TO: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
FROM: DANA MORRISON, AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION EXECUTIVE OFFICER
REPORT BY: DANA MORRISON, AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SUBJECT: AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN UPDATE AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION ADOPTION HEARING
RECOMMENDATION
title
AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (ALUCP) UPDATE AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND) ADOPTION HEARING
Consider and adopt by Resolution the updated Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Attachment A), including changes made in response to public comments, and certify a Negative Declaration (Attachment C) finding that the proposed project would not have any potentially significant environmental impacts.
Staff recommends that the Commission adopt by Resolution (see Attachments G and H) the update to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and adopt a Negative Declaration. The proposed update would more closely align the ALUCP to state guidelines provide by CalTrans Aeronautics Division, since the plan has not been updated since 1999.
Staff Contact: Dana Morrison, (707) 253-4437 or dana.morrison@countyofnapa.org
Consultant Contact: Maranda Thompson, 707 284-8690 or maranda.thompson@meadhunt.com
body
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Consider and adopt the updated Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), including changes made in response to public comments, and certify a Negative Declaration finding that the proposed project would not have any potentially significant environmental impacts.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Consideration and adoption of a Negative Declaration. As described in the associated Initial Study - Negative Declaration, there is no substantial evidence in the record that the proposed 2024 ALUCP would result in a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the County proposes the adoption of a Negative Declaration (ND) The areas affected by the update are not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The Negative Declaration was circulated from June 17, 2024, through July 17, 2024; State Clearing House (SCH) Number 1995123033.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
A noticed public hearing was held before the ALUC on July 17, 2024; a copy of the parcels that were noticed and mailing labels used for circulation of the notice can be found in Attachment E and F. At the hearing the ALUC received a presentation from Mead & Hunt as well as ALUC staff and took public comment from many interested members of the public or constituent public agencies. At the request of several members of the public, claiming that the hearing notices were not received by affected property owners, the ALUC continued the public hearing to September 18, 2024. The ALUC asked ALUC staff and Mead & Hunt to meet with interested parties and stakeholders to hear, discuss, and, as appropriate, address their concerns. The September 18 hearing had to be cancelled due to a lack of quorum and the item was re-noticed for a public hearing on November 6, 2024.
A hearing was held on November 6, 2024, to review the updated Response to Comments Matrix (see Attachment D) and Addendum (see Attachment B - this Addendum includes the changes detailed in past Addendum 1 and Addendum 2, and includes additional changes noted at the November 6 hearing) detailing the changes to the draft ALUCP. Changes made were based on discussions with stakeholders and additional review by ALUC staff, ALUC counsel and the consulting firm. During the comment period it was again requested by members of the public to continue the hearing. After deliberating and discussing, the ALUC requested for staff to addresses the following topics in anticipation of an adoption hearing on December 4, 2024: (1) prepare a clean copy of the ALUCP update with all proposed change incorporated, (2) clarify the Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) Sphere of Influence issue, (3) ensure the Pacific Union College’s (PUC) parcel boundaries are accurately reflected in the Angwin Exhibits, and (4) clarify that the level of CEQA review was adequate and that CDFW was appropriately notified and their comments addressed.
ALUC staff worked with Mead & Hunt to address these requests, see detailed below:
(1) Clean ALUCP: A clean version of the ALUCP with all changes incorporated can be found in Attachment A (ALUCP). This incorporates all of the changes made since the May 2024 public release of the draft ALUCP, including changes that were detailed in Addendum 1 and 2, as well as technical corrections noted at the November 6 hearing. The sections of the ALUCP that were updated are highlighted. Once the ALUCP update is approved Mead & Hunt will make any final edits based on the Dec 4 hearing, remove the highlights and provide a completely clean version of the ALUCP that will serve as the plan moving forwards.
(2) LAFCO/SOI: A comment was raised at the November 6, 2024, hearing regarding whether LAFCO and Sphere of Influence expansions are subject to the ALUCP. The Executive Officer (EO) of LAFCO, Brendan Freeman, attended the hearing and commented that the LAFCO is not subject to the ALUCP. ALUC staff arranged a meeting with LAFCO EO to discuss the ALUCP update and its relation to LAFCO (this is discussed later in this staff report under the Public Comment section). It was clarified that LAFCO itself is not subject to ALUC compatibility review and its decisions are entirely independent on ALUC review. However, any applicant applying for an SOI expansion or change is required to obtain ALUC compatibility review. In other words, the decision to request an SOI expansion or change for purposes of land use change or development, not simply a change in service area, would constitute a Major Land Use Action under the ALUCP and would be subject to the provisions applicable to those actions. The day of the November 6 hearing ALUC staff also reached out to the CalTrans Division of Aeronautics to weigh in on this topic unfortunately CalTrans has not been able to respond at this topic has not come up before and they are working with their counsel to review the matter. On November 22, a letter was received from William Ross, representing the American Canyon Fire Protection District, requesting that the ALUC remove expansions of special district SOIs from the list of Major Land Use Actions subject to ALUC review. At this time ALUC staff hesitates to recommend removal the special district SOI language from this section of the ALUCP as this language is commonplace in dozens of other ALUCPs in California and it is unclear if there is a reason for their near unanimity.
Staff would be supportive of making this change, if it is determined by CalTrans that special district SOI changes are not considered Major Land Use Actions. Staff hopes CalTrans will be able to provide direction on this topic before the Public Hearing on December 4 and a final decision can be made to either retain the language as drafted or remove the reference to special districts in 2.5.2(a)(1).
(3) PUC Boundary: Mead and Hunt staff worked with County of Napa GIS staff to ensure that the most current boundary of the Pacific Union College (PUC) is called out on the Angwin Exhibit Maps. ALUC and County staff reviewed the changes and compared to the parcel numbers provided by Kellie Anderson from Rural Angwin. Based on the information provided, and update GIS data, the PUC boundaries have been corrected; if any parcels are still incorrect ALUC staff can work with Mead & Hunt to correct those errors. However, this should not prevent the ALUC from adopting the update as it should be noted that this change is solely a mapping correction and does not impact the land use or computability analysis.
(4) At the November 6, 2024, hearing concerns were raised during the public comment period that the level of CEQA review was inadequate, claiming that the ALUC or the County had previously indicated that an EIR would be prepared and did not provide any justification for downgrading the review to a Negative Declaration. The commenter specifically referred to the Request for Proposals, circulated in 2022, seeking an aviation consulting firm to assist with the update. At that time the level of necessary CEQA review for this project was unknown, and as such ALUC staff assumed, for contract bidding purposes, that an EIR would be required. This was not a commitment to prepare an EIR, but a way of ensuring the contract amount would be sufficient to cover the costs of an EIR if necessary. It was acknowledged by most of the responders to the RFP that EIRs are uncommon for the ALUCP updates, though the firms still included said request in their submittals to ensure they were fully addressing the scope of work specified in the RFP. Once a final firm was selected, and as the full scope of the update was realized it was determined that a Negative Declaration was the correct level of CEQA review. The basis for this conclusion is set forth in the Negative Declaration itself, which includes the analysis required under CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. Additionally, Negative Declarations are a common level of CEQA review required for these types of projects, especially given that ALUCs are guidance documents and do not directly entitle land uses. Projects which come to the ALUC for compatibility review also need to obtain other land use entitlements (Conditional Use Permits, Building or Grading permits, etc., as applicable) and these are all project types which are subject to CEQA - potential environmental impacts of specific developments are reviewed during this entitlement phase. Finally, a commenter also noted that CDFW’s comments were not adequately addressed, nor were they properly noticed. CDFW was included in the circulation of the IS/ND, and they did submit a comment letter. This comment letter was responded to in the Response to Comment Matrix (see Comment #4) that was provided at the November 6 hearing. Additionally, CDFW was included in the stakeholder email that was sent out in advance of the November 6 hearing, as well the agenda release email that was also sent when the ALUC Agenda Packet was distributed. As a State Agency, CDFW, and any restoration projects they are or will implement within the Napa County Airport Influence Areas, are not subject to the ALUCP, or compatibility review. However, as noted in the RTC Matrix, they are encouraged to follow recommendations set forth in the ALUCP in regards to wildlife hazards, but this is not a requirement. Payment of the applicable CDFW fees will occur upon the filing of the Notice of Determination, once the ALUCP has been officially adopted and the IS/ND has been certified. As such, the CDFW comments have been adequately addressed and CDFW has not provided any further comment on the ALUCP update.
In regards to the Initial Study, no new updates have been made since the November 6, 2024 hearing. A summary of the changes made for the November 6 hearing can be reviewed below. These minor changes do not result in new potentially significant impacts to the environment. As such, these changes do not constitute a “substantial revision” within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, and recirculation of the ND was not required. The updated IS/ND specifically addressed the following:
• Acknowledged comments received during the comment period.
• Corrections to the General Plan land use map at Angwin Airport.
• Clarification on the language use in the updated plan that appeared to indicate that the ALUCP would result in a “net increase in allowed units”
• Changes to the compatibility zones (D1/D2 Zones) and General Plan land use changes in the City of American Canyon.
Public Comments:
Public comments received can be reviewed in the RTC Matrix. Staff received 27comments that were included in the RTC, however, in addition to these RTC comments Staff did respond to various phone calls and email exchanges which were just general inquiries regarding the update.
Since November 6, the only additional comments received (as of the drafting of this staff report) were from Mike Hackett and Kellie Anderson from Rural Angwin wanting to ensure the PUC boundary was correctly called out and to get further clarification on the language which seems to indicate that the ALUCP update is intensifying residential development within Angwin. As detailed before, the ALUCP does not entitle or allow any additional residential development. The ALUCP has analyzed noise, flight hazards, safety and overflight based on the guidance from the 2009 CalTrans Aeronautics Handbook, and based on that data some uses (that were previously not deemed compatible with an airport) have now been determined to be compatible, in some cases outright and in others with specific criteria to be meet. It is true that the new plan, compared with the 1999 plan, does deem more residential uses as compatible or conditionally compatible. However, the local jurisdiction has, and has always had, the ability to overrule an ALUC compatibility determination, meaning technically under either the 1999 or 2024 plan parcels within the Angwin AIA could be developed to the maximum potential allowed under the applicable zoning district if overrule occurs- effectively meaning the development potential in Angwin has not changed with this update. The ALUC is a guidance document of which the goal is to guide develop in areas around Napa County’s Airports in a manner consistent with updated aeronautical guidelines. If the intent of Rural Angwin is to ensure limited development of parcels within the Angwin community, it is a Zoning and General Plan issue, and the ALUC is not the mechanism to limit development. The goal of the ALUCP is to inform property owners what uses can be developed on their parcel and what level of compatibility review would be required for said use, and to provide a clear process for applicants going through ALUC review.
One email correspondence not included in the RTC Matrix was an email chain between ALUC staff and the LAFCO Executive Officer (EO). ALUC Staff and Counsel met with the LAFCO EO on Monday, November 18, 2024, to discuss the ALUCP update and its applicability to LAFCO. As detailed earlier in this report and in the email (see Attachment I) LAFCO’s concerns were addressed and LAFCO will be adding some clarifying language to their own policy to help Sphere Of Influence applicants be aware of the ALUCP applicability.
Steps Following Adoption of update ALUCP:
Upon adoption of the updated ALUCP local jurisdictions within the Airport Influence Areas of the affected airports (County of Napa, City of Napa and the City of American Canyon) will need to update their own General Plans to ensure they are consistent with the updated ALUCP. State law gives local jurisdictions 180 calendar days to amend their general plan, specific plans, zoning ordinances, and facilities master plans, as necessary, to be consistent with the amended ALUCP. The types of local actions subject to ALUC review depends on whether the local agency has amended its plans accordingly. The draft ALUCP contains suggested approaches for local jurisdictions to ensure their plans and ordinances are consistent with the ALUCP.
If a local jurisdiction does not support the ALUCP update, and believes their current plans are consistent with the State Aeronautics Act, they can seek to overrule the ALUC by 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. The local agency must provide both the ALUC and the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, with a copy of the local agency’s proposed decision and findings at least 45 days in advance of its decision to overrule and must hold a public hearing on the proposed overruling (Public Utilities Code Section 21676(a) and (b)). The ALUC and the Division of Aeronautics may provide comments to the local agency within 30 days of receiving the proposed decision and findings. If comments are submitted, the local agency must include them in the public record of the final decision to overrule the ALUC (Sections 21676, 21676.5 and 21677.)
A general plan does not need to be identical with the ALUCP in order to be consistent with the compatibility plan. To meet the consistency test, a general plan must do two things:
- It must specifically address compatibility planning issues, either directly or through reference to a zoning ordinance or other policy document; and
- It must avoid direct conflicts with compatibility planning criteria.
It must be emphasized, however, that local agencies need not change land use designations to bring them into consistency with the ALUC criteria if the current designations merely reflect existing development. They merely would need to establish policies to ensure that the nonconforming uses would not be expanded in a manner inconsistent with this Compatibility Plan and that any redevelopment of the affected areas would be made consistent with the compatibility criteria.
Recommendation:
Option 1: Adopt the Resolutions for the updated ALUCP for Napa Airport and Angwin Airport and certify the Negative Declaration. Staff recommends that the Commission adopt by Resolutions the update to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for Angwin and Napa Airports and certify the Negative Declaration. The ALUC is the final decision-making body for the adoption of the ALUCP.
Procedural Requirements:
1. Chair introduces item.
2. Open Public Hearing.
3. Staff reports.
4. Public comments.
5. Close Public Hearing
6. Motion, second, discussion, and vote to adopt Resolution updating the ALUCP and certifying the Negative Declaration.
Attachments:
A. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update - Final Draft
B. Addendum No. 3 (includes work from previous Addendum 1 and Addendum 2)
C. Updated Initial Study Negative Declaration
D. Response to Comments Matrix - Final
E. ALUCP Noticing Mail List Addresses and APNS
F. ALUCP Public Hearing Notice Mailing Labels
G. Resolution adopting Napa ALUCP update and certifying Negative Declaration
H. Resolution adopting Angwin ALUCP update and certifying Negative Declaration
I. LAFCO email correspondence