (Title 14. California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, Article 10, §15145.).

This finding of less than significant is further supported by the fact that state law (Government Code 65302.3) requires

a local agency to amend its general plan and any applicable specific plan to be consistent with the ALUCP. Therefore,

any conflicts identified in the Initial Study would be alleviated by the local agency amending the applicable plan to be

consistent with the ALUCP or, alternatively, overruling the ALUC by adopting findings pursuant to PUC Section 21676.

These actions are the responsibility and purview of the local agency, not the ALUC.

The need to analyze displacement as part of the environmental impact analysis for adoption of an ALUCP stems from a

2007 California State Supreme Court Case, Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission. Among

other things, in its decision in that case the court found that “…placing a ban on development in one area of a jurisdiction

may have the consequence, notwithstanding existing zoning or land use planning, of displacing development to other

areas of the jurisdiction.” While an ALUCP does not and need not determine where the displaced development would

move to—and, indeed, ALUCs have no authority by which to make such a decision—the extent of the conflict that

results in the displacement must be analyzed.

Although policies in the proposed ALUCP would influence future land use development patterns within the Airport

Influence Area, the proposed ALUCP would not increase levels of development above those projected within the

general plans adopted by the affected local agencies. The environmental effects of development proposed in the

adopted general plans have already been adequately analyzed in previously certified environmental documentation


5

and policies and/or mitigation measures have been adopted that would reduce those environmental effects.

Additionally, any future development proposals would be subject to CEQA, ensuring that potential impacts are studied,

disclosed and mitigated as appropriate.

For the reasons stated above, the proposed ALUCP would not result in any direct impacts to the following

environmental categories: Aesthetics; Agriculture/Forestry Resources; Air Quality; Cultural Resources; Geology/Soils;

Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Hazards/Hazardous Materials; Hydrology/Water Quality; Mineral Resources; Noise;

Population and Housing; Recreation; Transportation/Traffic; Tribal Cultural; and Utilities/Services Systems.

No environmental categories would be affected by this project to the extent of having a “Potentially Significant Impact.”

Three environmental impact categories, “Biological Resources,” “Land Use/Land Use Planning” and “Public Services”

were identified as having a “Less than Significant Impact.” Appropriate discussions are provided for other impact

categories that warrant explanation.

As described in Section 4, Biological Resources, portions of the Airport Influence Area for the Paradise Skypark Airport

are within the Butte Regional Conservation Plan (BRCP). The BRCP is a County‐proposed solution that streamlines the

existing Endangered Species Act permitting process and facilitates a coordinated regional approach to habitat and

species conservation and regulation. The BRCP does not propose new or enhancement of existing wildlife habitat within

the airport environs. Instead, the BRCP requires that a biological resource assessment be conducted for proposed

development projects where there may be a special‐status species or critical habitat on the project site. The proposed

ALUCP does not grant development rights like a local agency’s general plan or zoning. Therefore, no conflicts exist

between the BRCP and proposed ALUCP.

As described in Section 10, Land Use and Planning, the adopted general plan policies, general plan land use maps and

zoning maps for the County of Butte and Town of Paradise were reviewed for consistency with the proposed ALUCP.

Minor conflicts were identified between the local jurisdictions’ compatibility measures and the proposed ALUCP.

Therefore, both jurisdictions will need to make slight modifications to their respective general plans and/or

implementing ordinances to be fully consistent with the proposed ALUCP or to take action to overrule the ALUC.

As described in Section 14, Public Services, adoption and implementation of the proposed ALUCP would create a

temporary increase in the staff workloads of the affected local agencies as a result of the state requirement to modify

local general plans for consistency with the ALUCP. However, this effect would be temporary. Over the long term, the

procedural policies included in the proposed ALUCP are intended to simplify and clarify the ALUC project review process

and thus reduce workload for the Butte County ALUC and local agency planning staff members.

A

B1

B2

C

D

D

C

B2

D

D

C

C

B1

B2

B1

B1

B2

B2

Source: Mead & Hunt, Inc. 2017

0 2,500 5,000Feet

¯Land Use Source: Butte County General Plan2030, Land Use Element (November 6, 2012).

(August 2017 Draft)

Exhibit 1General Plan Land Use

County of Butte

Paradise SkyparkLand Use Compatibility Plan

Butte CountyAirport Land Use Commission

Land Use DesignationsAgricultural Resource ConservationResidential, FR (1-40 ac/du)Residetial, RR (5-10 ac/du)Residential, VLDR (up to 1 ac/du)Residetial, LDR (up to 3 du/ac)Residential, MDR (up to 6 du/ac)Retail & OfficePublic

BoundariesAirport Compatibility Zones(adopted 2000)Airport Compatibility Zones(Draft)Airport PropertyParadise City LimitsParadise Sphere of Influence

Legend

B2

B2

B1

B1

B2

B1

C

C

D

D

A

B1

B2

C

D

D

C

B2

Source: Mead & Hunt, Inc. 2017

0 2,500 5,000Feet

¯

Legend

Land Use Designations

(August 2017 Draft)Exhibit 2

General Plan Land UseCity of Paradise

Paradise SkyparkLand Use Compatibility Plan

Butte CountyAirport Land Use Commission

Agricultural ResidentialCommunity ServiceLight IndustrialNeighborhood CommercialOpen Space/AgriculturePublic InstitutionRural Residential (1/2 acre min)Town Residential (1/3 acre min)

Land Use Source: Town of Paradise.www.townofparadisemapping.comretrieved May 2017

BoundariesAirport Compatibility Zones(adopted 2000)Airport Compatibility Zones(Draft)Airport PropertyParadise Sphere of InfluenceParadise City Limits


6

REFERENCES

1. Butte County Association of Governments. Butte Regional Conservation Plan. June 2015.

2. County of Butte. Butte County General Plan 2030. Adopted by Board of Supervisors in October 2010 and last

amended in November 2012 by County Resolution 12‐124.

3. County of Butte. Butte County Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. Adopted by Board of Supervisors in

November 2012 by Ordinance 4050.

4. Federal Aviation Administration. Airport Master Record (Form 5010). November 2016.

5. State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Aeronautics. California Airport Land

Use Planning Handbook. October 2011.

6. Town of Paradise. Town of Paradise 1994 General Plan. Amended January 2008.

7. Town of Paradise. Interactive Zoning Map, www.townofparadisemapping.com. Accessed May, 2017.

8. Paradise Municipal Code 1983 – Title 17 – Zoning (Zoning Ordinance for the Town of Paradise),

https://library.municode.com/ca/paradise/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT17ZO. Accessed July, 2017


8

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ANALYSIS SUMMARY (See individual pages for details)

Potentially Significant Impact

Less than Significant Impact with Project Mitigation

Less than Significant Impact

CATEGORY Pg No Impact

Comments

(Also see discussion above starting on page 4,

Topic 11)

1. AESTHETICS 9

2. AGRICULTURE/FORESTRY RESOURCES 10

3. AIR QUALITY 11

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12 f) Airport is within the Butte Regional Habitat

Conservation Plan Area

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES 14

6. GEOLOGY/SOILS 15

7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 16

8. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 17

e) ALUCP limits exposure of people to aircraft

accident hazards by restricting risk‐sensitive

uses in airport vicinity

9. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY 19

10. LAND USE/PLANNING 20 b) Minor modifications needed to Land Use

Plans.

11. MINERAL RESOURCES 28

12. NOISE 29 e) ALUCP limits exposure of people to noise,

but does not regulate aircraft operations

13. POPULATION/HOUSING 31 b) No housing will be displaced

14. PUBLIC SERVICES 33

a) Negligible effect on special districts, school

districts and community college districts as

well as government staff workloads

15. RECREATION 34

16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC 35 c) ALUCP does not regulate air traffic

17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 36

18. UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS 37

19. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 38 b) No cumulative impacts


9

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

1. Aesthetics

Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant

Impact

No Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not

limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings

within a state scenic highway corridor?

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or

quality of the site and its surroundings?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which

would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the

area?

Discussion a ‐ d): See Summary of Potential Environmental Effects (No. 11 on page 5). The Butte County General Plan 2030 indicates

that Butte County encompasses an outstanding variety of natural vistas, landscapes, water resources, and Scenic

Byways. The Paradise Skypark Airport Influence Area encompasses portions of Highway 191, which is designated as a

county scenic highway. Although the General Plan provides a list and map of known scenic resources, the plan indicates

that the General Plan policies and actions pertain to all scenic resources, not just those that are listed and mapped. The

proposed Airport Influence Area contains a wide variety of aesthetic resources both listed and not. However, the

proposed ALUCP does not propose any new development, construction, or physical change to the environment that

would directly or indirectly result in any impacts to aesthetic resources.

Mitigation

None required.


10

2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer

to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department

of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether

impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to

information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of

forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project, the Forest Legacy Assessment Project, and forest

carbon measurement methodology provided in forest protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland

of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps

prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and

Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,

to non-agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a

Williamson Act contract?

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,

forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section

12220(g)), timberland (as defined in Public Resources

Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland

Production (as defined by Government Code Section

51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest

land to non-forest use?

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,

due to their location or nature, could result in conversion

of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of

forest land to non-forest use?

Discussion a ‐ e): See Summary of Potential Environmental Effects (No. 11 on page 5). The Butte County General Plan 2030

indicates that land designated as Grazing Land and Williamson Act Lands exist south and west of Paradise Skypark

Airport. ALUCP Policy 3.1.4, Land Use Conversion, encourages the preservation of existing agricultural lands and open

spaces. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP does not provide for any physical change to the environment that would

directly or indirectly conflict with agricultural or forestry use within the proposed Airport Influence Area or result in

their conversion to other uses.

Mitigation

None required.


11

3. Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control

district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable

air quality plan?

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially

to an existing or projected air quality violation?

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any

criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-

attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient

air quality standard (including releasing emissions which

exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant

concentrations?

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number

of people?

Discussion a ‐ e): See Summary of Potential Environmental Effects (No. 11 on page 5). Butte County lies within the Northern

Sacramento Valley Air Basin and air quality is locally regulated by the Butte County Air Quality Management District.

Both the Butte County General Plan 2030 and Town of Paradise General Plan include policies ensuring that development

proposals adhere to federal, state and district requirements. Although the proposed Airport Influence Area has the

potential to contain a wide variety of sensitive receptors, both known and unknown, the proposed ALUCP does not

propose any new development, construction, or physical change to the environment that would directly or indirectly

result in any impacts to air quality.

Mitigation

None required.


12

4. Biological Resources


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through

habitat modifications, on any species identified as a

candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or

regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California

Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or

other sensitive natural community identified in local or

regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California

Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected

wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,

etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,

or other means?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native

resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with

established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or

impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting

biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or

ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat

Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,

or other approved local, regional, or state habitat

conservation plan?

Discussion a ‐ e): See Summary of Potential Environmental Effects (No. 11 on page 5). The Butte County General Plan 2030 indicates that there is a known special status plant species within the Paradise Skypark Airport Influence Area. Although, the proposed Airport Influence Area contains biological resources, both known and unknown, the proposed ALUCP does not propose any new development, construction, or physical change to the environment that would directly or indirectly result in any impacts to biological resources.

f): The southern and western portions of the proposed Airport Influence Area for Paradise Skypark Airport encompass lands within the Butte Regional Conservation Plan (BRCP). This plan, which is being coordinated by the Butte County Association of Governments, provides an assessment of the County’s natural resources and a strategy for protecting those resources while allowing for future growth and development in Butte County. The plan is a County‐proposed solution that streamlines the existing Endangered Species Act permitting process and facilitates a coordinated regional approach to habitat and species conservation and regulation.


13

The proposed ALUCP would prohibit creating or enhancing existing wildlife habitat areas within the proposed Airport Influence Area if the habitat would attract to the airport environs wildlife hazardous to aircraft operations (e.g., birds). This ALUCP prohibition could potentially conflict with the BRCP objectives. For example, under the proposed ALUCP, new development projects proposed within the Airport Influence Area would be precluded from providing “on‐site” restoration of habitat areas. However, the proposed ALUCP would allow new development projects to mitigate their impacts through off‐site habitat restoration, clustering development, and/or project design. Because the proposed ALUCP is only regulatory in nature, it does not propose any new development, construction, or physical change to the environment that would directly conflict with the provisions of the BRCP. Additionally, potential indirect conflicts are deemed to be less than significant as the proposed ALUCP does not prevent achievement of the BRCP objectives of protecting natural resources in areas outside of the Airport Influence Area.

Mitigation

None required.


14

5. Cultural Resources


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of

a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of

an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological

resource or site or unique geologic feature?

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred

outside of formal cemeteries?

Discussion a ‐ d): See Summary of Potential Environmental Effects (No. 11 on page 5). Cultural resources in Butte County include

archaeological resources, historic resources, and cultural resources related to Native Americans. Therefore, the

proposed Airport Influence Area has the potential to contain a wide variety of cultural resources, both known and

unknown. However, the proposed ALUCP does not propose any new development, construction, or physical change to

the environment that would directly or indirectly result in any impacts to cultural resources.

Mitigation

None required.


15

6. Geology and Soils


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial

adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death

involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on

the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault

Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area

or based on other substantial evidence of a known

fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special

Publication 42.)

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv) Landslides?

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that

would become unstable as a result of the project, and

potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral

spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B

of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial

risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of

septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems

where sewers are not available for the disposal of

wastewater?

Discussion a ‐ e): See Summary of Potential Environmental Effects (No. 11 on page 5). The proposed Airport Influence Area has the

potential to contain a wide variety of geology, soils, or seismicity, both known and unknown. The Butte County General

Plan 2030 indicates that the Paradise Skypark Airport lies within a “high” erosion hazard potential zone, as well as a

“moderate” landslide hazard zone. However, the proposed ALUCP does not propose any new development,

construction, or physical change to the environment that would directly or indirectly result in any impacts to geology,

soils, or seismicity.

Mitigation

None required.


16

7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or

indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the

environment?

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation

adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of

greenhouse gases?

Discussion a ‐ b): See Summary of Potential Environmental Effects (No. 11 on page 5). The Butte County General Plan 2030

includes policies addressing atmosphere and climate change. However, the proposed ALUCP does not propose any

new development, construction, or physical change to the environment that would directly or indirectly result in

greenhouse gas emissions.

Mitigation

None required.


17

8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the

environment through the routine transport, use, or

disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the

environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and

accident conditions involving the release of hazardous

materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or

acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within

one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of

hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to

Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,

would it create a significant hazard to the public or the

environment?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,

where such a plan has not been adopted, within two

miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the

project result in a safety hazard for people residing or

working in the project area?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would

the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or

working in the project area?

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an

adopted emergency response plan or emergency

evacuation plan?

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,

injury or death involving wildland fires, including where

wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where

residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Discussion a – d, f – h): See Summary of Potential Environmental Effects (No. 11 on page 5). The proposed ALUCP includes land

use compatibility policies that prohibit or restrict land uses that manufacture, process and/or store bulk quantities of

hazardous materials within the proposed Airport Influence Area. However, the proposed ALUCP is does not propose


18

any new development, construction, or physical change to the environment that would directly or indirectly result in

creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

e): Pursuant to the State Aeronautics Act, the purpose of the ALUCP is to minimize the public’s exposure to excessive

noise and safety hazards within the airport vicinity. Therefore, adoption and implementation of the proposed ALUCP

would have a beneficial impact by restricting development that would expose people within the Airport Influence Area

to airport‐related safety hazards including aircraft accidents.

The proposed ALUCP uses the aircraft accident risk data and safety compatibility concepts provided in the California

Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Caltrans, 2011) to establish airport land use compatibility zones to include areas

exposed to significant safety hazards. The ALUCP also establishes safety criteria and policies that limit concentrations

of people within the compatibility zones. The purpose of the policies is to minimize the risks and potential consequences

associated with an off‐airport aircraft accident or emergency landing. The policies consider the risks both to people and

property in the vicinity of the airport and to people on board the aircraft.

The risks of an aircraft accident occurrence are further reduced by airspace protection policies that limit the height of

structures, trees, and other objects that might penetrate the airport’s airspace as defined by Federal Aviation

Regulations (FAR), Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace. The airspace protection

policies also restrict land use features that may generate other hazards to flight such as visual hazards (i.e., smoke, dust,

steam, etc.), electronic hazards that may disrupt aircraft communications or navigation, and wildlife hazards (i.e., uses

which would attract hazardous wildlife to airport environs). Therefore, no impact is anticipated as a result of the

adoption and implementation of the proposed ALUCP.

Mitigation

None required.


19

9. Hydrology and Water Quality


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge

requirements?

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere

substantially with groundwater recharge such that there

would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of

the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate

of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which

would not support existing land uses or planned uses for

which permits have been granted)?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site

or area including through the alteration of the course of a

stream or river, in a manner that would result in

substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or

area including through the alteration of the course of a

stream or river or, substantially increase the rate or amount

of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding

on- or off-site?

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the

capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage

systems or provide substantial additional sources of

polluted runoff?

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as

mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood

Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation

map?

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that

would impede or redirect flood flows?

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,

injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a

result of the failure of a levee or dam?

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Discussion a ‐ j): See Summary of Potential Environmental Effects (No. 11 on page 5). The Butte County General Plan 2030 and Town of Paradise General Plan include policies aimed at protecting the quantity and quality of water for public health and aquatic life. However, the proposed ALUCP does not propose any new development, construction, or physical change to the environment that would directly or indirectly result in any impacts to hydrology and water quality. Mitigation None required.


20

10. Land Use and Land Use Planning


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a) Physically divide an established community?

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or

regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project

(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific

plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted

for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental

effect?

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or

natural community conservation plan?

Discussion

a) See Summary of Potential Environmental Effects (No. 11 on page 5). The proposed ALUCP does not propose any new

development, construction, or physical change to the environment that would directly or indirectly result in physically

dividing an established community.

b) State law (Government Code Section 65302.3) requires each local agency having jurisdiction over land uses within

an ALUC’s planning area, also referred to as the Airport Influence Area, to modify its general plan and any affected

specific plans to be consistent with the ALUCP. The law says that the local agency must take this action within 180 days

of ALUCP adoption or amendment. The only other course of action available to local agencies is to overrule the ALUC

by, among other things, a two‐thirds vote of its governing body after making findings that the agency’s plans are

consistent with the intent of state airport land use planning statutes (PUC Section 21676(b)). A general plan does not

need to be identical with an ALUCP in order to be consistent with it. To meet the consistency test, a general plan must

do two things:

1. It must specifically address compatibility planning issues, either directly or through reference to a zoning

ordinance or other policy document; and

2. It must avoid direct conflicts with compatibility planning criteria.

With regard to the proposed Paradise Skypark ALUCP, the County of Butte and the Town of Paradise are the only two

general purpose government entities having land use jurisdiction in the proposed Paradise Skypark Airport Influence

Area. As such, once the ALUCP is adopted by the ALUC, to the extent that there are any inconsistencies, these agencies

will be required to amend their general plans and/or implementing ordinances to make them consistent with the ALUCP

or to take action to overrule the ALUC.

The general plan consistency review detailed below focuses on two types of inconsistencies:

1. Adopted general plan policies pertaining to airport land use compatibility planning that either directly conflict

or need to be amended to reflect changes in the proposed ALUCP policies and maps; and

2. Land use designations provided in the adopted general plan land use map that may conflict with the ALUCP

criteria.


21

General Plan Policies

The Butte County General Plan 2030 includes policies addressing airport land use compatibility. The policies direct the

County to consider and be consistent with the 2000 ALUCP when making General Plan and Zoning decisions. The County

also implements an Airport Compatibility (AC) Overlay Zone that identifies land within unincorporated Butte County

where additional requirements apply to ensure compatibility of land uses and development with nearby airport

operations. The Airport Compatibility Overlay Zone coincides with the Airport Influence Area designated by the 2000

Butte County ALUCP.

The Town of Paradise General Plan (1994) includes policies indicating that the Town intends to adopt by reference the

ALUCP. The General Plan also includes land use policies indicating that the Town will limit low‐intensity industrial uses

and other uses adjacent to the airport to those compatible with FAA regulations and the ALUCP.

Exhibit 3 below summarizes the land use compatibility measures established by the County of Butte and Town of

Paradise.

General Plan Policies Findings

The proposed ALUCP includes expanding several of the compatibility zones to reflect current statewide compatibility

guidance. The proposed ALUCP also includes changes to the 2000 ALUCP compatibility criteria. In accordance with

Government Code Section 65302.3, these changes will require both the County and Town to amend their respective

land use planning documents (i.e., General Plans and applicable Overlay Zoning Districts) to be consistent with the

proposed ALUCP or act to overrule the ALUC. This step is necessary as confirmation that the County and Town intend

to adhere to the proposed compatibility criteria rather than those in the previous 2000 ALUCP, or earlier plans. To attain

consistency with the ALUCP, the general plans need only reference the proposed ALUCP by name and date. Additionally,

the County’s airport‐related overlay zoning district will need to be amended to specifically reflect the compatibility

zones and criteria of the proposed ALUCP, once adopted by the Butte County ALUC. Since the proposed ALUCP includes

only minor changes to the 2000 ALUCP and results in limited effects on future development provided under the local

general plans, the impact to the local agencies is anticipated to be less than significant.


22

Exhibit 3

General Plan Policies

County of Butte and Town of Paradise


23

Land Use Designations

To achieve general plan consistency with the proposed ALUCP, there should be no direct conflicts between planned

land uses in the local jurisdictions’ general plan maps and the proposed ALUCP criteria. Existing land uses that may

conflict can remain, as can general plan land use designations that reflect them, as the ALUC has no authority over

existing land uses. The compatibility zones and basic compatibility criteria in the proposed ALUCP are the primary policy

instruments used in determining if the general plan’s land use designation is consistent with the proposed ALUCP.

The proposed ALUCP includes minor adjustments to the currently adopted ALUCP for the Paradise Skypark Airport. The

adopted ALUCP was completed in 2000 before the airport changed its state airport permit status from public‐use to

special‐use in 2006 and the length of the airport’s single runway (13‐35) was reduced from 3,183 feet to 3,017 feet. The

resulting changes to the compatibility zones is a decrease in Zone A at the north end of Runway 17 to reflect the

southerly shift in the Runway Protection Zone for a shorter runway (see Exhibits 1 and 2).

The proposed ALUCP also includes minor adjustments to the 2000 ALUCP compatibility zones to comply with the

guidance provided in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Caltrans, 2011). The generic safety zones are

based on nationwide aircraft accident location data. The safety zones divide an airport vicinity into as many as six safety

zones, each representing a distinct level of risk:

Safety Zone 1: Runway protection zone

Safety Zone 2: Inner approach/departure zone

Safety Zone 3: Inner turning zone

Safety Zone 4: Outer approach/departure zone

Safety Zone 5: Sideline zone

Safety Zone 6: Traffic pattern zone

In general, the compatibility zones in the 2000 ALUCP adequately encompass the Handbook safety zones. However,

minor adjustments are needed to fully encompass Safety Zones 3 and 4, which requires enlarging Compatibility Zones

B1 to the northwest and southwest and Zone B2 to the north (see Exhibits 1 and 2). Zone B2 also widens to the

southwest to reflect the flaring of Safety Zone 3 south of the approach end of Runway 35. Zone B2 is also established

west of the runway to act as a buffer between the high‐impact area of Zone B1 and low‐impact area of Zone C. No

changes to the compatibility zones are proposed for the east side of the airport.

The proposed ALUCP also includes minor adjustments to the intensity criteria provided in the 2000 ALUCP to reflect

new guidance in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Caltrans, 2011). In Zone A, the proposed intensity

criterion is more stringent than the 2000 ALUCP as it prohibits all non‐aeronautical structures and activities that would

attract assemblages of people. The proposed nonresidential criteria within the other zones are generally less stringent

that those in the 2000 ALUCP, but match the Handbook guidance. Exhibit 4 provides a comparison of the compatibility

criteria contained in the Caltrans Handbook (2011), 2000 ALUCP, and proposed ALUCP.

To identify potential conflicts with the proposed Paradise Skypark ALUCP, the proposed compatibility zones were

overlaid onto the general plan land use maps for the County of Butte (Exhibit 1) and the Town of Paradise (Exhibit 2).

The compatibility zones which could potentially prohibit or restrict future residential densities (dwelling units per acre)

or non‐residential usage intensities (people per acre) were compared to the allowable densities and intensities provided

in the local agencies’ general plans and zoning ordinances. A conflict would arise if the general plan residential densities

exceed the ALUCP density criteria. For non‐residential uses, a conflict would result if the land use designation allows

land uses having higher intensities than permitted by the proposed ALUCP criteria. Resolving these land use conflicts

can necessitate changes to future land use development patterns by shifting or “displacing” the location of that

Saf

ety

Zo

nes

Res

iden

tial

Den

sity

Lim

its

(du

/ac)

No

n-R

esid

enti

alIn

ten

sity

Lim

its

(peo

ple

per

acr

e)

Op

en L

and

R

equ

irem

ent

for

En

tire

Zo

ne

Dra

ft

AL

UC

PZ

on

es

Res

iden

tial

Den

sity

Lim

its

(du

/ac)

No

n-R

esid

enti

alIn

ten

sity

Lim

its

(peo

ple

per

acr

e)

Op

en L

and

R

equ

irem

ent

for

En

tire

Zo

ne

Dra

ft

AL

UC

PZ

on

es

Res

iden

tial

Den

sity

Lim

its

(du

/ac)

No

n-R

esid

enti

alIn

ten

sity

Lim

its

(peo

ple

per

acr

e)

Op

en L

and

R

equ

irem

ent

for

En

tire

Zo

ne

1R

un

way

Pro

tect

ion

Z

on

e0

du/a

cre

0A

ll R

emai

ning

AR

un

way

Pro

tect

ion

Z

on

e0

du/a

cre

10A

ll R

emai

ning

AR

un

way

Pro

tect

ion

Z

on

e0

du/a

cre

0A

ll re

mai

ning

2In

ner

Ap

pro

ach

/ D

epar

ture

Zo

ne

1 d

u/ 1

0 -

20

acR

ural

: 10-

40 (

ave.

)

S

ubur

ban:

40-

60 (

ave.

)

2x

ave

. int

ensi

ty (

sing

le a

cre)

25-3

0%B

1A

pp

roac

h/ D

epar

ture

Z

on

e1

du /

10 a

c 25

(av

e.)

50 (

sing

le a

cre)

30%

B1

Ap

pro

ach

/D

epar

ture

Zo

ne

1 du

/ 10

ac

40 (

ave.

)80

(si

ngle

acr

e)30

%

3In

ner

Tu

rnin

g Z

on

e1

du /

2 -

5 ac

Rur

al: 5

0-70

(av

e.)

S

ubur

ban:

70-

100

(ave

.)

3x

ave

. int

ensi

ty (

sing

le a

cre)

15-2

0%

4O

ute

r A

pp

roac

h/

Dep

artu

re Z

on

e1

du /

2 -

5 ac

Rur

al: 7

0-10

0 (a

ve.)

S

ubur

ban:

100

-150

(av

e.)

3x a

ve. i

nten

sity

(si

ngle

acr

e)15

-20%

B2

Ext

end

ed A

pp

roac

h/

Dep

artu

re Z

on

e1

du /

5 ac

50 (

ave.

)

15

0 (s

ingl

e ac

re)

20%

B2

Ext

end

ed

Ap

pro

ach

/D

epar

ture

Zo

ne

1 du

/ 5

ac10

0 (

ave.

)30

0 (s

ingl

e ac

re)

20%

5S

idel

ine

Zo

ne

1 d

u/ 1

- 2

ac

Rur

al: 5

0-70

(av

e.)

S

ubur

ban:

70-

100

(ave

.)

3x

ave

. int

ensi

ty (

sing

le a

cre)

25-3

0%

6T

raff

ic P

atte

rn Z

on

eN

o Li

mit

- co

nsid

er n

oise

and

ov

erfli

ght i

mpa

cts

Rur

al: 1

50-2

00 (

ave.

)

Sub

urba

n: 2

00-3

00 (

ave.

)

4x

ave

. int

ensi

ty (

sing

le a

cre)

15%

CT

raff

ic P

atte

rn Z

on

e

1 du

/ 5

ac

or≥4

du/

ac

100

(ave

.)

30

0 (s

ingl

e ac

re)

15%

CT

raff

ic P

atte

rn Z

on

e

1 du

/ 5

ac

or≥4

du/a

c

200

(av

e.)

800

(sin

gle

acre

)15

%

NA

NA

NA

NA

D

Oth

er A

irp

ort

En

viro

ns

No

Lim

itN

o Li

mit

No

Req

'tD

Oth

er A

irp

ort

En

viro

ns

No

Lim

itN

o Li

mit

No

Req

't

Not

es:

See

B1

See

B1

See

B1

See

B1

Exh

ibit

4C

om

pat

ibili

ty C

rite

ria

Co

mp

aris

on

2011

Han

db

oo

k 1

(Ru

ral/S

ub

urb

an C

rite

ria)

2000

BC

AL

UC

P 2

(Ad

op

ted

Cri

teri

a)C

on

sult

ant

Rec

om

men

ded

Cri

teri

a(A

ug

ust

201

7 D

raft

)

1. H

andb

ook

crite

ria a

ddre

sses

the

safe

ty fa

ctor

onl

y. S

ee n

ote

3 fo

r no

ise

com

patib

ility

gui

delin

es. R

ural

is d

efin

ed a

s ar

eas

whe

re th

e pr

edom

inan

t lan

d us

e ar

e na

tura

l or

agric

ultu

ral;

build

ings

are

wid

ely

scat

tere

d. S

ubur

ban

is d

efin

ed a

s ar

eas

char

acte

rized

by

low

-ris

e (1

-2 s

tory

) de

velo

pmen

t and

sur

face

par

king

. Urb

an is

de

fined

by

mid

-ris

e (u

p to

5 s

torie

s) d

evel

opm

ent;

gene

rally

sur

face

veh

icle

par

king

, but

pot

entia

lly s

ome

park

ing

stru

ctur

es.

2. R

ecom

men

ded

crite

ria a

ddre

sses

all

four

com

patib

ility

fact

ors

in a

com

posi

te m

anne

r.

3. H

andb

ook

nois

e gu

idel

ines

rec

omm

end

proh

ibiti

ng n

ew r

esid

entia

l dev

elop

men

t with

in th

e 50

CN

EL

cont

our

in q

uiet

, rur

al lo

catio

ns.

4. H

andb

ook

over

fligh

t gui

delin

es r

ecom

men

d av

igat

ion

ease

men

ts in

are

as w

here

noi

se a

nd s

afet

y ar

e a

conc

ern;

rec

orde

d de

ed n

otic

es in

are

as s

ubje

ct to

rou

tine

over

fligh

ts a

nd r

eal e

stat

e di

sclo

sure

with

in th

e ai

rpor

t inf

luen

ce a

rea.

5. H

andb

ook

airs

pace

pro

tect

ion

guid

elin

es r

ecom

men

d lim

iting

the

heig

ht o

f str

uctu

res

and

avoi

ding

land

use

s th

at m

ay c

reat

e a

irspa

ce h

azar

ds.

6. R

ed te

xt r

epre

sent

s pr

opos

ed c

hang

es to

the

adop

ted

com

patib

ility

crit

eria

.

Mea

d H

unt,

Inc


24

development to less restrictive areas of the Airport Influence Area or to other parts of the community where there are

no ALUCP restrictions. Displacement involves changes to the patterns of land use development that has not yet

occurred. The proposed ALUCP has no effect on existing land uses; therefore, no displacement of existing development

would occur as a result of adoption of the ALUCP.

For this consistency analysis, two compatibility evaluations were conducted.

1. Under the first scenario, the currently adopted ALUCP criteria are applied to the expanded compatibility

zones to determine the extent of land use conflicts if only the compatibility zones change is proposed. This

evaluation is provided as an alternative to the full set of changes included in the proposed ALUCP and

discussed below under scenario two.

2. The second evaluation considers proposed changes to both the compatibility zones and criteria.

Evaluation No. 1

As described above, the proposed ALUCP includes a contraction of Zone A to the north to reflect a reduction in the

length of the airport’s single runway. The proposed ALUCP also includes enlarging Zone B1 to the northwest and

southwest, as well as Zone B2 to the north, west, and southwest (see Exhibits 1 and 2). To determine the extent of land

use conflicts with the proposed compatibility zone changes, this evaluation applies the 2000 ALUCP criteria to the areas

included in the expanded compatibility zones. Exhibit 5 below summarizes the consistency evaluation and findings.


25

Exhibit 5: Affected Land Use Designations (Proposed Zone Changes with Adopted ALUCP Criteria)

General Plan / Community Plan / Zoning Designations Within Expanded

ALUCP Zone Consistency Discussion Finding

County of Butte

General Plan: Agricultural B2 (southwest) The AG zone supports, protects, and maintains a viable, long‐term agricultural sector in Butte County by maintain parcel size and low intensity uses.

This designation is consistent with the proposed criteria.

No conflict anticipated.

General Plan: Foothill Residential (1‐40ac/du)

B1 (northwest)

B2 (north, northwest)

The purpose of the FR zone is to ensure appropriate development of large‐lot single‐family homes, small farmsteads, and related uses in foothill areas of the county.

The adopted criteria limits Zone B1 to 1du/10 acres and Zone B2 to 1du/5 acres.

This designation is consistent with the proposed criteria.

No conflicts anticipated.

General Plan: Resource Conservation

B1 (southwest) B2 (southwest)

The purpose of the RC zone is to protect and preserve natural, wilderness and scientific study areas that are critical to environmental quality within Butte County. Permitted land uses include livestock grazing and limited recreation and commercial recreational uses that do not detract from the area’s value for habitat, open space or research. The RC zone allows for one single‐family home per parcel, minimum parcel size in the zone is 40 acres.

This designation is consistent with the proposed ALUCP criteria.

No conflicts anticipated.

Town of Paradise

No proposed zone changes are within the Town of Paradise General Plan area.

Evaluation No. 1 Findings

The proposed ALUCP includes recommendations to contract Zone A and expand Zones B1 and B2. Exhibit 5 applies the

2000 ALUCP criteria to the affected areas encompassed by the expanded compatibility zones to determine the extent

of land use conflicts. Under the proposed ALUCP, the affected properties currently in a less restrictive zone under the


26

2000 ALUCP would be encompassed by a more restrictive zone. Therefore, the future development potential of these

affected parcels could be reduced under the proposed ALUCP. However, the results of the consistency evaluation

summarized in Exhibit 5 above indicate that there are no real conflicts between the local agencies’ general plans and

the larger compatibility zones included in the proposed ALUCP as the general plan land use designations are consistent

with the 2000 ALUCP criteria for the more restrictive zone. As such, enlarging the compatibility zones while maintaining

the 2000 ALUCP criteria would not result in an impact.

Evaluation No. 2

This consistency evaluation considers proposed changes to both the compatibility zones and criteria included in the

proposed ALUCP. Except for the Zone A criteria, the proposed ALUCP includes a recommendation to relax the 2000

ALUCP intensity criteria for non‐residential uses in Zones B1, B2, and C. The consistency evaluation is summarized

below.

Zone A – More Stringent Intensity Limits

The proposed ALUCP recommends applying greater intensity restrictions within Zone A. Under the 2000 ALUCP, the

intensity limit within Zone A allows for an average of 10.0 people per acre. Under the proposed ALUCP, all nonresidential

development would be prohibited within Zone A. Only structures and facilities required for aeronautical purposes

would be allowed within Zone A.

Although Zone A is smaller than that reflected in the 2000 ALUCP, portions of Zone A remain off airport property. The

uncontrolled outer parts of Zone A south of the airport include existing natural areas designated for agricultural uses.

To the north, Zone A encompasses existing residential uses on 5‐acre lots. The ALUC has no authority over existing land

uses and the agricultural uses are generally compatible with airport operations provided that no uses allowing

assemblages of people are located within Zone A and tree heights are maintained as necessary to avoid becoming

airspace obstructions.

Zones B1, B2, and C – Less Stringent Intensity Limits

Under the proposed ALUCP, the nonresidential intensity criteria for Zones B1, B2, and C would be less stringent than

those in the 2000 ALUCP. This means that nonresidential uses that were unable to satisfy the intensity limits under the

2000 ALUCP could be developed within the Airport Influence Area provided that these uses can satisfy the slightly

relaxed intensity criteria provided in the proposed ALUCP. The proposed relaxing of the intensity criteria would result

in less conflicts between local general plans and the proposed ALUCP than would be the case under the 2000 ALUCP.

Nevertheless, the nonresidential land use designations within unincorporated Butte County include Agriculture and

Resource Conservation. These designations are consistent with the proposed ALUCP intensity criteria. Within the Town

of Paradise, Zone C encompasses lands designated for Light Industrial uses and zoned for Industrial Service uses which

include light industrial uses, manufacturing, warehousing, and office. These uses are conditionally consistent with the

proposed ALUCP provided that the uses can satisfy the slightly relaxed intensity limits.

Relaxing the nonresidential intensity criteria could potentially induce growth within portions of the Airport Influence

Area as it would relax the intensity criteria of the County’s airport‐related overlay zoning district and previous ALUCP

used by the Town to limit development within the airport environs. However, this growth‐inducing potential under the

proposed ALUCP, would not increase levels of development above those projected within the general plans adopted

by the affected local agencies.


27

Land Use Designations Findings

The proposed ALUCP includes a minor contraction of Zone A as well as slightly more stringent intensity criteria than

what is included in the 2000 ALUCP. The overall impact of these proposed changes to Zone A on local land use plans

are anticipated to be less than significant for the following reasons:

Zone A include existing residential uses over which the ALUC has no authority.

The outer portions of Zone A include undeveloped lands and is designated for agricultural uses. This

designation is generally compatible with airport operations provided that no use is allowed that would attract

an assemblage of people and tree heights are maintained as necessary to avoid becoming airspace

obstructions.

The proposed ALUCP also includes expanding Zones B1 and B2 and applying less stringent intensity criteria within Zones

B1, B2 and C than what is included in the 2000 ALUCP. Although expanding the compatibility zones would move certain

properties into more restrictive zones, the analysis detailed above indicates that the larger zones would not result in

greater development restrictions as the Agricultural, Foothill Residential, and Resource Conservation land use

designations within the expanded zones are consistent with the proposed ALUCP density and intensity criteria.

Additionally, relaxing the intensity criteria would result in less conflicts between local general plans and the proposed

ALUCP than would be the case under the currently adopted ALUCP (2000).

Relaxing the nonresidential intensity criteria is not anticipated to induce growth within the unincorporated Butte

County portion of the Airport Influence Area as the majority of the parcels within Zones B1, B2, and C are designated

for very low‐intensity uses (e.g., agriculture and resource conservation). As indicated in the County’s General Plan 2030,

the intent of the agricultural and resource conservation designations is to protect Butte County’s agricultural and

natural lands from conversion to urban uses.

Within the Town of Paradise, several parcels within Zone C are designated for Light Industrial uses. Although the

proposed relaxing of the intensity criteria would relax the intensity criteria included in the previous ALUCP used by the

Town to limit development within vicinity of the airport, the relaxed intensity criteria are not anticipated to increase

levels of development above those projected within the general plan adopted by the Town of Paradise.

Lastly, the County’s ALUCP‐related overlay zoning district, once amended to be consistent with the proposed ALUCP, is

anticipated to remove all potential conflicts between the primary zoning district (or general plan land use designation)

and the proposed ALUCP.

For the reasons noted above, no changes to the County’s or Town’s general plan land use maps are required.

c): See discussion under Biological Resources (f) for discussion regarding habitat conservation plans.

Mitigation

None Required.


28

11. Mineral Resources


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral

resource that would be of value to the region and the

residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important

mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local

general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

Discussion a ‐ b): See Summary of Potential Environmental Effects (No. 11 on page 5). The Butte County General Plan 2030

designates lands rich in mineral resources that are of regional and statewide significance. No “Mineral Resource Zones”

are located within the proposed Airport Influence Area. Although the proposed Airport Influence Area has the potential

to contain a wide variety of unmapped mineral resources, the proposed ALUCP does not propose any new

development, construction, or physical change to the environment that would directly or indirectly result in any impacts

to mineral resources.

Mitigation

None required.


29

12. Noise


Impact


with Mitigation Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in

excess of standards established in the local general plan

or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other

agencies?

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive

groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels

in the project vicinity above levels existing without the

project?

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient

noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing

without the project?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,

where such a plan has not been adopted, within two

miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the

project expose people residing or working in the area to

excessive noise levels?

f) For a project located in the vicinity of a private airstrip,

would the project expose people residing or working in

the project area to excessive noise levels?

Discussion a – e): See Summary of Potential Environmental Effects (No. 11 on page 7). The proposed Airport Influence Area has

the potential to contain a wide variety of noise sensitive receptors, both known and unknown. However, the proposed

ALUCP does not propose any new development, construction or physical change to the environment that would directly

or indirectly result in exposing persons to noise or generating noise.

Pursuant to the State Aeronautics Act, the purpose of the ALUCP is to minimize the public’s exposure to aircraft noise

within the airport vicinity. Therefore, adoption and implementation of the proposed ALUCP would not generate new

sources of aviation‐related noise or expose people residing and working in the vicinity of the airport to excessive noise.

Airport‐related noise and its impacts on land uses were considered in the development of the proposed ALUCP. The

airport currently sees approximately 15,000 annual operations. Future aircraft activity levels are anticipated to be

approximately twice the estimated existing activity levels for compatibility planning purposes. Therefore, the forecast


30

activity level of 30,000 annual operations is brought forward from the 2000 ALUCP to cover the requisite 20‐year

timeframe of the proposed ALUCP.

The forecast noise contours are described in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), the metric adopted

by the State of California for land use planning purposes. In accordance with PUC Section 21675(a), the airport forecast

noise contours cover the requisite 20‐year planning timeframe and represent 30,000 future annual aircraft operations

by 2030. The proposed ALUCP does not regulate the operation of aircraft or the noise produced by that activity. State

law (PUC Section 21674(e)) explicitly denies the ALUC authority over such matters.

The airport noise contours are one of four compatibility factors used to establish the compatibility zones for the

proposed ALUCP. The ALUCP establishes criteria that reduce the potential exposure of people to excessive aircraft‐

related noise by limiting residential densities (dwelling units per acre) and other noise‐sensitive land uses in locations

exposed to noise levels in excess of 60 dB CNEL. Thus, the proposed ALUCP would not expose people residing or working

in the area to excessive noise levels.

Mitigation

None required.


31

13. Population and Housing


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either

directly (for example, by proposing new homes and

businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension

of roads or other infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,

necessitating the construction of replacement housing

elsewhere?

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the

construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Discussion a): As noted in Section 10, Land Use and Planning, the proposed ALUCP includes less stringent intensity and density

criteria in one or more compatibility zones. Although relaxing the ALUCP criteria could potentially induce population

growth within certain portions of the Airport Influence Area, the proposed ALUCP would not increase levels of

development above those projected within the general plans adopted by the affected local agencies. The

environmental effects of development proposed in the adopted general plans have already been adequately analyzed

in previously certified environmental documentation and policies and/or mitigation measures have been adopted that

would reduce those environmental effects. Additionally, any future development proposals or general plan/zoning

amendments would be subject to CEQA, ensuring that potential impacts are studied, disclosed and mitigated as

appropriate.

b ‐ c): State law (Government Code 65302.3) requires jurisdictions to amend their respective general plans to be

consistent with the ALUCP or to take special steps to overrule the ALUC (Public Utilities Code Section 21676(a)).

Jurisdictions are also mandated by state law to accommodate their share of the regional housing needs (Government

Code Section 65580). Modifying a general plan for consistency with the ALUCP has the potential to restrict a

jurisdiction’s ability to satisfy its share of the regional housing needs, as an ALUCP may preclude or limit the future

development, including future housing units, within portions of the Airport Influence Area. Therefore, the ALUCP has

the potential to change future land use development patterns by shifting or “displacing” the location of that

development to less restrictive areas of the Airport Influence Area or to other parts of the community where there are

no ALUCP restrictions. Displacement involves changes to the patterns of land use development that has not yet

occurred.

The ALUCP has no effect on existing land uses. Therefore, no displacement of existing development, housing or people

will occur as a result of adoption of the proposed ALUCP. As indicated in the analysis provided for Environmental

Category 10, Land Use and Planning, the proposed ALUCP has the potential to induce growth within portions of the

Airport Influence Area by relaxing the intensity criteria for several of the compatibility zones. This growth‐inducing

potential under the proposed ALUCP, however, would not increase levels of development above those projected within


32

the general plans adopted by the affected local agencies. The environmental effects of development proposed in the

adopted general plans have already been adequately analyzed in previously certified environmental documentation

and policies and/or mitigation measures have been adopted that would reduce those environmental effects.

Additionally, any future development proposals would be subject to CEQA, ensuring that potential impacts are studied,

disclosed and mitigated as appropriate.

Mitigation

None required.


33

14. Public Services


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated

with the provision of new or physically altered

governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered

governmental facilities, the construction of which could

cause significant environmental impacts, in order to

maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or

other performance objectives for any of the following

public services:

i) Fire protection?

ii) Police protection?

iii) Schools?

iv) Parks?

v) Other public facilities?

Discussion a.i – a.iv): See Summary of Potential Environmental Effects (No. 11 on page 7). The proposed Airport Influence Area

contains and has the potential to contain a wide variety of public services in the future. However, the proposed ALUCP

does not propose any new development, construction, or physical change to the environment that would directly or

indirectly result in any impacts to listed government facilities or services.

a.v): Adoption and implementation of the proposed ALUCP would create a temporary increase in the staff workloads

as a result of the state requirement to modify the local general plan to be consistent with the ALUCP. As described in

Environmental Category 10, Land Use and Planning of this Initial Study, minor changes and/or additions would be

needed to bring the local general plans and airport‐related overlay zoning ordinances into consistency with the

proposed ALUCP. Over the long‐term, procedural policies included in the proposed ALUCP will simplify and clarify the

ALUC project review process, thereby reducing the workload for ALUC staff and planning staffs of the County of Butte

and the Town of Paradise.

Mitigation

None required.


34

15. Recreation


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or

other recreational facilities such that substantial physical

deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated?

b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or

expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse

physical effect on the environment?

Discussion a ‐ b): See Summary of Potential Environmental Effects (No. 11 on page 5). A wide range of recreational facilities are

found in Butte County. The Butte County General Plan 2030 indicates that Paradise Skypark Airport lies within the Chico

Recreation and park district. Therefore, the proposed Airport Influence Area potentially contains a wide variety of

recreational resources. However, the proposed ALUCP does not propose any new development, construction, or

physical change to the environment that would directly or indirectly result in any impacts to recreation.

Mitigation

None required.


35

16. Transportation and Traffic


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy

establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of

the circulation system, taking into account all modes of

transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel

and relevant components of the circulation system, including

but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and

freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,

including, but not limited to level of service standards and

travel demand measures, or other standards established by

the county congestion management agency for designated

roads or highways?

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an

increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in

substantial safety risks?

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,

sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses

(e.g., farm equipment)?

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding

public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise

decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting

alternative transportation (e.g., conflict with policies promoting

bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?

Discussion a – b, d – g): See Summary of Potential Environmental Effects (No. 11 on page 5). The Butte County General Plan 2030

identifies a wide range of existing and planned transportation modes, including roads, transit, nonmotorized

transportation, rail, and aviation. Therefore, the proposed Airport Influence Area has the potential to contain a wide

variety of transportation systems, both known and unknown. However, the proposed ALUCP does not propose any new

development, construction or physical change to the environment that would directly or indirectly result in any impacts

to on‐ground transportation and traffic.

c): Neither the ALUC nor the policies set forth in the proposed ALUCP have authority over airport operations. However,

in accordance with state law, certain off‐airport development proposals that could have airport compatibility

implications are subject to ALUC review. Nonetheless, adoption and implementation of the proposed ALUCP will not

result in any change to air traffic patterns at Paradise Skypark Airport.

Mitigation

None required.


36

17. Tribal Cultural Resources Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and this is:

Potentially Significant

Impact




Impact

No Impact

a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of

Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical

resources as defined in Public Resources Code section

5020.1(k) or

b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its

discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be

significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c)

of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In apply the

criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of the Public Resources

Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the

significance of the resource to a California Native

American tribe.

Discussion a – b): See Summary of Potential Environmental Effects (No. 11 on page 7). A Tribal Cultural Resource is a site feature,

place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object, which is of cultural value to a Tribe. The Butte County General Plan

2030 indicates that no tribal lands exist within vicinity of the Paradise Skypark Airport. However, the proposed Airport

Influence Area has the potential to contain a wide variety of unknown tribal cultural resources. Nevertheless, the

proposed ALUCP does not propose any new development, construction or physical change to the environment that

would directly or indirectly result in any impacts to on‐ground transportation and traffic.

Mitigation None required.


37

18. Utilities and Service Systems


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the

applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or

wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing

facilities, the construction of which could cause significant

environmental effects?

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water

drainage facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the

construction of which could cause significant

environmental effects?

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the

project from existing entitlements and resources, or are

new or expanded entitlements needed?

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment

provider that would serve the project that it has adequate

capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in

addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to

accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and

regulations related to solid waste?

Discussion a – g): See Summary of Potential Environmental Effects (No. 11 on page 5). The proposed Airport Influence Area has

the potential to contain a wide variety of utilities and service systems, both known and unknown. However, the

proposed ALUCP does not propose any new development, construction, or physical change to the environment that

would directly or indirectly result in any impacts to utilities and service systems.

Mitigation

None required.


38

19. Mandatory Findings of Significance


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a) 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) Have impacts that would be 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.)

c) Have environmental effects that would cause substantial

adverse effects on human beings, either directly or

indirectly?

Discussion

a ‐ c): See Summary of Potential Environmental Effects (No. 11 on page 5). The proposed Airport Influence Area

potentially contains a wide variety of environmental resources. However, the proposed ALUCP does not propose any

new development, construction or physical change to the environment that would directly or indirectly result in a

substantial adverse effect on the environment or human beings or substantially degrade the environment.

The proposed ALUCP addresses potential noise and safety impacts and other airport land use compatibility issues

associated with potential future development that public entities or private parties may propose within the Airport

Influence Area. Adoption and implementation of the ALUCP would prevent persons associated with future land use

projects from being exposed to significant negative noise or safety hazards connected with living or working in the

Airport Influence area. No displacement associated with future development would occur as a result of the adoption

of this ALUCP. Although some staff effort would be required to revise the local jurisdictions’ general plans and/or

implementing ordinances, this effort would be temporary and result in a simplified review process following ALUCP

adoption. Therefore, adoption and implementation of the proposed ALUCP has no potential to create cumulatively

significant environmental impacts.

Mitigation

None required.

BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (BCALUC) · Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (BCALUCP)...

Documents

Transcript of BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (BCALUC) · Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (BCALUCP)...