TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Remi Mendoza, City of Sacramento
From: Greg Chew, ALUC/SACOG Senior Planner
Date: February 2, 2024
Subject: Airport Land Use Compatibility Consistency Review of Sacramento City 2040 General Plan
The Airport Land Use Commission for Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba Counties (ALUC), has reviewed the Sacramento 2040 General Plan January 2024 Hearing Draft for consistency with the airport land use compatibility plans that involve the city. The ALUC’s review was prepared by, and led by Mead and Hunt, Inc., the ALUC’s technical consultant. This review is a requirement of California state law (Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b)) which dictates that, prior to adoption, a local agency must refer a proposed general plan within the planning boundary an airport land use commission’s airport land use compatibility plan to the commission for determination of the general plan’s consistency with the compatibility plan.
The compatibility plans of five airports contain criteria that apply to the city and therefore provide the basis for this consistency review. Only one of these airports, Executive (also referred to as Sacramento Executive), is physically located with the Sacramento city limits. The other four airports—Sacramento International, Mather, Sacramento McClellan (previously called McClellan Airfield and, before that, McClellan Air Force Base), and Rio Linda—have influence areas that extend into areas addressed by the draft General Plan, either within the city limits itself or the present sphere of influence or within special study areas that might be added to the city in the future.
Maps of the airport influence area for each airport and the noise and safety compatibility zones within these areas are included at the back of this memorandum.
Each map overlays the noise and safety compatibility zones onto the draft General Plan’s land use diagram (Map LUP-5) and maximum floor area ratio criteria (Map LUP-6).
The specific Sacramento 2040 General Plan version reviewed here is the January 25, 2024, Hearing Draft received from the city in final check form on December 18, 2023. To aid in the review, the city also provided the general plan maps in GIS format. Two additional documents used for reference in the general plan review, but not reviewed in themselves, are the August 2023 Public Review Draft Master Environmental Impact Report for the 2040 General Plan and the Housing Element separately adopted by the city in 2021 but not reviewed by the ALUC.
Overall, the Sacramento 2040 General Plan is a very comprehensive and well illustrated document. As the General Plan notes, though, the document is intentionally broad and general. Implementation of the plan’s goals and policies is left to other documents such as the Planning and Development Code. With a relatively minor exception regarding Rio Linda Airport as noted later in this memorandum, the draft Sacramento 2040 General Plan presents no apparent conflicts with the applicable airport compatibility plans.
However, certain topics that the compatibility plans address are not discussed or are only minimally mentioned in the draft General Plan, most notably ones concerning safety criteria and airspace protection. The Conclusions and Recommendations section at the end of this memorandum describes these omissions and provides suggested language to address them.
Furthermore, even with these essential revisions, a determination of complete consistency with the ALUC’s compatibility plans is not possible currently from review of this document alone. Also necessary is reference to the Planning and Development Code (zoning ordinance) which the ALUC understands the city intends to update subsequent to the General Plan’s adoption. In accordance with state law, ALUC review of the draft code update will be required prior to adoption by the city.
Given this status, the ALUC finds the draft General Plan to be conditionally consistent with the five compatibility plans, subject to making the revisions noted above and described in detail in the Conclusions and Recommendations section.
Until such time as the Planning and Development Code is updated to include detailed airport land use compatibility criteria, referred to the ALUC for review, and found to be consistent with the involved compatibility plans, the ALUC will continue to require the city to submit certain major land use actions to the ALUC for review. The Sacramento International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan contains a list in Policy 1.5.4 of the types of major land use actions which are appropriate for referral on this interim basis (referral of any general plan or specific plan amendments or zoning code amendments or variances continues to be mandatory even after general plan and zoning code consistency has been obtained). Although the compatibility plans for the other four airports do not contain similar lists, the list in the Sacramento International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan can be used for the referral requirement purposes of all five airports. A list of the types of major land use actions to be referred to the ALUC is included in the Conclusions and Recommendations section at the end of this memorandum.
Evaluation of the draft Sacramento 2040 General Plan for its consistency with policies and criteria in the compatibility plan for each of the five involved airports follows in this
section. The evaluation below was completed by the ALUC’s technical consultant, Mead and Hunt Inc, with the ALUC’s oversight. These individual evaluations provide details supporting the conclusions and recommendations included in the final section of this memorandum.
GENERAL APPROACH
The focus of the consistency analysis was on whether land use designations as shown in Map LUP-5, General Plan Land Use Diagram, conflict with criteria set forth in the individual compatibility plans. For most types of land uses, the compatibility plans’ criteria are defined in terms of maximum allowable residential density, measured as dwelling units per acre, and non-residential intensity, measured as people per acre. Map LUP-5, however, only indicates the general land use types, not the extent of development that would be allowed; thus, consistency with the compatibility plans’ criteria cannot be determined from this map alone. Map LUP-6, Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR), provides much of the information needed for the analysis, though formulas to relate FARs to dwelling units per acre and people per acre are still needed.
For residential density, Page 3-23 of the draft General Plan provides an essential assumption: specifically, that the average new dwelling unit is assumed to be 1,000 square feet in size. Thus, for example, an FAR of 0.5 would allow 21,780 (43,560 x 0.5) total square feet of residential development which at 1,000 square feet apiece yields up to 21 total dwelling units, a number that can be compared with the compatibility plan criteria for a specific location.
A similar formula for non-residential intensity was not found in the draft General Plan.
However, the compatibility plan for Sacramento International Airport contains assumptions that can be used for this purpose. Table 2 in that document lists an occupancy level, the assumed number of square feet each person would occupy in various land uses. For example, each person in a local retail establishment is assumed to occupy 170 square feet of floor space during typical busy periods. An FAR of 0.5 thus would result in up to 128 (43,560 x 0.5 / 170) people in an acre of the site, a number that can be then compared to the compatibility plan’s criteria. None of the other compatibility plans provide assumed occupancy levels, but since the numbers are fairly generic from one location to another, they can be applied to each airport influence area (AIA) for the purposes of this consistency analysis. The complication, however, is that the various non-residential land use categories in the draft General Plan allow multiple types of land uses, each with different occupancy levels. Some of these uses would be consistent with the compatibility plans’ criteria, but others would not be. Details regarding the allowable uses will presumably be contained in the update to the city’s zoning ordinance. Consequently, unless a clear conflict can be identified, this evaluation assumes that non-residential uses are conditionally consistent with the compatibility plans.
Another factor in evaluating the land use and maximum FAR maps is that they depict all lands in the city limits and sphere of influence, not just locations having future potential for new or increased development. Policies in airport land use compatibility plans do not apply to existing land uses. Therefore, where the city’s land use designation for a particular location merely reflects what already exists, the consistency status of the draft General Plan is not adversely affected even if the designation conflicts with compatibility plan criteria. The challenge for this consistency analysis is in determining not just where there is vacant land that can be developed, but also where there is a potential for existing development to be increased—not just nonresidential development but also creation of additional housing units on existing residential lots. A thorough analysis in this regard would require a level of detail beyond what the draft General Plan contains. Thus, for the purpose of this consistency evaluation, emphasis has been placed on using the maximum FAR map to assess where those maximums could result in development exceeding the residential density and non-residential intensity criteria in the compatibility plans. Aerial photos have then been used to get a general sense of whether those locations are mostly vacant or largely developed.
In addition to the review of the draft General Plan maps, the plan’s text has been reviewed to evaluate whether it contains goals or policies that could conflict with compatibility plan policies or if it omits topics essential to address. While no inconsistencies are noted, several revisions to address omitted topics and clarify certain wording are recommended in the final section of this memorandum.
SACRAMENTO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
The ALUC adopted the Sacramento International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan in October 2013. Map 1 of the Compatibility Plan (see map in the back of this memorandum) defines the Sacramento International Airport Influence Area as an approximately 13-by-28-mile area around the airport. This AIA is divided into two subareas, Referral Areas 1 and 2. All locations where noise, safety, and/or airspace protection wildlife hazards represent compatibility concerns are fully encompassed with Referral Area 1. Overflight as well as height limit aspects of airspace protection are factors within both referral areas.
Very little of the city lies within Referral Area 1. The affected areas lie in the North Natomas Community Plan area northwest of the I-5/Hwy 99 interchange plus a little to the south of I-5. The latter area is already built out with a residential subdivision and a February 2022 aerial photo shows the larger area north of I-5 as being under construction with residential land uses; thus, these locations are no longer subject to compatibility plan policies. In any case, this development is consistent with the compatibility plan criteria. Both areas are within Safety Zone 6 which permits residential densities up to 12 dwelling units per acre and both the existing and on-going construction appear to be within that limit. Also, both areas are outside of where noise criteria limit residential development. However, compatibility plan requirements for
airspace protection and recorded overflight notification extend into areas beyond the noise and safety compatibility zones.
The text of the draft General Plan does not contain goals or policies specifically addressing land use compatibility within the city boundaries or sphere of influence areas around Sacramento International Airport. Where the airport is discussed, it is with respect to providing ground transportation to and from it. However, two policies in the Land Use and Placemaking chapter are directed at the Sacramento County Airport System (SCAS) as operator of the airport as well as at the ALUC.
Policy LUP-1.13, Airport Land Use Compatibility states:
“The City shall work with the Sacramento County Airport System (SCAS) and the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) to ensure that new development near the area’s airports is compatible with airport operations, adopted ALUC policies, and applicable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans.”
Policy LUP-1-14, Deed Notice adds that:
“The City shall continue to require that all new development within an airport- defined overflight zone provides deed notices to future residents and property owners upon transfer of title concerning airport overflights and noise.” Modifying Policy LUP-1.13 to specifically mention the four types of compatibility factors—noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight—is recommended. Also, as discussed in the recommendations at the end of this memorandum, the above two policies would benefit by stating that they apply not only to all three airports operated by SCAS (international, Executive, and Mather) but also will be implemented with respect to the two privately owned airports (McClellan and Rio Linda).
Also within the Sacramento International AIA is one of the city’s study areas, the Natomas Basin Study Area. This area surrounds the airport. The draft General Plan does not contain maps showing land use designations for this study area. While the text briefly notes that the airport is located within this study area, it does not mention the compatibility plan or that airport land use compatibility will be a significant factor in future planning for this area. Importantly, though, the discussion of the Natomas Basin Study Area indicates that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been established between the city and Sacramento County that “assigned responsibilities for development to the City as the appropriate future land use regulator and to the County for the preservation of open space, habitat, and agriculture.” Not specifically stated in this discussion, but presumed to be the intent, is that future planning and any land use development proposals including uses that could enhance attraction of birds must be coordinated with SCAS management. Mentioning this is desirable, especially considering
that much of the land within the airspace protection and overflight portions of the AIA are within this study area.
Conclusion for Sacramento International Airport: Although the above revisions are encouraged, the draft General Plan is conditionally consistent with Sacramento International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan policies.
MATHER AIRPORT
The Mather Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is the most recent among the five compatibility plans addressed here. The ALUC adopted it in August 2022. The AIA defined in the plan encompasses a large unincorporated area immediately east and outside of the current city limits. Two subareas designated Review Area 1 and Review Area 2 are delineated within the AIA. Locations where noise and safety represent potential land use compatibility concerns are contained within Review Area 1. Areas where airspace protection—height limits and wildlife hazards—is a factor are found within both Review Area 1 and the more expansive Review Area 2.
Review Area 1 and specifically Safety Zone 6 overlaps a roughly 1.3-by-0.3-mile slice of land within the eastern edge of the city’s sphere of influence. This area is fully developed as residential subdivisions and, even if this land use did not already exist, it would be consistent with the Safety Zone 6 criteria.
Additionally, beyond the current sphere of influence, the draft General Plan identifies a
14.4-square-mile East Study Area that Map SSA-1 shows as extending to the southwestern edge of Mather Airport property. Portions of this Study Area appear to fall within Safety Zones 2, 3, 4, and 6 as well as the CNEL 60 dB noise contour, but the draft General Plan’s brief discussion of the East Study Area makes no mention of its proximity to Mather Airport. Nevertheless, while this relationship would be appropriate to note, no planning or policies for this area are contained in the draft General Plan and thus this omission does not represent a conflict with the 2022 Mather Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. At such time as any planning for the East Study Area proceeds, it will be essential that close attention be paid to the Compatibility Plan policies.
Conclusion for Mather Airport: The draft General Plan is conditionally consistent with the 2022 Mather Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
SACRAMENTO McCLELLAN AIRPORT
The compatibility plan currently in effect for Sacramento McClellan Airport dates to the early 1990s when the facility was still an Air Force Base. The McClellan Air Force Base Compatible Land Use Plan was adopted by the ALUC in 1987 and amended in 1992. An update to the compatibility plan to reflect its current status as a privately owned, public-
use airport was prepared in 2007-2008 but was not adopted. The review here of the draft General Plan therefore is with respect to the 1992 plan which remains in effect.
The airport property lies outside but immediately adjacent to the northeast corner of the city limits. Two of the city’s community plan areas overlap the airport influence area. To the west is the North Sacramento Community Plan area and to the south is the Arden Arcade Community Plan area. Much of the latter area is unincorporated and within the city’s Arden Arcade Study Area. These areas are extensively developed, although numerous vacant parcels remain to the west of the airport.
Safety compatibility criteria place the area to the west and most of the affected area to the south in the overflight zone. Residential and most non-residential uses other than ones that may cause a bird hazard are allowed in this zone. Along the extended runway centerline to the south, the approach/departure zone falls into unincorporated lands consisting of the Arcade Creek Golf Course and a heavily developed residential and commercial area. Although the residential and most of the commercial uses conflict with the safety criteria, no inconsistency between the draft General Plan and the compatibility plan occurs because the area is outside of the city limits and consists of existing development. However, if this area is annexed to the city in the future, and new development or redevelopment would be subject to applicable compatibility criteria.
Noise contours contained in the compatibility plan show the CNEL 60 dB contour extending off airport property into city territory to the southwest known as McClellan Heights. This area consists of a mixture of residential and non-residential uses and some vacant parcels. These uses are all consistent with the noise compatibility criteria. To further ensure compatibility within this area, the North Sacramento Community Plan section of the draft General Plan adds the following policy:
“NS-ERC-1 McClellan Heights and Parker Homes Plan Noise Area. The City shall prohibit new residential development within the 65 CNEL McClellan Airport noise exposure contour. New residential development within the McClellan Airport Planning Area boundaries located between the 60 and 65 CNEL noise exposure contours shall be subject to the following conditions:
• “Compliance with the City’s General Plan Environmental Justice and Environmental Resources and Constraints elements, which establish minimum noise insulation to protect persons from excessive noise within the interior of new residential dwellings, including detached single-family dwellings that limit noise to 45 Ldn, with windows closed, in any habitable room. • “Notification in the form of requiring developments requesting tentative maps to provide formal written disclosures, recorded deed notices, or in the Public Report prepared by the California Department of Real Estate disclosing the fact to prospective buyers that the parcel is located within the 60 CNEL noise contour
of the McClellan Airport and is subject to periodic excessive noise from aircraft overflights.”
Conclusion for McClellan Airport: No conflicts between the draft General Plan and the 1992 McClellan Air Force Base Compatible Land Use Plan are evident.
EXECUTIVE AIRPORT
Owned by the City of Sacramento and operated by SCAS, Executive is the only airport situated within the Sacramento city limits and all of its influence area is within the city’s boundary or sphere of influence. It’s compatibility plan, Sacramento Executive Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, was adopted by the ALUC in 1998 and amended a year later. The airport influence area extends into three of the city’s community plan area:
South Area, which includes the airport itself, plus Greater Land Park to the north and Pocket/Greenhaven to the west. The north/south runway for which safety zones are depicted in the compatibility plan is no longer in use and not considered in this compatibility evaluation.
Lands around the airport are essentially all developed, mostly with residential subdivisions. Redevelopment or intensification of existing non-residential land uses may be possible in some locations, especially to the east in an area currently outside of the city but within its sphere of influence.
With regard to the safety factor, the compatibility plan establishes four types of zones:
(1) Clear Zone; (2) Approach/Departure Zone 1; (3) Approach/Departure Zone 2; and (4) Overflight Zone. Other than in a few spots, the clear zones (now called runway protection zones) are on airport property. The off-airport properties contain existing residential uses. The approach/departure zones cover extensively developed off-airport lands. Many land use categories including multi-family residential uses, non-residential uses having concentrations of people greater than 50 people per acre at any time, and uses that present hazards to flight are restricted in these zones. Uses limited in the overflight zone are primarily ones with high concentrations of people involved.
The compatibility plan’s noise criteria do not restrict land uses outside of the CNEL 65 dB contour. This contour as depicted in the compatibility plan is on airport property or the adjacent golf course on the south.
The land use designations mapped in the draft General Plan mostly reflect the uses that exist and little vacant land remains. The potential for inconsistency between the draft General Plan and the compatibility plan thus lies almost entirely where non-residential uses could be redeveloped or otherwise intensified. Most such areas are within the overflight zone where airport-related compatibility restrictions are minimal.
Consequently, the search for conflicts focused on non-residential land uses within the approach/departure zones.
As depicted in the accompanying Executive Airport safety zone map, several sites designated for commercial or office mixed uses are shown on the draft General Plan land use map within the approach/departure safety zones. Given that the compatibility criteria for these zones limit usage intensities to no more than 50 people per acre, a criterion that most commercial and office uses are unlikely to be able to meet, this designation conflicts with the compatibility plan to the extent that greater development than what exists could take place. However, the actual potential for conflict is avoided by means of the Executive Airport Overlay Zone (Chapter 17.312 of the city’s Planning and Development Code). This overlay zone establishes land use restrictions that basically mirror the criteria in the compatibility plan and imposes additional or alternate requirements to those of the underlying zone.
Conclusion for Executive Airport: Given the lack of land in the AIA having new or intensified development potential and the existence of the overlay zone, the draft General Plan is consistent with the 1999 Sacramento Executive Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, contingent upon the city’s continued implementation of the overlay zone. Furthermore, perhaps in recognition of the age of the compatibility plan, Policy SA-LUP-8 in the South Area Community Plan states that “The City shall participate in any updates to the [Sacramento Executive] Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan…”
RIO LINDA AIRPORT
The Rio Linda Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan is another of the ALUC’s compatibility plans that dates to the 1990s; in this case adopted in 1988 and amended in 1992. The airport—a privately owned, public-use facility—is situated in unincorporated Sacramento County territory north of the city boundary and approximately 2.4 miles west of Sacramento McClellan Airport. The Rio Vista Airport influence area overlaps that of Sacramento McClellan Airport and the southern third of it extends into the City of Sacramento.
The compatibility zones that affect lands in the city are the southern half of the south clear zone (runway protection zone), all of the south approach/departure zone, the southern portion of the overflight zone, and about 1,000 feet of the CNEL 65 dB noise contour. Noise contours beyond the CNEL 65 dB contour are not depicted in the compatibility plan. The compatibility plan deems essentially all land use development to be incompatible within the clear zone. In the approach/departure zone, single-family detached dwellings are acceptable at a density of no more than two units per acre and duplex or multi-family residences are prohibited. Low-intensity non-residential uses— ones that do not exceed 50 persons per acre at any time—are allowed provided that they do not present a physical (structure height or bird attraction), visual, or electrical hazard to flight. In the overflight zone, the only uses listed as incompatible are ones such as stadiums that have high concentrations of people and those that may cause a hazard to flight. No uses are restricted within the affected CNEL 65 dB noise contour area.
Existing single-family residences occupy most of the approach/departure zone. Also, within the outer end of this area is an elementary school. The innermost approximately 950 feet of the approach/departure zone contains a large lot that is mostly vacant except for a one residence. The northern edge of this parcel as well as a roughly 300- foot-wide strip of land between it and the city boundary are inside of the clear zone.
Existing land uses within the city’s segment of the overflight zone consist of single-family residential uses within the central portion, mixed warehousing and light industrial facilities to the east and open space in the northwestern area.
Conclusions for Rio Linda Airport: The land use designations in the draft General Plan mirror the existing uses but, other than in the northwestern portion, allow floor area ratios of up to 1.0 which is much higher than what exists. To be consistent with the Rio Linda compatibility plan, additional restrictions on future development need to be put in place.
Foremost among these is that draft land use designation for the area within the clear zone, be changed to open space, not neighborhood residential as now shown on Maps LUP-5 and CP -NS-2 of the 2040 General Plan January 2024 Hearing Draft . It is t he ALUC’s understanding that the city will remedy this issue in the 2040 General Pl an February 2024 Hearing Draft by updating land use designations within the clear zone from Neighborhood (residential) to Open Space.
Any new residential uses elsewhere within the approach/departure zone need to be limited to a density of no more than two units per acre unless state law prevails over this restriction and allows a higher density.
The elementary school, although an incompatible use under the compatibility plan criteria, is an existing use and therefore its site can continue to be designated for this use. However, in accordance with the compatibility plan policies, increase in the school’s capacity is limited to less than one-third.
High-intensity non-residential uses need to be avoided in the eastern portion of the approach zone designated as Employment Mixed -Use on the draft General Plan land use maps. Although unlikely given the present character of the area, the 1.0 floor area ratio indicated for this area might not prevent future uses with a high concentration of people which the compatibility plan deems incompatible (for example: auditoriums, stadiums, hospitals, and jails). Also, any functions that might create a bird hazard or cause other hazards to flight need to be prevented from being created.
The latter three of these limitations can be addressed in the future Planning and Development Code update, together with an airport overlay zoning ordinance, rather than in the General Plan itself. A suggested approach in this regard is to adopt an overlay zone along the lines of the one in place for Executive Airport. In the meantime, the draft General Plan can be judged conditionally consistent with the 1992 Rio Linda
Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan once the issue described in the first bullet above is remedied. The condition to be met is that any proposals for major land use development be referred to the ALUC staff for review as discussed below.
Based upon the preceding evaluations, the Sacramento 2040 General Plan, January 2024 Hearing Draft, will be conditionally consistent with all five of the airport land use compatibility plans against which it has been evaluated in this memorandum once the issue with respect to the 1992 Rio Linda Airport Comprehensive Land Use is addressed.
No changes to the draft document text are required at this time to achieve this conditional consistency.
To become fully consistent with the compatibility plans, the update of the city’s Planning and Development Code will need to be completed, referred to the ALUC staff for a consistency review, and found consistent with the compatibility plans. At that time, ALUC staff will need to carefully assess the potential for new or more intense development allowed by the General Plan to conflict with the ALUC compatibility criteria. The update also must include overlay zones for the city portions of the influence areas for International, Mather, McClellan, and Rio Linda airports like the existing one for Executive Airport.
In the meantime, until complete consistency of the General Plan and the Planning and Development Code is obtained, the finding of conditional consistency requires that the city continue to refer to the ALUC for staff review all proposed major land use actions affecting land within the city limits as well as those within the city’s sphere of influence to the extent that the city has approval authority over them. These major land use actions are as follows:
(1) Any proposed expansion of the sphere of influence of a city or special district. (2) Proposed pre-zoning associated with future annexation of land to a city. (3) Proposed development agreements or amendments to such agreements. (4) Proposed residential development, including land divisions, consisting of 5 or more dwelling units or parcels.
(5) Any discretionary development proposal for projects having a building floor area of 20,000 square feet or greater unless only ministerial approval (e.g., a building permit) is required.
(6) Any discretionary development proposal for projects expected to attract more than 100 people (including employees, customers/visitors) to outdoor activities to the project site during a typical busy period.
(7) Major infrastructure or other capital improvements (e.g., water, sewer, or roads) that would promote urban uses in undeveloped or agricultural areas to the extent that such uses are not reflected in a previously reviewed general plan or specific plan.
(8) Any proposal for non-aviation use of land within areas designated in the compatibility plans as Safety Zone 1, clear zone, or runway protection zone. (9) Proposed land acquisition by a government entity for any facility (for example, a school or hospital) designed to accommodate more than 100 people during a typical busy period.
(10) Any proposed object (including buildings, poles, antennas, and other structures) having a height that requires review by the Federal Aviation Administration in accordance with Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. (11) Any Project having the potential to create electrical or visual hazards to aircraft in flight, including:
Electrical interference with radio communications or navigational signals; Lighting which could be mistaken for airport lighting; Glare in the eyes of pilots of aircraft using the airport; and Impaired visibility near the airport.
(12) Any project having the potential to create a thermal plume extending to an altitude where aircraft fly.
(13) Proposed redevelopment if the project is of a type listed in the above items.
Beyond the above condition, the wording in several places within the draft General Plan could be clarified or expanded to reinforce and better describe the relationship between the General Plan and the ALUC’s compatibility plans. While it would be best for the following points to be addressed at this time, they are recommendations and, even if not addressed now or in the final version of the General Plan, will not adversely affect the conclusion that it is conditionally consistent with the five compatibility plans other than with respect to the one issue involving Rio Linda Airport. Most of these recommendations concern how the draft General Plan deals with airport land use
compatibility matters as a whole and are in addition to the preceding recommendations pertaining to the draft plan’s consistency with the five individual compatibility plans. Policy LUP-1.13 indicates that “The City shall work with the Sacramento County Airport System (SCAS) and the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) to ensure that new development near the area’s airports is compatible with airport operations, adopted ALUC policies, and applicable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans.” This policy should be expanded to mention the four compatibility factors: noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight. Also, the policy would benefit by stating that consultation with SCAS applies to Sacramento International, Executive, and Mather airports and that consultation with the management of Sacramento McClellan and Rio Linda airports will also be done when proposed land use actions affect the influence areas of those airports. This revision should be made prior to the current adoption action if possible.
The discussion of land use designations on page 3 -13 notes that “designations are implemented through and subject to applicable laws, including regulations and guidelines more restrictive than the General Plan, such as specific plans, zoning districts, ove rlay zones, special planning districts, planned unit developments, and other provisions of the Sacramento City Code.” Specific mention of airport overlay zones as a method of ensuring airport land use compatibility, either here, in conjunction with Policy LUP-1.13, or wherever else might be more suitable, would be useful.
Currently, the only airport for which the city has adopted an overlay zoning ordinance is Executive Airport. The General Plan should state in an appropriate place that it is the city’s intention to adopt overlay zones for the other four airports whose infl uence areas extend into the city limits or sphere of influence. Furthermore, adoption of an airport overlay zoning ordinance or equivalent mechanism should be a condition for city annexation of any land within an airport influence area. Inserting a map showing the boundaries of the five airport influence areas that overlap the city limits or sphere of influence would enhance awareness of the compatibility plans. Whether or not included in the General Plan, such a map or maps should be part of the overlay zoning ordinance(s).
As noted in the preceding analyses of the draft General Plan’s consistency with the compatibility plans, several of the study areas discussed in Part III of the draft General Plan extend into airport influence areas. It would be beneficial to note this fact in these discussions and it certainly should be an important topic when these studies proceed.
The ALUC requests that these studies be referred to the ALUC staff for informal comment when available for public review.
The application of floor area ratios to residential development, as is done in the draft General Plan, is unconventional. Airport land use compatibility plans as well as most community general plans rely upon density (dwelling units per acre) as the measure of the amount of residential development allowed in a particular location. While a map of maximum floor area ratios (Map LUP -6) is provided in the draft General Plan, relating these limits to the residential density limits set by the compatibility plans is a challenge. Figure LUP-5, Sliding FAR Scale, seemingly helps to define this relationship, but county staff has told Mead & Hunt that this scale is intended for use in a different way. A better discussion of the relationship between FAR and residential density, including an example or two, would be helpful.
The residential land use designations shown on the draft General Plan land use maps presumably indicate locations that are and will remain predominantly residential in character. The office, commercial, employment, and industrial mixed-use designations also may allow some degree of residential development, although densities possible are not clearly indicated through the maximum FARs shown. Residential development might thus be possible in locations where the compatibility plans consider this land use to be inc ompatible with the nearby airports. Identifying locations of these potential conflicts is beyond the function of this memorandum and is a major reason for the conditionally rather fully consistent evaluation. The forthcoming Planning and Development Code u pdate, including airport overlay zones, will need to establish criteria to avoid this potential for incompatible residential development. ALUC review of the draft code is required prior to its adoption by the city. The Environmental Resources and Constraints element of the draft General Plan mentions in Policy ERC-10.10 that “The City shall restrict new residential development within the 65 dBA CNEL airport noise contour, or in accordance with plans prepared by the A irport Land Use Commission and shall only approve noise -compatible land uses.” This policy is somewhat misleading in that Table ERC -1 indicates that a lower threshold, CNEL 60 dBA, is the normally acceptable limit for single -family residential.
Clarification of this difference would be good. The policy would further be improved by indicating that certain non -residential land uses are also limited by noise compatibility criteria. Finally, adding a similar policy addressing city implementation of safety and airspace protection criteria in the compatibility plans would be useful.
If you have any questions about the contents in this memo, please feel free to contact me at [email protected] or at 916-340-6227.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
§¨¦
5 §¨¦
5 §¨¦
80 §¨¦
80 £¤50
·|}þ70
§¨¦
505
West
Sacramento
Roseville
Davis
§¨¦
5 ·|}þ65·|}þ99
·|}þ113
Y O L O
C O L U S A
S
U
T
T
E
R
P
L
A
C
E
R
S O L A N O
YUB A
S U T T E R
§¨¦
5 ·|}þ99
Woodland
Elverta Rd.
Lone Tree Rd.
Elkhorn Blvd.
Airport Blvd.
Del Paso Rd.
Riego Rd.
Garden Hwy.
Sankey Rd.
YOLO
PLACER
SOLANO
SACRAMENTO
SUTTER
YOLO
Lincoln
Rocklin
Sacramento
Elk Grove
Rancho
Cordova
Citrus
Heights
Sacramento International
Airport
(Adopted December 12, 2013)
Land Use Compatibility Plan
CHAPTER 2POLICIES
Source: ESRI, 2009; Sacramento County, 2011; Placer County, 2010; Sutter, 2010; Yolo County, 2010; and ESA, 2012 F
Prepared By Mead & Hunt, Inc., 2013
Legend
Sacramento International Airport (SMF)
Future Property Acquisition
Existing Runway
Future Runway
County Boundary
!
! !
!! City Boundary
City Sphere of Influence
ALUC Policy Boundaries
Airport Influence Area
Referral Area 1
Referral Area 2
1. See Section 1.5 for land use actions subject to
ALUC review in each referral area.
Notes
Airport Influence Area
Compatibility Policy Map:
Map 1
0 4 8
Miles