HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 92-308 - Amending the General Plan of the COR by adopting GP Amendments GPA 1-90, 3-90, 1-92, & 5-92 RESOLUTION NO. �IZ -30O
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF REDDING BY
ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS GPA 1-90, GPA 3-90,
GPA 1-92, AND GPA 5-92.
WHEREAS, following the required public hearings therefor,
the Planning Commission of the City of Redding has recommended to
the City Council that the Land Use Element of the City' s General
Plan be amended by incorporating therein the changes contained in
General Plan Amendments GPA 1-90, GPA 3-90, GPA 1-92, and GPA
5-92 ; and
WHEREAS, following the required notices in accordance with
law, the City Council has held public hearings on said
recommendations, and has carefully considered the evidence at
said hearings;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Redding as follows:
1. With regard to General Plan Amendments GPA 1-90, GPA
3-90, GPA 1-92, and GPA 5-92, City Council has reviewed and
approved the respective Negative Declarations on each, finding
that the projects have no substantial impact upon the .environment
and that environmental impact reports are not necessary.
N
2. City Council hereby amends the Land Use Element of the
General Plan of the City of Redding by incorporating therein the
Amended by Resolution No. 92-357
i
changes contained in General Plan Amendments GPA 1-90, GPA 3-90,
GPA 1-92, and GPA 5-92 as shown on their respective maps,
together with the Text Amendment for GPA 3-90, all of which are
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was
introduced and read at a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Redding on the 7th day of July 1992, and was
duly adopted at a said meeting by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Anderson, Arness, Dahl, Kehoe & Moss
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CHARLIE MOSS, Mayor
City of Redding
AT T:
CONNIE STROHMAYER, C y Clerk
FORM PROVED:
R DALL A. HAYS, City' Attorney
2
r►Q Y
LQ
a ,\k,
COtA
come
'a
q
m N
a
OR' O
II
4
GQE AJwAV '
r ,
.I c
I �
tv k
i
o ' REQ U ESTE D
l G EN E IZAL FLA til
EA e PA - go
i LAKE
I
I
K. Kul 14 0Te4
SCALE I `' = 4o'
+ .
JAN . 24, 1990
OFF. tom= r
I
u
ZZZ7 . /99
OL AL UR
AS 5 RD
Ui I X
cr— 0
LL
cr
.ANA
DANA DRfvr
Lz"
37-4
7A' L,
I
HAw THO
aaq�
--EDARWOOD DRIVE
-------- --
N F.
Sil
A
PROPOSED GEkl PLA U
-p
GPA - 5 - 92
T'' , _u _ , __- FEED ME 4JER 1A.Z.
- - 6 C,qL E 1 "' 400"
MA 4J 26,m I�T T071992
_
IA
,
A -
Y, '
:
:
�f
t
�, COM MEiZG141.- ::,
_
5
y -
Q :
A!
0 U Ej6feV
y
ENSR?►L FPLA !
C7 PAFA
77
Soo"
- MAY 31
�j
�I
it
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA-3-90
i
COLUMBIA AREA PLAN--TEXT AMENDMENT
(PAGES 14-26)
I,
I
CHAPTER II. LAND-USE DESIGNATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION
SECTION B. ENTERPRISE SKYPARK
7-7-92
i
I.
B. ENTERPRISE SKYPARK
The Enterprise Skypark is a privately owned, basic utility airport operated on 15 acres by
j the Enterprise Flying Club, Inc., a nonprofit organization. The land is not owned by the
flying club, rather, the skypark is operated on the basis of a lease which expires in the year
2003. The airport site is very narrow, approximately 195 feet in width and 3,427 feet long.
The actual paved runway is 45 feet wide by 2,990 feet long. The usable runway length is
limited to about 2,400 feet due to a displaced threshold from a southerly approach to avoid
existing structures. Approximately 30 aircraft are based at the Skypark with permanent
parking facilities for 50. According to the State Division of Aeronautics, an estimated
12,000 operations (landings and takeoffs) occurred in 1989. Of these flights, 10,000 were
j local and 2,000 were itinerant. The Skypark is bordered immediately to the west by several
single-family residences oriented directly toward the airstrip. Many of these homes include
airplane hangers. Farther west, between these parcels and Shasta View Drive, exist an
undeveloped eight-acre retail site and residential subdivisions. To the east of the airport,
there is a mix of single-family residential uses and service commercial uses. The property
to the north is undeveloped, and Highway 44 borders the airpark to the south.
Clearly, the main issue presented by the Enterprise Skypark is that of land-use
li compatibility. Since its inception in 1963, the airpark has been able to avoid this issue
j� mainly due to the relatively slow development of surrounding property. This condition will
not continue into the future as development continues to expand eastward along the
Highway 44 corridor and sewer service is extended into the plan area. As this development
occurs, the safety and noise concerns presented by the airpark will increase accordingly.
Safety
Areas near airports are exposed to various levels of accident potential depending upon the
qtype of aircraft using the airport, the amount of aircraft traffic, local weather conditions, and
flight patterns as they relate to adjacent land uses. In any case, statistics bear out that the
majority of aviation accidents occur on airport property and within the traffic-pattern
boundary. In response to the implications of this data, land-use planning around airports
has included the establishment of ground surface and airspace "safety zones" in order to
II minimize the exposure of life and property to aircraft accident hazards. However, uniform
standards for land-use safety policy applied by the FAA or the State Division of Aeronautics
do not exist at the Enterprise Skypark. Typical safety zones are generally defined as
follows:
ii
Clear Zone - An area at ground level, extending beyond the runway surface and underlying
the approach surface, which must be kept clear of structures or concentration of people.
For a utility airport, FAA clear zones are fan-shaped (trapezoidal), beginning at a width of
250 feet at a point 200 feet from the end of the runway and increasing to a width of
450 feet at a distance 1,200 feet from the end of the runway. FAA standards require that
the airport owner have an "adequate property interest" in the clear zone area in the form
of fee simple ownership or long-term lease in order that the clear zone can be protected
from future encroachments.
Approach Zone - The approach zone is an extension of the trapezoidal shape of the clear
zone up to a combined distance of 5,000 feet with a width of 1,250 feet at its end. Limited
structures and concentrations of people are typically permitted as regulated by applicable
safety policies.
i
i
i
'I
Approach Surface - An airspace extending from the end of the runway in which a height
limit of one foot of vertical height for every 20 feet of surface distance (vertical slope of
i) 20:1) is applied in order to protect the ascent and descent path of an aircraft.
Transition Zone - An area extending 1,000 feet from either side of the runway in which a
structure-height restriction of one foot of vertical height for seven feet of horizontal distance
is applied (vertical slope of 7:1).
Extended Approach Zone: In February 1979, the Shasta County Airports Land Use
Commission passed Resolution No. 79-1 adopting specific policies to be applied to land use
or land division permits in the vicinity of publicly owned and private publicly used airports
in the jurisdiction of Shasta County. The policies as contained in Resolution No.
ALUC 79-1 were subsequently applied by the County to the Oak Mesa Subdivision, a land
division effecting property adjacent to and north and west of the Skypark. The recorded
j map for Oak Mesa Subdivision, which was recorded in 1980, created a rectangular-shaped
airport safety zone 1,000 feet wide and 2,000 feet deep, centered at the north end of the
Enterprise Skypark runway. Within this safety zone labeled "extended approach area," an
"airports hazard approach zone surface" of standard trapezoidal dimensions was also
'I created. The "airports hazard approach zone surface" is slightly larger than the clear zone
defined above.
'I
i
Airport Standards/Existing Conditions
,j The Enterprise Skypark does not meet any generally accepted standard for the provision
of surface safety zones, essentially because the land necessary to provide these areas is
not under the ownership or the control of the Skypark.
I
The following provides a conceptual comparison of the above-described standards and the
j existing status of the Skypark.
Clear Zone - To the north, the property that in effect provides a clear zone is vacant.
However, this property is under ownership other than that of the Skypark and is the
remaining lands of the Ravenwood Estates Subdivision, which has developed on the east
and west sides of the de facto clear zone. The property owner has submitted preliminary
plans, illustrating future subdivision of the remaining property.
i
The policies of ALUC Resolution No. 79-1 would result in a recommendation that the local
government jurisdiction impose restrictions prohibiting development of the remaining lands
of the Ravenwood Estates Subdivision; however, restrictions as strong as these would
usually be imposed only where there is a compelling public purpose. ALUC Resolution
No. 79-1 would more aptly be implemented by acquisition of the clear zone property by the
Skypark.
'1
1 For the most part, a clear zone at the south end of the runway would fall partially within the
airport lease property, Highway 44 right-of-way, and City parkland. In 1979, the City of
j Redding, upon approval of the tentative maps of the Clover Creek Estates and Forest Hills
!i Ranchettes tentative subdivision maps, reserved for open-space and park purposes,
property within the clear zone at the south end of the Enterprise Skypark runway. This
! property, which lies south of Highway 44 on both sides of Clover Creek Street, was
dedicated to the City upon recording of the final maps. However, the southerly clear zone
is encroached upon by the airport clubhouse, a commercial structure immediately to the
east of the clubhouse, and the rear yards of three residential lots south of Highway 44.
f
Approach Zone - Existing residential development up to a density of 3.0 units per acre has
already occurred on what would be defined as the approach zones to the runway. Although
there is not a definitive standard, a density population of 1.0 dwelling unit per acre could
be considered a maximum concentration of people in an approach zone.
Approach Surface - The 20:1 vertical slope defined as an approach surface is encroached
upon at the south end of the runway by overhead power lines along Highway 44. At the
north end of the runway, the opportunity is available to meet this standard based upon the
9
existing runway and a maximum structure height of 30 feet on the property to the north.
Transition Zone - Two commercial buildings east of the runway exceed the height limit
iallowed by the 7:1 vertical slope in the transition zone. West of the runway, some of the
hangar structures may exceed the height standard.
i Existing Airport Safety Policy
I� The predominant existing policy is ALUC Resolution No. 79-1 mentioned above, which sets
forth certain land development policies within defined airport safety zones around public use
airports. This resolution is attached as Appendix "B." As the resolution affects the
Enterprise Skypark, the standards appear to be advisory in nature except when adopted
as conditions of approval of a discretionary permit. The State Public. Utilities Code
stipulates that ALUC review applies when an airport land-use plan has been adopted by the
i ALUC for the airport of concern or, in the absence of a plan, to any project within a two-mile
radius of the airport.
Basically, Resolution ALUC 79-1 is advisory and establishes that the ALUC recommends
'I certain land-use restrictions within an airport's projected 1995 55 dB CNEL noise contour,
clear zone, and extended approach area. It is recommended that all residential,
J commercial, and manufacturing uses be prohibited in a clear zone; that no residential use
'.j and only low-population commercial uses be allowed in an extended approach area; and
that only low human density levels be permitted within the projected 55 CNEL contour. The
standards also contain provisions in regard to noise protection, radio, light and glare
interference, structure height, and agricultural uses near airports.
Implementation of the recommendations of the ALUC resolution would only occur upon
specific application in the conditions of approval of a discretionary project such as a
j tentative subdivision map or the use permit.
State and Federal Regulations
i
it The Enterprise Skypark has been licensed by the State Division of Aeronautics since 1963.
The Skypark facilities are inspected and the license reviewed annually. To this point, the
i Skypark has been able to maintain its license partially due to the relatively minor amount
!� of urbanization in the vicinity of the airstrip and because for this type of airfield, the above-
described surface and airspace safety zones are advisory and not mandatory in nature.
The City of Redding has been advised by the Division of Aeronautics that, under present
policy, the lack of a clear zone and approach zone under ownership by the Skypark does
not jeopardize the Skypark's State license. The State does, however, feel that maintenance
of the 20:1 building height slope in the approach surface at the north end of the runway is
a key factor in the continued licensing of the facility. Based upon a maximum building
height of 30 feet in a residential district, this standard would be met by establishing the end
of the runway at a point 600 feet from the north property line of the Skypark leasehold.
'I
1
i
gPP,PO�JL'y ZGu/E
2O:1
II p
i
C�E,4�P 20�t/E
I
o
ti
I
'I
I � Q
mss,
1 �
CC E.4,P ZD�VE rA,P tiAe A-0 4o Q
J
EXE1517 4
� FSA .S�9FETf��D�
Q - 20:/
wicso,v � q�
— S -,oVP,4�P�
19810
- --- �4Rr ELL. . ..•
I '
' I I
Ip
FA.A 5TAit/�A2,o
�I i i �CLEA2 ZO�tIE 0
. 70
� I m
i t
j i I I ti
,j
'Ex TIE tiJDED
� APP,Pt�ACN
1 / �
I I
f i ► AL LIZ .SAFETfJZO,C./E�'
E
E�C/TE�PP�P/s'E
.S'C'ALE 800
APAP/L 1987
,� CyS� � S89 SB Gi9"E /324. 79'
Seel 8 '40, Pb�zs p.R 1
;gym
1323.3Co `_ j. 589'3707 E � �'
CE
I
5E �I
�I
SRT/OXY OF L Or 2
i
See,
411 69.45 .✓
y
• • • • (oi 30 Ac. Ne �s �
'� `q EXTENDEC� t -
APPROACH
W' fr-
MSS 4.
►� o
ti.c,' A/RPORr
h .A/AZAROS APPROACH,: 1.620 t
'� QI ZONE SeIRFACE
s/EE�s�s�,f P- e/.G/o -
Aer 7Z R.24. .� %J
i I
_f
SeeGi Aad-C
1
- CS�//6 c� - -
��d
ISE SHEET 3q �Z10= I
I \ � $
v� Ei Aso
/000'
;n,9
SE COMM/SS/ON POI-/C/ES EFFECT Plopir� l
w/TH/N THE EXTENDED APPROACH AREA.
�a-k4l/s/rcUr/ON NNo.ALUC 79-/ /S OF/LE W/rN
UNry OFF/CE OF PI-ANN/N6 ADM/N/SrRAT/ON
ryE USES ALLOWED. POZ;r/On/ OF
s FEDERAL AV/AT/ON REGULAT/ONS, 0A,4::�ME6,4
Physically, the runway currently ends 530 feet from the north property line. However, the
'! runway is long enough to accommodate a displaced threshold to meet this standard.
'I The Enterprise Skypark is not directly subject to Federal Aviation Administration standards
for safety zones because the Skypark does not handle commercial passenger service and
is not tied to FAA funding. Essentially, the FAA defers regulation to the State.
Noise
There have not been any City or County noise tests prepared for the Enterprise Skypark.
A noise study was prepared in 1980 by Terra-Scan planning consultants for a property
'! owner near the Skypark using a long-term projection of 32,000 annual operations. The
!� Terra-Scan study concluded that the projected 55 dB Community Noise Equivalency Level
j (CNEL) would be approximately 230 feet from the runway centerline. The 55 CNEL
contour, therefore, would affect nearly all of the residential parcels fronting the west side
of the runway and encroach 130 feet into the commercial properties on the east side. The
I� 1989 number of annual operations is estimated to be 12,000.
li
i' California Airport Noise Standards define the noise threshold at which a potential for
annoyance occurs as a CNEL value of 65 d6. The Terra-Scan report did not plot a
65 CNEL noise contour, but such would obviously be closer to the runway than the above-
described 55 CNEL contour.
I
li The City Noise Element of the General Plan establishes the maximum noise level of
60 CNEL for residential uses and 65 CNEL for commercial uses. Since the residential lots
'i adjacent to the runway on the west are oriented to the Skypark, that use is not considered
a conflict. On the east, the adjacent commercial uses are noise compatible. To retain the
Skypark and designate land east of the runway "Residential" could present marginal noise
conflicts unless that development is in some way oriented to the Skypark. It is concluded
that noise impacts from the Enterprise Skypark should not significantly affect any land-use
decisions in the plan area provided there is not a significant increase in operations.
Land Use
The impact of the Enterprise Skypark on the surrounding land-use problems is potentially
quite significant. The delineation of airport surface safety zones (clear zone/approach zone)
to meet generally accepted airport safety standards greatly affects, in a restrictive manner,
the use of surrounding properties. Application of standard clear zones at the north and
south ends of the runway would necessitate shifting the runway 500 feet northerly and
encumbering 16 acres of land now mostly under ownership other than that of the Skypark.
Acquisition of property is not necessary to maintain the 20:1 ascent/descent approach
surface.
It is also noted that the land-use patterns created by the Enterprise Skypark affect utility
extensions and traffic circulation. A logical means of providing a collector street between
Shasta View Drive and Old Oregon Trail is the westerly extension of Viking Way to Shasta
View Drive either directly or through intersecting streets. The presence of the Skypark
obstructs this extension and, due to its extreme north/south length, prevents other
alternative for providing access to the plan area from Shasta View Drive. Further, the
Skypark will likely resist participation in certain assessment districts for utility improvements
in the area.
1
In September of 1991, in response to a request by the City Council, the City Airports
Commission submitted a report regarding the future viability of the Enterprise Skypark.
Among other conclusions, the Airports Commission found that:
► Within 30 years, the City/County will need an additional general aviation reliever
airport; but due to incompatible land uses, the Enterprise Skypark will be unable to
satisfy that role.
► Until another airport can be established, the City and County should take whatever
i steps are necessary to allow the Enterprise Skypark to continue operating on an
interim basis.
Policies
II
(61) The Columbia Plan recognizes the existing level of operations and service of the
Enterprise Skypark facility as a preexisting, nonconforming land use. The following
factors contribute to its nonconforming status:
a. The lack of property ownership or use control of land necessary to provide
minimum safety zones to protect the public and bring about a compatibility
with surrounding land uses.
b. The short-term nature of the Enterprise Flying Club lease, which expires in the
year 2003.
C. The finding of the City Airports Commission that the Enterprise Skypark is not
an appropriate location for a permanent reliever airport.
d. The need to provide appropriate long-term land-use designations to provide
proper circulation and utility and land-use planning for existing and future
development.
e. Designation of the Enterprise Skypark as a nonconforming use will not in itself
close down the air field. As long as the Flying Club has a lease with the
property owner and the Skypark is licensed by the State, it could continue as
a nonconforming use at its present level of operations.
(132) The City will not issue any discretionary development permits that would facilitate an
expansion or increase in the level of operations, services, or number of aircraft flights
at the Enterprise Skypark. This does not include improvements that, in the opinion
of the City, would enhance the operational safety of the facility, protect the public, or
make the property less intensive.
(63) Building heights on property at the north and south ends of the Enterprise Skypark
runway shall comply with a 20:1 (distance-to-height ratio) descent/ascent slope
recommended by the State Division of Aeronautics.
(B4) Consideration shall be given to the creation of open space for emergency landings
through park siting, lot clustering, density transfers, project phasing, or other means
when reviewing development projects on property north of the Enterprise Skypark.
i
r
(65) Unless and until such time as the Airports Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopts a
Comprehensive Level Use Plan (CLUP) for the Enterprise Skypark, all discretionary
development proposals within a two-mile radius of Skypark shall be referred to the
ALUC for review. Failure of the ALUC to act upon the referral within State-proscribed
time lines shall be deemed approval. If the ALUC adopts a lesser review area such
as the ALUC extended approach area, then that shall be used.
i
I
;i
i
I
!I
i
�I
i
I
II
i
'I
7-7-92
PROJ\ARP-RCOLUMBA 1.REV
I
I
III d � •
Table 3
Land Use
Use Acres
Residential:
1 unit per 5 acres 82.0
2 units per acre 43.5
3 units per acre 381.7
4 units per acre 127.0
9 units per acre 188.0
12 units per acre 99.7
i
Office Residential 42.6
Retail 11.0
i� Service Commercial 294.3
ii
Industrial 120.5
it Greenway 167.5
'I
it School 16.0
Amendment:
i
Deletes Airport Service
Reduces Greenway (clear zone)
Reduces 0.5 (approach zone)
,I
i
d
'a
'I
:i
i
,I
i