butte county airport land use commission (bcaluc) upate... · paradise-skypark airports notice is...
TRANSCRIPT
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
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:
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
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:
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
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.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
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.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
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).
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
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
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
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
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
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
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
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
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
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.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
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.
Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
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.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
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.
Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
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.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
12
4. Biological Resources
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, 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.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
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.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
14
5. Cultural Resources
Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
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.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
15
6. Geology and Soils
Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
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.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
16
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
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.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
17
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
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
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
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.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
19
9. Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
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.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
20
10. Land Use and Land Use Planning
Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
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.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
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.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
22
Exhibit 3
General Plan Policies
County of Butte and Town of Paradise
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
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
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
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.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
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
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
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.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
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.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
28
11. Mineral Resources
Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
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.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
29
12. Noise
Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
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
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
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.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
31
13. Population and Housing
Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
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
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
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.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
33
14. Public Services
Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
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.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
34
15. Recreation
Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
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.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
35
16. Transportation and Traffic
Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
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.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
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
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
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.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
37
18. Utilities and Service Systems
Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
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.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION | Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
38
19. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
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.