Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04051988 - 2.11 (2) The subject site lies beneath two structural height limit surfaces. (See Figures III and IV) Most of the. site lies beneath the approach surface ( 50 :1) to runway 19R. The southeastern extreme lies beneath the Transitional Surface (7:1) . The site appears to have an elevation of approximately 20 feet AMSL. The parcel is approximately 2250 feet from the approach surface baseline. The applicant has calculated that the lowest point on the approach surface over the subject site is approximately 66 AMSL, or approximately 46 feet above ground elevation. Notwithstanding the obsolete airport layout plan, this figure seems to be accurate. C. Noise Element - Most of the subject property lies within the designated noise-affected area on the Noise Element Map, ( see Figure V) . The western corner of the subject property is in an area that would be subject to noise levels in excess of 65 decibels CNEL. Only the eastern third of the subject parcel lies outside of the designated noise-affected area. Noise element policies restrict uses and/or construction design within noise-affected areas. VII . COMPLIANCE WITH ALUC POLICIES The proposed theatre complex and Flea Market operation is analyzed for compliance with above described ALUC policies.. A. Safety Element 1. Limitations' The ability of staff to analyze in absolute terms the project' s compliance with the Commission' s safety element policies is limited by several considerations: a. The site plans fail to disclose proposed use of two large areas of the subject parcel, one of which lies within the safety zone. The "out parcels" identified in Exhibit 4 are a misnomer. The whole block lies on one parcel. b. The safety zone splits not only the proposed area of development but the proposed theatre complex. Staff has only been able .to make ./ i \ ✓� OE1 " SSERV ! ! PILL 33.5 ! 136! _ r •• M ' Wat It = V.! ! �� ! MEMO , , , CARD S . � ' * ,OIL � ( ! i v. �. fIvw _ a erg: 65 *10 f "� "`yiillcreat = enbrooi Sch 70 r OR i • B 1 r� estimates of acreage, building floor area and population within and outside the designated zone. C. The application contains no information about Flea Market activities. ' The suggested division of the property implies that. Flea Market activity might be compressed onto the proposed parking lot. 2. Review of Proposed Uses As a place of public assembly, the proposed theatre use is incompatible with the safety element. It should be noted that the 5 largest, theatre halls are all located within the safety zone. The Flea Market operation should be regarded as a shopping center and would also be incompatible. 3 . Population Density For this analysis, we shall assume that the theatre complex operation would draw more people than the Flea Market. To gauge the complex' s compliance with the population restrictions, a rigid interpretation of the zone has been employed. This interpretation only considers parameters within the designated safety zone. Staff has estimated the developed area within the safety area to be 5 acres, the gross building floor area 41, 600 square feet, and maximum population at 1800 people. Using these . narrowly defined numbers, the project .. yields 360 people per acre, or twelve times the Commission' s -acreage maximum (30, per, acre) . With respect to the gross building area, this interpretation yields approximately 21 persons for every 500 square feet, or 21 times the Commission' s limit. As high as. these numbers may seem a broader interpretation of the safety zone would establish an even greater variance from the prescribed standards. 4. Conclusion The proposed theatre complex would establish densities far in excess of the Commission' s standards. Moreover, the Commission' s policies clearly identify that the proposed theatre complex and Flea Market would be incompatible with the Safety Element. a. Structural Height Limits The building elevation of Exhibit 5 suggests that the proposed complex would not have any structures in excess of 40 feet. Therefore, it appears that no structure would come closer than 6 feet of the 50: 1 approach surface plane. On the other hand, it should also be observed that the outdoor 50 foot screen in the southeast corner would be eliminated. The status of the other outdoor screen is undetermined. b. Noise Element The theatre complex is immediately east of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour. Special noise insulation construction would be needed. The site plans fail to address what construction standards would be established. VIII. CONCLUSION The proposed theatre complex would greatly increase the number of people drawn to this site, which the Commission and Concord recognize as being subject to significant safety risks. The resulting population densities far exceed the standards prescribed by the Commission and those prescribed by aviation safety experts. RD:vpl CP/a:aluc.rpt City of Concord Telephone Number (415) 671-3152 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING DEPAR'NENT Coi;een Coli, %la'✓or June V. Bu!man, !ice iviayor Gane Longshore Ronald K. Muh;n 'enhen L 'Aleir February 19, 1988 Michaer7� Uberuag ,v . ilanaae: CO CO O Mr. Robert Drake, Senior Planner Airport Land Use Commission Qrl C/o Contra Costa County Cormminty Development Department --, 651 Pine Street - Martinez, CA 94553 N Re: Solan Theater Use Permit (UP 7-88) Dear Bob: The City of Concord has received an application to construct a twelve screen theater on the Solano Drive-In .Theater site. The proposed theater project, which requires a use permit, has been tentatively scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on March 16, 1988. The flea market is proposed to continue functioning in the parking lot. In accordance with City Council policy, I am notifying you about this application and am enclosing a copy of plans for your review. Inasmuch as this project involves a use permit application, the ALUC does not have discretionary powers under State law. However, members and staff of the ALUC may wish to participate in the City's use permit application hearing process. Please call me a few days prior to March 16 so I can confirm the hearing date. Also, please call me if you require. additional information. Very truly yours, Dave Golick Senior Planner DG:lmb cc: Arnie Levitt, The Levitt Partnership, 2224 Glendon Avenue, Ins Angeles, CA 90064 enclosure dg2-19 7, RREL A. STE'v%TART CIVIC „_ :TER CO^dCORD C ,UFr�n 7fA =+5i9 City of Concord Telephone Number (415) 671-3152 CITY couvclL PLANNING DEPARTMENT Ronald K.Mullin,,'Jayor Col!Een Coll,Vice 'Mayor June V. 6ulman April 1 8, 1987 Diane Longshore P Stephen L.Weir Michael T.Ube,uaga,City Manager Mr. Gordon Gravelle Chair, Airport Land Use Commission c/o Contra Costa County Community Development Dept. 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Proposed ALUC Review Guidelines and Requested Information Dear Mr. Gravelle: This letter is in response to a request by the ALUC regarding review of applications by your Commission, City standards and policies regarding Buchanan Field, and airport related planning issues. -1 . Review of Applications On April 6, 1987 the City Council adopted a resolution which instructs City staff to develop a procedure with the ALUC staff for administrative approval of applications , instructs City staff to submit one copy of application packets to the ALUC for all major developments within the ALUC planning area, and invites the ALUC to participate in the Concord public hearing processes. The resolution does not include the ALUC pro- posal regarding project review procedures or the conducting of public hearings on individual development projects. The ALUC has the right to review certain types of applications - such as proposed general plan and zoning changes - which are within the ALUC planning area. However, some types of general plan and zoning proposals are of no concern to the airport or airport operations. We would like to develop an administrative mechanism whereby such applications are processed at staff level rather than going before the Commission. Such a mechanism would expedite the application process. Z. Policies and Standards Almost all City policies regarding Buchanan Field Airport are contained in our General Plan. These policies are enclosed for your reference. The Land Use Element contains a general policy statement regarding the airport, policies regarding structural height limits , safety and clear zones policies , and policies for reflectivity studies and temporary structures . All of these April 8, 1987 Page 2 policies are compatible with the ALUC plan; the one area of conflict is the polity regarding population densities in safety zones. As you are aware, the City Attorney has concerns regarding our legal ability to regulate and enforce specific population densities. Aircraft noise standards are contained in the Noise Element of the General Plan. These standards are based on a technical study prepared for the City by Charles Salter and Associates. I believe that some of our standards are more restrictive than the standards in the ALUC plan. A few policies regarding the airport are found in some of our zoning ordi- nances. These policies predate adoption of the General Plan standards dis- cussed in the above two paragraphs . Most of these .policies address the old ALUC law which allowed review of individual development projects. For the most part, these policies are obsolete. 3. Planning Issues - Airport and ALUC Master Plans The City of Concord will actively participate with the ALUC, the County, the AAC, and consultants in .the development of new plans for the airport facility and land use controls in' the vicinity of the airport. The following para graphs contain concerns and issues we would like to have addressed in the development of new planning policies for the airport. Most of these issues already have been discussed with the airport consultant. A. Conflicting Standards The City and the ALUC have a few conflicting standards. The conflicts have arisen in areas where the City Council has overridden the ALUC as allowed by State law. Applicants in Concord have been subjected to Con- cord policies until they came before the ALUC. Then they come under ALUC policies. This procedure is unfair to applicants. Applicants for permits in Concord. shoul.d. be subject only to Concord standards , B. Clear Zones and Clear Areas .The size and shape of the clear zones and areas should be studied. Regu-__ lations allow various configurations for these zones and areas. We should be reassured that the configurations for Buchanan Field are the most pru- dent ones. This issue is discussed in the enclosed report prepared for us by Walter Gillfillan and Associates dated April 22 , 1985. C Runway 1-L We would like the consultant to analyze the glide slope for this runway. . It is now a 50:1 slope. A 34:1 slope was once recommended by ALUC staff., but was never adopted by the Commission. April 2, 1987 Page 3 A 50:1 slope was once thought prudent by the ALUC in order to allow a potential microwave landing system to be installed for this runway. _However, during the ALUC hearing process for the SRS office building, the FAA stated in a letter that a microwave system would only require a 34:1 glide slope. D. Nonconforming Land Uses Existing land uses which do not conform with the ALUC plan need to be analyzed. Nonconforming uses need to be accommodated in the ALUC plan. Development policies are needed for areas such as Stanwell Industrial Park. E. Maps There is need for considerable improvement to the mapping system. Not all official maps show the exact same starting point for land use con- trols such as clear zones (safety zones) , clear areas , and glide slopes. This situation needs to be remedied. USGS base maps should not be used to depict land use controls such as glide slopes. It is extremely difficult to delineate specific properties and building sites on USGS maps. Other base maps , such as those used by the Fire District, would be much more helpful to your Commission, appli- cants, and staff. The ALUC should consider modifying the Structural Height Limits Map to inlcude other existing or proposed building height regulations such as missed approach standards. Please call me if you require any additional information regarding our airport related policies , or concerns we would like to be addressed by the airport con- sultant. Very truly yours , Peter H. Hirano Planning Director . PHH:DG:gh cc: Robert Drake, Senior Planner, Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553 Enclosures: General Plan Land Use (Development) Element - Airport Related Policies General Plan Noise Element - Airport Related Policies Memorandum from Walter Gillfillan to Dave Golick dated April 22 , 1985. rr._,T 08 FEB 25 "H 7: 25 c� w -dL z z �.." C 0 SC L O O < W J W V V LU VV W U © W W o _; o f aV < U W ( 7� �- W _ LLJ � v -j > c�n w 00 `�' z W _ < L CL 0 ; t1 W ta' oc p p p(Y- d w w � —¢�iL p Q oC W z oC ¢ I.0 c`� Oa_= cn O Z Z ¢JWZ -� ¢ w z a ¢ vi a an U o a U OOC ¢� Z ��W¢ Q Zcr-w O uZi O Z O¢U' zOW aC � p = W OW a �cnW�W JLL) W W Wz u� t� O W < YQ u Z g W ¢ z �ow< I-��� Z W N n o z o ,�; Q - oMoX =OaoZ cn 0 ¢ �. f- CC F- Z U I- -� to U }: Chi z --1 w OLLI ¢ W W W C- < aC _ Zu) W Z_ tI} WZ O y. UOCYZpCCwpCC¢ OC z O O 2 z - ZW WO=UWa J Z m a— �. 0-Z ¢ cn — - QQ OO }. ¢ac =�- u 0- w CD ca w H- _ aC0 ?r p . U¢aWU �ZOwp Or- w oC Z Z W Z w -i c 2 oWC z 3'- -1 ]C LL. -1 Q U p tw 1~-- = Occ of � F- Z � u) ¢ O ¢¢QQZZ� ZBQ�U J O Z �I- UU Z_ U LLJ .-� a �oCF-tvWW� OWLL - �_ 0 0 m CL i w n¢ z rn ~ J oUC CC Mair cr n.u-ui i<M>< CC ¢ ¢ ? X10 s � w? > U � � Z �¢Q1-y3 �}� W O Z mo =cc LU o--I 2 ►w- Z -� Co X Z 4 o X =LLI � wLAJM �UpujpCIO 0. ?r Z o pF- a (D � ¢ — ¢ ZW (Dz ULLJ caw a >. F- 0 0 } da^Z zE w � a z � Ql,.ra z0 W o�o�=cca a .,,, w >- W � W¢ J � O � ¢ � OZ�2 GOOF- _5 ¢ (� U=-, ZO ¢OZOMpLAC W W = -j— WA. 0CL Q� 2 WU; O � F- UQ �0 nV)(nW~�~pa Z Li- 000N F- �.F-JQ � aELLJOC13 U) -r- Z ¢�Up > J�O zp U F- ZO > � <n�C°aw O ¢1¢-Va ~ a LU< LAS ~►¢-VLAJ� � p2�ZO �Z n ¢ L, (D � �"�CD-j � ��o0 � = =sof=- � ¢ zzozQzz¢ >-- O i ��z a6aZCD W .I a ►- a ►- w5WU¢�¢a J 00 W Cra0 p ln�.-(D O u}NOO M za^ ONtiW Z ►¢-~_O 1W- y � ZZp z U) N M > N c= N M> UO��m0 � z p � c) oCF=- 1 LiF Wl W Lt,E La.F U t Lir 4xt $ 44stpi09Y .. g 4p°%EE9 a� f► - . tl�4s'�&a�Ey'�EEE Nd-NQS �< � �_ f,a� 3Sn Q �spa N ®r iso%/l � a ya4Q,eig{rays e�p� 9,� '9i`rdo a,�iiyf 4jo2,� k/ is o \ I - moi/ �� � � � + r � rrrr ���.�v � ��� v Ate• nil� hili N y I It if If CO f'z .k N � C� rel � � I .�,l.'F I ���\ q�/ ��� \ .•\ I� UY 3 - +oo o� �1 /`,l.ft��7�t' � �/ Utz^j-.SFd•, .4W\\ �s \,-�\�� ��'� t _ odd .F' ef N s 1410 3sn °N _nM . 1N3N1UN3Wd l�Wa3a 4 srA rayl 4yy�o rrr� �' .r r �•` � N til �,. f z,• ! 400 �{� V i w �r ` ��•\ f p� . ��:�r '.� `.fit.� , ,� _ r•: F _. �, � � ' �► W16 zf- Nk ,i F. 4sej:ad x .21 N Nd 09 � i a >,La 1N�wGNO J O 460 p£6/O �f8o �ZAO eiy�£6 OL/, �OAi +e B9ir�s• 'b bJ• t6o - y } I. V gib!,p (/ few SO` p�/ rR, rd j r 66ttro/ sts# a' ,�:; \ a lr+ '4°.NQS Z, � f j�,�• .z%j l{l 1 \�� a z s t �€t'ri/. , t <�.r+'^,,.�'4fs•.G"'.. �� fi.'� F Rr R�,• M k G x� - .✓G 7b1^j� C. 3 ,47 � � m s^ x t7 W N3Wd 11W �" a� b9 nodeB OZj - Ja OO ' d'QI �a/ya`fll6 Y4$�a/a /B/se�' 16/ /9 kfd,�oz� ii Y ayr b� Ul 0 r _ . — — e - �1 1N3WGN3WV JlWa3d 3sn ONVIOS y . °��Okya��pOp ��pp sp2j •�s a�Y@s4ea's.� t� Z " � R N • b 464 o 1N3WCIN3Wd IIW83d 3sn ONd IOS LO ,9 a�owe°O�'�'i°y°�B�P° rid` �. $gdF�T�x�• . ••• 63614d'd311V3.SiN.9 may++ d I d A3NVb •`J lN3JNIA _L ,; rn> "-> LLY"aaWnlaerv 01064� esi a Ww i ~ W S 7r 1�t rli` 7� ooh �r r a F s �P �1IK .w t•~ {i � 9 , N �t i e � 41 �% 1N3WON3WV 11Wd3d 3sn ONVIOS Q mka oq a ie°c sa e_ eases, 3,ub�O,dtol doter l6��i ®� a�"na€HIM „ i:i.r'ar�a3 rr.ir. I urnxr' +xar V lt�N1Av live N1J�VV v1 lid fC"� b'I d A 3 N d b `J 1 N 3 N IA .•••• •••. . ••••. :• 3Y V g L 3`d Pl�)fd NO1 LON X31d-21 I LU cy W # WLL, 14 i # �,` a Lu ysa Y � � a I ✓ a - 2 r4 j j; j i 1N3WGN3WV IIWa3d 3sn ONV IOS ,dv ,% a .'dpst,. r-6 F1•l@aa fit,Y'a6•a hills z�96�i�sc$ , x r � m x 3 lit �c 1 CA N w ILK� } i�iITT 1� AMA j � r t� l{ y '�. �� � It !. _,• � . w► !� 1 �/ • ' jA `1st i1 l .w•�x 1 -113 � j yR•