The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About047-250-141f 02/26/1994 02:40 9168938585 AERO UNION CORP PAGE 01 AERO UNION CORPORATION 100 Lockheed Avenue, Chico, CA 95973 U. S. A. Telephone #: (530) 890-3000 • FAX #: (530) 893-8585 .DATE: /J///, Ak TIME: PAGE 1 OP 2. FROM: V t C, A-V t STuR. TELEPHONE: (530) 896-3000 T0: FAX #: REFERENCE: NOV 17 08 Cmville, Galifomia J�eeas pAa�e �er�der N� do not n�oeMe ed pages , -0 02/26/1994 02:40 z 9168938585 I* November 16, 1998 ik • AERO UNION CORP PAGE 02 AERN UNION CORPORATION Butte County Board of Supervisors 25 Ceuinty Centgx Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Re: Stephens Project 100 Lockheed Avenue, Chico, CA 95926-9098 (916) 896.30M Fax (916) 893.0505 Telex 171359 AEROUNION CICO Call Writer Direct at 896-3 'We understand that the Board of Supervisors will again review the Stephens Project which will be built within "Zone A" of the Airport Environs Plan as adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission ror Butte County, Please do not approve am residential use at that Iggdon! In recent weeks, a CSA of Oho US Air Force has been conducting "touch and go' training at Chico Municipal Airport This legal and appropriate use for the airport can only add to conflicts between those firms (including the U.S. military) operating aircrA and helicopters at CMA and surrounding residential neighbors. Also, as you may know, the military regularly uses the CMA on a year-round basis for C130 transport aircraft "touch and go" training. This activity generates airport neighbors' noise and safety complaints. These complaints will undoubtedly increase if the Stephens Project is approved. Both Acto Union and California Department of Forestry and Fee Protection do engine repairs and run -ups late at night because our aircraft must be available to light Gres beginning early the next morning. The engine run -ups are noisy and are obviously incompatible with this development Both CDF and Aero Union, as well as other CMA airm-A operators, -are already making positive contributions to our local economy and quality of life. Do not mako it more dillicult for us to do business in Butte County. We strohgly recommend::4!34tee s Developt be approved since residential use at that location will' only worsen eon0ict! Verytruly your, AERO UNION CORPORATION Victor E_ Alvistur President VE-Arik CC: Tom Lando, Airport Manager Steve Lucas, Chair, CMA Airport Commission Bob Hennigen, Butte County ALUC Bob Linshied, CEPCO `4. Zoningfor Extened-.Stay Lodgin4 By Joseph j Cimer and Richard W. Redniss, AICD Extended-stay facilities are neither hotels nor apartments. Falling curiously in between, they become a unique land use worthy of more understanding. While such lodgings have existed for many years, recent opportunity in the marketplace has increased their appeal. According to the Highland Group, hotel investment advisers, the -extended -stay niche market has entered a new phase. This segment of the marke was a fraction of the overall hotel industry, appealin primarily to upscale guests, but a mid-level and ecoi product began to emerge in the late 1980s. This neN product has a broader range of customers and is popularity among corporate clients. Hotel giants Manor Care and Marriot have takes According to the Highland Group, Manor Care's ea brand, Mainstay, is expected to develop 500 properi nationally over the next few years, ranging in size fry 100 units. Marriot is expected to enter the market v average rate of $50 per night, well below the compa established extended -stay Residence Inn. Although upscale /_//6 NOVEMBER 1998 AMERICAN ,• •, PLANNING vews ASSOCIATION Extended Stay vs. Hotels or Apartments J.C. Bradford and (ompany facilities have dominated the extended -stay market to this point, growth in the niche market will be in the mid- and economy -level segments, and the competition does not appear to be overwhelming. Homestead Village, an extended -stay lodging provider, estimates the present national corporate demand alone to be in excess of 400,000 annual room nights. Smith Travel Research and the Highland Group have found comparable demand figures in research conducted on the number of rooms in extended -stay facilities, representing about three percent of the total hotel market. In total, the extended - stay niche is expected to make up about 12 percent of the rooms in the hotel industry. Among extended -stay rooms, 46 The building entrance to the Stamford, Connecticut, Homestead Village'site, with a typical guest room interior and floor layout. percent are upscale facilities appealing largely to the high-end business traveler. The economy and mid -price rooms make up 39 and 11 percent of the market segment and are expected to greatly outnumber upscale rooms more than two to one by 2002. This issue of Zoning News will focus on these segments of the extended -stay market. A Kitchen in Every Room A cooking area (cookware included) in each guest room differentiates an extended -stay facility from a hotel. Each one - room unit also has a desk, telephone, table and chairs, television, full bathroom, and bed. Maid service, reception, and front desk services.are limited. Laundry facilities will likely be available within the building. A meeting or gathering room and a workout area are usually found on the -premises. Extended -stay facilities usually lack conference facilities, bars, restaurants, and retail/convenience stores. They -tend to be purpose built, meaning that conversions from an apartment or other hotel typically will not work. New facilities can more easily attend to the modern business traveler's communication needs. Fax machines, personalized voice mail, and meeting rooms are available conveniences. Operating costs are comparably lower for extended -stay facilities because of the lack of food preparation, room delivery, a daily maid, and other guest services. Lower client turnover has resulted in higher occupancy rates than traditional hotels. Hotel Extended Stay Apartment Rental Term Daily weekly 6.12 months Furnished- yes yes no I Kitchen no yes yes Cable/phone yes yes no Housekeeping daily weekly no Guest laundry no yes yes Restaurants yes no no Front Desk 24 his. 17 hrs. 8 his. facilities have dominated the extended -stay market to this point, growth in the niche market will be in the mid- and economy -level segments, and the competition does not appear to be overwhelming. Homestead Village, an extended -stay lodging provider, estimates the present national corporate demand alone to be in excess of 400,000 annual room nights. Smith Travel Research and the Highland Group have found comparable demand figures in research conducted on the number of rooms in extended -stay facilities, representing about three percent of the total hotel market. In total, the extended - stay niche is expected to make up about 12 percent of the rooms in the hotel industry. Among extended -stay rooms, 46 The building entrance to the Stamford, Connecticut, Homestead Village'site, with a typical guest room interior and floor layout. percent are upscale facilities appealing largely to the high-end business traveler. The economy and mid -price rooms make up 39 and 11 percent of the market segment and are expected to greatly outnumber upscale rooms more than two to one by 2002. This issue of Zoning News will focus on these segments of the extended -stay market. A Kitchen in Every Room A cooking area (cookware included) in each guest room differentiates an extended -stay facility from a hotel. Each one - room unit also has a desk, telephone, table and chairs, television, full bathroom, and bed. Maid service, reception, and front desk services.are limited. Laundry facilities will likely be available within the building. A meeting or gathering room and a workout area are usually found on the -premises. Extended -stay facilities usually lack conference facilities, bars, restaurants, and retail/convenience stores. They -tend to be purpose built, meaning that conversions from an apartment or other hotel typically will not work. New facilities can more easily attend to the modern business traveler's communication needs. Fax machines, personalized voice mail, and meeting rooms are available conveniences. Operating costs are comparably lower for extended -stay facilities because of the lack of food preparation, room delivery, a daily maid, and other guest services. Lower client turnover has resulted in higher occupancy rates than traditional hotels. LJ According to J.C. Bradford and Company, the average occupancy in 1996 was 80 percent for extended -stay facilities and 66 percent for hotels. It has been found that maintenance costs for extended -stay operations tend to be lower because guests staying longer take better care of their rooms. A typical extended -stay facility is a two - or three-story structure with interior access o to the rooms. In the more _ temperate southern states, buildings with exterior access have been built to help reduce construction costs. However, the recent trend has been to provide interior hallways for the security and convenience of guests. Generous landscaping often buffers against noise and provides a more residential "home away from home" appearance. With Downsizing Comes Opportunity The effect of corporate downsizing and merging of companies can be credited with much of the increased demand for extended -stay lodging. Downsizing has effectively reduced the number of branch offices, driving up corporate travel to yet fewer locations. Where managers once made day trips to several close locations, they The following table devised by are now traveling farther the Highland Group helps distances for longer periods of distinguish among the differing segments of the extended -stay time. Business travelers have found the convenience and market: price of extended -stay facilities Average Rate Rate Tier Per Day more suitable than full-service hotels, apartments, or staying Upscale $99 with friends or relatives. Mid -Price $50 Such changes in the Economy $31 business environment have caused the mid- and economy- Budget $20 level extended -stay market to expand beyond the traditional three to five percent growth rate of the hotel industry. Downsizing, mergers, and corporate relocations have forced corporations to reduce travel accounts and focus on the bottom line. Technology has placed new demands on workers and team -based job strategies are on the rise. Such changes require corporations to provide training thL[ will optimize productivity. Training can last more than five consecutive days, reports the Highland Group, with banking and telecommunication industries often requiring more than 10 consecutive days of annual training. Furthermore, communications technology is changing quickly, fueling the need for corporate training programs. Coupled with downsizing, companies are finding more economy in centralizing training programs and bringing in out-of-town employees. Providing a more comfortable location with the conveniences of home may increase productivity and reduce the stress of being away. Joseph J. Cimer is a planner and Richard W. Redniss is the president of Redniss & Mead—Planners, Engineers, Surveyors, Environmental Consultants, in Stamford, Connecticut. Typical building design of the Stamford, Connecticut, Homestead Grillage site. Left, a deluxe guest room layout. Extended -stay lodging has also become a viable alternative for non -business guests. Census data show that an increasing number of American households are relocating, prompting a need for transitional accommodations. With upscale extended - stay hotels an expen,-ive option, mid- and economy -level segments of the niche market have allowed movers a reasonably priced alternative. J.---. Bradford has found that as many as 25 percent of the guests of some extended -stay facilities would otherwise have found temporary accommodations with family or friends. Price -conscious military personnel and government workers also find extended -stay hotels financially attractive, as do contractors placed in new markets by government outsourcing and families requiring location -specific and specialized health care. As the mid -price and economy market segments grow, and as the targeted markers mature, a better understanding of all users will become known. Cheap Land The extended -stay industry tends to locate on land cheaper than that occupied by traditional hotels. The sites may be comparatively small, accommodating as few as 60 units of extended -stay housing. The Highland Group has found that the typical project is 100 co 150 units in size. Land available to this growing lodging use has traditionally been in the suburbs. As the market segment matures and is more easily identified :)y the industry, extended -stay property owners may find more suitable urban locations. Extended -stay sites can range from one to three acres in size, making location near a major thoroughfare essential for visibility and convenie.-ice. Because the facilities typically do not contain retail amenitie.:, a variety of restaurants or shopping should be within a five-minute drive. The lower -end extended - stay lodging facilities generate most business through drive-by recognition and word-of-mouth, says KPMG, advisers to the real estate hospitality and construction industry. For this segment, visibility becomes a major factor for success. Companies entering the low-end market early also have an upper hand in future locations within the same market area. Only 18 percent of the guests in that stay in low-end facilities are corporate clients, while up to 48 percent of the clientele are construction employees and movers. With fewer barriers to entering this market, oversupply is predicted. Opportunity lost: A Connecticut Case Study When Homestead Village wanted to locate in Stamford, Connecticut, which is home to many corporate headquarters and over 14 million square feet of office space, the extended -stay provider was seeking typical location criteria: a parcel of land two to three acres in size, visibility on a major thoroughfare, a ' population of 200,000 within a five -mile radius, and proximity to restaurants, services, and offices. The company had difficulty finding a suitably priced site, but then located a nonconforming warehousing and restaurant site along a busy state route in a residential neighborhood. Initially, it was unlikely that the extended -stay facility would be compatible with the residential area. However, a closer look revealed nearby corporate campus -style offices and many home occupations, nonconforming uses, and even illegal uses situated along the arterial road. The reuse of the warehouse and restaurant site would eliminate truck noise and odor, a common complaint Existing Regulation Within many zoning regulations, extended stay would fit better within the definition of a hotel than an apartment. Yet the use falls somewhere between, causing many communities to develop specific definitions. The zoning regulations for the town of Windsor, Connecticut, include a definition and standards for Residence Inns. Windsor's ordinance stipulates that the building be "used for the accommodation of transient lodgers in suites having one or more rooms exclusive of a bathroom, water -closet compartment, laundry, pantry, foyer, communicating corridor, closets, or any dining alcove with less than 70- i from abutting neighbors. Plans for the site included a 123 -unit extended -stay lodging facility. Replacing the nonconforming uses with an extended -stay hotel could not be accomplished under existing regulations. Stamford planning consultants Redniss and Mead proposed an amendment to the regulations that would permit a new use within a similar "footprint" as the existing nonconforming buildings. The amendment would also limit the height of the new use to that of existing buildings. As long as the proposed use was determined to be less intensive, the local zoning board had the authority to grant the new use. Although abutting neighbors were in support, surrounding neighborhood associations were opposed to the precedent of a commercial use in their backyard, and downtown businesses objected to a hotel -type use outside of the core area. Enough discomfort was expressed to deny the proposal. Communities must consider whether extended -stay lodging will detract business from the existing hotel base. The problem is minimized because the extended -stay market segment appears to fulfill a new demand. The business traveler on site for weeks at a time may be more comfortable at an extended -stay facility. Families that are relocating may find extended -stay lodging more accommodating than staying with friends or relatives. The presence of extended -stay facilities could also help to regulate the use of apartments for short-term leases and bring an Extended Stay Hotels Estimates by Smith Travel Research as of equilibrium to local housing September 30, 1997 markets. square -feet of floor space: -A kitchen area,separate from the-•- ` '—`J.(.Bradford and -Company living or sleeping areas shall be provided and cooking may be t r Number done only in the kitchen area." I of Hotels In 1996, Norcross, Georgia, adopted regulations defining E Upscale extended -stay motels as "any building containing six or more Residence Inn 239 guest rooms -intended or designed to be used, or which are used, Homewood Suites 43 rented, or hired out to be occupied, or which are occupied for ; Summerfield Suites 24 sleeping purposes for guests and contain kitchen facilities for ' Hawthorn Suites 20 food preparation including but not limited to such facilities as k Woodfin 6 refrigerators, stoves and ovens." Total 332 A more liberal approach in DeSoto, Texas, permits any type t of lodging facility, including extended -stay hotels, as a special Mid -Price use (permit required) in planned development districts. Some Extended Stay America 99 cities, such as Atlanta, have a number of extended -stay lodging ! Homestead Village 50 - facilities, but have not amended local regulations to allow for t Studio Plus 49 the use. Lexington 10 Extended -stay hotels are built for a specific function, but Homegate 8 Westar 5 could be adapted for apartments or senior housing if the hotel Sierra. 3 use ends. For the industry and many communities, adaptive (andlewood 1 reuse would minimize the impact risks because apartments and. Total 225 senior housing would be similar to extended -stay facilities. However, communities are often unwilling to consider the Economy potential benefits of adaptive reuse options. II Villager Lodge 50 To help support extended -stay uses, and limit the potential I Suburban Lodges 36 for other uses, Irving, California, employs specific requirements Crossland Economy Studios 3 for extended -stay hotels within its zoning ordinance. Design t Total 89 criteria such as a minimum lobby area, conference and meeting space, and a requirement for restaurants would encourage hotel Total Extended Stay Hotels 647 rather than apartment use in the future. The ordinance in Windsor, Connecticut, takes the same approach, allowing for 'Excluded from the table are locally owned "restaurants, recreation, or other facilities open to the general facilities that are not franchises ormajor chain ! providers. 1_11;t l' h h I d Final Perspective The longer guests stay, the more amenities they desire. In markets where extended -stay facilities are frequented by families, child play areas have been installed or designed into the site. Some jurisdictions even require play areas as a component of site planning. - Future desired amenities will determine whether the extended -stay market will conform to the look and feel of apartments, traditional hotels, or both. Where guest families may desire a swimming pool or game room, business travelers may require a small lounge for entertaining clients. Indeed, such changes are likely to push extended -stay facilities into the traditional' hotel venue. The marketplace for extended -stay facilities- will eventually stabilize, alleviating the uncertainties associated with an emerging use. The strong market demand is expected to increase as target audiences grow. Business will 0 undoubtedly continue its savvy reach for the bottom line by reducing costs for employee travel, and the country's aging population will proceed southward to warmer climates, finding temporary shelter in extended -stay facilities. This growing lodging alternative is an inevitable part of the landscape. Communities need only determine where it fits best. Correction In "Sinking Shopping Center to Become a Wetland" (July), Zoning News reported that the idea for converting the site back to wetlands came from University of Minnesota graduate student Sherri A. Buss. According to Buss, this is inaccurate. Instead, the idea emerged from her work in a graduate design seminar in landscape architecture developed by Professor Joan Nassauer. Now Many Sisters Make a Family? It was all'a misunderstanding, says Joliet, Illinois, planning director Don Fisher. In the end, he says, that is what caused most of the 103 people who signed a petition opposing a variation in use for a group of nuns to wish they had not. Of those signers, only four opposed the permit during the meeting at which the city council unanimously approved it on October 6. Variation in use is the term of art in the Joliet zoning ordinance for the special -use permit that now allows the Franciscan Sisters of the Sacred Heart to house up to seven nuns in their home in a single-family residential neighborhood. The zoning board of appeals recommended council approval in a 4-3 vote on September 24. The Joliet ordinance allows up to three unrelated individuals to live in the same home in a single-family district. Three nuns already occupied the house, but they wanted to bring in a fourth sister and also allow up to three visitors at any time. The variation, says Fisher, lasts only while the nuns occupy the 3,000 -square -foot house. The attached conditions state that the variation will cease whenever the Franciscan sisters leave the property, and that if the home ceases to function as a "nunnery," another term defined in the ordinance, it would revert to single-family residential use. Any other proposed use, Fisher says, "must go before the zoning board" and would require approval by the city council. Fisher adds that if, at any time, the use becomes a nuisance, the ordinance specifies that the permit "shall be recalled for a possible revocation" by the zoning board and city council. Because of these provisions, he says, the planning staff assumed that the variation would not pose a problem. "Zoning News is a monthly newsletter published by the American Planning Association. Subscriptions are available for $55 (U.S.) and $75 (foreign). Frank.S. So, Executive Director; William R. Klein, Director of Research. Zoning News is produced at APA. Jim Schwab and Mike Davidson, Editors; Shannon Armstrong, Barry Bain, Jerome Cleland, Fay Dolnick, Sanjay Jeer, Megan Lewis, Marya Morris, Becki Realaff, Reporters; Cynthia Cheski, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Design and Production. Copyright @1998 by American Planning Association, 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603. The American Planning Association has headquarters offices at 1776 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20036. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or. by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the American Planning Association. Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber and 10% postconsumer waste. 4 • But, says Fisher, the misinformation that drove the petitions included the impression that the convent would become a boarding house and "did not exactly reflect what the proposal was." Many people, he says, "didn't know what the actual use was." Jim Schwab, AICP ZoivinG eports The Plan for SoBro Christine Keyling. City Press Publishing, Inc., 20910th Ave. S., Suite 222, Nashville, TN 37202. 1997 48 pp. Free by calling 615-244-7989. South of Broadway (SoBro) has been a neglected "land of promise" in Nashville in the words of this report on a charrette for the area sponsored last year by a local alternative newspaper, the Nashville Scene. Many of the area's problems will sound familiar: issues of surface parking, a potential split resulting from a proposed new highway corridor, and the need to rebuild a sense of urban neighborhood character with the appropriate mixture of uses. Yet SoBro also has the unique opportunities of an area that includes the Tennessee State Capitol and life in the shadows of downtown skyscrapers. The resulting guidelines are both instructive and reasonably creative, including the emphasis on the need for a "boulevard, not a corridor." Siting Criteria for Personal Wireless Service Facilities Prepared by Kreines and Kreines, Inc., in cooperation with the Cape Cod Commission, 3225 Main St., P.O. Box 226, Barnstable, MA 02630. June 1997. 50 pp. Free with $5 shipping charge for out-of-state orders. Distilling lessons and ideas from dozens of other communities, the Cape Cod Commission managed to craft trend -setting standards in one of planning's evolving new dilemmas, the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities. This document is the result of a project the commission pursued with funding from the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development. Readers with Internet access can supplement this useful handbook by finding the commission's model bylaws for such facilities on its web site, www.capecodcommission.org. CitySpace: An Open Space Plan for Chicago City of Chicago, Department of Planning and Development, Strategic Planning Division, 121 North LaSalle Street, Room 1003, Chicago, IL 60602. The CitySpace Plan is the result of an intergovernmental initiative created to expand open space in Chicago. The CitySpace Project was initiated by a partnership that included the City of Chicago, Chicago Park District, Forest Preserve District of Cook County, and the Chicago Board of Education. The plan sets forth development goals, priorities, and implementation strategies, targeting land along inland waterways, vacant lots, and land surrounding public schools. facsimile T R A N S M (TTA L to: Pauls Leasure, Butte County DDS fax M 538-7785 re: Draft Letter from Bob Hennigan to Resident With Ranchaero Complaint date. November b, 1998 pages: 11, including this cover sheet_ -Thought you might want to look at this. We can discuss at your convenience! From the desk of... Laura Webster SeniorPtantver PeelHo Municipal Conau' Rants 1465 Myers Street orovine. CA 85%5 (530) 5$31131 Fac (S30) 533-7088 .. CI From : LAr IDL00K i N VEST I GAT 1 OhL Mr. Gates: , PHONE No. ' 915 89S 9341 • Nov. 06 199x3 3' L.",PI t P01 J Your conflict with activities at Ranchaero Airport represents exactly the situation that compelled the State of Culifurnia to establish the Airport Land Use Law in 1967. An Airport Land Use Conunissiun (At,UC) is required in every county with a public use airport. Butte County has four quilifjring airports. Ranchaero was built in 1946 by Jim Moorhead because the Army had not returned CMA to public use, Patrick Field was too close to town, and local pilots ncsdcd an airport. All land use produces off-site conaequenees. traffic, noise, changes in the view, wutcr run-off, etc. The planning process involves balancing the negative consequences of each tcew land use with people's needs, and the positive or negative impacts each use makes to the economy and quality of life. Since Ranchaero has been in operation for more than 50 years, your residence is the new land use. - Two questions are relevant: Was the activity legal? and, docs the conflict in land uses require some change in one of them? 1) Was the Activity legal? On Saturday, Oct 0", the 150 member North Valley Pilot's Association was holding a fly -in. The owner of the yellow hi -plane was giving rides and passengers in the "chase planes" were aerial photographers taking pictures of it. Operation of aircraft near other aircraft is governed by Section 91.111 of the Federal Aviation Regulations which states that: (a) Aro perrcm maty opararte sit airc7aft so close to atiotluar aircraft as to create a ' collision hazard (b) No person may operate mi aircraft in fnrniatimi flight except by arrangement ►vith the pilot In command of each aircraft in the frArmanan. And (c) -No person may operate alt airc7Uft, catryir g possengersf >r hire, in formariaii flight. FAA regulations allow for no "impromptu' formation flying, the pilots must confer beforehand and agree on what they are going to do. As my wife was the passenger in the bi- plane during that flight, 1 personally observed the discussion between the pilots before the !light. With respect to the altitude of the aircraft on take -off and landing, l have included a map showing that, indeed, your home is located on the centerline, 1,340 feet from the threshold of Runway 15-33. The normal approach slope is 3 1/2 degrees and, as a consequence, aircraft would be flying at an altitude of approximately 82 feet over your property. Pilots may choose to make a steeper than normal, angled approach that follows the creek, but this requires a turn at low altitude and at tow speeds just before touching down. This angling approach cannot be required because of the extra hazard it present for the aircralt and its' - occupants. There are many reasons why a pilot might choose to make a straight -in approach 0 .. ri! 9, ,J 1 ••i. . +G.. '.i�~.J°. -yi +" ••tt l�.Xr f.• ++/a. ..r `i fl 1., i ?N..1I 'a !.r.!�4 " ' r � • .. 'r.i 1�. ..a° i !; + - . + \ •' f L 'JY. '+ ' ! .y�•`ti i ! 't�l j(� 7' r 'w. 4r'.+. � `a'ff l,..�-'. � ) �;�!"e, sl.r. f>. n ..' �Jy. (p� '.}\td ,..Yi+ .¢ o •1 .. +-- a . ' �1�!. ' 7+�, I.A . '„l' ��(,: 'i'} �'� .Jii•q ." SJ�,r,i 'i .'.3:~ � �": ,'. e. _ ••j .. f rhe � ' ,. ^; : �i'i'J�. + int yh..�••+. �... r,tst + V - ,t" l'„ ..F+ ,.S-, .� '. i. -•ice: r r5. .;�'c . '.•7J: . "� L�" c! l" ")+ � iC.. + .r ; '.". •fad ,�"•IL 1 .w � `4.� TLl�tr t'Y ViI!J' J•, . •, ! .. From LANDLOOK INVESTIGATIONS PHONE Nb. = 915 898 9341 Nov- 06 1953 3:e5PM n2 based on level of experience, experience in a particular aircraft, the known blight charactodstics of that aircraft at low speeds, unfamiliarity with the airport, eta. I have boon told that Roma real estate agents have ini'ormed their clients that pilots are "required" to stay south of then aroak , The fact that some local pilots S:b.Q to fly pautenrs that constitute a degree of hazard to thomsolves in ordor to ctihanee your quality of life does not rtleatt that they are rear to do so. The answer to the first question is: Lhc nig t nctivit WAS legal sled _has bc^ ; ^cur gat this site ft more than fifty years. 2) Doe& the conflict iWiand uses require some ehnnie in one of the uses? The subdivision which contained lot a167, (Big Chico Creek Estates, Unit #Q) began thti approval process in 1979. The Environmental )mpact Report prepared by Michael J. Steinert and reviewed by the Butte County Environmental Review Department stated that. "the soitlhw¢Stern j)Orttun rf rhe project site lias under the establishedflight patteiin of the light aircrafl abport. the rynMay lies approxinrtetely l oo0 feet soilth of the site, (expatision of the ruinvay trnvard the north is currently'under consideration), Residential rice of this soulinvettern portion of the project site may cause inconrlyalibilities between the residential land use- and the abport laird use. considering the proximity of the site to the airfield Atralysis of the factor is neeessciry to arCerlain whether anyl werntial hazards to future ►e,yidents may be created." ` The developers introduced a report from Caywood and Associates, Architects and Planners from Sacramento, which was to evaluate the impact of the airport on the proposed subdivision. This report, in the form of a letter to Dennis and Suzy Durkin (lune 25, 1979) states that "The rurnvay clear zone intrudes ren the soutlovest corner of the proposed st,hdivision about 100-1 S0 feet and the airport approach surface extends acrays the jiroperty for "buret 1,000 feet with a maximum width of 200 feet when these areas are laid Out in acccnriance with 1,AA Advlmry t" ircula' 150/5300-4Dfor Basic Utility Airport. `Although General Aviation'ssafety record is outstandingly goad, statistically over SO% cif the accidents occur withilr the airport houlk*rries and 1.5% crccvr beyond the boundaries and within 1 mile. Of this 15%. 60% occurs very near to the ends of the runway - with the very low accident rale of general aviation aircrOt, the likelihood t fan accident that would errdcrngerlaersoits orlirnperty in the proposed vuWhiiaion iv virtrtally nun -existent. Ahhough there is a mirror overlap of the airport's activity with the xWthwe.0 car Wer of the proposed subdivision, theredoes tort appear to he any serious inevinlxrtibility that .thould prevent the development of Big Chico Creeks Estate Subdivision The "minor overlap" definitely occurs over your property. 1 have included both the map filed with the original LIR and a current map showing the accident potontinl cones developed by the Hodges ttnd Shutt from the Caltrans Department of Aeronautics Airport Land Use handbook. This handbook is used by Airport Land Use Commissions to detw•rl+ine if a new land use w;ll be compatible with the viability of the airport and the health and well fere of the airport's neighbors. ' ..t• �, t I F,.. ,tr i - w't r' /*� a •r •( t` _ ... i •� •S:rq'. es :1.A4 L•4tt`' �. ,, .. ...�; . `L• s �•, + Vit• 's1 t .. . .. 1 ,t .. From Lf44DL40K INVEST 1 GAT 1 G11IS FHM E No. : 916 8: 8 9341 We can find no rcAvrd tical County Planning ever sent this project to ALUC: even though the development was located within RarnJu0ra-o's area of influence. Also, both the Planning •vepartment and Commission must have accepted the consultant's dei6rminatrort as adequate for final approval. The Caywood Report concludeds: -)I is 014r opinion that the Chiro Ranchaeru Atrport preserrto• no serious detrimetrtul effect UP, 1110 development of the Dig Chi"' Greek Kvi tis Subdirisio» e'. However, tilt Caywood report did say that "S'otne PeOpte Ora n»mc susceptible iv suupraa than others, and it would he well fen- the drt+e1r1xr to gtarke Wfy1jr'1et'etiul resident of the gfjecled portlon of thg prupwod subdivision aware of the attyort prusi»city." At the tine Big Chico Creek Subdivision wag finally approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 10, 1983, the Ranchaero Area of Influence was a one -mile oval with straight out departures and clear zones and approach zones. The 1987 Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Ranchaero maps show that in 1987 the northern approach has been angled somewhat to the west, but as I have pointed out, that approach is not required. The pilot -in command of the aircraft cannot be forced to sacrifice safety to follow a line on a map. FInclosed are a number of maps -for your information. (1) a map firom the Caywood study showing the approach surfaces and traffic patterns in effect at that lime, (sorry about the quality but this is from microfiche); (2) the 1987 Ranchaero Clljp showing clear zone, approach and satiny areas. (3) a map showing youi lot and the distance and direction from the, threshold of the runway at Ranohaero. (4) maps showing Ranchaero with overlays of the - Hodges &Shutt Accident Scalier Maps currently referred to by ALUC when determining whether a proposed use of property is compatible with the requirements of Public Utilities Code Section 23675 which governs the activities of the Commission. (5) a map showing the clear, approach and overflight zones that result fl om the activity shown on map 4. We can find no mention in the permits of any requirement that potential owners be advised about the existetice of the airport. However, Real Estate Transfer• Disclosure Statements made in compliance with Section 1102 of the Civil Code include a question asking the Sellers if they are aware of any neighborhood noise problems or other nuisance,-.. if so, these noise problems or nuisances must be disclosed to the buyer., 1. It appears that these State Real Estate Disclosure Laws were in force by May, 1989, when you purchased the property, and both the developer, Mr. Durkin' and the subsequent owner of lot 4 167, Mr. Michael Orr, did know about tho potential for nuisances for a future property owner. Mr. Durkin obtained the Caywood Report quoted above when he filed for the permit. Mr. Orr, who filed a notice of Completion on this property. February. 1989, had already had a - project directed to ALUC in March, 1987. Mr. Orr's 1987 project was farther from the runway centerline, then yours' and though he did obtain approval„ a planning rccainmcndation was made that the approval be subject to granting an avigation easement to Ranchaero Airport. • • '. � .fir'. iP^ ,'} ••, ,. P• l I' . � l • rl P I .. ?Jt. �, t' l � �. � } •1ta., ., .. � �1 � � •ia 1-. a .. Y� S'� • .� . ,..(�� PKI. �. P,7q � � .J .. 1 _ .t i ?� ,. � f' � [ J • �� r � `. +.. .}' .. ice+ J,. i .� , v f..'�' i e � s f , , ' 'f�' p T : :1! a .' � ` 1. 'x-� . r 1 •. � � , � .' • 4 ' ii. _ r +t: r: .1 ...,� , it .+_ c � ( � 'J t t. ... � / � - � . V - ,. ,..: J , t f i .. � �'. 1 a . y r a+.i �J � i .. P ` P , , - � �y rti,.. �s .. s .,,, a � �� ... . !� ... y T J, . r, ' ^' • < � v (fir. .., J. Sq• . .: , 1 - 'y .. P .. ,y .. � rr � r � i ��k . J _ From LANDLOOK I NVEST I GAT I ONS PHONE, NO: 916 '893 9341 Nov.. 06 199$ 271rf'1 F'9�i 1t is more than likely thatthe current Butte County ALUC would have found the residential develupmcnt of the- svuthwe st,vortter of gib Chico Creek Estetcs to be lncompatiblc. The City of San June hus spent ever $100 million buying homes and demoliAing tltioin because thoy were allowed to be"built too close to the ends of the runway of their airport. You may.havc eomo icooumo with the County as neither the Public Works nor Planning I)epartments submitted this development to the ALUC Do you remember any conversation you may have had about the airport with your Realtor? Did -you sign any disclosure forms acknowledging the existence of the airports • Please note that because you have identified it "noise problem or a nuisance" at your property, and even described it in writing to a public agency,` you and your agents are legally required �' A by Section 1102 of the Civil, Code, to disclose this problem to any potential buyer• Sincerely Enel: neaps CC: plus enclosures and a copy of letter from Mr. Gates ' County Planning Board of Supervisors6 Manger; Rancliacro Airport From LPNDLOOY-, I NVEST I GAT I QN# PHONE No. 516 .998 9341 • Nov- 06 1999 '3-: 27Pm P05 From : -LQNDLO0K INVEST IvAT IONS , PHONENo. 916 898 9.341 Nov. 06 1998 -3 28FM' POG C V f From : LANDLOOK INVESTIGATIONS PHONE No. 916 898 9341 Nov.e6 1993 3:29PM P07 w.• �,�� .. IF �; _� • J - _fie"� `►�. t • Z• �'?•� �� ^_.,,�, "'gra `.� ,\� Lai �� .cwt .a //. .� •�_ s C• ��t. ._ •111• ��_ l�.1 �``'Y � Cr r 1.� I/• / o �` � . ..• it Y •• No=th / 1»- 2000 t2ANC:iAERO AIRPORT � -• AREA OF INFLUENCE •�� ..ate .•'"�..`' `•rF EXHIBIT A :�� ✓ . `fes`.'• �, SAFETY A?EAS 1. Cleaz Zone 2. Approach Zone per' 3. Oves:light Zone gym` Noise area of 5548 to 65d8 LON 1C a, ~},t .>,r 1, •,�.' 'A% .w•r.. t. L ;`� l.A V A� w.. N �.. ..�� ...' a.r i . � .. �; t••�S ! �{..t «.r � .. t4ti- w .�W.xr. y{� l 'f i .nl ff , .� �'"i... ~ ... , / • i t'r • ..' 'tis �Y� • ' , �M*t` tib. S y� � F .y �•�:: cJ � �JI•i,t J r' ��.1 � Cilli Y` wss T" r., �tci00 duc -LOID iglu lquf}o rAAP . LAN WOO s p �� -ams ,ro Tty Y :.r:. �`� �� OM 00401 04 0'01{. �. .� '.cam;: •• �. I, .:,� � » . • CI . ,rip- ,- �' •le .•' _ `-• .� � i y:� •`` r t'/• ' - :\ . I 1. . �.. ..0'rl... ' a,` .. ,..ere ;;�,` ` O :';• �:`� w ' p1o4••ntl - .1�. buipuol A. • Nob H"Vol 16 vAns `A4a'Y1 1 , . .rlr . • nr /• ♦ I.ra •Ia�.a t • t T •J�f f-)r fl AT r • •,y 1 T 1I'11 1 1 f'•a If1 ♦ � aJY1 , , f 1M 1 t VM 1,Ta.4I•-L IIIN. 1 1 • r ►• • r .. ,� 'r -• � •� ��::..t moi' _ Jf'?` : s, •� • �/r F •r :: any .. �.t : / �. , %' .% { •may ay�;�.��,j. :� �'• • �.• t�• �cp` � s � � � ,4,,:,:Y � j. ` J /- F - �� •; tr �T�: �; .i �-' , • h err We to 4 16 dig t Ilk a cr 4Ln N Z • • s .J �` y.. 4, .t' ,'n" Ysn ,,Y�!-„�� '�Ja .... t4 _ r � -. - n - �.♦... a.. .. . .. `�. .. •+..ter V�.1 .-.e."Jl.lt• ,W%M - . , •t ftp � .. .. , �. .. - •- it � ,J �•:. .,. .- ,. • .� «� � i. .....♦ ♦- .-..mow- � 1 �. r ;1 z From ANDLOOK ' T ��JEST I GRT I ONS PHONE �� • 916 898 9341 Nov. 06 1998 3 :31 PM P121 w �� a ��`, . n ��l1C':1•! � � Ort? v��v � CU%�rc, n��1V, I lqovUDW MO. • • r . . q, • , ,e.,py � .�; Ch1' •� �•�.,� •! .... ; 3•� • �,,�,. 71 It f... ';*,'ia�,., . • •'Y -r ,ter ;; „ .•• ••: ;�! :. �, , ' � I •-gimme ��'�'"�'�. .''.o�� .+i�.:`' `i� ,�,,._saa+q?W •-_ •s. ,. N 4 , J F ,` r 7 F Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Attn: Mr. Robert Hennigan, Chairman Dear Mr. 1�nigan: a 1898 Bidwell Ave. - - Chico; CA 95926 October 19, 1998 My home isiin a neighborhood quite close to the northern end of the runway at Ranchero Airport in Chico. I am writing to request some action in response to an incident that occurred late Saturday afternoon, Oct. 17, 1998. It involved dangerous (and I believe, illegal) behavior of the.pilots of several light aircraft that. were arriving for a "fly -in". -It also includes clearly irresponsible actions of the management of Ranchero. From about 3 p.m. that afternoon, several (dozen?) light planes began arriving. Most observed the rules regarding minimum altitudes and avoidance but at least four of them flew "straight in", over my house, at less than two hundred feet altitude. Some made "touch and go" landings, and went around, in at least three cases "chasing" each other with less than a few hundred feet clearance from each other and from my home. Their speed and proximity to the ground were such that I couldnot get any ID numbers, but one was a hard to miss yellow bi-plane, surely the only such aircraft present. True, the hazard the pilots posed was mainly to themselves. But after several buzzings of my house I was so concerned for the personal safety of my wife and myself that I began seriously considering leaving - until I finally found the Ranchero Airport telephone number. After many rings, my call was answered by a young man. -When I asked his name, he responded "John Smith". I asked for his middle name and he promptly hung up. I called again. This time a woman answered, identifying herself as Rosalie. When I asked about what could be done about the buzzing, she said it wasn't their responsibility and hung up. Several further attempts to find someone (Police, Sheriff, Chico tower) who could look into the situation were fruitless - the basic response (when I got one) being, "we can't do anything until there's a crash". Small consolation if it's into my house! I r > If private pilots want to risk their necks flying dangerously, that's their problem. But when they do so over my house, it concerns me a lot. It concerns me even more that those in charge of Ranchero have so little regard for their neighbors. I would appreciate knowing what action will be taken and if any further involvement on my part is needed to ensure that this kind of thing is not repeated. Yours truly, . Kenneth W. Gates Cc: Gary Grigg, owner, Ranchero Airport, P.O. Box 3278, Chico CA 95927 Bernie Richter, 1628 Oak Park Ave., Chico, CA 95927 plannlna Department 0 C T 12 1998 CA September 16, 1998 IVrre�lon6lel-)CL6 LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 Butte County Board of Supervisors — 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 SUBJECT: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS REGARDING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DEV99-01 (STEPHENS' /KAmAIERER) ON APN 047-250-141 Honorable Chair and Board Members: During the ALUC's regular meeting on August 19, 1998, the referenced project was reviewed for consistency with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. Two specific motions were made by the Commission during its review of the proposal. The first motion, which was unanimously approved by all members, requests that the Board of Supervisors delay taking any action on the proposed development agreement until the Chico Municipal Airport Master Plan and the updated Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Chico Municipal Airport have been completed. It is the ALUC's feeling that this request is reasonable since the Airport Master Plan process is currently underway and the consultant for the CLUP update has already been selected by the Commission. The Chico Municipal Airport is a facility of both local and regional importance which makes a number of essential services possible including but not limited to emergency services, medical transport, freight, passenger, disaster relief, law enforcement and natural resource management: • In addition, the facility supports the primary and most effective means of fire protection for communities including the Town of Paradise, Paradise Pines, Magalia, Sterling City, Forest Ranch, Cohasset, Brush Creek, Berry Creek, Jarbo Gap and Concow. Therefore, protection of the airport and its ability to operate to its full potential is an issue of concern to all citizens within the County. The Airport Master Plan update will determine the future facility configuration for the Chico Municipal Airport based on population and aviation demand forecasts, as well as the desires of the community. Changes in terms of the types of operations, aircraft, and/or anticipated improvements such as runway extensions will be identified within the Updated Airport Master Plan and could affect the location of airport safety zones, traffic patterns and noise contours. These items will then be analyzed and appropriate noise and safety policies reflected in the updated CLUP for the facility. The Stephens' property is located immediately adjacent to the airport property. Therefore, it is likely that any changes to the locations of noise contours, traffic patterns and safety zones will Board of Supervisors September 16, 1998 Page 2 have some affect on the property. In addition, another important and related dociunent entitled, The California Aviation System Plan, is currently being prepared by Caltrans. This plan will dictate the Chico Municipal Airport's role in the transportation network for the 16 northern California counties. For these reasons, the Commission's fust and foremost recommendation would be to wait until these variables are more clearly defined before any agreement is approved by the Board. Since a request for consistency findings was submitted to the ALUC, the Commission's second motion, which passed by a 4 to 3 vote, found the project consistent with the current 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (see attached notice). However, the Commission would like to emphasize that the 1978 document is outdated and generally considered inadequate to address current and foreseeable noise, safety and land use compatibility. issues. Finally, we call the Board's attention to -the statutes governing airport land use commissions as set forth in Chapter 4, Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 21670) of the State Aeronautics Act (Division 9, Part 1 of the California Public Utilities Code). The California state legislature's purpose in authorizing the creation of airport_ land use commissions is clearly stated in Section 21670 (a): `Itis in the public interest to provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals, and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21699 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. " `If is the purpose of this article to protect thepublic health, safety and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety,hazards within the areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. " The Airport Land Use Commission appreciates the opportunity to present its position and recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. It is hoped that your Board will agree with the view that a relatively short-term delay, in action on the proposed agreement is a reasonable option to ensure the long-term viabilityof an important regional resource and protection of the millions of public dollars already invested in the facility. Sincerely, Robert Hennigan, Chairm t ! Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ' u +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • TO: Public Agencies and Interested Parties FROM: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING FINDINGS AND/OR COMMENTS: BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR: Butte County Development Agreement (DEV99-01 - Robert and Ann Stephens/George Kammerer] on APN 047-250-141 A draft Development Agreement to define the development rights for a 230 acre site proposed for a Rezone from SR -1 and SR-1/OS to Planned Development (PD)/SR 1 on 126 acres and from OS (Open Space) to PD/SR-3/OS on 103 acres. The project site is located on the west side ofI-ficks Lane immediately adjacent to the Chico Municipal Airport, generally between Keefer Slough and Mud Creek. DATE NOTICE MAILED: September 17, 1998 This is your official notice that the Airport Land Use Commission held a public meeting on August 19, 1998 and approved the findings and/or conditions attached as Exhibit(s) A. If you have any further questions or desire additional information, please call Laura Webster, of the ALUC staff, at (530) 533-1131. The project file may be reviewed at the Department of Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. • Butte County 0 Airport Land Use Commission • , +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • EXHIBIT A BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR: Butte County Development Agreement DEV99-01- Robert and Ann Stephens/George Kammerer) n APN 047-250-141 The following findings have been prepared at the direction of the ALUC and are for the consideration of the County of Butte when making a decision on the project. Section 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS A. No environmental documentation was submitted for the current project at the time of review. However, the ALUC did find that the environmental documentation prepared for an earlier version of the project that would have permitted approximately 20 residential dwelling units within the 103 acre Opens Space area and approximately 58 new dwelling units within the north half of the 126 acre portion of the site currently zoned SR-1/OS did riot adequately address potential impacts related to the aircraft operations of the Chico Municipal Airport. Section 2: PROJECT CONSISTENCY FINDINGS A. The ALUC finds the project consistent with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and that the project is compatible with the viable, responsible operation of the Chico Municipal Airport subject to the following required condition. Recommended conditions have also been provided to improve land use compatibility with airport operations. Section 3: REQUIRED CONDITION A. The consistency finding for the project is contingent upon the requirement that the minimum lot size for any parcel is not less than 8,125 square feet if served by individual wells and on-site sewage disposal systems, or 6,500 square feet if public sewage disposal service is provided. Section 4: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS A. Residential development shall be restricted to those portions of the 126 acre SR-1/PD area that are located outside of the projected 55 dB CNEL contour a depicted on Drawing (CIC -3) within the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. • Butte County *Airport Land Use Commission • 2 B. Residential densities within the Inner Turning Zone shall be restricted to the densities recommended within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (no more than one dwelling unit per two acres) to protect the safety of aircraft and persons on the ground. Residential densities within the Traffic Pattern Zone shall not exceed 6 units per acre. C. Residential dwelling units shall be designed and constructed to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dB. D. The property owner shall sign an avigation easement granting the right of continued use of the Chico Municipal Airport in the airspace above the subject parcel and acknowledging any and all existing or potential airport operational impacts. E. The project proponents and the County shall devise enhanced airport operations disclosure measures which include deed notices, public notices, inclusion of information in the Department of Real Estate Public Report, and signage along the entrances to the project. F. All land uses shall be restricted from creating large concentrations of people that would result in the gathering of more than 25 persons per acre at any one time. G. Land uses shall be prohibited that create bright lights, smoke, particulate emissions, or allow for the storage of hazardous, flamable or explosive materials above ground. H. All project lighting shall be directed within the project site and shielded to prevent adverse impacts on adjacent properties and aircraft flight activities. I. Section 3.3 of the Development Agreement shall be modified to reference those conditions required and recommended in Sections 3. A and 4. "A through H" in the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission's August 19, 1998 Findings relative to the Draft Development Agreement. J. Section 3.4 of the Development Agreement shall be revised to reflect the applicant's commitments to the Board of Supervisors and the ALUC regarding the Airport Land Use Commission's review of the tentative subdivision map to create the 34 Density Transfer Units (DTU's) within the 126 acre portion of the property or other property located within the North Chico Specific Plan Area. The Development Agreement shall stipulate that the tentative subdivision map to create 34 DTU's within the 126 acre portion of the subject property is to be reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission for consistency with the Updated CLUP for the Chico Municipal Airport when adopted or the existing Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan, if the CLUP Update has not be completed within 24 months from the date that the Development Agreement is executed. If the proposal to create the 34 DTU's within the 126 acre portion of the property is found by the ALUC to be inconsistent with the applicable Airport Land Use Plan, the property owner/applicant waives their right to request that the Board of Supervisors adopt Overriding Findings to approve the project. However, if a finding of inconsistency is made by the ALUC to create the 34 DTU's within the 126 • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission 0 acre portion of the subject property, the property owner/applicant may submit a subsequent tentative subdivision map to create the 34 DTU's within another property that is located within the North Chico Specific Plan Area. The tentative subdivision map for such a transfer must also be reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission for consistency with the applicable Airport Land Use Plan. The property owner/applicant agrees to waive their right to request that the Board of Supervisors adopt Overriding Findings to approve the transfer of the units to another property if that proposal is also found to be inconsistent by the ALUC. A\8-19-98.MTG\STEPHENS.FDG • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 4 SEP -17-1998 10: 5.4 CE F CH I CO AIF' ATTACK BASE Board of Supervisors ep Q,Q W/r September 16, 1998 Page 2j� s ,Q 916 895 6G2-19 F. G_t1 have some atTect on the property in addition, another important and related document entitled, The California Aviation S)estem plan, is cutretuly being prepared -by- Caltrans. This plan will dictate the Chico Municipal Airport's role in the transportation network for the 16 northern California coumics. For these reasons, the Cotncmiseion's first and foremost tac=mcnd=on would be to wtut until these variables are more clearly defined before arty agreement is approved by the Board. Since a tvquest for consistency findings was submitted to the ALUC_ the Commission's second motion, which passed by a d to 3 vote, fotmd the projCct consist t With the ccuretu 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (see attached notice). HC`Y ever, the Commission wvuld like to emphasize that the 1978 document is outdated and gemtaify C=idered inadequate to address cwTent and foreseeable noise, safety and land use compatibility Issues. Finally; we call the'Board's attention to the statutes goVeruiug airport lanes e commissioms as set forth in Chapter 4, Article 3.5 (c:or meencing with Section 21670) of the State AeronauticsusAct (.Division 9, Part 1 of the Cslifor 'A Public Utilities Code), The California state legislature's purpose in mithorizing the creation of airport land use commissions is clearly stated in Smtion 21670 (a): 41 is in the public interest to provide for the orderly development of each public use airport rn this state and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals, and objectives of the California airport noise standard., adopted pursuant to Section 21699 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. " "it is the purpose of this article to protect the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion ofairports and the adoption ofland use measures rhar minimize the public's ezposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within the areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devvred to ineoptpanble uses. The Airport Land Use Commission appreciates the opportunity to prescnt its position and recommendations to the Board of Supenisors. It is boiled that your Board will agree with the view that a relatively short-term delay in action on the proposed agreement is a reasonable. option to ensure the long•trrttt viability of an important regional resource and protection of the millions of pubire dollars already invested to the facility. Sincerely, Robert Hcztnigan, Chairm Butte County Airport Land Use Commission LAND. - ;OF NAT -URAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE:, (530) 538-7601 I ` FAX: (530),538-7785 September 16, 1998 Butte County Board of Supervisors 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 t SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR RE -INSTALLATION OF OVERFLIGHT ZONE SIGNAGE WITHIN THE NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN AREA Honorable Chair and Board Members: As part of the March 28 1995 adoption of,the North Chico Specific Plan, which passed with a 5 to 0 vote by your Board, a number of mitigation/implementation measures were adopted as part of the Plan and reflected in the associated Environmental Impact Report to ensure the long-term compatibility of the Chico Municipal Airport with adjacent development. Chapter 7, Section 7.6 on pages 7-6 and 7-7 of the Specific Plan lists the mitigation/implementation measures designed to "ensure protection of Chico Municipal Airport Operations." The adoptedmeasuresinclude: 7.6-1 Avigation'easements shall be required for all lands within the Plan area. 7.6-2 Noise attenuation features shall be incorporated into new construction. 7.6-3 Enhanced) disclosure measures shall be developed rand implemented to alert. prospective home buyers and rental tenants as to the proximity of the Chico Municipal Airport, the existence of avigation easements, the existing and projected future overflight and noise levels, and such related issues as appropriate to fully inform such prospective homebuyer or rental tenant. Enhanced disclosure may be modeled on Butte County Code, Chapter 35 Protection of Agricultural Land. 7.6-4 "Overflight Zone" Road signage shall be installed at key. access points into the Plan area including Eaton Road, Garner Lane, Hicks Lane, New Arterial Road, and Keefer Lane. Such signage shall be of such materials, size and design to be visible and readable from a moving vehicle. ,� 1 Board of Supervisors September 16, 1998 Page 2 7.6-5 The New Arterial Road and collector streets east of Garner Lane shall be designated with aviation -related names as set forth in Butte County Code Chapter 32. In May of 1998, the Airport Land Use Commission noted to Development Services Department staff that subdivision maps were being recorded and homes being built within the Specific Plan area, yet the signs required in measure 7.64 were not being installed. After searching for an appropriate funding source, the signs were constructed and installed in August. Within two weeks of the signs' installation, County staff received a number of complaints and one of the signs was allegedly knocked down. Rather than re -installing the affected sign, the ALUC was dismayed to learn that all of the signs had been removed. It is the ALUC's position that the signs are absolutely necessary to ensure protection of Chico Municipal Airport operations and are also a required mitigation measure adopted unanimously by your Board. Because there is likely to be some objection or resistance to the signs from property owners, it is imperative that the signs be re -installed and maintained before even more lots are created and sold. Section 21002.1 (b) of the Public Resources Code states that: "Each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so. " Section 21081.6 (a) (1) of the Public Resources Code further supports an agency's responsibility to ensure the implementation of mitigation measures that it adopts: "The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or.conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation....... " The ALUC is requesting that the Board of Supervisors direct Public Works Department staff to re -install the signs immediately and that the County establish appropriate funds to ensure that the signs are appropriately maintained in the future. Thank you for your consideration and assistance. Sincerely, Robert Hennigan, Chairman Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Board of Super j5ors September 16, 1998 Page 2 7.6-5 The New Arterial Road and colleetar streets east of Garner Lane shall be designated with cmation-related names as set forth in Burte County Code Chapter 32. In May of 1998, the Airport Land Use Conunission noted to Development Services Deparbuexd subdivision maps were being recorded and horns being built within the S ific P staff that required in measure 7.64 w= not 1?ce � Yet the signs being tttstalied Ager searching for an appropriate furrdirrg source, the signs were constructed and installed in August. Within two wV6.5 of the signs' ir>stailation, Conan.' staff received a number of cOmplai is and one of the signs was allegedly knocked down. Raiber dean re -installing tlrc affected sign, tim ALUC was dismayed to !carte that all of the Signs had been removed. [t is the ALUC's position drat The signs are absolutely necessato ensure protection of Chico Municipal Airport opcmtiow and are also a rewired mitigation rrtc�asurcry adopted unanirt?ously by your Hoard. Because there is likely to be some objection or resistance to the signs from property owners, it is irnperative that the signs be re -installed and maintained before even more lots are created aazd sold. Section 21002.1 (b) of the Public Resources Code states that: "Each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that et carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so. " Section 21081.6 (a) (1) of the Public Rcsow= Code further supports air agency's responsibili implcrt"Ution of Mitigation measures that it adopts; ty to ensure the "Th¢ publtc agency shall adopt a reporting or monttoringProgram for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approwl. adopted iri order ro ,mngare or avoid st$nif vant etfectr on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to censure Compliance dunng project implemenrattvn.....,. " Tbr' ALUC is requesting that the Board of Supervisors divmt Public Works Deparntrent staff to re-insW the signs immediately and that the County establish appropriate funds to ensurc that the sign are appropriately maintained in the future. 'shank you frit your considcration and assistance. Sincerely, Robert Heaaigam, Butte County ,Airport Land Use Cotrunis:iiou TOTAL P.02 SEP -17-1958 10:53 CLEF CHICO AIR. ATTACK BASE 916 895 5029 P.02 Board of Super j5ors September 16, 1998 Page 2 7.6-5 The New Arterial Road and colleetar streets east of Garner Lane shall be designated with cmation-related names as set forth in Burte County Code Chapter 32. In May of 1998, the Airport Land Use Conunission noted to Development Services Deparbuexd subdivision maps were being recorded and horns being built within the S ific P staff that required in measure 7.64 w= not 1?ce � Yet the signs being tttstalied Ager searching for an appropriate furrdirrg source, the signs were constructed and installed in August. Within two wV6.5 of the signs' ir>stailation, Conan.' staff received a number of cOmplai is and one of the signs was allegedly knocked down. Raiber dean re -installing tlrc affected sign, tim ALUC was dismayed to !carte that all of the Signs had been removed. [t is the ALUC's position drat The signs are absolutely necessato ensure protection of Chico Municipal Airport opcmtiow and are also a rewired mitigation rrtc�asurcry adopted unanirt?ously by your Hoard. Because there is likely to be some objection or resistance to the signs from property owners, it is irnperative that the signs be re -installed and maintained before even more lots are created aazd sold. Section 21002.1 (b) of the Public Resources Code states that: "Each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that et carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so. " Section 21081.6 (a) (1) of the Public Rcsow= Code further supports air agency's responsibili implcrt"Ution of Mitigation measures that it adopts; ty to ensure the "Th¢ publtc agency shall adopt a reporting or monttoringProgram for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approwl. adopted iri order ro ,mngare or avoid st$nif vant etfectr on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to censure Compliance dunng project implemenrattvn.....,. " Tbr' ALUC is requesting that the Board of Supervisors divmt Public Works Deparntrent staff to re-insW the signs immediately and that the County establish appropriate funds to ensurc that the sign are appropriately maintained in the future. 'shank you frit your considcration and assistance. Sincerely, Robert Heaaigam, Butte County ,Airport Land Use Cotrunis:iiou TOTAL P.02 September 1, 1998 t. kn. eatte Count, LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785- Ms. 38-7785 Ms. Christa-Maria Engle Department of Transportation Aeronautics Program M.S. #40 P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 — Subject: Refinement of Butte County Comprehensive Airports Land Use Plan Work Program Dear Ms. Engle: As described in the August 24, 1998 Department of Development Services correspondence to Shutt Moen Associates, which was forwarded to you, the Airport Land Use Commission has selected their firm as the consultant for the referenced project. The letter also requested that the work program prepared by SMA be refined to delete those items which were determined as "non grant eligible" by your agency, such as the preparation of Airport Diagrams for the two privately owned airports. Although the Airport Land Use Commission is supportive of including the expanded noise study for the Chico Municipal Airport within the work program, this task was not identified in the RFP that was distributed and is therefore viewed as a supplemental or optional task. Since the grant amount the ALUC has been allocated is not sufficient to cover the cost of the expanded study (estimated between $5,000 and $6,000), we have requested that SMA not include this item within the work program at this time. The ALUC is pursuing discussions with the City of Chico Airport Commission and/or the Butte County Association of Governments to assist with funding for the CLUP update process. If either of those agencies responds favorably, the work program could be amended to include the noise analysis. However, it is, not known whether either of those agencies will be able to contribute at this time. During our recent telephone conversations it appeared that Aeronautics Program staff considered the expanded noise analysis to be an important component of the CLUP update process. Since the refined work program must be approved by Caltrans before the grant agreement can be executed, we are requesting correspondence from your agency -specifying whether a work program which does not include the expanded noise analysis will be acceptable. Your agency's response will help expedite refinement of the work program and the ultimate execution of the grant agreement. Ms. Christa Engle September 1, 1998 Page 2 As always, your assistance and prompt attention to this request is greatly appreciated. Please call me at (530) 533-1131 if you have any questions or need additional information in order to provide a response. Sincerely, Laura Webster Butte County ALUC Staff — !Aw OFFKEs ESTABUMM 18% 2710 GATEWAY OA%s DR SuITE 300 SouTH SACRAmEm,CA 95833-3505 TEL: (916) 9256620 FAx (916) 9251127. August 24, 1998 Mr. Art Hatley Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 GEORGE T. KAMIv1ERER DmEEcr DIAL: (916) 567-7312 RE: August 19, 1998 Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Hearing. Dear Art: My clients, Robert and Ann Stephens and I would like to extend our sincere thank you for your decision to do the right thing and acknowledge the consistency of the Stephens' project under the 1978 Comprehensive Land Use Zone for the Chico Municipal- Airport. Your support and willingness to carry out your duties as a Commissioner in an objective fashion is very greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, HER, S R By Ge lre . amm GTK:et\,stephens\hatley.1-1 cc: Robert and Ann Stephens Douglas Gunn & MAROIS, LLP Planning Department AUG a`TOvllle' l: .,i -so nia HEFNER STAR__ KS LAa CFF=s MAZISM0 1896 2710 GATEWAY OAas DR. Surra 300 Som SACRAMFM'O. CA 95833.3505 TF1.: (916) 925-6620 FAX: (916) 925.1127 August 24, 1998 Mr. John Papadakis Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 GEORGE T. KAMAERER DIRF.Cr DIAL: (916) 567-7312 t RE: August 19, 1998 Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Hearing Dear John: I just wanted to let you know that both my clients, the Stephens, and I very much appreciated your willingness to do the right thing in the Airport Land Use Commission hearing this week. We very much appreciate you seconding the motion of Commissioner Hodges to acknowledge that the Stephens' project is consistent with the 1978 Comprehensive Land Use Zone for the Chico Municipal Airport. Because of your courage to make what was clearly the only correct decision, we just wanted to be sure to let you know how much it was appreciated. Very truly yours, HEFNER, ST4RK & MAROIS, LLP Kammerer GTK:et\stepliens�papadalds.l-1 / cc: Robert and Ann Stephens Douglas Gunn -- 0.1annin4 epaftent AUG AS 1999 Oroville, ualitornia NORM ROSENE, D.D.S. Planning Division August 18, 1998 AUG 19' 0=0181coomia Robert E. Koch Risk Manager, City of Chico P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 Dear Bob, Thank you for sending me the information regarding the Adoption of the Chico General Plan and the override of the Butte County ALUC Findings of Inconsistency. In reviewing the information documenting the City of Chico's position, I am unable to locate specific items which are required in order to legally override an ALUC decision. Below I have summarized the missing items ac— cording to my "layman's understanding" of the law. 1. The Brown Act requires that meeting agendas be posted at least 72 hours prior to a public meeting and that a brief general de— scription be listed for each item to be discussed. The meeting notices for the 1994 Chico General Plan Update (which included the override of ALUC) do not list or mention overriding the ALUC finding of inconsistency. The Brown Act states, "The purpose of the brief general description is to inform interested members of the public about the subject matter under consideration so that they can determine whether to monitor or participate in the meeting of the body." Could you please refer me to the meeting notices that specifically refer' to the ALUC override for the Chico City Council/Planning Commission meeting of 11/16/97? 2. Another requirement for the legal override process is a public hearing and presentation of evidence which justifies the override. While the record demonstrates that a public hearing occurred re— garding the General Plan Update, it does not appear that a public hearing took place regarding and pertaining to the override of ALUC. No discussion ever occurred (that I can find in the minutes) re— garding the evidence supporting the ALUC override. No public tes— timony specific to the ALUC override seems to have occurred, or exists in the meeting records. Since the General Plan Update was read by title only, it appears that potential public testimony regarding the override of ALUC was procedurally dismissed. Again, this is my impression from reading the minutes and evaluating the override requirements. I would appreciate an explanation from 1049. VILLAGE LANE CHICO. CALIFORNIA 95926 TELEPHONE (916) 342-4300 \. 1� • Page 2 of 3 1 the City of Chico regarding this apparent omission, or.6e-given the documents which demonstrate that a public hearing occurred specific to the evidence and override. 3. The actual requirements for the override of an ALUC specify a two-thirds vote of the governing body (such as the City Council). While I can read in the minutes that the City Council voted 7-0 to adopt the General Plan Update, I do not see evidence in the minutes where they voted specifically regarding the ALUC override. Since the.General Plan Update was read by title only, was there ever a vote regarding the override of ALUC that occurred separately from the General Plan Update? 4. Lastly, the override of'an ALUC requires the presence of "specific findings" which support the override. The listed findings in the text of the General Plan Update include: a. "That the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan is consistent with the updated 1994 Chico Municipal Airport Noise Compati-. bility Plan." b. "That the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan pertaining to the CMA Environs area.shall be consistent with the update of the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan." Regarding "b" above, how can a specific finding exist that relies on a future, and as yet unwritten, document? We (ALUC) have yet to update the CLUPs. Since the.document does not exist, it is illogical to base any sort of argument.upon it. I must conclude that this specific finding lacks merit. Regarding "a" above, the noise compatibility study (while debatably flawed) is certainly not comprehensive enough by itself to support massive changes in zoning and land uses around the Chico Municipal Airport. By definition, the noise study was just that, a noise study. It never addressed other key factors which must be considered when planning development around an airport. In fact, I do not believe that the FAA Part 150 document had been approved by the FAA at that point in time. After reviewing the specific findings, I must conclude that they are ex- tremely weak. They certainly do not justify the necessity for massive zoning and land use changes as they occur in the General Plan Update. I would certainly like to hear an explanation of the specific findings from the City of Chico. In order to keep this in the public forum, I would appreciate a written Page 3 of 3 .response to the above noted items 1-4. We*can then discuss the city's response at the next ALUC meeting. Since the City of Chico feels justified in its override, more documentation must exist that I've not been privi- ledged to examine -in order to satisfy the criteria for a legal --override. Again, thank you for your effort in this matter.. I look forward to the city's response prior to the next ALUC meeting. Sincerely, Norm Rosene pc: ALUC Commissioners and Alternates NR: jpr +BUTT1E.COltTNTY AI RPOf T,,LAND USE COMMISSION • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 • August 3, 1998 Mr. Brian Baldridge, President Northern California Pilots Association 11088 Midway, Chico, CA 95928 Subject: k Letter of Appreciation _ Dear Brian: On behalf of the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission I would like to express our sincere appreciation to you..and the members of the Northern Cal ifornia`Pilots' Association r for providing air transportation to the Airport Land'Use Workshop in•Visalia on June 25, 1998. Due to the considerable distance to the workshop, staff and commission member— participation would. not have been: possible= without -your. assistance. 'Continuing education regarding the role of Airport Land Use,Commissions and strategies to ensure improved airport protection is essential. Therefore, the importance of your efforts to make the' educational opportunities provided at the workshop available to local staff members and decision-making bodies cannot be overstated., Thank you again for your service to the community. t Sincerely, 4w 9441 Robert Hennigan, Chairman Butte County ALUC • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • R AIRPORT LAND ;*BUTTE COUNT US7COMIMSSION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 • July 28, 1998 Mr. Norm Rosene 1049 Village Lane Chico, CA 95926 Subject: ALUC Subcommittee Meeting to Review CLUP Proposal Dear Norm: Attached for your review is a matrix staff has developed to assist with the Subcommittee's review of the CLUP proposal submitted by Shutt Moen Associates and comments submitted by Caltrans Aeronautics Program staff. Of particular concern are any comments you may have regarding the proposed work program including any "supplemental" or "optional tasks." We will also be looking for a consensus among the group regarding the adequacy of the Consultant's qualifications and related work experience. An ALUC Subcommittee meeting has been scheduled for: Date - Monday, August 3, 1998 Time - 8:00 a.m. Location - Cornucopia (515 Montgomery Street, Oroville) The purpose of the meeting will be to provide an opportunity for Subcommittee members to discuss the proposal with staff and formulate specific recommendations regarding consultant selection and/or work program refinement. Hopefully you will be able to attend this very important meeting. If you have any questions at this time, please call me at 533-1131. Sincerely, Laura Webster ALUC Staff • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission +BUTT E COUNT AIRPORT I[aAND USE COMMISSION'' • 7 County Center Drive; Oroville, CA 95965 • (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 July 28, 1998 z.. Mr. Fred Gerst , 1860 Laurel Street Gridley, CA 95948 Subject: ALUC Subcommittee Meeting to Review CLUP Proposal Dear Fred: Attached for your review is a matrix staff has developed to assist with the Subcommittee's review of the CLUP proposal submitted by Shutt Moen Associates and comments submitted by Caltrans Aeronautics Program staff. Of particular concern are any comments you may have regarding the proposed work program including` any "supplemental" or "optional tasks." Wewill also be looking for a.corisensus among the group, regarding the adequacy of the Consultant's qualifications and related work experience. An ALUC Subcommittee meeting has been scheduled for: Date - Monday, August 3, 1998 Time - 8:00 a.m. ' Location - Cornucopia (515, -Montgomery Street, Oroville) The purpose of the meeting will be to provide anropportunity for Subcommittee members to discuss the proposal with -.staff and formulate specific recommendations regarding consultant selection. and/or work program refinement. Hopefully you will be able to attend this very important meeting. If you have any questions at this time, please call me at 533-1131. Sincerely,, Laura Webster ALUC Staff , J • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • +BUT`II"lE COUNT9 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION + Y • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (916) 538-7601 FAX (916)'538-7785 • July 28, 1998 r I' Mr. Robert Hennigan 5130 Anita Road Chico, CA 95926 Subject: ALUC Subcommittee Meeting to Review CLUP Proposal Dear Bob' Attached for your review is a matrix staff has developed to assist with the Subcommittee's review of the CLUP proposal- submitted by Shutt Moen Associates and comments submitted by Caltrans Aeronautics Program staff. Of<particular concern are any comments you may have regarding the proposed work program including any "supplemental" or "optional tasks." We will also be looking for a consensus among the group regarding the adequacy of the Consultant's qualifications and related work experience. An ALUC Subcommittee meeting has been scheduled for: Date - Monday, August 3, 1998 Time - 8:00 a.m. ' Location - Cornucopia (515 Montgomery -Street, Oroville) . t The purpose of the meeting will be to provide an.opportunity for Subcommittee members to discuss the proposal with staff and formulate specific recommendations regarding consultant selection and/or work program refinement. Hopefully you will be able to attend this very important meeting. If you have any questions. at this time, please call, me at 533-1131. Sincerely, 0 Laura Webster ALUC Staff F • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 5 D Q JLIL-28-1998 09:15 CRLTRAI,IS AEROHALITICS 91G. 327 9193 P.01/0"7j STATE OF CALIFORNIA -BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governer DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AERONAUTICS PROGRAM M.S. #40 1120 N STREET - ROOM 3300 A P.O. BOX 942874 SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001 (916) 654-4959 FAX (916) 653-9531 July 24, 1998 Ms. Paula Leasure Principal Planner Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Ms. Leasure: Post -It`" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 Comments on the Shutt Moen Associates proposal for the Butte County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan The Aeronautics Program, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), has reviewed the Shutt Moen proposal for the Butte County's airport comprehensive land use plan (CLUP) development. Overall, the proposal is solid, however we do have a few specific comments for your consideration. In the Request For Proposal (RFP), Item 1.2 was outlined to reassess the ALUC Airport Area .of Influence. If it was implied within this proposal, then this comment can be set aside; otherwise, we would want to make sure that the item is covered within the work scope. Issues Identification While we agree with the proposal that issue identification involves discussion with all available sources, we do not feel that any one entity should be emphasized. The narrative did not specifically mention including the ALUC. Each ALUC member should have the opportunity to provide input into the process. Development of Airport Layout Diagrams and Airspace Plans It should be noted that the Aeronautics Program cannot pay for the preparation of the Airport Layout Plans (ALPS) for the two privately owned airports. This was correctly alluded to in the proposal. It will be the airport owner's responsibility to ensure that an adequate ALP is prepared for planning purposes. We have already sent information to assist the owners with that task, The ALPS will be mandatory in order for us to reimburse the costs of CLUP development for those airports. The law is clear that the CLUP must be based upon either a long-range master plan or an ALP. Also, it should be noted that the ten -percent match in cash or "in-kind" t a J -JUL-28-1998 09:15 ALTRANS AERONAUTICS. � 915 327 9093 P.02/03 .t Ms. Paula Leasure July 24, 1998 Page 2. monies for the project must alsn be. a atatp-a.1i2ih1P PXrPncP We reimhrnrSP the. AT.1.IC at. ninety percent (and with a tem percent holdback until project completion) of both matching costs and consultant costs up to the maximum allowed by the state's share (i.e., ninety percent of the total project cost). We will comment on some of the specific budget items in that regard later in our comments. Airspace and Instrument Approach Procedure Analyses (and Sidebar) Any benefits to the CLUP process which would include a Terminal Procedures (TERPS) analyses should be carefully thought-out. It mTabe a consideration for the larger airports if the master plans indicate that a TERPS analysis would provide vital data for future planning. Noise Analyses (Sidebar) The analysis of noise abatement procedures as it relates to airport operations isnot within the purview of the ALUC. These are not reimbursable items for this project. Policy Development We agree with the sidebar comment that noise.and safety concerns and the associated criteria should be separately addressed. f Implementation Measures In the first statement, the consultant is probably not entirely outlining the ALUC's role. It should be noted that one of the ALUC's primary responsibilities is to make a determination of compatibility for the projects referred and for those required by law for.review. Therefore, the implementation section, as it relates to the CLUP should be thoroughly addressed in the CLUP development process. However, the two activities listed in the sidebar: the update of the pilots' guide insert and the update to the FAR Part 150 study are not reimbursable items with these funds. The ALUC should consider additional itemkthat will directly enhance the ALUCs ability to function more effectively. ' r Administrative Draft Plan The administrative draft plan should also be reviewed by the ALUC, and/or. its subcommittee and Caltrans. Review.and Adoption - Environmental Documentation This document should also be reviewed by'the ALUC and/or its subcommittee and Caltrans. i UL -?8-1998 09:16 WALTRANS AERONAUTICS t `316 327 909.3 P.03/03 Ms. Paula Leasure July ?4, 1998 Page 3 Public Review Process and Adopted Plan It was our understanding that the listing of specific changes recommended by the commission and other reviewing bodies was to be a working document and would not be included in the final plan. If it is included as an addendum or otherwise, what will be its purpose? Proposed Task Budgets Many of the supplemental tasks are not eligible for the state's reimbursement, some of which have already been addressed. However, there are two tasks identified which would be worth considering and would be eligible for the state funds: "refine Implementation Measures Ianguage" and the "additional meetings," if needed.. . Note that the consultant and the ALUC will be refining the scope "of the work based upon the comments of the reviewers and any scoping discussions that might take place. That document will become the final scoping document of record,. which we, will want to review at its completion. The rest of the budget; from our perspective, looks acceptable. Keep in mind that the State's allocation is $81,000.00 (i.e., the 90% portion of a $90,000.00 project). Thus, the ALUC will need a $90,000.00 project in order to receive the full allocation from Caltrans. As indicated previously, the additional $9,000.00 cost in the project must also lie state -eligible tasks. Beyond that number, the City of Chico or the County can choose to pay for some of the other non state -eligible supplemental tasks if so desired. This concludes the Aeronautics Program's comments on the Shutt Moen. proposal. Although only the one firm applied, we feel that they yare competent and will provide the ALUC with unbiased fact-finding and, produce a solid product. It is hoped that these comments will be of assistance to the reviewing committee. Please advise us of the final results from the committee review.and the ALUC's intention regarding the consultant. Should you have any questions regarding these comments or the grant agreement process, please contact me at: (916) 654-5553. •Sincerely, 44 CH STA-1�✓IA RIA ENGLE 'Aviation Planner 1.1 Data Collection. X See page 2. 1.2 Reassess ALUC Airport Areas of Influence. X This is an important item that does not appear to be addressed. Need to discuss ' with consultant. Attempted to call 7-28- 98. Waiting for response. 1.3 Summarize/Map GP & Zoning Info for Each X See pages 3 and 15. . Airport Area of Influence. 1.4 Compile Data and Map Existing Land Uses X See page - 3. Need to clarify level of in Each Airport Area of Influence. specificity with consultant. Attempted to call 7-28-98. Waiting for response. 1.5 Air Photos. See page 2 for standard photos. Digital X ortho photos are shown as an optional item for $30,000+. 2.1 Review Existing Documents. X See page 2. 2.2 Conduct Research to Define Issues. X See pages 2 and 3. 2.3 Develop Categorization of Compatible X See page 6. Uses/Designations. Identify Conflicts. 2.4 Prepare Interim report to Document Existing X An interim report can be a good way to Conditions and Issues. identify information gaps or problems early, but this report is not absolutely necessary. 3.1 Define Technical Parameters for Each X This item appears to be addressed on Airport. page 4. Need to verify with consultant. ' Attempted to call 7-28-98. Waiting for response. 3.2 Define Imaginary Airspace Surfaces Per X This item appears to be addressed on FAR Part 77. pages 4 and 5. Need to verify with consultant. Attempted to call 7-28-98. Waiting for response. 3.3 Examine All Existing and Proposed X X ' See pages 4 and 15. TERPs analysis Instrument Approach Procedures. Prepare Instrument TERP would be an additional $8,000. TERP Surfaces if necessary. Approach Analysis 3.4 Evaluate Land Use Implications for X See pages 6 and 7. Imaginary Surfaces. 4.1 Update Airport Aircraft Activity Info and` X. See page 5. Forecasts (20 Year Horizon). 4.2 Define Airport Safety Zones and Appropriate . X See page 6. Discussion focuses on Land Uses. accident scatter. May need to clarify scope with consultant. 5.1 Prepare Existing and Projected. Noise X + See page 5. Contours. ` 5.2 Assess Extent to which Noise Affects X See page 6. Nearby Land Use. 5.3 Identify Appropriate CNEL; CNEL vs. Land See page 6. Use Matrix; Areas Requiring Noise X Insulation; Single Event Noise Events. ` 6.1 Review 1993 Airport Land Use Planning X Shutt Moen Associates prepared the Handbook. Handbook. 6.2 Gather and Present Noise Complaint X See page 6. Information 6.3 Evaluate the Need for Specific Policies to See page 6. A supplemental noise Ensure Compatibility Based on Complaints. X related analysis to review the effectiveness of current operational policies, noise abatement procedures, and outline possible improvements is shown as an optional task on pages 5 and 15 for an additional cost of $2,000 to r r $5,000. 7.1 Develop Goals, Objectives and Policies X See page 7. (Comparability and Procedural) 7.2 Compare Existing and Proposed CLUP X See page 9. Policies. 7.3 Reference Airport Layout Plans. ° See pages 4 and 15. Preparation of X updated Airport Layout Plans and Airspace Plans to FAA Standards for ' Paradise and Ranchaero are shown as an optional task for $2,000. 7.4 Discuss Recommended Land Use Patterns X Seepage 8. and Planning Issues s 8.1 Identify Butte County ALUC's Role and X See page 8. Authority. „ 8.2 Prepare Consistency Evaluation Between See pages 8 and 9. Existing City and County GP's/Zoning and X Proposed CLUP Policies. 8.3 Provide Sample Implementation Tools. X See pages 7, 8 and 9. 9.1 Compile Results of Tasks 1-8 into the X See pages 8 and 9. CLUP. 9.2 Provide Draft Table of Contents or Outline X Seepage 8: for the CLUP. 9.3 Submit 5 Copies of Admin. Draft CLUP. X < See pages 8 and 9. 9.4 Submit 75 Copies of "Public Circulation X Seepage 10. Draft CLUP." ' - 9.5 Prepare and Maintain a Plan Addendum X See page 10. During the Public Review Process. 9.6 Incorporate all Modifications Directed by the See page 10. The consultant proposes to Commission to Produce the Final Plan (75 X present the Draft Plan and Addendum to Copies). ALUC for adoption prior to producing final copies. This is how the Draft RFP s originally described the process. However, it was subsequently modified by Caltrans staff. This aspect of the work program may need to be modified, to satisfy Caltrans. It is also unclear from the wording in the proposal whether the items in the a Addendum will be "incorporated" as appropriate within the Final Plan or if the Addendum and Draft Plan will be bound together as the Final document. Need to clarify with consultant. Attempted to call 7-28-98. Waiting for response. 10.1 Prepare Initial Study (5 Copies) X See page 9. 10.2 Determination of Appropriate CEQA See pages 9 and 10. The proposal and Documentation. X cost estimate anticipates the preparation of a Negative Declaration. Staff will officially determine the type of CEQA documentation that should be prepared later in the process. However, at this ' point a Negative Declaration is expected to be adequate. 10.3 Public Review for Environmental X See page 12. ALUC staff will be Documentation. responsible for notices and distribution of environmental documentation. 11.1 Coordination with ALUC, ALUC staff and X This item is addressed throughout the Caltrans Representatives. proposal. 11.2 Project Initiation Workshop. X See pages 2 and 3. 11.3 Consultation with Local Jurisdictions This is an important item that does not Regarding Any Modifications to Airport X° appear to be addressed. Need to discuss Area of Influence Boundaries. with consultant. Attempted to call 7-28- 98. Waiting for response. 11.4 Public Workshop During Preparation -of the X See page 8. Draft CLUP. 11.5 Public Workshop During the Review See page 10. Period for the Public Circulation ' Draft X CLUP and Environmental Documentation. 11.6 Preliminary Adoption Hearing. X Seepage 10. 3 JON 11 11.7 Final Adoption Hearing. X Seepage 10. i •f •f I - J i. 1-F n k9 j. r� ,t i +B= E COUNTY AIRPORT ]LAND USE COMMISSION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • July 20, 1998 State of California Department of Transportation Attn: Christa Maria Engle Mail Station #40 P.O. Box 942873 Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 Dear Christa: Attached are copies of the letters we sent out on ourofficial address. An official mailing address for the Airport Land Use Commission was approved at the regularly scheduled meeting of July 15, 1998. We would appreciate it if future requests requiring consistency findings are mailed. to the following address. Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 If you have any questions, please call me at 538-7601, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Sincerely, Paula Leasure Principal Planner 0 0 +BUTTlE COUNTY AIRPORT ]LAND USE COMMISSION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • July 20, 1998 Ron Myers, Manager City of Oroville 1735 Montgomery Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Mr. Myers: An official mailing address for the Airport Land Use Commission was approved at the regularly scheduled meeting of July 15, 1998. On many occasions' projects have been submitted to the Department of Development Services, Planning Division with the expectation that routing to ALUC would occur. This has created problems in the past as projects are not circulated to ALUC on a regular basis. Projects that include a general plan amendment, rezone, or specific plan and are within the overflight zone of the Oroville Airport are required to be submitted to the Airport Land Use Commission. We would appreciate it if future requests requiring consistency findings are mailed to the following address. Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 If you have any questions, please call me at 538-7601, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 1 Paula Leasure Principal Planner cc: Lisa Purvis -Wilson, Planning Manager K: ALUC\LETTERSWDDRESS2.WPD 0 0 +BUTTIE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • July 20, 1998 Chuck Rough, Manager Town of Paradise 5555 Skyway Paradise, CA 95969 Dear Mr. Rough: An official mailing address for the Airport Land Use Commission was approved at the regularly scheduled meeting of July 15, 1998. On many occasions' projects have been submitted to the Department of Development Services, Planning Division with the expectation that routing to. ALUC would occur. This has created problems in the past as projects are not circulated to ALUC on a regular basis. Projects that include a general plan amendment, rezone, or specific plan and are within the overflight zone of the Paradise Airport are required to be submitted to the Airport Land Use Commission. We would appreciate it if future requests requiring consistency findings are mailed to the following address. Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 If you have any questions, please call me at 538-7601, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Sincerely, Paula Leasure Principal Planner - - - cc: Al McGreehan, Planning Director KAALUMLETTEMADDRESS2. M +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION'+ • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • July 20, 1998 Tom Lando, Manager City of Chico P. O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 Dear Mr. Lando: An official mailing address for the Airport Land Use Commission was approved at the regularly scheduled meeting of July 15, 1998. On many occasions' projects have been submitted to the Department of Development Services, Planning Division with the expectation that routing to ALUC would occur. This has created problems in the past as projects are not circulated to ALUC on a regular basis. Projects that include a general plan amendment, rezone, or specific plan within the overflight zone of the Chico Municipal Airport are required to be submitted to the Airport Land Use Commission. We would appreciate it if future requests requiring consistency findings are mailed to the following address. Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 If you have any questions, please call me at 538-7601., Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Sincerely, Paula Leasure Principal Planner cc: Kim Sidler, Chico Planning Director +BUTTIE COUNTY AIRPORT ]LAND USE COMMISSION + • 7 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965 • (530) 538-Z FAX530) 538-7785 • July 20, 1998 Bob Hennigan, Chairman Airport Land Use Commission 3150 Anita Road Chico, CA 95926 Dear Bob: As of August 1, 1998, Paula Atterberry will be assuming all clerical duties associated with the Airport Land .Use Commission. This will be her first experience with taking minutes at meetings and is very nervous about starting her new duties. As Chairman, your assistance is needed to make Paulas first few months as clerk a good experience. When a motion -is made and seconded, would you please clearly repeat the motion and the names of the person making the motion and the second. Sometimes the motions are not clear and staff is unable to identify the Commissioners involved. By repeating the motion and Commissioners -names we will be sure to have the motion worded correctly. I am enclosing some information that has been floating around the office for several years, about staff complaints and how to chair a meeting. You may be able to pick up some tidbits of information to help you to help Paula. I appreciate your assistance. If you have any questions, please call Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Sincerely, Paula Leasure Principal Planner K\ALUC\LETTERS\CHAIR.WPD • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • A Strong Chair , The work "strong° does not refer to physical strength or the ability to roar over 'participants. Strength, in this case, refers to the ability of the chair to help the group achieve its goals within a specific time, frame. ` It also involves the strength to permit all sides of an argument to be heard and expertise to keep the meeting and its. members on track. A strong chair acts as a traffic cop directing the flow of the discussion and issuing stop and go instructions. In addition, the chair should have the wisdom to cancel the meeting if its purpose can be achieved in another manner, such as a one-on-one discussion. The most common complaints of minute takers and other staff members are the following: • Weak chair, unable to keep the participants on track Speakers who mumble, ramble, or speak too fast • Speakers who are disorganized .� • Chairs and speakers who give vague direction • Speakers'who ask the minute taker to'create a motion around their comments. • Too many people talking at once: • Distractions-phones,nnging, people making irrelevant comments • Not following the agenda • An impossible number of items on the agenda Motions being made at top speed • Speakers not identifying themselves/the chair not identifying speakers • Negative people • Power-hungry people • Unprepared members • Not being allowed to have a break when the members have one • Being sent out of the meeting to make coffee, phone calls or photocopies. F, 0 Personality Types Certain behavior patters or personality traits can also affect a person's contribution to a group activity. Shy or introverted people voice their opinions quietly and infrequently. Yet, fewer contributions translate to less influence in the business meeting. Shy individuals are interrupted more and often retreat into silence if their ideas are debated. Extroverts behave in the exact opposite manner. Since they exhibit self-confidence and are aggressive in their speech, the group is more likely to listen to their opinions. Some extroverts are impulsive talkers and need an experienced chair to keep them from monopolizing or taking control of the group. Some people are over achievers with a high record of accomplishments. They are hard driving, — competitive, impatient, and aggressive. While over achievers may do well in certain areas, meetings can bring out the worst in them as they have difficulty working as a team. They are often impatient with their fellow members, interrupt or finish the sentences of others, and try to speed up the pace of the meeting. They hate to delegate as they feel they are the only ones who can effectively carry out the task. Authoritarian people enjoy rules and regulations. They believe in power and hierarchical decision making. When acting as a chair, they use their power to direct and control others. They can be demanding and dictatorial. However, as meeting participants, they are submissive and readily follow instructions. The manipulator is another personality type that may show up in a group. Manipulators are those who spend their time influencing others toward their own goals rather than the group's objectives. Manipulators are shrewd and highly persuasive and they do not allow concerns like friendship, loyalty, or, morality to affect them. There is bound to be some degree of personality conflict within any group. However, the experience of the chair, the maturity of the members, and the group's determination to achieve its goals will determine whether these differences have an impact on the group's operations. } The Meeting Personnel - - • The personnel at a meeting or the roles�to,be filled, are the. leader, the minute taker, and the participants. Whenever a group of people get together, it is -interesting to watch them slip into _ their appointed•roles with little conscious effort. The Meeting Leader`' Someone always seems to surface to assume the role of leader; someone who_ is prepared to issue commands and get things moving. Ideally, the person who i. assumes the role of leader is also the person- officially appointed to act in that capacity.. Difficulties can arise iii meetings when the official leader does not wish r to assume the role or does not understand what the role entails. Power struggles' between would-be and official leaders also create dissension within the group. When this happens, taking minutes and achieving the goals of the meeting 't become difficult if not impossible-_-, The leader must understand his or her responsibilities and cant' them out. The meeting leader can operate under a variety of titles; chair, -chairman, chairwoman, chairperson, president moderator, or presiding officer. But regardless of the title, the role is the same. - Incidentally, many parliamentarians feel that °chairwoman° or "chairperson"_are extremely awkward words and believe that in meetings the presiding officer ' should be addressed as°Mr. Chairman" or "Madam'Chairwoman° regardless of whether the presiding officer is a man or woman. However, if the organization . has nothing in its rules stating how the chair is to be addressed, the best guideline to follow is to let the chair be called whatever he or she feel is appropriate. The chair must inform the meeting of his or her preference as soon as possible. ' The competent chair-- • understands the objectives of the meeting,- ensures eeting,-ensures that the agenda is prepared and,circulated beforehand, • ensures that necessary material and staff resources are available, • • is knowledgeable about parliamentary procedures, especially if the meeting is conducted on a formal basis, • starts the meeting on time, • introduces and welcome all newcomers, makes a clear statement of the issues to be discussed, • sees that basic facts are stated accurately and fully, • assigns the floor to whomever wishes to_speak, , • 4 • restricts discussion of opinions or experiences whenever facts are available, , • ensures that each side of an issue is full fairly stated, y a " • restricts emotional and tactless, remarks, . a • sees that no one dominates the discussion,, r t • makes frequent verbal summaries of the conclusions reached, • restates all motions, amendments, acid the. outcome of the voting, • names the proposers and seconders of motions if these names are to appear in the minutes, • casts the deciding vote in the case of a tie, • sets the time and date for a future meeting; • ends the meeting on time, and • ensures that there is some type of meeting follow-up, either by memo or, by action or formal minutes. The by-laws of the commission may also assign other duties to the, chair - MOTIONS A motion is a formal proposal placed before the meeting by one of its members. Another member must second the motion.'(agree to the motion being discussed) before any debate may begin. If the motion is not seconded, the motion dies and does not need to'be recorded, in the minutes. If amotion is made and seconded, the chair (or the recorder at the request of the chair) should restate the motion to the group to ensure that everyone. understands what is being discussed. It is a good idea for the chair to insist that all proposers of motions --especially complicated ones -put their motions in writing and give them to the chair, who later turns them over to the minute taker: ' The mover of the motion is generally extended the right to open the discussion and to close it before a vote is called. ' All other members may then speak on the issue. According to Robert's Rules of _ 4 Order, after everyone has had a chance to speak once, members may speak a second.time. Then the person -who made the motion has the opportunity to sum 5 Amok AIM. up. However, some organizations limit members to opportunity to speak. They may also.include a time limit.-, The chair's job is to act as a referee and to ensure that everyone has equal opportunity to comment.. Whenever possible, the chair should alternate the people speaking for and against a motion. The chair can only add his or her personal comments by temporarily relinquishing, the chair to someone else. (This ' is a privilege that should be -used infrequently and only is the chair feels strongly about an issue.) A motion can be amended, and an amendment may even be made to the amendment. But amendments to.the third degree are not permitted. Only one main motion can be considered at a time., However, there are three other classes of motions,that take precedence over the main motion on the floor; • subsidiary, incidental, and privileged motions. Subsidiary Motions , Subsidiary motions affect the main motion. They are motions to -- 3 • Postpone indefinitely, • . amend, • commit or refer, • postpone definitely, • limit or extend debate, - • close debate, (callthe previous question), and • table the motion. Although most motions require a majority vote to pass, the motions to limit or close debate require a two-thirds because they infringe on the rights of members. Another difference in subsidiary motions is that while the first four listed above are debatable, the last three,are not:' Incidental motions, except for the motion to appeal, cannot be amended. Incidental Motions Incidental motions arise out of other motions and, therefore, take precedence over and must be decided before mainor subsidiary motions. However, they yield to privileged questions and cannot be amended. The five incidental motions are-- - � , • Suspend the rales, • appeal the decision of the chair, ' • objection to consideration of:the question, , • reading papers,. and • withdrawal of a motion. Privileged Motions ; Privileged motions are not related to the main -motion but are important to the, safety, orderliness, or comfort of the members. They take precedence over all ; T motions and cannot be debated. The four privileged motions'are-- • call for the orders of the day, • questions of privilege, •_ to adjourn,or recess, and ' • to fix the time of the next meeting Precedence of Motions ,.t It is possible to have so many. motions before a'commission that the group won't know which to consider first, so all motions have been assigned a ranking or precedence, according to their function'.. The following is a brief outline of the precedence motions with the highest ranking motions appearing first: • Fix the time of the next meeting adjourn • recess • questions -of privilege { • call for the orders of the'day`' • appeal • lay on the table ;. F s • close debate �. • limit or extend debate • postpone definitely ; r o • commit or refer • amend • postpone indefinitely • main motion Any time one of these motions is being discussed, any motion higher on the list can be considered; any motion lower on the list is out of order. For example, if a main motion is made and someone moves to postpone it until the next meeting, that motion is valid because it has a higher ranking than the main motion. Before the vote on the postponement, someone could move to recess, but no one could amend the motion because a motion to amend is lower than the motion to postpone to a given day. Motions are voted on in reverse order to which they are presented The last motion proposed is voted on first, then the next motion and back to the main motion. +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND?SE COMMISSION -+ • Department of Development Services • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • June 22, 1998 Board of Supervisors County of Butte 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Re: Butte County Specific Plan Amendment #97-01 (Kammerer) and Butte County General Plan Amendment #97-02 on APN 047-250-141 Dear Board Members: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission, at the.meeting of June 17, 1998, discussed the aforementioned proposal. The Commission provided three options for Board consideration. The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission concurs with the Chico Airport Commission and would prefer the Board place residential project proposals on hold until the Chico Airport Master Plan and the Chico Airport Land Use Plan is complete. The Butte ALUC was awarded $81,000 to prepare a new Comprehensive Land Use Plan since the current plan is inadequate for making consistency findings under current regulations. 2. There was concern that the amended project is significantly different than the project reviewed by the Commission last November. The findings prepared in November may or may not apply to the current project. Should the Board choose to approve the revised project, the Commission requests the Board make a motion of intent and refer the proposal back to the Commission for revised consistency findings. 3. In the event the project is approved by the Board without further ALUC review, over riding findings must be prepared for each finding made by the Commission. The Commission requests the Board review the requirements needed to override the Commission's findings. Approval of the project must be by a super majority vote of the Board. If you have any questions regarding the Commissions request, please call Mr. Thomas Parilo at 538-7601. Sincerely, Robert Hennigan, ChVan by, Thomas A. Parilo, Director • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • • Department of Development Services • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 • to: Tom Parilo, Director Butte County DDS fax #: 538-7785 from: Laura Webster, Butte County ALUC Staff Phone Number 533-1131 dated May 29, 1998 subject: Notification of Airport Land Use Workshop pages: 2, including this cover sheet f NOTES: Please distribute the attached workshop notice Wall members of the Board of °Supervisors, Butte County Planning Commission, Butte County ALUC, and appropriate members of County Staff:. There, is a possibility that the Northern California Pilots Associatiori may be able fo .provide air transportation to the event. Interested parties should contact: Robert Hennigan, Chairman Butte Co. ALUC (Work) 891-1862 (Fax) 898=9341 - { Planning Division U `i ; 9 1998 - Oroville, California 0 0 Nom- Airport Lgnd `CJse Wo�ks� R) E e �- r for,.. } * Airport .Land Usc Commissioners, , • 4 * ALUC Staff, # " C'Ity Plantlers, * County Planners, * Elected Offlcials, * Airpo►i Managers * land developers -. * ,A.nyo►uc interested in -knowing about airport lard use. planning - J _ Presentations will be given by experienced land use. planners and specialists Nome the -Caltrans Aeronautics Program. The focus will be on practical facets of how to create and iniplejnent an Airport Comprehensive Land Use. Plan. Topics will include: > * Why have an ALUC " ALUC Member Composition } " Legal status, authorityand duties of an ALUC, * Planners' tools and resources such as the Airport 1-Aiid Use Planning Handbook; Conflicts of members' interests, duties and loyalties, * Litigation by"oragainst att ALUC, " ALUC pitfalls: 'Yes, No, Maybe * Politics of hand use Planning - AVorkshop Location.: 'Tulare County DepArtntent of,Education, Elderwood Rooin, Doe Avenue complex, 7000 Doe Avenue, Visalia, CA, 93291 When: June 25,499819-00 AM sharp - end 3:00 PM. Advance registration is required. A registration fee.of $1.0 will be collected I t the door - Includes lunch ' 'To register for the Workshop: Send this form by FAQ to Andrew. Remits,, (2.09) 730-2604, or mail, to Tulare County ALUC, 5961. South Mooney Blvd.; Visalia, CA 93277, Name .- ---- Telephone �FAIN Number _snail address County Fositio" op- title L For more information about the workshop call Californias Pilots Association at 1-800-244- 1.949, or FAX (650) 366-1915. The Workshop will be facilitated by the. California Pilot's Association. The Caltrans. Aeronautics Progi•ttm will be a participating agency along With legal counsel and'expe►'iene.ed city and county planners. +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT _]LAND USE COMMISSION + • Department of Development Services • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • May 14, 1998 Steve Lucas, Associate Planner Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Re: Employee Recognition Dear Steve: On behalf of the Airport Land Use Commission, I would like to formally recognize your efforts with regards to the operation of the Airport Land Use Commission. Over the last three years, your assistance and dedication to solving problems associated with various airports within Butte County has created an awareness of encroachment problems and the problems encountered due to the lack of a current Comprehensive Airport .Land Use Plan. Your energy and dedication to the preservation of airports within Butte County has been an asset to the Commission. On,behalf of the Commission I give you our sincere appreciation for your years of service. Sincqfiely John Fran in, Chairman Airport Land Use Commission cc: Airport Land Use Commissioners Personnel File Memorandum' To: Paula Leasure, Butte County CC: File p9 , J Di isio i From: Laura Webster, PMC APR 0 71999 Date: April 7, 1998 ®rovill®, California Subject: Revised Timelines for Tasks Associated With ALUC Meetings Attached for your files are revised calendars for April through July which identify due dates for tasks associated with regular ALUC meetings. Please share these with Tom, Diana and Paula A. so that they are aware of the timelines we have set up as well. The only thing I did not address is when draft minutes are due for internal staff review. Please discuss that item with Diana and Paula A. so we can add it in as appropriate. Talk to you soon. L'ouni t;,x LAND OF NATURAL W E A L T H AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 March 25, 1998 Mr. Peter Giampaoli Epick Inc. 1263 The Esplanade, Suite C Chico, California 95926 RE: Response to Letter dated, March 13, 1998 ALUC Review of Proposed Development Dear Mr. Giampaoli: Staff received a request from the Commission Chairman to place your project on the March 18, 1998, Airport Land Use Commission agenda. The Commission was requested to review the project against a proposed Policy Plan. Upon further investigation of the project particulars and after conferring with John Franklin, Commission Chairman and Clif Sellers, City of Chico, it was determined that the Airport Land Use Commission would not have any jurisdiction over the project. Mr. Franklin agreed that the item should not be included on the agenda. Generally, review of a pre -application proposal is done at the staff level. This was accomplished when Steve Lucas, Associate Planner, met with you to review the project. Steve reviewed your project against the Environs Plan, the CalTrans Handbook, and the -Draft Policy Plan. Currently, the Airport Land Use Commission has no jurisdiction over projects located within the City of Chico unless a general plan amendment or other legislative act is involved in the City's approval process. It is my understanding that your project is consistent with the City's general plan and zoning. Additionally, the CalTrans Aeronautics Program has recommended the Commission not adopt the Policy Plan due to numerous problems identified in the text. On Wednesday, March 18, 1998, the Commission agreed with CalTrans and tabled the draft policy plan for six months, leaving the Environs Plan as the active document. While it is prudent to want an early review or pre -approval prior to finalizing the design of the project, the Commission does not have the authority to do so. As noted above, the Airport Land Use Commission has no jurisdiction over the project, unless a legislative action is required. r le f?L oc tJ . 6 O Mr. Peter Giampaoli Epick Inc. March 25, 1998 Page 2 I hope that this letter fully responds to your inquiry. If you would like to meet with me regarding your proposal, I would be happy to do so. Please contact me directly or my assistant, Jill Broderson at 538-7601 to schedule an appointment. Sincerely, 4WO 6;-, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP.jb cc: Paula Leasure, Principal Planner k:\planning\aluc\general.mem\g iam2.mem i J INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM S. DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES n ,' PLANNING DIVISION To: Paula Leasure D From: 'Stephen Lucas Subject: Meeting with Pete Giampoli Date: March 3, 1998 In keeping with my evaluation goal of keeping my supervisor informed, here is an update. Pete requested a meeting this morning to discuss his proposed subdivision located between Floral Ave., Ceonothus Ave. and Sycamore Creek. It will place approximately 189 homes on 400 acres. Tom Hayes suggested he speak with me -to discuss ALUC issues. I covered the Environs Plan issues, the Caltrans Handbook and the Draft Policy Plan. Essentially, it is infill development and is not likely, to present a significant impact to the operation of CMA. It does fall in CLUZ II, which indicates 1 to 3 acre parcel sizes. The Handbook would allow 4-6 units with 15% open space. With the retention of approximately 200 acres of wetlands open space, noise attenuation design. possible real estate disclosure and avigation easements, I think the project would work. As always, I presented an objective view of the project and Pete remarked that he was very pleased with the knowledgeable discourse. If you have any questions please ask. k:/planning/aluc/general.mem/giam. mem C 44� 1253 The Espkmlace = Suite C Chico, California 95926 Telephone 530 891-4757 ax 530 391=1206 O CD Mr. Thomas A. Parilo, Director Butte County Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 March 13, 1998 RE: AP Associates - APN 048-020-067 .GPA -Associates - APN 048-02-069/070/071 and 072 Dear. Mr. Parilo, The above proposed development properties which are located in the City of Chico near the 'intersection of Eaton Road and Floral Avenue where scheduled to be heard before ALUC at its regularly scheduled meeting Wednesday, March 18, 1998. It is my understanding you removed this agenda item for hearing. So that I.can keep an accurate record of my request, please provide me with your findings/opinions-for removal. Your written response by March 26 is much appreciated. Very truly yours., Pe er _ -eneral Partner' AP and.GPA Associates PGG:cic = cc_._Butte._County Board of Supervisors `Airpert Land Use Commission/John. Franklin. O ullCErs CC:60\G?A\DEVSRVCS Develcoment Eal =state Partnerships Com . ercial- Brokerage _ General Building Conirac:or Conecctom License Nio: 603708 plannlnq ®apartment MAR 17 1998 Orriviile, California 11 +BUTT E COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION + • Department of DevelopmentServices • 7 County.Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • • February 12, 1998 Tom Lando, City Manager City of Chico P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 Re: City of Chico Noise Compatibility Program Dear Mr. Lando: The Airport Land Use Commission discussed the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program at its meeting of January 21, 1998. It appears the City of Chico made an 'error in representing the document as approved or adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission. This error may have influenced the outcome of the Federal Aviation Administration, Record of Approval for the Chico Airport Noise Compatibility Program. The last paragraph in Item II, 8. (attached) shows that the Airport Land Use Commission adopted .the Land Use Plan depicted in the Airport Noise Compatibility Program. The Airport Land Use Commission has notified the FAA of this error and has requested the program be reviewed again in light of changing circumstances. The Commission requests that the City of Chico correct this error and. no, longer represent the Airport Noise Compatibility Program as an adopted or approved document of Airport Land. Use Commission. Sinc e y Joh anl' Chairman KVILUCIC0RRESP0\ AND03.LTR + of • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • r r3 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Westem-Pacific Region Airports Division Mr. Thomas J. Lando City Manager City of Chico P.O. Box 3420 Chico, California 95354-3916 Dear Mr. Lando: RECEIVED OCT 1 0 IS CRY A ACCJ CITY OF CMir P. O. Box 92007 Worldway Postal Center Los Angeles. CA 90009 Chico Municipal Airport, Chico, California Approval of FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has evaluated the Noise Compatibility Program for the Chico Municipal Airport contained in the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part .150 Study and related documents submitted to this office under the provisions of Section 104(a) of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979. The recommended Noise Compatibility Program proposed by the City of Chico is described in the Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) report. I am pleased to inform you that the Associate Administrator for Airports has approved 13 of the 15 proposed action elements in the NCP. One measure was disapproved for the purposes of Part 150, and one measure was disapproved pending submission of additional information. The specific FAA action for each Noise' Compatibility Program element is set forth in the enclosed record of approval. .The effective date of this approval is September 18, 1996. All of the approval and disapproval actions are more fully explained in the enclosed record of approval. Each Airport Noise Compatibility Program developed in accordance with FAR Part 150 is a local program, not a federal program. The FAA does not substitute its judgment for that of the airport proprietor with respect to which measures should be recommended for action. The FAA's approval or disapproval of.FAR Part 150 program recommendations is measured according to the standards expressed in Part 150 and the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act -of 1979 as amended, and is limited to the following determinations:- 1. eterminations:1. The Noise Compatibility Program was developed in accordance with the provisions and procedures of FAR Part 150; 2. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the goals of reducing existing noncompatible land uses around the airport and preventing the introduction of additional noncompatible land uses; +IDn RLE I C:' -'c CZA NO w _ya PIT�� FR1—EC�RId�� CCP 1 C,Tor1A: �-s- :� c -14 i 2 3. Program measures would not -create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes..of airport grant agreements, or intrude into areas preempted by'the federal government. 4. Program measures relating.to the use of•flight procedures can be , implemented within the period covered by_tfie program without derogating safety, adversely affecting tie efficient use and management of the, navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator prescribed by law. ` Specific limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an Airport -Noise ' compatibility Program are delineated -in FAR Part 150, Section 150.5.. Approval is not a determination concerriing the acceptability of land uses under federal$ state, or.local law. Approval -does not by itself constitute an`FAA implementing action. 'A request for federal action or approval to implement specific Noise Compatibility Measures may be required.- An FAA decision on the request may require an environmental assessment; of the proposed action. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the implementation of the program nor a determination that all measures covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. Where federal funding + is sought, requests for -project grant must be submitted to the FAA { Airports District Office in Burlingame, California. The FAA will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing approval of this.Noise Compatibility Program. You are not required,,to give local•official notice, although you,may do so if you wish. Thank you for your continued interest in'Noise,Compatibility Planning. Sincerely, Herman C. Bliss Manager, Airports Division Enclosure CC: SFO -600 - w APP -600 1 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION RECORD OF APPROVAL FAR PART 150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY, PROGRAM Chico Municipal Airport Chico, California CONCUR Associate Administrator for, Date: Policy, .Planning and International Aviation, API -1 .Chief Coun , AGC -1 D to NON CONCUR CONCUR NON CONCUR Associate Administrator Date Approved Disapproved for Airports, ARP -1 0 0. RECORD OF APPROVAL Chico Municipal Airport Noise Compatibility Program INTRODUCTION: The Chico Municipal Airport, Chico, California, (CIC) Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) describes the current and future noise environment at CIC based upon the parameters as established in FAR 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning. The NCP includes noise control measures. The city of Chico proposes to continue existing noise mitigation measures and adopt new measures to enhance the airport's compatibility with the community, improve community relations, and prevent the creation of future incompatible land uses. All proposed measures are included in Chapter III of the NCP. The recommendations below either quote or closely summarize the County's proposed actions. The statements quoted or summarized before the indicated FAA approval, or disapproval, do not represent the opinions =: or decisions of the FAA. The approvals listed herein include approvals of actions that the airport recommends betaken by the Federal Aviation Administration'(FAA). It should be noted that these approvals indicate only that the actions would, if implemented, be consistent with the purposes of FAR Part 150. The approvals do not constitute decisions to implement the actions. Later decisions concerning possible implementation of these actions may be subject to applicable environmental or other procedures or requirements. NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM MEASURES Retain Measures Existing Prior to Development of Noise Compatibility Program. (Pages III -2 through III -3, NCP; Pages 11-5, 11-6, NCP) A. Operational Policies The city of Chico has established airport management and operational policies which have served to control the effects of noise from Chico Municipal Airport operations. These measures are proposed to be retained and,are set forth below. The standard traffic pattern altitude for most aircraft is 1,500 feet MSL. Single engine aircraft must observe a 1,000 foot pattern altitude. Approaching aircraft should maintain as high as possible altitude until commencement of final descent. Posted signs directing, on departure from Runway 13L, high performance turbojet and heavy propeller driven aircraft to turn to a 080 -degree heading until reaching 3,000 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level) to avoid direct overflight of central Chico. Similar signs direct aircraft departing Runway 31 R to climb straight out until reaching 3,000 MSL before turning. (Exhibit IV -1, NEM) Approved. Maintaining these existing operational procedures is approved as voluntary when air traffic and weather conditions permit. B. Land Use and Development Controls The city of Chico can influence the policies of cooperating agencies which. play various roles in the implementation of land use controls. The city of Chico will work with the Butte County and Butte County Airport Land Use Commission to protect Chico Municipal Airport from encroachment by noise sensitive or other noncompatible land uses. Local agencies will also require avigation easements from all new noise sensitive development in the airport environs. Zoninct. The city of Chico and Butte County have direct responsibility for the planning and zoning of the majority of land within the Chico Municipal Airport environs. As in the past, consideration of such factors as aircraft noise and overflight will continue to =. be undertaken when reviewing development proposals in the airport environs. Easement dedication. The city of Chico currently requires the dedication of avigation easements for new noise sensitive land uses within areas impacted by noise levels of CNEL 55dB or greater. (Exhibit V-1, NEM). The city proposes to maintain this requirement. In addition, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has adopted the 1978 "Airport Environs.Plan, Chico Municipal Airport" as their comprehensive airport land use plan (ALUP) to provide for the orderly growth of unincorporated areas around the Chico Municipal Airport. The plan does not currently require the dedication of easements. Approved. This action is within the authority of local government and will result in the prevention of the creation of new incompatible land uses. ME! -��-i - . - • •- - - ' • -• A. Periodic Noise Modeling (Pages II -4, 111-4, NCP) The City of Chico should prepare updated noise exposure maps for Chico Municipal Airport at key air service milestones to reflect changes in aircraft operational activities and fleet mix. Approved. This action is within the authority of local government and is intended to prevent the introduction of new noncompatible land uses. B. Zoning controls (Pages II -5, III -4 through III -8, NCP) As forecasted noise impacts are less than those forecasted during the development of the 1978 "Airport Environs Plan", land use restrictions imposed by said plan will be modified to reflect impact areas as identified in the "Noise Exposure Map Report". Specifically, that land use compatibility standards contained in Table 1 of FAR Part 150 will be modified to reflect the relatively low ambient noise levels in the Chico area and be applied to the appropriate noise impact areas. The modified compatibility standards utilize the 60dB CNEL noise contour to determine compatibility as opposed to the 65dB noise contour utilized in FAR Part 150. Said standards are reflected in Table III -1 and implementation areas are depicted in Exhibit III -1. In response to concerns regarding overflight activity, the development of new residential uses will be prohibited in the area defined in Exhibit III -1 as Zone A. This is the area subject to most low altitude overflight activity. Existing residential uses shall be permitted to remain in Zone A, and infill of the existing residential area would be allowed only in the area designated Zone Al (outside of the CNEL 55dB contour). The area defined as Zone B is subject to less intensive overflight activity. In Zone B, no new single family residential uses will be permitted. Any approval of multiple family residential uses in Zone B shall contain conditions requiring the dedication of avigation easements to the airport operator and notification of potential tenants of overflight activity. Zone A and Zone B together represent the defined "Overflight Protection Zone" (OPZ). The City of Chico and the Butte County ALUC have adopted the Land Use Plan depicted in Exhibit III -1 and the standards reflected in Table III -1 as the official Airport Land Use Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport (CNEL 60dB as the local deviation from the Federal table contained in 14 CFR Part 150). Approved. This action is within the authority of local government and is intended to prevent the introduction of new noncompatible land uses. C. Easement dedication (Pages 11-5,111-8, NCP) While overall noise impact areas are forecasted to be less than predicted in 1978, the areas subject to overflight remain constant due to the lack of change in flight track geometry. Even though these areas may be impacted to a level less than CNEL 55dB, aviation easements will be secured for new noise sensitive uses located in areas subject to overflight. As such both the city of Chico, Butte County, and the Butte County ALUC will adopt policies that require the granting of avigation easements for new noise sensitive land uses beneath both Zones A and B of the defined "Overflight Protection Zone" depicted in Exhibit III -1. The policy will require that the proponent dedicate an easement combined with a non -suit covenant that attaches to property title as a perpetual deed restriction. 1*1 Approved. This action is within the authority of local government and is intended to ' prevent the introduction of new noncompatible land uses. D. Height restrictions (Pages III -8, Exhibit II1-2, NCP) Although not a component of the Noise Compatibility Program, the height of objects around airports is a concern that should be'addressed. As such, the city of Chico, Butte county and the Butte County ALUC have adopted the FAR Part 77 surfaces, "Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace", as the height limit criteria for the airport environs. These restrictions have also been adopted as part of the Butte County ALUC Airport Land Use Plan for Chico Municipal Airport. These surfaces are depicted in attached Exhibit III -2. Disapproved for the urposes of Part 150. Height restrictions are addressed under 14 CFR Part 77. FAA's decision not to include the height restriction portion of this element in the Part 150 approval does not indicate FAA's disapproval of the measure for Part 77 purposes or reflect'on the effectiveness of the height restriction for purposes of aviation safety. -. E. Requirement for Notice of Airport Noise (Pages II -5, II -6, III -8, III -9, NCP) Local planning agencies will encourage the Butte County Board of Realtors to adopt a fair disclosure requirement for the sale'or lease of homes or other noise sensitive real property within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundary. Whenever such property is offered for sale, rent or lease, the seller, lessor, broker, or agent will notify the prospective owner or tenant that the property is located in an area subject to potentially high levels of aircraft noise. Appendix C contains a sample form of real estate disclosure statement. Approved, This action is within the authority of local government and will contribute to buyer awareness of noise levels. F. Requirement for Acoustical Studies Within Areas Subject to Aircraft Noise Levels of CNEL 55dB and Above (Pages III -10, NCP; Exhibit 1-2) The purpose of this measure is to ensure that all proposed new noise sensitive land uses located within the CNEL 55dB noise contour (see Exhibit 1-2) will be compatible with both California Noise Insulation Standards and local noise standards. Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations specifies that proposed new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings within the CNEL 60dB noise exposure area are required to have an acoustical analysis showing that the structure attains an interior noise level of CNEL 45dB. Local agencies will supplement the provisions of Title 25 by requiring acoustical analyses for single-family detached dwellings within the CNEL 55dB noise contour. Through this process, builders and contractors will be notified early that an acoustical analysis will be required for all new noise sensitive land uses, including single-family homes, as a condition of building permit approval in areas exposed to airport noise levels of CNEL 55dB and above as set forth in the 1997 noise exposure map -- Exhibit III -1. Approved. This action is within the authority of the local government. This measure is intended to ensure that new residential development exposed to CNEL 55dB and above will be provided with an interior environment of CNEL 45dB or less. Exhibit 1-2 identifies areas within the CNEL 55 dB where this supplemental provision to Title 25 would be implemented. G. Preferential Approach and Departure Flight Tracks (Exhibit IV -1, NEM; Page II -6, 111- 11, NCP) Runway use patterns, driven by meteorological factors, including winds, establish the fact that the great majority of departures occur to the northwest utilizing Runways 31 UR. The area beneath the departure track is sparsely developed with scattered rural residential uses. Currently, under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions, turbojet and large propeller aircraft departing Runway 13L are requested to turn left to a heading of 080 degrees (magnetic) to avoid overflights of central Chico. This procedure benefits residents along the runway heading who would otherwise be routinely overflown by large aircraft. This procedure cannot be used during Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) conditions due to a lack of required terrain clearance to the east of the airport. Approved, This action is approved as a voluntary measure when air traffic and weather conditions permit. H. Flight Procedures (Pages II -7, III -11, NCP) Correspondence received during the preparation of the "Aircraft Noise Exposure Map Report" suggested modification to the VOR approach to Runway 31 R. Specifically, it was suggested that the glide slope angle of the approach be raised to keep aircraft at higher altitudes during the approach, thus lessening noise impacts. While it must be noted that VOR approaches utilize a series of step-downs rather than a continuous glide slope angle, the idea of raising the altitudes of the various approach segments does have merit. Whether or not this can be done while maintaining the clearance standards required for instrument approaches must be determined by the FAA. Currently most traffic pattern activity is located east of Highway 99. Notices will be published in various aeronautical guides either encouraging or restricting traffic pattern activity to that area east of Highway 99. This will insure that overflights at pattern altitudes do not occur west of the highway. Disapproved pending submission of sufficient information to make an informed analysis. Insufficient information is presented in the NCP to evaluate the effectiveness of these measures. I. Establish Interagency Coordination Procedures/Maintain Public Information. (Pages II -10, III -12, NCP) The city of Chico will take the lead in formulating an ongoing working relationship with local and regional planning agencies. The Airports Commission should serve as the forum for such procedures. Approved. This action is within the authority of local government. J. Signs (Pages II -10, III -12, NCP) The Airport will post informational signs at the takeoff end of Runways 13UR of Runways advising pilots of noise abatement procedures and to avoid noise sensitive areas, per the following example: Ineal-- mm-1..��LL� F� Residential area immediately southeast of Airport is noise sensitive. Observe published noise abatement procedures. Approved, Approval of informational signs can improve community relations and reduce overflights of noise sensitive areas; however, such signs must not be construed as mandatory air traffic procedures.. The city should work with local Air Traffic personnel to establish mutually acceptable signage. The content and location of airfield signs are subject to specific approval by appropriate FAA officials outside of the Part 150 .process and are not approved in advance by this action. K. Noise Abatement. Advisories, (Pages II -10, III -12, NCP) The Airport will update and distribute noise abatement information to pilots, flight instructors, and fixed base operators consistent with current publications. Approved, This action is within the authority of local government and will improve noise awareness in the airport user community. L. Flight Training/Compliance (Pages II -10, II -11, III -12, NCP) All Chico Municipal Airport flight schools should continue to include noise abatement techniques in their curricula, and the Airport should continue to ensure familiarity with such procedures and the location of noise sensitive areas through frequent coordination with FBOs and flight schools. _ Approved, This action is approved as a voluntary measure and will increase airport user awareness of noise sensitive areas. M. Increased Pilot Awareness (Pages II -11, III -12, NCP) The Airport will inform users of the important noise abatement procedures in effect at Chico Municipal Airport. Approved, This action is within the authority of local government. �' Q '►�-BgJ7CT E COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE cCOM.T[ USSION + • Uepartment of DevelopmentServices • 7 CountyCenter Drive, Oroviffle, CA 95965 • • February 11, 1998 Herman Bliss, Manager Airports Division Western -Pacific Region Federal Aviation Administration U.S. Department of Transportation P.O. Box 92007 Worldway Postal Center Los Angeles, CA 90009 Re: Federal Aviation Administration, Record of Approval for the Chico Municipal Airport Noise Compatibility Program. Dear Mr. Bliss: The Butte County Airport Land Use.Commission discussed the Chico Municipal Airport, FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program at its meeting of January 21, 1998. It appears that the City of Chico made an error in representing to the FAA that the Airport Land Use Commission approved or adopted the Noise Compatibility Program. The last paragraph in Item II, B, (attached) suggests that the Airport Land Use Commission adopted the Land Use Plan depicted in the Airport Noise Compatibility Program. This is not correct. The ALUC has never approved or adopted the Chico Airport Land Use Plan or Noise Compatibility Program. It is unknown what effect this error had on FAA consideration of the document in question. The Commission would appreciate your reviewing the Noise Compatibility Program and fhe record of the FAA approval to see if this error, when corrected, would affect the decision for approval. Should you have any questions or comments please contact Stephen Lucas at the above address. Sincere , John Fran in Chairman cc: Tom Lando, City. of Chico k1aludcorrespo/bliss-fa.ttr • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • N U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Western -Pacific Region Airports Division Mr. Thomas J. Lando City Manager City of Chico P.O. Box 3420 Chico, California 95354-3916 Dear Mr. Lando: O RECEIVED OCT1 0 I Crry CITY o AH411r P. O. Box 92007 Woridway Postal Center Los Angeles. CA 90009 Chico Municipal Airport,'Chico, California Approval of FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has evaluated the Noise Compatibility Program for the Chico Municipal Airport contained in the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Study and related documents submitted to this office.under the provisions of Section 104(a) of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979. The recommended Noise Compatibility Program proposed by the City of Chico is described in the Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) report. I am pleased to inform you that the Associate Administrator for Airports has approved 13 of the 15 proposed action elements in the NCP. One measure was disapproved for the purposes of Part 150, and one measure was disapproved pending submission of additional information. The specific FAA action for each Noise Compatibility'Program element is set forth in the enclosed record of approval. The effective date of this approval is September 18, 1996. All of the approval and disapproval actions are more fully explained in the enclosed record of approval. Each Airport Noise Compatibility Program developed in accordance with FAR Part 150 is a local program, not a federal program.. The FAA does not substitute its judgment for that of the airport proprietor with respect to which measures should be recommended for action. The FAA's approval or disapproval of FAR Part 150 program recommendations is measured according to the standards expressed in Part 150 and the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 as amended, and is limited to the following determinations: 1. The Noise Compatibility Program was developed in accordance.with the provisions and procedures of FAR Part 150; 2. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the goals of reducing existing noncompatible land uses around the airport and preventing -the introduction of additional noncompatible land uses; Fl: A:c+IDA A..�1 C�--rCA�. I —' l.:ia:tT TF�- F-6- :� c - �4 l 2 3. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of airport grant agreements, or intrude into areas preempted by the federal government., 4. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be implemented within the period covered by the program without derogating safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator prescribed by law. Specific limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an Airport Noise compatibility Program are delineated in FAR Part 150, Section 150.5.. Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of land uses under federal, state, or local -law. Approval does not by itself constitute an FAA implementing action. A request for federal action or approval to implement specific Noise Compatibility Measures may be required. An FAA decision on the request may require an environmental assessment of the proposed action. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the implementation of the program nor a determination that all measures covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. where federal funding is sought, requests for project grant must be submitted to the FAA Airports District Office in Burlingame, California. The FAA will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing approval of this Noise Compatibility Program. You are not required to give local official notice, although you may do so if you wish. Thank you for your continued interest in Noise Compatibility. Planning. Sincerely, Herman C. Bliss Manager, Airports Enclosure cc: SFO -600 APP -600 Division FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION RECORD OF APPROVAL FAR PART 150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM Chico Municipal Airport Chico, California CONCUR 'NON CONCUR Associate Administrator for Date Policy, Planning and International Aviation, APIA CONCUR NON CONCUR Chief Coun 4,AGC-1 D�te J� I/v /Y (a Associate Administrator Date Approved Disapproved for Airports, ARP -1 RECORD OF APPROVAL Chico Municipal Airport Noise Compatibility Program INTRODUCTION: The Chico Municipal Airport, Chico, California, (CIC) Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) describes the current and future noise environment at CIC based upon the parameters as established in FAR 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning.' The NCP in noise control measures. The city of Chico proposes to continue existing noise mitigation measures and adopt new measures to enhance the airport's compatibility with the community, improve community relations, and prevent the creation of future incompatible land uses. All proposed measures are included in Chapter III of the NCP. The recommendations below either quote or closely summarize the County's proposed actions, The statements quoted or summarized before the indicated FAA approval, or disapproval, do not represent the opinions _. or decisions of the FAA. The approvals listed herein include approvals of actions that the airport recommends be taken by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). It should be noted that these approvals indicate only that the actions would, if implemented; be consistent with the purposes of FAR Part 150. The approvals do not constitute decisions to. implement the actions. Later decisions concerning possible implementation of these actions may be subject to applicable environmental or other procedures or requirements. NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM MEASURES Retain Measures Existing Prior to Development of Noise Comoatibility Program. (Pages III -2 through III -3, NCP; Pages 11-5, 11-6, NCP) A. Operational Policies The city of Chico has established airport management and operational policies which have served to control the effects of noise from Chico Municipal Airport operations. These measures are proposed to be retained and are set forth below. The standard traffic pattern altitude for most aircraft is 1,500 feet MSL. Single engine aircraft must observe a 1,000 foot pattern altitude. Approaching aircraft should maintain as high as possible altitude until commencement of final descent. • Posted signs directing, on departure from Runway 13L, high performance turbojet and heavy propeller driven aircraft to turn to a 080 -degree heading until reaching 3,000 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level) to avoid direct overflight of central Chico. 1-1 X Similar signs direct aircraft departing Runway 31 R to climb straight out until reaching 3,000 MSL before turning. (Exhibit IV -1, NEM) Approve . Maintaining these existing operational procedures is approved as voluntary when air traffic and.weather conditions permit. B. Land Use and Development Controls The city of Chico can influence the policies of cooperating agencies which. play various roles in the implementation of land use controls. The city of Chico will work with the Butte County and Butte County Airport Land Use Commission to protect Chico Municipal Airport from encroachment by noise sensitive or other noncompatible land uses. Local agencies will also require avigation easements from all new noise sensitive development in the airport environs. Zoning. The city of Chico and Butte County have direct responsibility for the planning and zoning of the majority of land within the Chico Municipal Airport environs. As in the past,- consideration of such factors as aircraft noise and overflight will continue to =. be undertaken when reviewing development proposals in the airport environs. Easement dedication. The city of Chico currently requires the dedication of avigation easements for new noise sensitive land uses within areas impacted by noise levels of CNEL 55dB or greater. (Exhibit V -1, -NEM). The city proposes to maintain this requirement. In addition, the Butte CountyAirport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has adopted the 1978 "Airport Environs Plan, Chico Municipal Airport" as their comprehensive airport land use plan (ALUP) to provide for,the orderly growth of unincorporated areas around the Chico Municipal Airport. The plan does not currently require the dedication of easements. Approved- This action is within the authority of local government and. will result in the prevention of the creation of new incompatible land uses. A. Periodic Noise Modeling (Pages 11-4, 111-4, NCP) The City of Chico should prepare updated noise exposure maps for Chico Municipal Airport at key air service milestones to reflect changes in aircraft operational activities and fleet mix. Droved. This action is within the authority of local government and is intended to prevent the introduction of new noncompatible land uses. B. Zoning controls (Pages II -5, III -4 through III -.8, NCP) As forecasted noise impacts are less than those forecasted during the development of the 1978 "Airport Environs Plan % land use restrictions imposed by said plan will be modified to reflect impact areas as identified in the "Noise Exposure Map Report". Specifically, that land use compatibility standards contained in Table 1 of FAR Part 150 will be modified to reflect the relatively low ambient noise levels in the Chico area and be applied to the appropriate noise impact areas. The modified compatibility standards utilize the 60dB CNEL noise contour to determine compatibility as opposed to the 65dB noise contour utilized in FAR Part 150. Said standards are reflected in Table III -1 and implementation areas are depicted in Exhibit III -1. In response to concerns regarding overflight activity, the development of new residential uses will be prohibited in the area defined in Exhibit III -1 as Zone A. This is the area subject to most low altitude overflight activity. Existing residential uses shall be permitted to remain in Zone A, and infill of the existing residential area would be allowed only in the area designated Zone Al (outside of the CNEL 55dB contour). The area defined as Zone B is subject to less intensive overflight activity. = In Zone B,- no new single family residential uses will be permitted. Any approval of multiple family residential uses in Zone B shall contain conditions requiring the dedication of avigation easements to the airport operator and notification of potential tenants of overflight activity. Zone A and Zone B together represent the defined "Overflight Protection Zone" (OPZ). The City of Chico and the Butte County ALUC have adopted the Land Use Plan depicted in Exhibit III -1 and the standards reflected in Table III -1 as the official Airport Land Use Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport (CNEL 60dB as the local deviation from the Federal table contained in 14 CFR Part 150). Approved. This action is within the authority of local government and is intended to prevent the introduction of new noncompatible land uses. C. Easement dedication (Pages 11-5, 111-8. NCP) While overall noise impact areas are forecasted to be less than predicted in 1978, the areas subject to overflight remain constant due to the lack of change in flight track geometry. Even though these areas may be impacted to a level less than CNEL 55dB, aviation easements will be secured for new noise sensitive uses located in areas subject to overflight. As such both the city of Chico, Butte County, and the Butte County ALUC will adopt policies that require the granting of avigation easements for new noise sensitive land uses beneath both Zones A and B of the defined "Overflight Protection Zone" depicted in Exhibit III -1. The policy will require that the proponent dedicate an easement combined with a non -suit covenant that attaches to property title as a perpetual deed restriction. Approved. This action is within the authority of .local government and is intended to prevent the introduction of new noncompatible land uses. D. Height restrictions (Pages III -8, Exhibit III -2, NCP) Although not a component of the Noise Compatibility Program, the height of objects around airports is a concern that should be addressed. As such, the city of Chico, Butte county and the Butte County ALUC have adopted the FAR Part 77 surfaces, "Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace", as the height limit criteria for the airport environs. These restrictions have also been adopted as part of the Butte County ALUC Airport Land Use Plan for Chico Municipal Airport. These surfaces are depicted in attached Exhibit III -2. Disapproved for the purposes of Part 150. Height restrictions are addressed under 14 CFR Part 77. FAA's decision not to include the height restriction portion of this element in the Part 150 approval does not indicate FAA's disapproval of the measure for Part 77 purposes or reflect on the effectiveness of the height restriction for purposes of aviation safety. _ E. Requirement for Notice of Airport Noise - (Pages II -5, II -6, III -8, III -9, NCP) Local planning agencies will encourage the Butte County Board of Realtors to adopt a fair disclosure requirement for.the sale or lease of homes or other noise sensitive real property within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundary. Whenever such property is offered for sale, rent or lease, the seller, lessor, broker, or agent will notify the prospective owner or tenant that the property is located in an area subject to potentially high levels of aircraft noise. Appendix C contains a sample form of real estate disclosure statement. Approved, This action is within the authority of local government and will contribute to buyer awareness of noise levels. F. Requirement for Acoustical Studies Within Areas Subject to Aircraft Noise Levels of CNEL 55dB and Above (Pages III -10, NCP; Exhibit 1-2) The purpose of this measure is to ensure that all proposed new noise sensitive land uses located within the CNEL 55dB noise contour (see Exhibit 1-2) will be compatible with both California Noise Insulation Standards and local noise standards. Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations specifies that proposed new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings within the CNEL 60dB noise exposure area are required to have an acoustical analysis showing that the structure attains an interior noise level of CNEL 45dB. Local agencies will supplement the provisions of Title 25 by requiring acoustical analyses for single-family detached dwellings within the CNEL 55dB noise contour. Through this process, builders and contractors will be notified early that an acoustical analysis will be required for all new noise sensitive land uses, including single-family homes, as a condition of building, permit approval in areas exposed to airport noise levels of CNEL 55dB and above as set forth in the 1997 noise exposure map -- Exhibit III -1. Approved. This action is within the authority of the local government. This measure is intended to ensure that new residential development exposed to CNEL 55dB and above will be provided with an interior environment of CNEL 45dB or less. Exhibit 1-2 identifies areas within the CNEL 55 dB where this supplemental provision to Title 25 would be implemented. G. Preferential Approach and Departure Flight Tracks (Exhibit IV -1, NEM; Page II -6, 111- 11, NCP) Runway use patterns, driven by meteorological factors, including winds, establish the fact that the great majority of departures occur to.the northwest utilizing Runways 31 UR. The area beneath the departure track is sparsely developed with scattered rural residential uses. Currently, under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions, turbojet and large propeller aircraft departing Runway 13L are requested to turn left to a heading of 080 degrees (magnetic) to avoid overflights of central Chico. This procedure benefits residents along the runway heading who would otherwise be routinely overflown by large aircraft. This procedure cannot be used during Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) conditions due to a lack of required terrain clearance to the east of the airport. . Approved. This action is approved as a voluntary measure when air traffic and weather conditions permit. D H. Flight Procedures (Pages II -7, III711, NCP) Correspondence received during the preparation of the "Aircraft Noise Exposure Map Report" suggested modification to the VOR approach to Runway 31 R. Specifically, it was suggested that the glide slope angle of the approach be raised to keep aircraft at higher altitudes during the approach, thus lessening noise impacts. While it must be noted that VOR approaches utilize a series of step-downs rather than a continuous glide slope angle, the idea of raising the altitudes of the various approach segments does have merit. Whether or not this can be done while . maintaining the clearance standards required for instrument approaches must be determined by the FAA. Currently most traffic pattern activity is located east of Highway 99. Notices will be published in various aeronautical guides either encouraging or restricting traffic pattern activity to that area east of Highway 99. This will insure that overflights at pattern altitudes do not occur west of the highway. Disapproved pending submission of sufficient information to make an informed analysis. Insufficient information is presented in the NCP to evaluate the effectiveness of these measures. I. Establish Interagency Coordination Procedures/Maintain Public Information (Pages II -10, III -12, NCP) The city of Chico will take the lead in formulating an ongoing working relationship with local and regional planning agencies. The Airports Commission should serve as the forum for such procedures. Approved. This action is within the authority of local government. J. Signs (Pages II -10, III -12, NCP) The Airport will post informational signs at the takeoff end of Runways 13UR of Runways advising pilots of noise abatement procedures and to avoid noise sensitive areas, per the following example: Residential area immediately southeast of Airport is noise sensitive. Observe published noise abatement procedures. Approved, Approval of informational signs can improve community relations and reduce overflights of noise sensitive areas; however, such signs must not be construed as mandatory air traffic procedures. The city should work with local Air Traffic personnel to establish mutually acceptable signage. The content and location of airfield signs are subject to specific approval by appropriate FAA officials outside of the Part 150 process and are not approved in advance by this action. K. Noise Abatement Advisories (Pages II -10, 111-12, NCP) The Airport will update and distribute noise abatement information to pilots, flight instructors, and fixed base operators consistent with current publications. Approved, This action is within the authority of local government and will improve noise awareness in the airport' user community. L. Flight Training/Compliance (Pages II -10, II -11, III -12,. NCP) All Chico Municipal Airport flight schools should continue to include noise abatement techniques in their curricula, and the Airport should continue to ensure familiarity with such procedures and the location of noise sensitive areas through frequent coordination. with FBOs and flight schools. Approved, This action is approved as a voluntary measure and will increase airport user awareness of noise sensitive areas. M. Increased Pilot Awareness (Pages 11-11, 111-12, NCP) The Airport will inform users of the important noise abatement procedures in effect at Chico Municipal Airport. Approved, This action is within the authority of local government. January 9, 1998 John Franklin, Chair Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965 Re: Draft Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Policy Plan Dear Chair Franklin: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Policy Plan distributed by staff memorandum dated November 17, 1997. The following comments address both general and specific issues in the draft Policy Plan. 1.- General Comment. The use and purposes of the Policy Plan are described on page ALUC-3. During prior ALUC discussions it was clearly determined that the Policy Plan would not supersede any existing CLUP or Environs Plan. However, the first paragraph on page ALUC-6 could be interpreted to provide for ALUC use of the Policy Plan for review of projects until updated CLUPs are prepared and adopted. Recommendation: Clarify this statement by adding "which does not already have a previously approved CLUP or environs plan,.,. after "ALUC" on the second line. 2. General Comment. Local general plans and specific plans must be brought into conformance with a CLUP within 180 days of its adoption or overrides adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 65302.3. The Policy Plan is a local ALUC policy document, and not addressed by this section of the state code. Recommendation: Include a statement that adoption of the Policy Plan will not require any action by the local agency in relation to currently adopted general or specific plans, or other land use regulations. 3. General Comment. It is unclear what form of environmental review will be undertaken by ALUC for the draft Policy Plan before its adoption. On .page ALUC-3, the Policy Plan is compared to a general plan, a document which is clearly subject to environmental review requirements. The CalTrans Airport Land �� Made From Recycled Paper COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 411 Main Street P.O. Box 3420 CITYorCHICO Chico. CA 95927 INC.1872 (916) 895-4845 FAX (916) 895-4726 ATSS 459-4893 January 9, 1998 John Franklin, Chair Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965 Re: Draft Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Policy Plan Dear Chair Franklin: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Policy Plan distributed by staff memorandum dated November 17, 1997. The following comments address both general and specific issues in the draft Policy Plan. 1.- General Comment. The use and purposes of the Policy Plan are described on page ALUC-3. During prior ALUC discussions it was clearly determined that the Policy Plan would not supersede any existing CLUP or Environs Plan. However, the first paragraph on page ALUC-6 could be interpreted to provide for ALUC use of the Policy Plan for review of projects until updated CLUPs are prepared and adopted. Recommendation: Clarify this statement by adding "which does not already have a previously approved CLUP or environs plan,.,. after "ALUC" on the second line. 2. General Comment. Local general plans and specific plans must be brought into conformance with a CLUP within 180 days of its adoption or overrides adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 65302.3. The Policy Plan is a local ALUC policy document, and not addressed by this section of the state code. Recommendation: Include a statement that adoption of the Policy Plan will not require any action by the local agency in relation to currently adopted general or specific plans, or other land use regulations. 3. General Comment. It is unclear what form of environmental review will be undertaken by ALUC for the draft Policy Plan before its adoption. On .page ALUC-3, the Policy Plan is compared to a general plan, a document which is clearly subject to environmental review requirements. The CalTrans Airport Land �� Made From Recycled Paper Use Planning'Handbook addresses environmental review requirements without reaching a conclusion, but does note that some ALUCs have found that CLUPs do - T not require environmental review because the. ALUC is not empowered with implementation or final approval authority. (It should be' noted that LAFCos are similarly empowered, but courts have consistently ruled that LAFCo actions are subject to compliance with CEQA.)' The form of environmental review will probably*be influenced by whether or not the Policy Plan is directly applied to any airports or heliports, or simply provides direction for preparation of CLUPs. Recommendation: Complete, and circulate for review and comment, an initial study to determine any potential environmental effects. • ' 4.. General Comment. The draft Policy Plan (page ALUC-4) identifies'five r concerns of airport land use planning, with the fifth being "Surface Transportation Considerations." In reviewing both the State Public Utilities Code (Sections 21670 et seq, particularly section 21675[a]) and the CalTrans�Airport Land Use , Planning Handbook (Chapter 3, pages 3-1'through 3-9), I am unable to identify any specific authority, or precedence, f6uALUC to exercise planning authority. over surface transportation facilities in the vicinity of airports. Recommendation: Delete this section in -its entirety from the Policy Plan. If this consideration is to be included in the plan, justification should be included to' explain why it is appropriate for ALUC to. consider, compatibility in terms of " impacts on street facilities and what criteria will be applied to judge compatibility.• _ 5. Airport Noise Restriction Area (pageALUC-16'and Table, page ALUC-19). The draft Policy Plan acknowledges that single family dwellings and multi -family. dwellings are_ incompatible land uses within"the state mandated criteria, 65 dB .. CNEL" contour,- consistent with federal criteria as well. The City's General Plan specifies that single family residential uses should not be located within the 60 dB CNEL contour and multi -family within the 65 dB CNEL contour.' The CalTrans Handbook contains significant'discussion"which could supportthe use of the 60 dB CNEL contour for determining compatibility. However, without explanation or justification, the draft plan states that,the local ALUC has determined that residential and public educational uses shall not be located within the 55 dB ; CNEL contour. The CalTrans Handbook (Table 7.13) suggests that a 55 dB CNEL contour_ standard'be used for "airports in quiet, rural settings," hardly a description of the Chico Municipal Airport, but perhaps descriptive of other _ airports in the county, and that the 60 dB CNEL standard be applied to "airports in suburban settings." For the 55dB CNEL'standard to,be viewed as anything`but arbitrary, the Policy Plan should include'sufficient analysis to justify its use. - Recommendation: Revise the draft ALUC Policy Plan to use the 60 dB CNEL contour for determining compatibility, or include two standards, 60 dB CNEL and U:JDKU.ETRS W P\FRANKLIN.JHN 2 55 dB CNEL contours; with application dependent on the siting of the particular airport and facility specific analysis. ' 6. AiMort'Safety Restriction Area (gage ALUC-28). The second sentence of the fourth paragraph on this, page, identifies "asignificant potential for accidents in this area'(the overflight zone) under airport traffic patterns': (emphasis added). There is no doubt that the potential for accidents in the overflight zone is higher thanfor areas outside this zone, but use of the word "significant" implies that there is an identifiable risk to development and an implication that aircraft operations in this area are unsafe, hardly the case based on both history of operations and data in the CalTrans Handbook. Recommendation: Amend this paragraph to simply, and accurately, acknowledge that the potential for accidents,is higher within the overflight zone than in other areas. If it is necessary to quantify the level of risk, rely ori the extensive data in . the CalTrans Handbook. 7. Aimort Safetv Restriction Area _(Table�Daaes ALUC=31- through ALUC-34). The.tabl6 specifies that all residential uses, including single family, within the overflight zone require ALUC review and approval. -This requirement applies to' both�ministerial and discretionary actions.._ Ministerial actions are those in which, local agency approval is administrative and usually mandatory if the proposal complies with'applicable standards, and includes the issuance of building permits. As proposed, this standard would require that all residential building permits in the overflight zone be submitted.to ALUC for review and approval. I_n the particular case of Chico Municipal Airport, this would include significant incorporated areas north of East Avenue and most, if not all, of the area included in the County's North Chico (County Service Area No. 87) Specific Plan area.' It is unreasonable to expect that all residential building permits, especially those for, single family residences, in these areas would require individual,'specific approval from ALUC. Further, should ALUC find the issuance of a building permit for a single family residence incompatible, the local agency probably has no authority to require any changes to the'proposed residence except those specified in either building codes or zoning ordinances, no'authority to withhold issuance of the building permit, and no "decision" at which override findings could be addressed. Recommendation: Delete the requirement for, ALUC review of residential ministerial permits in the overflight zone. ALUC would still retain considerable, and appropriate, review authority over discretionary residential approvals (subdivisions, use permits, rezonings, etc) and the local agency would have the opportunity in the approval process to impose conditions to address ALUC issues or adopt supported overrides. U:\DK\LETRSWP\FRANKLIN.JI N 3 8. Airport Overflight Considerations (12aae ALUC-37l This section identifies areas exposed to low flying aircraft and single -event noise levels in excess of 55 dB as not appropriate for residential and other highly sensitive land uses. The 55 dB is the same noise level used in the Policy Plan discussion of compatibility for the "Noise Restriction Area" and questioned by the City in preceding comments. The proposal to use this standard appears to completely ignore both the significant differences between exposure to cumulative and single -event noise levels, and the lack of recognized standards for identifying the affects of single -event noise levels. The CalTrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Chapter 7, page 7- 16) includes the following statement regarding single event noise levels: "Until single -event noise level guidelines evolve'- assuming they eventually will - ALUCs have little solid ground on which to base establishment of single -event noise level compatibility criteria. Any use, of single -event noise level data should generally be limited to supplemental evaluation of special, highly rioise-sensitive, land uses such as outdoor theaters." By this discussion and omission, the Handbook appears to not consider residential uses as incompatible with single - event noise in general. The Policy Plan proposes that residential and noise sensitive land uses be found to be inappropriate in "areas where single -event noise levels in excess of 55 dB and low flying aircraft have been identified" (emphasis added). This criterion for determining inappropriate land use lis unworkable as it makes no distinction between such an event occurring in a single instance, rarely or anticipated on a regular basis, and allows an ALUC determination on a case-by-case.basis with no assurance of consistent application or guidance for local agencies or property owners, one of the purposes of the plan identified on page ALUC-3. Recommendation: If ALUC insists on using single -event noise to determine compatibility despite the caution from the CalTrans Handbook, -a meaningful threshold should be established in consultation with parties and/or agencies having expertise in this field. It is further recommended that a more definitive criterion be established; perhaps one using intensity or frequency of occurrence, rather than the currently proposed vague"have.been identified" standard, to determine inappropriate land uses based on annoyance. 9. Aimort Access and Surface Transportation Considerations (naee ALUC-40). The draft Policy Plan "requires that all roadways and intersections providing - access to an airport not`exceed a Level of Service 'C' (LOS C) at any time" (emphasis added). Aside from the City's concern about the authority of ALUC to. address surface transportation facilities discussed in an -earlier comment, this requirement is totally unrealistic. The City of Chico General Plan identifies LOS UADKU.ETRSWP\FRANK1 N.JHN 4 D as an acceptable level of service for arterial routes and further accepts LOS E for peak hour traffic. The City's General Plan standard for LOS is consistent with the no longer effective County congestion management plan (CMP), a document identifying acceptable levels of service on arterial routes County wide. The local agency has the obligation and authority to determine which street facilities should be improved by analyzing all local priorities, along with fiscal limitations, and making appropriate decisions. The proposed ALUC standard would effectively supersede this local authority by asserting that airport access needs are always the highest priority. It is impossible to practically accomplish the LOS C standard. The cost to build those improvements necessary to maintain LOS C for short periods during peak traffic hours is immense and an inappropriate expenditure of local agency funds when other higher priority projects might be unfunded. Even if all access to an airport was functioning at LOS C or better, a single event such as an air show could create abnormally high traffic levels operating at a lower LOS, but violating the standard to maintain LOS C or better "at any time." It is also worth noting that pursuant to the draft Policy Plan, all projects within the airport area of influence will be subject to ALUC review and a potential finding of incompatibility based on existing or resulting traffic levels. To again emphasize, this section requires ALUC review of all development within the airport area of influence, including that development which is not subject to review under other land use compatibility standards. Finally, it is inappropriate to require that the City adopt overrides pursuant to Section 21675.1 for findings of incompatibility based on adequacy of surface transportation facilities, particularly when the proposed adequacy standard is unrealistic and of questionable legality. According to the draft Policy Plan (page ALUC-1), "the purpose of the Airport Land Use Commission Law is to: Protect public health, safety, and welfare through the adoption of land use standards that minimize the public's exposure to safety hazards and excessive levels of noise. • Prevent the encroachment of incompatible land uses around public -use airports, thereby preserving the utility of these airports into the future." There does not appear to be a relationship between the stated purpose of the Policy Plan and ALUC review of surface transportation facilities. If adequacy of U:\DK\LETRSWP\FRANKLrN.JHN traffic facilities was a limiting factor on expansion of airports, most major airports in this state would have long ago been turned into parking lots, and there is obviously no relation between street facilities and the public's exposure to aircraft related noise and safety hazards. Recommendation: Delete this section in its entirety. Again, thank you for the opportunity to review the draft Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Policy Plan. While the plan is a step in the right direction to establish formal and uniform standards for the development of CLUPs for each of the airports in the county, I believe that the comments above indicate that work remains to be done to ensure that the Policy Plan is realistic, applicable and appropriate. Please feel free to contact my office if I can provide any additional information or assistance regarding the City's review of the plan or comments. Sincerely, CLIF SELLERS Community Development Assistant CS:dk cc: City Council CM CA CDD Planning Director Supervisor Mary Ann Houx Supervisor Jane Dolan Director of Development Services Parilo UADK\LETRSWP\FRANKLIN.JHN 6 0 TOWN OF PAKADIS51anning Division 5555 SKYWAY • PARADISE, CALIFORNIA 95969-4931 DEC 15 07 Telephone: (530) 872-6284 December 11, 1997 Oroville, Califomia Stephen Lucas, Associate Planner Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Department of Development Services. 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA. 95965 Subject: Town of Paradise Review of Butte County Airport Land.Use Commission Draft Policy Plan Dear Mr. Lucas: Thank you for affording the opportunity to the Town of Paradise to review the above -noted "draft policy plan" document. The Town's general observations, comments and response to the draft document is as follows: . General Observations/Comments: 1. Overall, the format of the proposed document is well structured and ."user-friendly". 2. Please advise as to the contemplated timeline for the following pending actions: a) Completion of final draft and ALUC adoptionof the ALUC Policy Plan. b) Completion of the draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Paradise Skypark Airport and its distribution to both Butte County and the Town of Paradise for review and comment. Specific Observations/Comments: 1. Upon text page ALUC-40, under the subject of "Findings" a text statement is presented in reference to quote: surface transportation impacts as identified in 1(a)(1-4) above". There does not appear to be anything so identified as such within the preceding text. Stephen Lucas 2 December 11, 1997 2. It is recommended that you solicit review and input on this policy plan from the State Department of Transportation [Cal - Trans] district 3 office, particularly relative to the proposed ALUC policy.on text page ALUC-40 that pertains to a not to exceed Level of Service "C" [LOS C] for all roadways and intersections providing access to an airport. [NOTE: Clark Road in the immediate vicinity of Paradise Skypark airport is a state highway]. Lastly, it is hoped that .the comments and observations provided within this letter shall prove to be helpful. However, if you have specific questions or need to further discuss this matter please feel free to contact the undersigned at this office. Sincerely, Al McGreehan Community Development Director AM/ksd cc: Charles L. Rough, Town Manager Frankie Rutledge, Town Clerk Town Council Q January 7, 1998 John Franklin, Chair Butte County ALUC 7 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965 DISCOVER GOLD... DISCOVER OROVILLE 1735 MONTGOMERY STREET OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-4897 Re: Draft ALUC. Policy Plan comments PLANNING DEPARTMENT (916)538-2430 Dear Mr Franklin: After, reading the proposed policy plan for the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission, I have two. questions, or comments. 1. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan is intended to serve as a 20 year document, the equivalent of a general plan. If it is time to update your "general plan", why not do so without spending the additional time on -an interim document? 2. It is not clear to me how this plan relates to the existing Oroville Municipal Airport CLUP. The discussion covers the adoption of new or revised plans. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, tea, Lisa Purvis Wilson Planning Manager