HomeMy WebLinkAbout047-250-141 (2)• COUNTY OF BUTTE
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
Minutes of Special Meeting of December 21, 1998
0
J
•
Chairman Hennigan called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m., December 21, 1998, in the Butte County.
Board of Supervisors' Chambers, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California.
A. . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
B. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners.Gerst, Rosene, and Ca_usey, Alternates Koch
and Papadakis and Chairman Hennigan
C. Absent: Commissioner Hatley
.Also Present: Chester Ward (Alternate)
Brian Baldridge (Alternate)
Thomas A. Parilo, Director•Development Services
Supervisor Houx
Supervisor Dolan
Nick Ellena, Chico Enterprise Record
Diana Shuey, Secretary
1. Continued Discussion of the Butte County Board of Supervisor's December 1,
1998 Project Annroval'and ALUC Override'for Development Agreement 99-01
(Robert and Anne Stephens/George Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141: Multiple
members of the Commission have requested to discuss the Board's December 1, 1998
action and the Airport Land Use Commission's response. Continued from December
16, 1998, Regular Airport Land Use Commission Meeting. (All Airport Land Use
Commission members present at the December 16, 1998 ALUC meeting received the
December 1, 1998 Board of Supervisors "packet for the Stephens project.)
Mr. Pardo said the item was continued from December 16, 1998, because the Commission wanted
l
materiathat was presented to the Board of Supervisors regarding the Stephens application.
There was a discussion of the findings and action taken by the Board of Supervisors on December 1,
1998, on the above identified property. The document'under discussion was the modified version of
the findings and action contained in the Agenda Report dated December 1, 1998.
Commissioner Rosene said that Items F and G on Page 6 fail to mention that ALUC thought
consideration of the project should be delayed until completion of the Chico Airport Master Plan and
CLUP. He felt there was no support for the claim that the proposed project would be compatible with
the viable, responsible operation of the airport. Again Item J fails to substantiate the claim that the
action will provide for "orderly development, expansion and long-term viability of the airport." Item
K claims that exposure to noise and safety,hazards will be minimised by mitigation measures, despite
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
s 1
T%
T
• the fact that the mitigation measure in the North Chico Specific Plan to have notification signs installed
regarding the existence of the nearby airport, has still not been implemented 3 years after approval of
the NCSP.
Chairman Hennigan noted there is no implementing legislation for all of the mitigations in the NCSP.
Commissioner Rosene did not think the testimony by Steven Honeycutt at NCSP hearings 3 years ago,
referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 under Section K on page 8, were particularly meaningful in relation
to the Stephens property.
Chairman Hennigan said that Item M, paragraph 7, as changed by the Board of Supervisors, would
sweep away all the restrictions laboriously worked out by-ALUC and allow an increase of up to 60
persons per acre within the Inner Turning Zone or 150 persons per acre within the Traffic Pattern Zone
at any one time.
Regarding the discussion of clustering on page 14, Alternate Papadakis said noise impacts would be
increased, since sound reverberates off walls. At no hearing was any plot plan provided to'show how
clustering would be done. Noise could be sufficient to create complaints about the airport.
Chairman Hennigan said there is no reference to P&D's thinking regarding the safety zones discussed
in paragraphs 4 and 5 under Safety and Overflight on pages 14 and 15. Regarding paragraph 6, and
accident, statistics, although the chance of an accident per acre is low, the Stephens property contains
• 240 acres, which increases the likelihood of an accident somewhere on the property.
Alternate Koch said that anyone reading the statistics could follow the same logic and reach the same
conclusion.
Regarding the awareness measures listed in paragraph 8 on page 16, Commissioner Rosene said that
those things are not happening. People have moved into the airport -area knowing about the airport
but not knowing they would be overflown by C -5's. Awareness measures have not worked in the
NCSP and the items listed are inadequate.
Chairman Hennigan said that regarding paragraph 8, on page 16, there is no supporting evidence
introduced leading to the conclusion which was reached that prohibiting residential dwellings would
be impractical and unnecessary. He noted that ALUC, the Butte County Planning Commission and the
City of Chico all tried to persuade the applicant to accept commercial and industrial uses. He felt there
was a.lack of substantial evidence leading to the conclusion. '
Alternate Koch felt that the totality of the action rather thana word here or there would be what the
courts would be looking at. A good case would need to find that the decision was made arbitrarily,
with no attempt to find any facts. There may be some weak areas, but not enough to invalidate the
decision.
• ■ Butte Countym' Airport Land Use Commission ■
2
Commissioner Rosene said that regarding paragraph 2 on page 18, he disagreed with the low estimate
• of future air traffic potential He said aviation will be playing a more critical role in the future.
Chairman Hennigan noted the, new. Master Plan contemplates significant expansion of the airport.
Chairman Hennigan referred to maps indicating noise contours and pointed out the large contour drawn
on the 1978 map and the much.smaller noise contour"ori the more recent map. When P&D was asked
r about the difference, they said the DC -9's don't come to Chico anymore. However the DC -9's would
not have created that large contour, but the air tankers are still in Chico and many are the same
airplanes and they stillturn left. The noise contour could not have disappeared because the DC -9's,
don't.come to Chico anymore. The consultant who is working on Chico's Master Plan.and the
consultant who will be working on the CLUP's have both been asked to help resolve the conflicts with
the two noise studies.
Commissioner Papadakis noted that Chico will have two active runways if the Master Plan is approved.
Chairman Hennigan said the comment in paragraph 3 on page 20 that CDF air operations are
"unquantified," is incorrect because information on the level of 'CDF air tanker operations was
provided for campaign fires. He noted that the example from the British noise study is almost used as
a bad example in the Caltrans Handbook.
Commissioner Rosene said the quote attributed to him in paragraph 4 of page 21 is taken out of
context and the point he had made was quite the opposite -- that because of the lack of a study, the
single event noise could not be.excluded from the argument. According to the tower controllers the
C -5's are the airplanes that generate complaints and they do get complaints whenever the C -5's are
flying.
Chairman Henr igan said that over time there have been complaints about aircraft noise from tankers
so their flight path has been modified over the years to the point of increasing risk to the pilots. A
curfew has been adopted although not implemented.
Alternate Koch said only the Airport. Commission has adopted that curfew as a report, but not the
Chico City Council.
Alternate Baldridge objected to the unequivocal statement at the bottom of page 21 than "an interior
noise level of no more than 45 dB would be achieved" without -reference to an outside noise level.
Chairman Hennigan said a noise event of 105 'dB would require a 60 dB noise reduction, which would
require extraordinary construction methods. He noted that the letter from P&D Aviation is referenced
on page 24, but most of the letter defends their noise study, and has no discussion of why the safety
and overflight zones are recommended:
• Alternate Koch said the Commission should read that letter from P&D if it will be part of the decision
making process.
Commissioner Gerst gave a copy of the letter from P&D Aviation dated November 25, 1998, to
Chairman Hennigan, who read the letter aloud. He felt that P&D defended their noise study, but failed
to answer the question of why they recommended one set of boundaries in their report and why they
are willing to abandon those. recommendations now.
Alternate Koch said that the letter may have addressed the issue sufficiently for the Board of
Supervisors. He said ALUC needs,to address the question of whether the Board of Supervisors, in
making over-riding findings, did so based upon an adequate administrative record of information, facts
and technical data to support their findings and is that reflected in the record? The findings appear to
be fairly comprehensive. The value of each of the findings can be questioned, but would the totality
of the deficiencies be sufficient to cause the action to fail mi, the legal sense of "Topanga?"
HEARING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Ms. Barbara Hennigan said material was presented at the Board meeting which substantiates statements
made in ALUC's findings. She submitted a set of tanker logs and a packet of four documents relating
to noise. Ms. Hennigan also submitted a summary of the tanker operations for the years 1990 through
1994, and drew attention specifically to a period between Sept. 18, 1994 through Sept. 22, 1994 which
indicate a total of 45.64 hours of tanker operation during that time period with a total of 496 flights.
• The time period between flights varied from 4:24 minutes to 13:16 minutes. She noted that the sounds
of air tankers would also be heard during the time they taxi to the north end of the airport to refuel and
taxi back out and run up their engines. The noise is equivalent to being inside a New York Subway
or near a rock and roll band. To pretend that this is not factual evidence of noise impact on residents
is ludicrous. Ms. Hennigan said ALUC is supposed to be representing citizens of Butte County as they
rely on airport services. The Supervisors are supposed to represent the citizens of Butte County. Mr.
Kammerer however is representing the interests of his clients, the Stephens. Mr. Kammerer's interests
are'not for the future residents near the airport or the 60,000 residents of the foothills .(who rely on fire
protection from tankers.) In the interests of his clients, Mr. Kammerer had ,the Board of Supervisors
adopt as a planning document for Butte County, a noise study that does not include air tankers.
Chairman Hennigan said that Supervisor Houx had asserted that the tanker tracks had not been moved
as a result of public protest, but rather by Chairman Hennigan. Chairman Hennigan said the tanker
tracks began to migrate more than 30 years ago. Also Supervisor Houx asserted that there was never
a possibility of the air attack base being moved. Chairman Hennigan said CDF did study the Oroville
airport as an option and records exist of the study.
Alternate Papadakis said that he spoke to the Board of Supervisors and asked that consideration of the
Stephens project be postponed until the three ongoing studies have been completed: (1) the CLUP (2)
the Chico Airport Master Plan which includes elongation of the second runway and development on
• ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
4
• the west side, and (3) flood control in the Rock Creek/Keefer Slough area. (The discussion of drainage,
is on page 5, paragraph H.3.a.)
Chairman Hennigan said the drainage ditch is not relevant to the matter of over-riding ALUC:
Alternate Koch referred to the material provided to make override findings. He said some findings may
be weak and ALUC may not agree with them or like the development, but it appears that appropriate
findings were made according to the requirements of "Topanga." He thought the findings were
sufficiently complete and that it would not be possible to defeat the action taken based upon poor
findings. ~
Chairman Hennigan said a great deal of information that was provided at the public hearing is not
addressed in the findings:
Alternate Koch said that it was apparently felt that the information provided at the public hearings was
not sufficient to change the prepared findings. In order to defeat the process which the Board of
Supervisors took in approving the project, ALUC would have to find that the findings required by the
Topanga case were not substantially met- and Alternate Koch said that would be a major hurdle.
Commissioner Rosene read from the Caltrans Handbook:
The Essential substance of the findings which accompany a local'agency override of an ALUC
decision is indicated in the ALUC-statutes. The findings must demonstrate that the proposed
• action "is consistent with the purposes, ... " of the statutes as set forth in Section 21670.
Examination of Section 21670(a) indicates that five separate purposes for the legislation are
stated ...
• e
Commissioner Rosene said,one of the purposes is: "to provide for the orderly development of each
public use airport in this state He thought building a big residential development next to an
airport would conflict with that purpose as well as the fifth purpose "to protect the public health,
safety, and welfare by ... the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to
excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports..." He felt the Board's
override findings did not adequately resolve noise and"safety concerns to meet the criteria in the fifth
purpose.
Alternate Koch said what the findings do include are mitigation measures for noise, so the point is: did
the Board have a reasonable basis for their decision?
Commissioner Rosene said information about the tankers was not included. The possibility of moving
the tanker base was not included. There are flight patterns that go over the proposed development.
That information was presented but ignored.
• ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
5
• Alternate Koch said the totality of the findings.is what is significant. If the decision which was made
was reasonable, then the process cannot be faulted.
Commissioner Rosene said the opposition to the project should set off alarms: the Planning
Commission, ALUC, the Airport Commission, the Chico Airport Manager, the Chico City Manager,
North Valley Pilots Association, the. Mayor of Chico, and the President of Aero Union. Commissioner
Rosene felt the totality of the issue is that most of the people involved in aviation, who have an
understanding about airports, would argue that putting residences under the traffic pattern and turning
zone is a real problem., The totality is not whether all the `.Ts" were dotted.
Alternate Koch referred again to the "Topanga" decision.
Commissioner Rosene said a lot of facts were ignored in the decision and that is where he would
choose to attack the process.
Chairman Hennigan felt a lot of information that was provided was not addressed.
Commissioner Gerst said that Mr. Kammerer often said that "they do this in Sacramento" but he failed
to say there is also litigation taking place in Sacramento. He said the Caltrans Handbook is a guideline
not a Bible. The findings only include a portion of many subjects. The update of the Environs Plan
is hardly addressed. The Far Part 150 was only adopted in part by the Commission since the remainder
was felt to be inaccurate. The verbiage in the findings gives the wrong picture of existing conditions.
• It is not good thinking to have this project approved just as the Master Plan'for the airport and the.
CLUP are so close to being completed. Why put more money "down a rathole" for an airport that will
eventually be destroyed by development?
Alternate Papadakis said the obligation of ALUC is to preserve the airport environment. There are
other types of development that could take place near the airport that would be more compatible and
economically beneficial.
Chairman Hennigan said the options are: to do nothing, or enjoin a lawsuit with the California Pilots
Association, or write_ a letter to the Board of Supervisors expressing disappointment with their
decision.
Alternate Koch asked if anyone knows what the California Pilots' Association is contemplating if
anything. He said he has a problem with the 1998 amendment to the Plan which was adopted in
October and done without adequate notice in his opinion and rushed through prior to the hearing for
the development agreement. Regardless of all that and the fact that he and the City are opposed to the
project, he thinks it would be folly to litigate against the Board action because he thinks the findings
will meet the Topanga case and the Caltrans manual despite some weaknesses. '
Commissioner Gerst said he has talked to the Pilots' Association, which is very interested in this case.
• ■ Butte County m Airport Land Use Commission ■
6
• It was moved by Commissioner Gerst and seconded by Commissioner Rosene that ALUC send Jay
White of the Pilots' Association a letter asking for his review and possible assistance in determining
the adequacy of the findings made for the project approval and ALUC override of the Development
Agreement. for Robert. and Anne Stephens on APN 047-250-1'41. It was also moved that if the Pilots'
Association is interested, and files litigation, that ALUC would enjoin the California Pilots' Association
in their actions.
Commissioner Rosene. noted that he detests lawsuits and would have hoped that the Board of
Supervisors 'would listen to a group with a great deal of aviation experience. The members of ALUC
were appointed to the body because they know something about aviation and it is a shame to be in the
position of considering joining a lawsuit in order to protect a local airport that brings in $50 million to
the local economy.
Alternate Koch suggested that the two parts of the motion b& split, and that if the Pilots' Association
feels there is a reason to litigate this issue, that ALUC have its own counsel provide advice in closed
session before deciding to move ahead to join a lawsuit, as to what the viability of that might be.
Chairman Hennigan pointed out that there are time constraints and the upcoming Christmas holidays.
Mr. Parilo suggested taking a recess to inquire of County'Counsel what Statute of Limitations apply.
Mr. Parilo endorsed Alternate Koch's suggested amendment to the motion.
Is
Alternate Papadakis suggested asking County Counsel, if the Pilots' Association initiates a suit to meet
the deadline, would it be. possible for other bodies to enjoin the lawsuit at some future date?
RECESS
Mr. Parilo said County Counsel provided some factual information which cannot be considered legal
advice since County Counsel does not provide attorney support for ALUC. Apparently there are three
time periods. CEQA. There are 30 days from the date of filing of the Notice of Determination which
was recorded on either December 8 or 9. - There are two types of challenges which can be made to any
amendments to a Specific Plan, General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. The Stephens application would
be a Specific Plan or Zoning Ordinance. There is a 30 day referendum period during which a petition
can be circulated among voters and the matter can be brought to the Board, which cansuspend their
action and overturn.their adopted ordinance or the matter could be scheduled for a future election.
There is a 90 day Statute of Limitations under -the Planning and Zoning Law for a formal suit brought
to the court. That would be from the date of the Board's decision. County Counsel suggested going
with the most conservative time frame. There was nota clear answer to the question about enjoining
a lawsuit after it has been filed. Mr. Parilo read a passage from the Government Code relative to the
90 day period, Section 65009.
t
• ■ Butte County m Airport Land Use Commission ■
7
0
• Chairman Hennigan noted the Pilots' Association might decide not to sue, and ALUC might decide to
drop out of a suit. There are a number of possible future outcomes for the property as well.
The suggested amendment to the motion was not accepted by Commissioner Gerst.
Mr. Parilo noted that financial implications of an action would have to be discussed with County
Counsel and the Administrative Office.
Alternate Koch said he understood the Pilots'. Association would be bearing the cost..
Mr. Parilo said there might be a cost in legal services to ALUC or in supporting a lawsuit. Funding
would have to be sought from the Board of Supervisors.
The motion to enjoin the lawsuit should the California Pilots' Association decide to pursue one was
passed by the following vote.
AYES: Commissioners Gerst, Rosene, and Causey; Alternate Papadakis and Chairman Hennigan
NOES: Alternate Koch
ABSENT: Commissioner Hatley
ABSTAIN: 0
• B. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman iob Hennigan
Minutes by Diana Shuey,. Secretary,
I:\DOCUMENTIPLANNING\AL.UC\MINUTES\AL.UC98\DEC21198 WPD
• ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
8
e
4�_
BUTTE COUNff AIRPORT LAND ASE COMMISSION .
■ 7 County. Center Drive; Oroville CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 ■
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMISSION
Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers
25.County Center Drive, Oroville California '
Date/Time: December 21, 1998 - 9:00 -a.m. - AGENDA & MINUTES
ALPHA FILE
AGENDA
ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
A. BUSINESS ITEMS:
Items without Public Hearings
1. continued Discussion of the Butte' County Board of Supervisor's December
1, 1998 Project ARoroval and ALUC Override for Develoi ntgreement 99-
01 (Robert and Anne Stephens/George Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141
Multiple members of the Commission have requested to discuss the Board's
December 1-, 1998 action and the Airport Land Use Commission's response.
Continued from December 16, 1998, Regular Airport Land Use Commission
Meeting. (All Airport Land Use Commission members present at the December 16,
199.8 ALUC meeting received .the December 1, 1998 Board of Supervisors packet
for the Stephens project.)
B. ADJOURNMENT
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
1 r
T
Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to
,.( contact Paula Leasure at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you.
'Any person may address the Commission during the "Business From the Floor" segment of the Agenda.
'Copies of the Agenda documents relative to and Agenda item maybe obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at
cost of $.08 per page.
RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction
of Butte ALUC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chairman at the appropriate time.
2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for "Public Comment" on
the agenda. The Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until
a meeting at which the matter can be put on the agenda.
3. Comment on speciric•agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon
recognition by the Chair.
4. After receiving recognition, please approach the podium microphone and state your name and
address before making your presentation, so that the Clerk may take down this information.
5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the Commission
(original and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to
the Commission and made available for' public inspection.
This Agenda was mailed to those requesting notice and posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting
at the following locations:
Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case.
r Butte County m Airport Land Use Commission ■
2
COUNTY OF BUTTE
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
Minutes of December 16, 1998
Chairman Hennigan called the meeting to order at. 9:00 a.m.; December 16, 1998, in the Butte County
Board of Supervisor's Chambers, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California.
A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
B. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Causey, and Hatley, Alternates Koch,
Papadakis, and Chairman Hennigan '
Also Present: Chester Ward (Alternate)
Paula Atterberry, Secretary
Clif Sellers, City of Chico
Nick Ellena, Chico Enterprise Record
Supervisor Jane Dolan .
Supervisor Mary Ann Houx
Thomas A. Parilo; Director Development Services Department
C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: October 21, 1998 and November 18, 1998
• October 21, 1998
Chairman Hennigan suggested that for the "Annual -Review and Update of the Chico Municipal Airport
Environs Plan" the minutes be redone verbatim since much of the discussion relating to answers to
questions which were asked has been omitted. There is no reference to much of the information that was
presented — for instance logs of airport activity provided by Barbara Hennigan.
Commissioner Gerst noted that the over-riding findings were based on the minutes which have not yet been
adopted, and he agreed with Chairman Hennigan that verbatim minutes of that portion would be good.
It was moved by Commissioner Gerst, and seconded by Commissioner Rosene, to do verbatim minutes for
October 21,1998, Item E.2. "Annual Review and Update of the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan."
Chairman Hennigan said the exhibits presented at the meeting of October 21 were background information
for the action which was taken by ALUC. Mr. Kammerer's work on the over -ride is based heavily on the
draft minutes, which Chairman Hennigan feels are inadequate. Theremere logs of aircraft as kept by the
consultant who prepared the noise study for the City of Chico and another one as kept by the CDF air
attack base, with substantial discrepancies between the logs and no reference in the minutes to the logs.
Mr. Pardo suggested that it be referenced in the minutes that the background information was submitted
and is available for -review in the file. He said that if the matter goes to litigation, verbatim minutes could
be prepared.
•
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of. December 16, 1998 ■ Page 1 ■
•Alternate Koch said the exhibits addressed why Ms. Hennigan felt the 1990 noise study was inadequate,
but the noise contours were not adopted as part of ALUC's action.
Chairman Hennigan said 'that Mr. Kammerer, in his revised -conditions used the noise contours from the
1990 study, and therefore so did the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Parilo said the official record of meetings are the tape recordings: The tapes are available if necessary
for court proceedings. `Action minutes comply with the legal requirements. • He recommended strongly'
against preparation of verbatim minutes.
Commissioner Gerst said normally that would have been satisfactory, but in this case, Mr. Kammerer
referred to the minutes which had not yet been seen or approved by ALUC in preparation of the over-riding
findings. -
Mr. Parilo said verbatim minutes would.be done if necessary for court proceedings.
Chairman Hennigan said apparently the Board 'of Supervisors were unaware there were answers for the
questions transcribed in the minutes, since in'the fuidings Mr. Kammerer prepared for the Board, based on
the draft minutes rather than the tape recording, it was often stated, "there was no reason for and "it was
done arbitrarily."
Commissioner Rosene asked if Mr. Kammerer directly quoted or referred back'to the ALUC minutes
• Chairman Hennigan said, "yes, extensively."
Commissioner Gerst said the over-riding findings included quotations out of context.
Alternate Koch said that without seeing the over-riding findings, there is no point in discussing Item E1
today. The over-riding findings were not included"in the packet or provided at today's, meeting.
Commissioner Rosene. said that if Mr. Kammerer' referred specifically to the ALUC draft minutes then
it should be clarified exactly what was said;, especially if Commissioners were quoted. The minutes
should be clarified and the Commissioners should be able to see the over-riding findings before taking'
any action.
Chairman Hennigan said,the Commissioners cannot consider the Board's action as per Item E1 on this
agenda without having access to copies. of the Board's fundings.
Mr. Pardo said the Board of Supervisors has already, taken an action and "the clock is ticking."
Chairman Hennigan said that is exactly the point: "the clock',is ticking." '
Commissioner Gerst said statements were. put in a different _light by Mr. Kammerer from what was
actually said. Apparently a draft copy of the minutes was used to work up the over-riding findings by
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes 'of December 16, 1998 ■ Page 2. ■
A
• Mr. Kammerer. Commissioner Gerst suggested not adopting the minutes until the issue is settled of what
was said at the meeting.
Chairman Hennigan said he would like to hear a legal opinion from counsel whether the tapes or the
minutes as adopted are the official record of the proceedings. -
Mr. Parilo said the tape is the legal record. The significant material is the statement'of the project and
the action. Minutes state only the project and the action and everything else is background information
but not a legal document. In a court proceeding a verbatim record would be prepared'from the tape.
Alternate Papadakis asked what date the Board of Supervisors took their official action.
Mr. Parilo said the date was December 1, 1998.
Alternate Papadakis suggested calling a special meeting to consider the issue.
There was more discussion of the status of the tapes being a legal record of the meeting.
Commissioner Gerst said he could not approve the minutes since they are incomplete.
Alternate Koch said the minutes have already been continued for the purpose of the Commissioners filling
in those "holes."
. Commissioner Rosene said he did not know, the minutes of the meeting. would be referred to as backup
material for the over -ride, and if the minutes were quoted as a basis for a decision, the adoption of the
minutes should be continued for another meeting.
Alternate Koch cautioned against excessive use of staff time.
Regarding the earlier motion for verbatim minutes, there were neither votes in favor nor opposed, so the
motion died.
It was moved by Commissioner Rosene; seconded by Commissioner Causey and carried, to continue
approval of the October 21, 1998 minutes to the next regularly scheduled meeting, and in the meantime
look at the over-riding findings as they relate to the minutes, with the Commissioners having the
opportunity to compare the minutes with the tapes themselves if they wish, to save staff time and get the
minutes corrected.
Alternate Koch advised listening only to the tapes of the ALUC meeting to clarify the minutes as to what
was actually said.
AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Causey, and Hatley, Alternate Koch, and Chairman Hennigan
NOES: Alternate Papadakis
ABSTAIN: 0
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of.December 16, 1998 ■ Page 3 ■
• November 18, 1998
The Commission had the following corrections to the minutes of November 18, 1998: On page 5, line
19, "P38" should be replaced by "T38:" On Page 3, at line 43, should be added that "for planning
purposes, a campaign fire is analagous to a flood. .It is not a single event, or predictable as to when it
is going to happen — only that it will happen."
z
It was moved by Alternate Koch, seconded by Commissioner Rosene, and carried unanimously, to accept
the November 18, 1998 minutes as amended.
D. ACCEPTANCE OF.THE AGENDA
Chairman Hennigan said -that since the Commissioners do not have copies of the over-riding findings for
the Stephens decision (Item E1) by the Board of Supervisors.in their packets, the meeting should be
continued to a time certain when those findings can be provided.
There was consensus to continue the discussion of Item E1 to December 21, 1998 at 9:00 a.m.
Alternate Papadakis asked for copies of any significant correspondence, including that from the mayor
of the City of Chico to the Board of Supervisors.
Alternate Ward said ALUC should focus on protecting airports regardless of.the position of any other
entity. He asked that the material provided on December 21 include everything that was presented to the
Board of Supervisors and which relates to the noise and safety issues of the airport.
Chairman Hennigan said the November 30 letter that further amends the Development Agreement should
also be provided.
Mr. Parilo,said that -at least the findings report could be copied while the Commissioners wait, although
maybe not the entire Board packet.
It was moved by Alternate Koch, seconded .by Commissioner Causey, and carried unanimously for
acceptance of the agenda.
E. BUSINESS ITEMS:
• Items with Public Hearings
x -
Discussion of the Butte f6qnty Board of Supervisor's December 1. 1998 Project
Approval and ALUC Override for Development Agreement 99-01 (Robert and
1.
Anne Stephens/George Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141: Multiple members of the
Commission have requested to, discuss the Board's December 1, 1998 action and the
Airport Land use Commission's response.
This item was continued to Monday, December 21, 1998, as discussed above under Acceptance of the
• Agenda.
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of December 16, 1998 ■ Page 4 ■
• Hearing Open to the Public'
There was one present `to speak on this item.
F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT
North Chico Specific Plan Airport Signs
The meeting between County. Counsel (Susan, Minasian) and Chairman Bob Hennigan had been
postponed. It was noted that appropriate locations of the signs is,an item of discussion..
Shutt Moen
Chairman Hennigan said the consultant is expected to meet with ALUC in January.
G. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS
There was a brief discussion of Item 3, on the Monthly Status Report, regarding a paint booth
facility at the :Oroville Airport Business Park and expected future expansion.
H. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA
NONE
I. CLOSED SESSION - NONE REQUIRED
J. ADJOURNMENT
_ _� �an
L'.z��, 7� smell -z � � -' -�1ChaiBob Hennigan
Minutes transcribed by Diana Shuey
I:OOCU,%M'T WLANUING\ALUC1MINUIFSkALUC98\DEC-16.98
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of December lb, 1998 ■ Page 5 ■
AUTTE E .COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMIS SION-
■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 ■
t REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION
Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers' f
25 County Center Drive,. Oroville.California,,•,'
•� 4. AGENDA & MINUTES
' Date/Time: December 16,•1998 - 9:00 a.m: ALPHA FILE
y AGENDA'
- ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT-
A.r
LLEGIANCE`
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE' -
B.
B..
• ;ROLL CALL '
C..
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: , ZI -
October 21, 1998 Minutes,(Continued from the Co mmission's•November.1.8, 1998 meeting)
November 18,1998 -Minutes ♦ `
' D.
—ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA (COMM" members or staff they request additions, deletions,.or
changes in the Agenda order)
E.
BUSINESS ITEMS: `
Items without Public Hearings • ' t
1: Discussion of the Butte County Board' of Su•..pervisor's December l 1998 -
'
- Project Approval and 'ALUC Override for Development Agreement . 99=01 '
;.
A ; (Robert and Anne Steohens/George_Kammerer) on"APN 047-250-141 • Multiple t _
members of the Commission liave requested to.discuss the Board's December 1, .
1998 action and the Airport Land Use. Commission's response.'
F.
'MONTHLY STATUS`REPORT=
G.
.'.CORRESPONDENCE ANDCOMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS
- j', n' Butte County m Airport Land Use ,Commission ■ ' J
H. -PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA
(Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by State Law from
taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda.)
I. CLOSED SESSION,- NONE REQUIRED
J. ADJOURNMENT
Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to
contact Paula Leasure at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you.
"Any person may address the Commission during the "Business From the Floor" segment of the Agenda:
"Copies of the Agenda documents relative to and Agenda item may be obtained from the Cleric of the Commission at
cost of $.08 per page.
' ' RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Members ofthe•public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of
Butte ALUC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chairman at the appropriate time.
2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for "Public Comment" on
the agenda. The Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until
a meeting at which the matter can be put on the agenda.
3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon
recognition by the Chair.
4. After reeeiving'recognition, please approach the podium microphone and state your name and address
before making your presentation, so that the Cleric may take down this information.
5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Cleric of the Commission
(orrginal and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to
the Commission and made available for public inspection.
This Agenda was mailed to those requesting notice and posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at
the following locations:
Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case.
0
C:\OFFICE\W PWIN\ALUC\12-16-98.MTG\12-16-98.AGD
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
2
U
COUNTY OF BUTTE
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
Minutes of November 18,1998
Chairman Hennigan called themeeting to order at 9:00 a.m., November 18, 1998, in the Butte County.
Board of Supervisor's Chambers, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. .
'A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.,
B. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Causey, Alternates Koch, Papadakis, and
Chairman Herinigan
Absent: Commissioner Hatley arrived at approximately 9:30 a.m. -
Alternates Present: Chester Ward
Brian Baldridge
Chairman Hennigan informed the Commission that he would have to leave the meeting by 10:40 a.m.
because he had to go to New York. Vice; Chairman, Nina Lambert, was not present, so an interim Vice -
Chairman would have to be elected to, conduct the meeting after Chairman Hennigan left.
It was moved by Alternate Papadakis, seconded by Commissioner Causey to elect Commissioner Gerst
• to serve as the Pro -tem Chairman.
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Causey, Alternates Koch, Papadakis, and Chairman
Hennigan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Hatley
ABSTAIN: None '
C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: October 21, 1998
Alternate Koch pointed out an error on page 6, line 16. It should read "Alternate Koch said the average
_. property owner in the area that will beaffected by the proposed actions has Know no idea what a FAR
Part 150 Noise Study is, or could tell from the legal notice that was placed in the newspaper that their
property will -be adversely affected." Page 12, line 41, should read "Alternate Koch clarified to the
Commission that Chico Aerial Applicators originally had a fifteen year lease with the City of Chico, which
expired. They would like to continue operations at the Chico Municipal Airport, and have indicted
indicated that there will be no operational changes. They are currently in the process of renewing their
lease with the City of Chico."
Chairman Hennigan mentioned to the Commission, and others present the importance of using the
microphone so that their comments can be heard by the Recording Clerk. He pointed out that questions
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Minutes of November 18, 1998 Page 1 ■
• were asked, and that the answers were not included in last month's minutes. Chairman Hennigan said
that he would like more time to present corrections io..the October 21, 1998 minutes.
It was moved by -Alternate Koch, seconded by Commissioner Gerst, to continue the approval of the
October 21, 1998 minutes to the December 16, 1998 meeting to allow for. the submittal of written
corrections.
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Causey, Alternates Koch, Papadakis, and Chairman
Hennigan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Hatley
ABSTAIN: None T -
D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA (Committee members or staff may request additions,
deletions, or changes in the Agenda order)
It was moved by Commissioner Gerst; seconded by Alternate Papadakis, to move Business Item E.3. to
the top of the agenda.
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Causey, Alternates Koch, Papadakis, and Chairman
• Hennigan
NOES: None
.ABSENT: Commissioner Haddy
ABSTAIN: None
It was moved by Commissioner Gerst, seconded by Commissioner Rosene, to accept the agenda as
amended.
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Causey, Alternates Koch, Papadakis, and Chairman
Hennigan f
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Hatley
ABSTAIN: None
E. BUSINESS ITEMS:
Items with Public Hearings
3. Report on Impacts to Local Agency Plans Resulting from the ALUC's October 21, 1998
Amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and Request for
Interpretations:
•
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 18, 1998 ■ Page 2 ■
Ms. Webster summarized the staff report dated November 6, 1998.
The Commission answered questions outlined in the staff report, to clarify their October 21, 1998.
amendments to the CMAEP:
■ Questions 1 and 2: It was the consensus of the Commission to seek a legal opinion from
County Counsel, regarding when in the process does residential development projects
become vested?
Chairman Hennigan opened the hearing to the public.
Tom Parilo, Director of the Butte County. Department of Development Services said that it is
unclear how the Commission's amendments to the CMAEP will affect subdivisions, that are -
currently being processed in the Overflight Protection Zone (OPZ). He feels this should be
addressed as part of the question .of vesting, and that the issuance of a single family residential
building permits do not fall under the'Airport Land Use Commission area of authority. Therefore,
he feels that development of a residence on an existing lot would not be subject to the provision
that prohibits the development of Single Family Dwellings within Zones A and B of the OPZ.
Commissioner Hatley was present at this time
• ■ Questions 3, 4: It was the consensus of the Commission that Commercial, Business Park
and Industrial development is appropriate in Zones A, Al and' B of the OPZ. The
Commission also referred to map CIC -9 (Proposed Land Use Plan) in the 1978
Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
■ Questions 5: Densities shown at the top of page 6-13 of the CMAEP under Medium and
High Density Residential categories would be consistent in Zone B.
■ Question 6: Industrial and Business Park Development uses that do not exceed specified
people per acre concentrations, will be considered compatible.
1. Butte County Development Agreement (DEV99-01 - Robert and Ann Stephens/George
Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141: '
Ms. Webster summarized the staff report dated November 9, 1998
Commissioner Rosene said that Ms. Webster's noise analysis addresses the property's location
with regard to future noise contours, but if does not address single event noise levels.
Ms. Webster said that single event noise levels are not specifically addressed in the CMAEP, and
that staff does nouhave any monitoring data specific to the Stephens property. Although, it was
a valid note, staff does not have the data to support making exposure to single event noise levels.
a part of the inconsistency findings, however it was noted under "Other Commission Comments."
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 18, 1998 ■ Page 3 •
• Commissioner Gerst questioned what the procedure would be to have a noise study done?
Ms. Webster said that an acoustical analysis and monitoring would have to be done at a time when
single events noise levels occur.
Chairman Hennigan suggested a reference to engine run -ups and campaign fires be included in
ALUC's findings. As many as seventy-five tankers a day have been recorded during the campaign
fires at Chico Municipal Airport. These activities can last for several days and occur two to three
times per year and should be recognized in the findings. For planning purposes, a campaign fire
is analogous to a flood. It is not a single event, or predictable as to when it is going to happen
only that it will happen.
Alternate Papadakis said that the best solution is to prevent residential development within a
certain distance of the airport environment, and that this would possibly reduce the number of
complaints.
Commissioner Rosene said that while the contours may look acceptable, the single event noise
levels in that area are a problem, and should be considered.
Chairman Hennigan said that while staff is recommending a residential noise exposure level
correction of +5 dB, he feels that +10 dB would be justifiable.
• Alternate Koch said that the City of Chico's official log of all noise complaints, indicates a
minimal amount of calls about the Chico Municipal Airport during single event noise occurrences,
such as; campaign fires, U2's, and all'the other events that occur at the airport.
Chairman Hennigan opened the hearing to the public.
George Kammerer, Attorney, Hefner, Stark & Marois, representing the applicant. The Stephens
project was placed on today's agenda per the Chairman's request at the Board of Supervisors
hearing held on October 27, 1998. Mr. Kammerer mentioned that the applicant kept their
promise to return to ALUC, in response to the Chairman's promise to render a consistency
determination on the project under the amended CMAEP at today's meeting. Mr. Kammerer said
"That by appearing here today, however, we are not in any way waiving any of our rights to
object to the October 21, 1998 action taken .by the Airport Land Use Commission either
substantially or procedurally in any way." He said that the applicant has worked very hard to
make this project airport compatible in all ways such as; noise, safety, overflight concerns, and
air space protection. The applicant is proposing to design it the way the Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook has recommended as a clustered development, with significant areas of open
space left on the project to mitigate noise and reduce safety concerns along with everything that
the experts are recommending. to. make it consistent. Mr. Kammerer requested the ability to
respond to any questions or comments. raised during public testimony today.
• Alternate Koch questioned Mr. Kammerer regarding whether his firm Hefner, Stark & Marois,
or his client Robert and Ann Stephens, received any notice written or otherwise that the Airport
■ Butte County Airport Land Use.Commission ■ Minutes. of November 18, 1998 ■ Page 4 ■
• Land Use Commission was intending to adopt an amendment to the CMAEP in October, which
would adversely affect his project?
Mr. Kammerer replied that his firm did not receive any meaningful notice in any way. In fact he
said he was rather surprised to learn one day before the applicant's scheduled Board of
Supervisors meeting that the amendments had been made the previous week.
Chairman Hennigan asked Mr. Kammerer if.there was a subdivision map for the project at this
time?
Mr. Kammerer replied that there was not one at this time.
Mr. Parilo said that as a legislative item the Commission normally would not have a map.
Chairman Hennigan closed the hearing to the public.
Commissioner Gerst said he has several questions regarding this project. He received his packet
late, and would like to see this item continued to the next meeting.
Commissioner Gerst made a motion to continue this item to the December 16, 1998 meeting.
• Mr. Kammerer reminded Chairman Hennigan that he gave a promise to the Board of Supervisors
on October 27, 1998, that this matter would come back to the ALUC today to be heard, and that
a determination would be made at this meeting. He also reminded Chairman Hennigan that he
further extended that promise to Tom Parilo, Neil McCabe, County Counsel, Robert and Anne
Stephens, Bill Beaver, with Rock Creek Reclamation District, himself, and numerous other
people. He asked that those promises be abided by.
Chairman Hennigan agreed with Mr. Kammerer. However, there are several items in the findings
that he would like to clean up. He would lice to get information in the findings about Aero Union
activity, and the activities of other contractors doing engineering test flights, engine run -ups,
spring training, jettisoning, and surplus retardant. All of the above listed flight activities take
place on the ramp west of the parallel runway, and all of the engine run -ups take place on the
north ramp near Aero Union maintenance facility or at the Air Attack Base.
Commissioner Rosene said he would like to see aircraft listed that come in on military flights.
Commissioner Rosene and Chairman Hennigan made a few suggestions of aircraft that fly into
CMA; C -130's, C -5's, U2, and T38.
Ms. Leasure questioned if there was a list available?
Commissioner Rosene said the tower should have a list
Ms. Webster questioned if these specifics should be incorporated under Section 3.B. on page 8?
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Cormnission ■ Minutes of November 18, 1998 ■ Page 5 ■
Commissioner Rosene said that would be an appropriate 'place.
Chairman Hennigan suggested a category called "Overflight" be incorporated into the staff report
to address the type of flights the property owners find annoying. He also wanted to delete the
first sentence of the last paragraph on page 5 of the staff report. "The correction methodology
has not been applied by the ALUC as a standard consistency criteria in its review of projects."
He said that a dB correction needed to be established for the Keefer Road area. He asked the
Commission if they felt that 5 dB *or 10 dB would be appropriate to include in the findings?
Alternate Koch asked if there was any kind of evaluation in the Caltrans Handbook to advise the
Commission on the differences between 5 dB and 10 dB?
Ms. Leasure referred to page 4-34, Exhibit F of the staff report under "Correction for. Outdoor
Residual Noise Level." Ms. Webster referred the Commission to page 4-35, Exhibit 446 in the
CMAEP that gives a list of qualitative descriptions of various typical outdoor noise environments.
Chairman Hennigan reminded the. Commission that they would have to accept the staff
recommendation of 5 dB or change it. Ms: Webster clarified that if a correction factor was to be
applied, she would recommend 5 dB. However, she felt that the descriptions in Exhibit 4-5 were
very vague and was not entirely comfortable with the methodology. The consensus of the
Commission was to stay with +5 dB. Chairman Hennigan said in the letter to the Board of
Supervisors he would like to include the importance of Public Utilities Commission (PUC) law,
• . and emphasize what it takes to legally override the ALUC findings.
Ms. Webster pointed out that this information is already stated in Exhibit A2 on pages 10 and 11
of the staff report. She also commented that the exhibit would, be forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors.with the ALUC's findings.,
Chairman Hennigan asked if staff would be including a section in the findings on overflight
describing aircraft. He pointed out that this way the Commission has covered the three areas of
concern; noise, safety and overflight.
Ms. Webster asked Chairman Hennigan if the language could be incorporated under Section 2.A.
Overflight Protection on page 7,.and continued on page 8.
Chairman Hennigan agreed._ .
Alternate Papadakis reminded the Chairman about the discussion.on engine run -ups.
Chairman Hennigan agreed that it should also be included in the .Commission Findings.
Brian Baldridge questioned if the packet going. to the Board ' of Supervisors would include
previous correspondence and letters of opposition to this project?..
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 18, 1998 ■ Page 6 •
• Chairman Hennigan brought up the letter from Victor Alvistur of Aero Union Corporation, which
was received from staff at today's meeting. He also mentioned previous letters from the City of
Chico, and Wendy Coggins. -
Ms. Webster asked if these letters should be attached to the packet that would be going to the
Board of Supervisors?
Chairman Hennigan said absolutely. He also suggested that the letter to the Board of Supervisors
point out that there is substantial opposition in the Community to this project, not just from the
ALUC. '
It was moved by Alternate Papadakis, seconded by Commissioner Causey to accept the staff
report with the recommended amendments.
Alternate Koch stated that he would be abstaining from the vote, because he believes the
amendment to the CMAEP that brought this item back to the Commission was adopted with
inadequate public notice, and that they improperly adopted the amendments despite the fact that
there was discussion about continuing it for more consideration.• In addition, he still believes in
representing the Chico Airport Commission position that this residential development should not
be built at this location.
Commissioner Gerst said he would be stepping down from the vote.
• Chairman Hennigan asked Commissioner Gerst if his alternate would be voting in his place?
Commissioner Gerst replied that if he wanted to he could.
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Rosen, Causey, Hatley, Alternates, Papadakis, Ward and
Chairman Hennigan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Lambert
ABSTAIN: Alternate Koch ..
The amendments are as follows:
EXHIBIT A
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION, CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR:
Butte Count Development Agreement
(DEV99-01- Robert and Ann Stephens/George Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141
The Airport Land Use Commission has prepared the following findings based upon data contained within
the 1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. This data, in turn is based upon the findings of a
number of studies, documents and reports generated by individuals firms and agencies recognized as
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 18, 1998 ■ Page 7 ■
• having expertise in the field of Airport Land Use Planning and land use compatibility. (See Exhibit Al;
List of References)
The following findings have been prepared at the direction of the ALUC and are for the consideration of
the County of Butte (local agency) when making a decision on the project. If the local agency does not
accept the findings of the ALUC, it may override the Commission's decision with a 2/3 vote of the
governing body provided it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the State
Aeronautics Act as stated in Section 21670. Overriding findings, cannot be adopted as matters of
opinion, but instead must be supported by new substantial factual evidence introduced into the public
record. (See Exhibit A2, Review of Overriding Findings Process) ,
Section 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
A. No environmental documentation was submitted for the current project at the time
of review. '
Section 2: PROJECT CONSISTENCY FINDINGS
A: Chapter 3 of the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, identifies, four
functional categories that. address airport land use compatibility concerns. These
include: Noise, Safety, Airspace Protection, and Overflight Protection. The
applicant's proposal has been found to be inconsistent with protection measures
• and policies contained in the 1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan which
-are designed to address Overflight Protection and Safety.
Overflight Protection
An Overflight Protection Zone (OPZ) has been adopted as part of the
CMAEP (Drawing CIC -14) which prohibits new single family residential
development in Zone A and Zone B of the OPZ to minimize the public's
exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around -the
Chico Municipal Airport that are subject to the most intense aircraft
overflight activity.
Information from the Chico Municipal Airport Tower indicates that a
number of heavy aircraft including U -2's from Beale Air Force Base, T -
38's, C -5's (Air Force Cargo), C-14l's (Air Force Cargo) and C- 130's
(U.S. Coast Guard), make unscheduled low altitude approaches at the
Chico Municipal Airport. Air tankers consisting of P -Ts, P -3's and S -2's,
which are stationed at the airport, also make low altitude approaches in
the vicinity of the project site. ,Because of their size, operations involving
these types of aircraft can be particularly annoying to residents: The ideal
strategy cited on page 3-9 of the .1993 Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook to ,address potential overflight annoyance is to avoid the
• development of residential areas in affected locations. This strategy has
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 18, 1998 ■ Page 8 •
• been employed by the Airport Land Use Commission through the adoption
of the ,Overflight Protection Zone.
The applicant's proposal would permit up to 160 single family residential
units within the Overflight Protection Zone.
2. Application of the Overflight Protection Zone and its corresponding
policies has been designed to protect the public health, safety and welfare
by ensuring the orderly expansion of the Chico Municipal Airport and the
continued viability of aircraft operations to and from that facility.
Safety
3. Accident scatter maps, based upon data generated by the University of
California Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies (1993) and
Hodges and Shutt, have been adopted as part of the CMAEP (Drawings
CIC -17 and CIC -18) and support the fording that the project site is located
in an area which has an elevated likelihood of being impacted by aircraft
accidents involving both arrivals and departures.
Section 3: - OTHER COMMISSION COMMENTS
A Noise - The area encompassed by the project site is likely to be exposed to single
event noise; levels and other episodes which exceed the levels noted in Exhibit 4-4
as "normally acceptable" for residential development. Noise levels in excess of
the recommended CNEL are likely to occur in conjunction with intensive CDF air
tanker operations which are necessary during campaign fires and occasional
military activities. In addition, Aero Union and other businesses under contract
with CDF and the U.S. Department of Forestry find it necessary to run up their
aircraft engines as much as 60% to 100% at night while the aircraft is stationary.
These operational tests are an essential part -of the maintenance activities for
piston engine aircraft. Operational tests are typically conducted at the north end
of the main runway on a fairly routine basis during the summer months when the
aircraft are most heavily utilized.
B. The prohibition of new single family residential development within Zones A and
B of the Overflight Protection Zone will ensure, to the fullest extent currently
possible, that no new incompatible land.uses are developed which may interfere
with future extension of either of the existing runways at the Chico Municipal
Airport. The City of Chico Airport Commission is currently in the process of
conducting an Airport Master Plan Update that will at minimum recommend the
reservation of additional lands for lengthening existing runways and other
construction projects designed to accommodate heavier aircraft. Both of these
activities could result in modifications to the location of current safety zones and
aprojected noise contours.
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 18, 1998 ■ Page 9 •
Chairman Hennigan called for a break. Pro -tern, Chairman Gerst reconvened "the meeting after the
break.
Items without Public Hearings
2. Presentation from Butte County Officials Regarding Proposed Actions to Facilitate Re -
Installation of C.S.A. 87 Aircraft Overflight Notification Signs:
Acting Pro -tem Chairman Gerst acknowledged receipt of the correspondence from Susan
Minasian.
Ms. Webster read the November .17; 1998 memo received from Butte County Counsel's Office. _
The memo_ said that County Counsel would be scheduling a meeting with the Board of
Supervisors, to discuss resolving this item, and that they will call Chairman Hennigan by
December 4, 1998 to let him know the timetables and other issues involved in compliance.
No addition discussion was necessary at this time.
4. Discussion of ALUC Reauest to Review All Discretionary Proiects within the Chico Airport
Area of Influence until•Local Agency Plans are Revised to be Consistent with the 1998
Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan or Overriding Findings are Adopted: This item was
• placed on the agenda at the request of Chairman Hennigan.
Ms. Webster summarized the staff report.
Pro -tem Chairman Gerst asked Ms. Webster exactly what projects would be forwarded to the
ALUC for review?
Ms.. Webster replied that any discretionary projects, such as; parcel maps, subdivision maps, use
permits, and possibly a height variance.' ,
Commissioner Rosene questioned if applications are being processed during this interim period
as if the amendments were in place, and how it would be handled if an application was submitted
tomorrow?
Ms. Webster said that this is another issue that is unclear in the law. She discussed this item with
staff from other ALUC's, and Caltrans representatives. However, there is no specific mandated
order of events. The law does not clearly state that local agencies have to make the changes to
their plans before they can consider any other types of projects. The best answer that she received
was that if amendments to local agency plans could be done quickly enough it would be best to
consider them concurrently with a specific project if something was pending. However, there is
no requirement that it has to be done that way. She said'the way she understood the process, it
would mean that consistency findings would haveto be made with their current General Plan, and
• Zoning fora specific development project.
■ Butie County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 18, 1998 ■ Page 10 •
Pro -tem Chairman Gerst asked the Commission if they wanted all projects to come to ALUC for
review?
Ms. Leasure pointed out that over half the ALUC's staff budget has been spent, and there is more
than six months, to go. She also said that the CLUP is in progress and that was the main reason
they hired Ms. Webster.
Pro -tem Chairman Gerst stated that if a project is in the Chico Environs area, and it goes to the
Planning Commission or Development Review Committee for review that it should come to
ALUC.
Ms. Leasure pointed out that it would only be projects that fall within the area affected by the
Commission's October 21, 1998 amendments.-
_
Commissioner Rosene said that during the interim period the Commission should be allowed to
review those projects.
Alternate Koch registered an objection on the same basis that he abstained from voting on the
previous agenda item.
Ms. Leasure said any letter sent to the City -of Chico should request how they are planning to
comply with the amendments made by the ALUC.
• Commissioner Hatle questioned the cost factor if this item passed.?
Yq P
Ms. Leasure said that it could cause problems later. She said that Ms. Webster could be spending
quite a bit of time on the CLUP, and if the number of projects submitted to the ALUC increased
it might require that the ALUC request additional funding from the Board of Supervisors.
It was moved by Commissioner Rosene, seconded by Alternate Papadakis to request that the City
of Chico and County of Butte send all projects proposed in the affected portions of the Chico
Municipal Airport to the. Airport Land Use Commission for review.
Pro -tem Chairman Gerst asked for a voice vote.
AYES: Commissioner Rosene; Alternate Papadakis, and Pro -tem Chairman Gerst
NOES: Commissioner Causey and Hatley
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Alternate Koch
The motion failed because the majority of the full Commission did, not vote in favor.
• F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 18, 1998 ■ Page 11 ■
Alternate Koch asked to go over item No. 4,. ALUC Staff Time Accountine. He mentioned that
there are members of the Commission that visit staff, and spend time at the County offices for
various purposes. However, he said this uses up staff time that is charged to the ALUC's budget,
and reminded the Commission that every time they call, stop'by, or give staff drafts of items they
would like to see on the agenda it takes up a -lot of staff time...He suggested the Commission be
judicious in the use of staffs time. Otherwise; the CLUP update will not get done.
Alternate Papadakis suggested indicating ori the next Monthly Status Report the status of the
ALUC's budget to date.
Ms. Leasure said that staff was in the process �of preparing a report of the budget for the
Commission's December 16, 1998 Monthly Status Report.
Alternate Koch said the amount of time it takes to prepare minutes is another issue to consider.
Ms. Leasure brought up that the By -Laws state' that only action minutes are required. She
reminded the Commission that they can purchase a tape from the Department of Development
Services or bring a ,tape in to get it copied. The Chairman can get one free copy on request,
which he can share with other members of`the Commission.
Alternate Koch suggested this item be discussed in the budget: report at the December 16, 1998
meeting.
• Ms. Leasure said that action minutes had already been adopted in the By -Laws.
Alternate Koch said that they should discuss it again.
Pro -tem Chairman Gerst questioned Ms. Leasure about fee schedule for charging projects?
Ms. Leasure said that we'need to keep track of actual staff time spent on projects to develop the
basis for project fees. After enough data is available the. -Commission can adopt a fee schedule
based on an hourly rate set by the Board of Supervisors. She said another alternative would be
to adopt a deposit with'additional fees. required for additional staff time.
r
G. ' CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS
Ms. Leasure said that there are inconsistencies and duplications in the Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs) that the Commission has been reviewing, and the adopted By -Laws. She
mentioned that the inconsistencies are in Section,4 "Agendas," and Section 9 "Keetrniz of Minutes
and Records" in the SOPS.
Alternate Koch asked that the By -Laws and SOPS be placed on the December 16, 1998 agenda
• to discuss the inconsistencies and duplications.
• Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 18, 1998 ■ Page 12 ■
• H. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA
(Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited
by State Law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed'on the agenda.)
Brian Baldridge said he thought the letter that Chairman Hennigan wrote in response to the
complaint received by Mr. Gates regarding Ranchaero Airport was good. He asked Alternate
Koch what the City of Chico does when a complaint comes into their office?
Alternate. Koch said that the City tries to respond to complaints by either a letter explaining the
situation and/or forwarding the complainant to a particular department for follow-up action.
Commissioner Causey asked Alternate Koch what happens when a written complaint comes into
the tower, does it go to the City?
Alternate Koch said that the tower takes separate complaints. However, the complainant can get
the City's number from the tower if the wish to lodge a compliant with the City of Chico.
I. CLOSED SESSION - NONE REQUIRED
J. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.
•
�2C�han=B�ob Hennigan
Minutes prepared by Paula Atterberry, Office Assistant III
.•
1:\DOCtNODnNPLA"INGU UCV4DfUTES\,u.ucvs NOV-1s."
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 18, 1998 ■ Page 13 •
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COI%�SSION
• ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 ■
REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION
Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers
25 County Center Drive, Oroville California
Date/Time: November 18,1998-9:00 a.m.
AGENDA
ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
B. ROLL CALL, _
C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: October 21, 1998
D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA (Committee members or staff may request additions, deletions,
or changes in the Agenda order)
E. BUSINESS ITEMS:
40r Items with Public Hearings
1. Butte Countv Develooment Aareement (DEV99-01 - Robert and 'Ann
Stephens/George Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141: A request for Consistency
Findings for a Development Agreement to define the development rights for a 230
acre portion of a 300 acre site. Proposed entitlements include a rezone from SR -1
and SR-1/OS to Planned Development SR-1/PD on 126 acres and from OS to
OS/PD on 103 acres. The project site is located on the west side of Hicks Lane
immediately adjacent to the Chico Municipal Airport, generally between Keefer
Slough and Mud Creek. Staff recommends that the Commission find the project
inconsistent with the 1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan.
Items without Public Hearings
2.
•
During the ALUC's October 21, 1998 meeting, the Commission directed staff to
request that the Butte County Administrative Officer, Director of Development
Services, Director of Public Works and County Counsel attend this month's ALUC
meeting to present the action plan that has been developed to date to facilitate re-
installation of CSA 87 Aircraft Overflight Notification Signs.
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
1
3. Report on Impacts to Local Agency Plans Resulting from the ALUC's October
21, 1998 Amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and
Request for Interpretations: This item was placed on the agenda in response to
Commissioner Lambert's October 21, 1998 'research request and the need for
clarification of specific amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan
adopted by the ALUC.
4. Discussion of ALUC Request to Review All Discretionary Projects within the
Chico Airport Area of Influence until Local Agency Plans are Revised to be
Consistent with the 1998 Chico Municipalport Environs Plan or Overriding
Findings. are Adopted- This item was placed on the agenda at the request of
Chairman Hennigan.
F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT
G. CORRESPONDENCE AND.COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS
f
H. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA
(Presentations will be limited to rive minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by State Law
from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda.)
I. CLOSED SESSION - NONE REQUIRED
• J. ADJOURNMENT
A
0
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
2
Fj
Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to
�. contact Paula Leasure at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you.
*Any person may address. the Commission during the "Business From the Floor" segment of the Agenda.
*Copies of the Agenda documents relative to and Agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at
cost of $.08 per page.
RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction
of Butte ALUC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chairman at the appropriate time.
2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for "Public Comment" on
the agenda. The Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until
a meeting at which the matter can be put on the agenda:
3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon
recognition by the Chair.
4. After receiving recognition, please stand and state your name and address before making your
presentation, so that the Clerk may take down this information.
5. All.documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the Commission
(original and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to
the Commission and made available for public inspection.
This Agenda was mailed to those requesting notice and posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting
at the following locations:
Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case.
KAALUC\MEETINGS\NOV 18-98.MTG\11-18-98.AGD
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
3
• 4
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
3
-,COUNTY OF BUTTE
•
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
Minutes of October.21,1998
Chairman
Hennigan called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m., October 21,' 1998, in the Butte County Board of
Supervisor's,Chambers, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California.
A.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
B.
ROLL CALL Present:. Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Lambert, Alternate
Koch, and Chairman Hennigan
Absent: Commissioners Hatley and Causey
r
Alternates • Present: Chester Ward
Brian Baldridge
C.
APPROVAL OF THE `MINUTES: September 16, 1998 ,
The Commission had the following corrections* to the minutes: On page i', line 14, "Commissioner
Lambert asked Alternate Papadakis to take her place as a regular member at this meeting because the
agenda items were a continuation of items that the Commission had taken action on at the August 19,
1998 meeting, and that Alternate. Papadakis could follow through with these items." And page 8,
•Business.Item
E.5., line 26, it should read the- North Valley Pilot's Association not the California
Pilot's Association.
It was moved by. Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Rosene, to approve the minutes
of September 16, 1998, as corrected. _
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Lambert, Alternate Koch, and Chairman Hennigan
NOES: " None
"
ABSENT: Commissioners, Hatley and Causey.
ABSTAIN: None
D.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA (Committee members or staff may request additions, deletions, or changes
in the Agenda order)
Having no changes, the consensus of the Commission was to accept the Agenda as presented.
E.
BUSINESS ITEMS:
Items with Public Hearings '
•
•
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 1 ■
. 1. ALUC File No. 98-10 (Butte County Use Permit UP99-02 - Pacific Bell Mobile Services)
on APN 048-061-052
Ms. Webster summarized the proposal to construct a 10.4 foot monopole communications tower located
in 'the Chico Municipal Airport Area of Influence.. She recommended that safety painting not be
required, but that a safety light be installed at the top of the tower, preferably a strobe type light. Ms.
Webster also recommended that the Commission find the project consistent with the Chico Municipal
Airport Environs Plan.
Alternate Koch asked if the FAA has certain criterion for strobe lighting or painting?
Ms. Webster said that the FAA did not recommend painting or strobe lighting for this particular project
because they did not consider it to be .an obstruction. However, the FAA did recommend that the
temporary crane located at the project site be painted because of the overall height.
Commissioner Lambert said she thought that the FAA recommended safety painting for structures 300
feet in height or above, and questioned if the FAA has standard requirements for the painting and
lighting of communication towers?
Ms. Webster was not sure if the FAA has a consistent set of standards, but said she could research that.
Commissioner Gerst commented that he felt safety painting and lighting should be required
consistently by the ALUC.
• Chairman Hennigan opened the hearing to the public.
Sandy Rugroden, representing Pacific Bell Mobile Services, stated that safety painting and lighting are
required by the FAA on structures above 200 feet. Pacific Bell Mobile Services is further requesting
that a red light be placed on top of the tower instead of a strobe light, and that the tower not be painted
because the FAA is not requiring it...
Commissioner Lambert discussed the need for the ALUC to come up with standard recommended
conditions for the painting and lighting of towers, and that various agencies such as crop dusters, Enloe
Flight, Oroville Flight, Butte County Search and Rescue, and the Sheriffs Department should be
notified when towers are constructed.
Chairman Hennigan said that he would like to see the towers painted above 75 feet in alternating
orange and white stripes, and lighting at approximately 100 feet. Commissioner Gerst stated that
reflectors or shielding could be installed to reduce the impact of the strobe lighting at ground level.
Keith Bray, representing Nextel Communications, stated to the Commission that when choosing a site
for a communication tower, Nextel conducts a radio frequency analysis, and looks at the local zoning
codes. He said that this particular tower.is located in more of an agricultural residential'area on
property that is already developed with a nursery. However, Nextel's primary concern is the neighbors,
and that is why Pacific Bell and Nextel are requesting that strobe lighting not be required. He said that
0 ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 2 ■
0 1.•
they will work with ALUC staff to address the lighting issue. Mr. Bray pointed out to the Commission
• that if there is a recommendation to paint the tower, Pacific Bell and Nextel will try to blend in with
the skyscape as opposed to the trees in the area. Pacific Bell and Nextel will support the County's
recommendations, and will do what ever it takes to meet the necessary safety concerns.
Ms. Rugroden'said that if the Commission recommends that the tower be painted, Pacific Bell and
Nextel fall under the FAA's.maintenance agreement. This means that they are required to use the
FAA's paint samples, and adhere to the strict maintenance requirements for lighting fixtures. She
mentioned that the FAA has several paint samples that can be used, and strict guidelines that address
fading and chipping.
Alternate Koch said that he thought a steady red light would be a better choice for this project site than
a strobe light with a reflector or shield. He suggested that the Planning Commission dictate the
aesthetics, and the ALUC recommend the required lighting and painting of the tower.
Alternate Ward suggested that a steady red light be installed on top. Chairman Hennigan suggested that
safety painting be applied to the portion of the tower that was above 75feet.
Commissioner Gerst stated that he felt safety painting should be applied to the entire tower, not just
the portion above 75 feet. Chairman Hennigan noted that in urban areas, anything below 75 feet is just
obscured by trees and buildings anyway.
• A
Barbara Hennigan suggested that agencies which utilize low flying aircraft, such as, the Butte County
Sheriff's Department, Butte County Mosquito Abatement, and the Civil Air Patrol be notified of the
tower's location. During the flooding there were National Guard helicopters flying low,.and evacuating
people from the area. She mentioned that all companies constructing towers should be required to give
the precise Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates of their facilities to the Butte County
Planning Department, to be entered into the County's Geographic Information System (GIS), so when
an emergency arises.the County will be able to supply a map which identifies the air hazards.
Chairman Hennigan, suggested that the County's GIS staff be requested to create such a hazard map for
emergency purposes.
Ms. Rugroden submitted a picture of'the project site located at Box Brothers Nursery to the
Commission for its review.
Chairman Hennigan closed the hearing to the public.
It was moved by Alternate Koch, seconded by Commissioner Lambert, to find 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:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
• ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 3 ■
A. The temporary crane shall be marked with safety painting (orange and white alternating paint)*
and lighted with strobe type fixtures.
B. The temporary crane shall be lowered to a level equal to or below the height of the 104 foot
.tower at night (between 5:00 p.m. and 7:30 a.m.).
C.- The 104 foot permanent tower, shall be lighted with a steady red light fixture at the top of the
structure. The portion of the tower which exceeds 75 feet in height (i.e. top 29 feet) shall be
marked with safety painting (orange and white alternating paint).
D. At the start of construction, the applicants shall notify all known flight operators and agencies
who utilize low-flying aircraft of the tower's height and specific location including GPS
coordinates.
Specific agencies that are notified should include, but not be limited to: the Butte County
Sheriffs Department /Search and Rescue, the California Highway Patrol, the C.D.F. Air
Tanker Base, Chico Aerial Applicators, the North Valley Pilots Association, Pacific Flight
Services, Kenyon Aero Center, Enloe Flight Care, Mercy Medical Center of Redding (provides
back-up. for Enloe), U.C. Davis Medical Center, the Chico office of the Mosquito and Vector
Control District, the Civil Air Patrol and the National Guard.
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Lambert, Alternates Koch, and Chairman Hennigan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Hatley and Causey
ABSTAIN: None
2. Annual Review and Update of the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan
Chairman Hennigan said while he was before the Board of Supervisors trying to explain the ALUC's
position on the Stephens project he realized that it was the ALUC's fault that the annual update of the
1978 Comprehensive Land Use.Plan (CLUP) had never been done. However, the Commission could
adopt issues that they have discussed in the past as part of the Airport Land Use Commission's 1998
update of the CLUP and that was his reason for placing this item on the agenda:
Ms. Webster summarized the staff report including text language and map exhibits designed to update
`. the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport (CMA) Environs Plan as an interim measure before the end of the
1998 calendar_year to avoid delays in the adoption of the updated CLUP prepared by Shutt Moen
Associates.
Chairman Hennigan also discussed the Exhibits presented in the staff report to the Commission at this
time.
Alternate Koch said he found it to be inconsistent that the Commission is willing to accept the boxes
associated with the Overflight Protection Zone from the City's FAR Part 150 Study depicted in Exhibit
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October, 21, 1998 ■ Page 4 ■
0 •
• A, drawing CIC -14, which he said were not drawn based on the "Inner Turning Zone", but, the
Commission is not willing to accept the Noise Contours from the same study which are more consistent
and current then the 1978 contours. He believes that if the annual update process is going to be
performed then the Commission should update and adopt the noise contours presented in the City's
FAR Part 150 Study as the new noise contours for the airport until such time as they are replaced, and
not just overlay land use controls. He also feels that there was not adequate public notice for this item,
which involves the County's North Chico Specific Plan Area. He asked if the County was formally
notified, and given an opportunity to comment? He added that the City of Chico supports the Noise
Compatibility Plan, and the Overflight Protection Zone and would like to see them adopted, but there
are significant additions to the Outer Safety Zone shown in Exhibit A that need to have, extensive
public comment from both the County and the City. Because of the limited notice given for this item
he is not prepared to approve the proposed modifications today.
Chairman Hennigan opened the hearing to the public.
Barbara Hennigan provided documents to the Commission and staff which presented a comparison
between station log information from the C.D.F. tanker base and monitoring data that was used as the
data source for the City's FAR Part 150 Noise Study. Ms. Hennigan pointed out that only one tanker
was captured in the data used by McClintock Becker, and that two C.D.F. flights that occurred during
the monitoring period for the study, were not captured at all. Numerous C.D.F. flights were conducted
in the time frame when McClintock Becker was doing their study. However, the timing of the
monitoring did not coincide with the heaviest tanker activity, so the noise impacts associated with these
operations is not reflected. She said that on Thursday, October 17, 1998, McClintock Becker only
• collected seventeen minutes of data when the tankers were not flying, and therefore, feels that the data
is severely faulted.
Alternate Koch said that may be correct, and that it should be looked in to. However, he questioned
how it was any better than the twenty year old data that the ALUC has of aircraft that are no longer here,
and of flight track activity that no longer exists.
Barbara Hennigan responded to Commissioner Koch by pointing out that when Michael
McClintock was asked why the noise foot print was smaller, he responded that certain aircraft
no longer used the airport. However the aircraft he cited were commercial aircraft that had
never taken the left turn at low altitude to fly into the foothills with passengers. Only the
airtankers took that VFR track and that many of those were exactly the same plane that were
counted in the 1978 study. Since there were still airtankers located at CMA, the track that they
created should not have disappeared from the noise study.
Paula Leasure, Principal Planner with the Butte County Department of Development Services,
requested a copy of the station log and monitoring information for the ALUC project file.
Chairman Hennigan asked how today's meeting of the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
was noticed in regards to this item?
• ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 5 ■
0 •
In response to Chairman Hennigan's question, Ms. Leasure said the Public Notice was in the Chico
Enterprise Record on October 14, 1998, and was sent to the City of Chico on October 9, 1998.
Barbara Hennigan displayed a map of the 1961 Chico General Plan and pointed out that it
incorporated the recommendations of the Dolittle Commission, a'/2 mile long Clear Zone with
no development and 2 mile extension beyond that, 6000 feet wide, at the end of which was to
have restricted development. That General Plan had five major policies, one of which was to
protect the airport.
Ms. Webster read pages 9-22 and 9-23 from the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, which
would define land use compatibility (uses and densities) within the Outer Safety Zone should it be
adopted today. Ms. Webster questioned if it had been the intention of the Commission that
there be no residential uses built in the outer safety zone.
Chairman Hennigan said, "yes, we are bound by and follow recommendations from the
Caltrans Handbook."
Chairman Hennigan felt that the Commission should adopt the Outer Safety Zone even though the area
is largely developed, to provide future guidelines. Chairman Hennigan said that there will be
changes as buildings are replaced. There was a time when we did good planning, that reflected
what was our understanding and is our understanding again of airport safety. The fact that
there was a window in time when we did inappropriate land use, doesn't mean that we have
to do inappropriate planning forever. Infill doesn't mean "another church, another school."
• He said that there are many compatible uses identified within the text that Ms. Webster had read from
the Caltrans Handbook, including very low density residential development, two-story office buildings,
and small neighborhood commercial development. Chairman Hennigan said that the City of
Chico, in response to the NCSP had argued that the residential development on the north end
of the runway be limited to not less than one unittfive acres. '
•
Alternate Koch questioned if the Butte County Planning Staff, the Board of Supervisors, and Planning
Commission have all been notified about this meeting. He brought up that if this item is adopted today
it will make them all have to revise their existing General Plan, Specific Plan, and Zoning Ordinance
or make overriding findings.
Ms. Webster mentioned that there was short notice to have the item placed on the agenda, and that
those agencies were not notified.
Alternate Koch said that there is a Chico Airport Commission meeting next week, and he would like
that Commission to have the chance to comment on this issue. He would like to see this item
continued to the November 18, 1998 meeting so that the above mentioned agencies can be notified and
be given an opportunity to comment. He also mentioned that the City of Chico has been using display
ads to provide notice because no one reads the small legal ads.
Ms. Webster read the legal ad per Commissioner Rosene's request.
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 6 ■
0 1 •
• Commissioner Rosene said that was the best description that he has ever heard, more complete
than he had expected. He pointed out that the City did an override of ALUC with no public
notice at all.
Ms. Leasure suggested to the Commission that including display ads in the ALUC's budget next year
would be a good idea.
Alternate Koch said the average property owner in the area that will be affected by the proposed actions
has no idea what a FAR Part 150 Noise Study is, or could tell from the legal notice that was placed in
the newspaper that their property will be adversely affected.
Ms. Leasure pointed out that the Caltrans Handbook states that a public hearing is not required for this
item, and that staff was not provided with a copy of the proposed amendments in time to do a more
detailed notice further in advance. - So a general notice was placed in the Chico Enterprise Record
because of the importance of the issue.
Commissioner Rosene asked Commissioner Lambert how the Butte County Planning Commission
would deal with this item?
Commissioner Koch replied that they probably have no idea that it is being proposed.
Commissioner Lambert replied that the Planning Commission had not yet been notified. However, this
is in interim measure that will only be in place until the new CLUP is completed. She also questioned'
• how the C.D.F. Air Tanker Departure Zone Exhibit C, Drawing CIC -16 would be applied.
In response to Commissioner Lambert's question Chairman Hennigan discussed both the Exhibit and
amendment with her. Chairman Hennigan said that Steve Iverson (CDF Battalion Chief at Chico
Air Attack Base) was asked by the Chico Planning Department for information on airtankers.
This map shows what is physically possible for the airtankers to fly.
Ms. Webster said that Exhibit C depicts the path that the tankers take. However, her main concern is
that there are currently. no policies associated with it. To. adopt the diagram without any specific
policies could be confusing.
ChairmanHennigan suggested that the same restrictions that apply in the Outer Safety Zone should
apply in the "Departure Clear Area" depicted in Exhibit C, Drawing CIC -16.
Ms.. Webster reminded the Commission that this would be an interim measure while the new CLUP
is being prepared. However, there is a requirement that agencies will have to bring their plans into
conformance with what ever CLUP is adopted or make overriding findings within 180 days from the
date of the ALUC's action. She agreed with Alternate Koch that this will have an impact on the
agencies. Ms. Webster said that this action would have an impact whether it was taken today
or next month.
• ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 7 ■
Commissioner Gerst said that the impact is not a big deal. The ALUC should protect what
• should have been protected. Beside the tanker information, everything has already been
adopted by Chico. ,
Alternate Koch said that there should have been more than eleven or twelve days notice of today's
hearing to get response from any public agency.
Commissioner Lambert said the zoning in place should be consistent if this is from the 1978 FAR Part
150 Noise Study; and would not require zoning changes.
Chairman Hennigan mentioned the three components that are being amended by the adoption of this
item:
■ The Overflight Protection Zone established in the City of Chico's 1995 FAR Part 150
Noise Compatibility Program
■ The Outer Safety Zone, from the 1993 Caltrans. Handbook
■ The Departure Clear Area that reflects flight tracks for tanker departures.' .
Alternate Koch said that the City of Chico -generally supports the idea of establishing these zones, but
would want further study of the impacts of adopting the Outer Safety Zone.
• Commissioner Gerst read a note he had written regarding the need for the update of the CMA Environs
Plan. "The 1978 CMA Environs Plan standards are not compatible with the current Airport Public
Utilities Code, and the Division of Aeronautics Airport Land Use Planning Handbook: The amendment
of the present Environs Plan will prevent incompatible uses and preserve the airport viability." He also
asked when would the item be effective if adopted today?
Commissioner Lambert asked the Commission and ALUC Staff that since this is an interim measure
could the 180 day requirement to be consistent be deferred?
Ms. Webster said she had -not found a mechanism in the handbook that addresses that issue. • The
Commission might be able ' to make some type of declaration with the resolution to adopt the
amendments that would relieve agencies from the 180 day requirement, but she advised the Commission
to talk to County Counsel about the legality of doing that.
Commissioner Lambert suggested.a motion of intent. She said that this would allow for change at the
neat meeting if ALUC Staff and County Counsel find that there is a problem.
Commissioner Gerst stated that if the Commission is going to do it, let's just do it, and not stretch it out
any longer.
• ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 8 ■
Alternate Koch stated that he felt the Commission is making a big mistake if this action is adopted,
because of inadequate notice.. He suggested continuing the item for one month to properly notice
affected agencies.
Ms. Leasure said that from a staff perspective, there are a lot of unanswered legal questions. She said
that if the Commission chooses to do this she would prefer a motion of intent, so the ALUC can try to
resolve these issues prior to adoption.
Chairman Hennigan closed the hearing to the public..
Ms. Webster asked the Commission if they wanted to adopt any specific policies to accompany Exhibits
D and E or if the intent was to adopt the accident scatter maps to simply highlight areas with particular
safety concerns.
. No additional policy language was proposed by the Commission
It was moved by Commissioner Gerst and seconded by Commissioner Rosene, to adopt the proposed
amendments to the Chico Municipal AirportEnvirons Plan as outlined in the staff report, including the
application of the outer safety lone criteria from the. handbook within the airport tanker
departure area on Exhibit C, and subject to the following:
Justification - Section 21674.7 of the Public Utilities Code states that an Airport Land Use Commission
that formulates, adopts or amends a Comprehensive Land Use Plan shall be guided by information
prepared and updated pursuant to Section 21674.5 and referred to as the Airport Land Use Planning
• Handbook published by the Aeronautics Program of the Department of Transportation.
Section 21675(a) of the Public Utilities Code also states that, "the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (also
known as the compatibility plan) shall be reviewed as often as necessary in order to accomplish its
purpose, but shall not be amended more than once in any calendar year."
It was found by the Commission that the standards within the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs
Plan are not•compatible with the intent of the State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Chapter 4,
Article 3.5, Section 21670 (a) (1) and (2)) and the guidelines presented within the 1993 Airport Land
Use Planning Handbook prepared for the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics.
Amendments to the 1978 CMAEP approved by the Commission will prevent the development of new
incompatible land uses and preserve the viability of responsible airport operations at the Chico
Municipal Airport.
Environmental Findings - Section 15061 of the CEQA guidelines states that CEQA only applies to
projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be
seen with certainty that there is nopossibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect
on the environment, that activity is not subject to CEQA. The ALUC has found that the adoption of the
proposed amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan meets this CEQA exemption
because:
• ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 9 ■
1. The adoption of proposed amendments to the Plan will not result in any substantial or
• potentially substantial adverse change in any physical conditions within the project area
including land, air, water, mineral, flora, fauna, ambient noise, or affect objects of historic or
aesthetic significance.
2. All future development projects will require individual CEQA review for physical changes _
proposed within the project area.
3. Proposed amendments to the Plan will not increase the development potential for the affected
area.
Adopted .Amendments:
1) Exhibit A - This map depicts the Overflight Protection Zone identified in Exhibit III -1 of the
FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program and Environs Plan for the Chico Municipal
Airport. The four safety zones depicted on "page 9-16 of the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook have also been overlaid onto this exhibit. The Runway -Protection Zone (1), Inner
Safety Zone (2), and Inner Turning Zone (3) are 'all contained within the Overflight Protection
Zone. The only Caltrans Safety Zone which the Overflight Protection Zone does not incorporate
is the Outer Safety Zone (4). The Commission adopted the Overflight Protection Zone and the
Outer Safety Zone as Drawing CIC -14 of the CMAEP.
2) The following text was.adopted to accompany Drawing CIC -14:
• Overflight Protection Zone,,- In response . to concerns regarding overflight activity, the
development of new residential uses shall be prohibited in the area defined as Zone A within the
Overflight Protection Zone depicted in Drawing, CIC -14. This is the area that is 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 as Zone
Al. The area defined as Zone -B is subject to less intensive overflight activity. In Zone B no
new single family residential uses shall 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).
When a development proposal is 'reviewed for compliance with the restrictions proposed for the
Overflight Protection Zone, it is imperative that the.more restrictive criterion shall be applied
to insure long-term protection for the'airport and area residents.
Note: There are areas within the Airport Area of Influence which have been assigned
Compatible Land Use Zones (CLUZ) categories in the 1978 CMAEP. Some of those
areas are located outside of the Overflight Protection Zone (OPZ). Although the OPZ
would supersede the CLUZ categories in areas where it is applied, the CLUZ categories
depicted on Drawing CIC -13 and corresponding policies will continue to apply to those
areas outside of -the OPZ
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 10 ■
• Outer Sd= Zone - Land use compatibility and density recommendations presented within the
1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (pages 9-22 and 9-23) will apply within the Outer
Safety Zone. These recommendations include:
Density of Use - The types 'of land uses which represent concerns .within outer safety
zones are similar to those in the inner safety zones, but somewhat higher densities of use
can be considered acceptable. For example, whereas shopping centers and multi -story
office buildings are unacceptable closer to the runway end, small neighborhood
shopping centers and two-story offices are reasonable within this more distant zone.
Concentrations of people should be limited to no more than 60 to 100 per acre.
Residential Land Uses - Typical subdivision -density residential development should
continue to be avoided in this zone. Rural residential uses with lot sizes in the 2 to 5
acre, range can be considered acceptable, however.
Special Functions - Most special land use functions, particularly schools, hospitals, and
so on, should be avoided in the Outer Safety Zone. '
3) Exhibit B - This map overlays the Overflight Protection Zone and Caltrans Safety Zones onto
the future noise contours shown within the 1978 CMAEP. The map confirms the ALUC's
utilization of the noise contours shown within the 1978 CMAEP until new contours are
developed and adopted as part of the CLUP update prepared by Shutt Moen Associates. The
Commission adopted this map as Drawing CIC -15 within the CMAEP.
• 4) Exhibit C - As part of the City of Chico's approval of Foothill Park East, modifications to the
departure tracks for C.D.F. Air Tanker flights were mutually agreed to by the City of Chico and
the C.D.F. Base. This figure depicts the agreed upon departure path for C.D.F. Air Tanker
flights and was adopted by the Commission as Drawing CIC -16 within the CMAEP to accurately
reflect current traffic patterns. The same land use compatibility and density recommendations
presented within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook for the Outer Safety Zone will
apply to lands identified as the "Departure Clear Area" within this drawing.
5) Exhibits D and E - The 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook contains maps depicting
accident scatter characteristics based on information generated by Hodges and Shutt (1993) and
the University of California Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies (1993). Exhibit D
depicts an overlay of the UC Berkeley Study onto a map of the Chico Municipal Airport and
surrounding environment. Exhibit E depicts an.overlay of the Hodges and Shutt data onto a map
of the Chico Municipal Airport that was used during the adoption of the North Chico Specific
Plan. These exhibits were adopted by the Commission as Drawings CIC -17 and CIC -18 within
the CMAEP to identify areas with particular safety related concerns. ,
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Lambert, and Chairman Hennigan
NOES: Alternate Koch
ABSENT: Commissioners Hatley and Causey
• ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 11 ■
Y
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Lambert requested staff to review if the zoning would need to be brought into conformity
.within the 180 days, and report back to. the Commission.
Chairman Hennigan suggested that the County's GIS staff be requested to generate an accurate map of
the adopted zones on a larger scale.
Commissioner Gerst suggested that ALUC Staff notify City of Chico, and the Board of Supervisors
immediately.
Alternate Koch requested that the agencies get the maps as soon as possible.
` Ms. Leasure said that this.action would be effective today.
Items without Public Hearings '
3. Continued Discussion of Standard Operating Procedures for. the Airport Land Use
Commission
The Commission`made the following changes to•the draft Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's):
1: Section 1 METHOD FOR'ADOPTING''AND UPDATING SOPs, Page 1, Item 1.2.
` "Adoption or revisions of SOP's may be done at any regular meeting, by a majority of
• the full Commission -after proper notice in the agenda of the change, which is proposed."
(07/15/98)
2. Section 1METHOD FOR ADOPTING AND UPDATING SOPs, Page 1, Item 1.1. Ms.
Leasure suggested that deleted procedures be archived in an appendix, rather than
staying in the text of the book.
3. Section 2 SUBMISSIONS, Page 2, Item 2:1 Adoption or Amendment of General Plans
and Specific Plans. "Prior to any local agency approval of a new or amended general
plan or specific plan affecting an airport vicinity area of influence, the plan,must be
submitted to the ALUC for review."
4. Section 4 AGENDAS, Page 5, Item 4.1 No. 3. "Any citizen or agency of government
may direct a letter to the Commission requesting an item be placed on the agenda. The
Chairman Chair:shall place the item on the agenda if it is within the'competence of the
Commission .to ;address the topic or is. relevant to the Commission's charge."
5. ySection 4 AGENDAS, .Page 5, Item 4:1 No. 3, letter G. CORRESPONDENCE &
COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS.
• Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Pae 12 ■
• 0
6. Section 4 AGENDAS, Page S, Item 4.1 No. 3, letter I. CLOSED SESSION - AS
• REQUIRED.
7. Section 4 AGENDAS, Page 6, Item 4.1 No. 8. "The tentative agenda will be transmitted
to the Ehairm Chair for his/her approval in sufficient time that the agenda, and
supporting materials, can be mailed at least seven days prior to the scheduled meeting
date."
8. Section 4 AGENDAS, Page 5, Item 4.1 No. 10. "The eommission, By majority vote of
the full Commission, the agenda maybe amended as to order or content subject to the,
California Open Meeting Law."
9. Section 5 CORRESPONDENCE, Page 7, Item 5.1 No. 2. "At least one copy of each
item addressed to the Commission, or sent by or for the Commission shall be maintained
in the correspondence files for not less than three two calendar years."
There was a discussion regarding exactly what correspondence should be brought to the monthly ALUC
meetings.
Ms. Leasure recommended that staff, bring the correspondence log only, and . if there is any
correspondence the Commissioners ants to view they could come in to the Department of
Development Services to see it or request a copy in advance.
• 10. Section 5 CORRESPONDENCE; Page 7, Item 5.1 No. 4. "The correspondence log for
the period, between regular meetings shall be included with each commissioners
meeting agenda mid the correspondence fife (f6i the period since the previous regular
_ . Correspondence may be made
available to Commissioners upon request.
11. Section 5 CORRESPONDENCE, Page 7, Item 5.1 No. S. "The staff may reproduce that
portion of the correspondence to which they wish to -call requires special attention as
appropriate.
The ALUC Recording Secretary was asked to review the discussion on the Keeping of Records in the
past ALUC minutes, and to add the correct language to Section 9 of the SOP's.
Chairman Hennigan suggested dating the bottom of the draft SOP pages to correspond with revisions
that have been made, and to also use a three hole punch instead of stapling.
A discussion ensued regarding the development of a fee schedule for ALUC project reviews.
The Commission made changes to Section 6, FEE SCHEDULE, and Section 7, PROGRAM OF WORK,
and requested that they be switched around within the SOP document.
• ■ Butte County -Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 13 ■
12. Section 6, Page 8, will become PROGRAM OF WORK, and Section 7, Page 9, will
become FEE SCHEDULE.
4. Initiation of Discussions with the Chico Airport Commission to Determine Appropriate
Protection Measures for Aerial Applicator Flight Operations
Chairman Hennigan suggested sending a letter to the Chico Airport Commission inquiring about their
intentions and expectations with regard to the protection of Chico Aerial Applicator's flight operations,
with copies going to Chico Aerial Applicators.
Alternate Koch clarified to the Commission that Chico -Aerial Applicators originally had a fifteen year
lease with the City. of Chico, which expired. They would like to continue operations at the Chico
Municipal Airport, -and have indicated that there will be no operational changes. They are currently in
the process of renewing their lease with the City of Chico.
Chairman Hennigan mentioned that Chico Aerial Applicator's flight operations are depicted on one. of
the old flight track maps in the 1978 CMA Environs Plan, but that there was no specific protection for
that flight track, it was just noted. He is also concerned that before the North Chico Specific Plan gets
built out both Chico Aerial Applicators and the City of Chico need to consider their intentions.
Alternate Koch said that once the west side of the airport is developed, it will adversely. affect their
ability to fly directly over that area. The. City of Chico` will be looking into this issue as it arises.
• Chairman Hennigan said that a minor flight track might have to be included in the 1999 CLUP to
accommodate Chico Aerial Applicator's.
Ms. Leasure recommended that a copy of the letter going to Chico Airport Commission be sent to Shutt
Moen Associates.
There was a consensus of the Commission to send a letter, to the Chico Airport Commission requesting
input regarding the level of protection desired to accommodate Chico Aerial Applicator's continued
operations, with copies going to Chico Aerial Applicator's and Shutt Moen Associates.
F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT
Item No. 2 Status of the CLUP Update
Ms. Leasure updated the Commission on the status of the contract and grant agreement with
Caltrans. She told the Commission that the contract has been signed .by the County
Administrative Officer, and sent back to the State for the appropriate signatures. It will also need
to be signed by the County Auditor, and the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors when it is
returned to the ALUC.
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 14 ■
• Ms. Webster said; she is currently in the process of collecting'data, reports, and materials for
Shutt Moen Associates. As soon as the contract has been signed, the documents necessary to
start the CLUP update will be given to Shutt Moen Associates.
Item No. 4 Status of.C.S.A.87 Sijn Re-insfallation
Chairman Hennigan asked ALUC Staff if the request and letter to the Board of Supervisors
regarding the signage was discussed at the Board of Supervisors meeting on October 13, 1998.
Ms. Leasure said she did not attend the meeting, but she does not believe that it was discussed.
However, she believes that the Board directed it to the County'Administrative Officer, the
Department of Development Services, the Department of Public Works, and County Counsel
to try and resolve the issue.
Ms. Webster said that her discussions with the, Board Clerk are reflected in the Monthly Status
Report. It was her understanding that the above mentioned departments were asked to develop
a course of action and present it to the Board at a future meeting.
Commissioner Rosene asked if the Chico Airport Commission has written a letter to the Board
of Supervisors urging ,the Supervisors to direct re -installation of the Aircraft Overflight
Notification Signs for the North Chico Specific Plan. He asked if a letter could be written
requesting that they do -so, because it is their airport that the ALUC is trying to protect.
• Chairman Hennigan agreed that a letter should be written to the Chico Airport Commission.
Commissioner Rosene asked if staff had any ideas for. expediting this?
Ms. Leasure suggested a letter to each of the departments it was referred to, noting that ALUC
would like a response by its November 18, 1998 meeting.
Alternate Baldridge asked what departments this item was directed to?
Ms. Leasure said the Butte County Department of Public Works, the Department of
Development Services, the County Administrative Officer, and County Counsel.
Alternate Koch suggested requesting that the head of each of the above listed departments attend
the ALUC's November 18, 1998 meeting, and ask.them to present their plan of action to the
Commission.
Chairman Hennigan agreed that they should be asked to attend the meeting.
Alternate Koch suggested that the request be written in a positive manner.
■ Butte County.Airpoit Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 15 ■
Alternate Baldridge asked for a follow-up report on the status of the County Ordinance update with
• regards to Ranchaero Airport and the clear zones.
Chairman Hennigan responded to Alternate Baldridge's question, clarifying that there are two
ordinances that are supposed to be in progress.
■ The obstruction clearance at all airports being maintained
■ Towers' ;
Ms. Leasure mentioned to the Commission that the draft report on the Tower Ordinance has been
prepared and was submitted to Mr. Thomas Parilo, the Director of Development Services, for his review .
approximately one week ago..
Ms. Webster responded that the clear zone ordinance is in the process of being analyzed by County
Counsel.
Chairman Hennigan suggested that staff ask County Counsel how they are coming along with proposed
modifications to the ordinance.
Chairman Hennigan also questioned how much of Mr. Parilo's 19.25 hours staff time was spent on the
C.S.A. 87 sign re -installation item. He does believe that the ALUC should be billed for his work on that
item, but that it should be billed to the people who are creating the problem.
G. y CORRESPONDENCE
NONE
H. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA
(Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Airport, Land Use Commission is prohibited by State Law from taking
action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda.)
Commissioner Lambert mentioned that there was a workshop on Thursday November 5, 1998; -at 6:00
p.m., in the Board of Supervisors, Chambers, regarding the Flexible Lot Size ordinance and Clustering
development. She also said that she had a conflict with the November 18, 1998 meeting, because of a
Farm City Tour that she wants to attend.
I. CLOSED SESSION
NONE
J. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 a.m.
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission m Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 16 ■
F
c
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 ■
REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION
Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supery
25 County Center Drive, Oroville California
AGENDA & MINUTES
Date/Time: October 21, 1998 - 9:00 a.m. ALPHA FILE
AGENDA
ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
B. ROLL CALL
C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: September 16, 1998
D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA (Committee members or staff may request additions, delefions, or
changes in the Agenda order)
E. BUSINESS ITEMS:
Items with Public Hearings
1. ' ALUC File No. 98-10 (Butte Countv Use Permit UP99-02 - Pacific Bell Mobile
Services) on APN 048-061-052: Use permit to construct a 104 foot monopole
communications tower as a public/quasi public use on property zoned SR -1
(Suburban Residential, One Acre Minimum). The project site is located on the east
side of Mariposa Avenue, approximately .32 mile north of East Avenue.
2. Annual Review and Update of the Chico MuniClDal Airport Environs Plan: The
Commission will consider adoption of a portion of the recommendations found in the
FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program and Environs Plan for the Chico
Municipal Airport prepared by P & D Aviation, dated February 10, 1995, and other maps
and technical data that have been prepared based upon information contained within
the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. This item. was placed on the agenda
at the request of Chairman Hennigan.
Items without Public Hearings
3. Continued Discussion of Standard Operating Procedures for the Airport Land
Use Commission: Chairman Hennigan will present materials and suggested
procedures for the Commission's consideration.
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
1
a
4. Initiation of Discussions with the Chico Airport Commission to Determine
Awronriate Protection Measures for Aerial AwAicator Fliaht Operations: This
Item was placed'on the agenda at the request of Chairman Hennigan.
F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT
G. CORRESPONDENCE
H. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA
(Presentations will be limited to fiveminutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by State Law from
taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda.)
L CLOSED SESSION - NONE
J. ADJOURNMENT
Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to
contact Paula Leasure at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you.
"Any person may address the Commission during the "Business From the Floor" segment of the Agenda.
"Copies of the Agenda documents relative to and Agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at
cost of $. 08 per page.
RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
1._ Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of
Butte ALUC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chairman at the appropriate time.
2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for "Public Comment" on
the agenda. The Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until
a meeting at which the matter can be put on the agenda.
3. Comment on specific agenda items may be::made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon
recognition by the Chair.
4. After receiving recognition, please stand and state your name and address before making your
} presentation, so that the Clerk may take down this infonnation.
5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the Commission
(original and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to
the Commission and made available for public inspection.
This Agenda was mailed to those`requesting notice and posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at
the following locations:
Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case.
AA10-21-98.MT6\10-21-98.AGD
m Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
2
COUNTY OF BUTTE
• AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
Minutes of September 16, 1998
Chairman Hennigan called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m., September 16, 1998, in the Butte County Board
of Supervisor's Chambers, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California.
A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
B. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Alternates
Koch, Papadakis and Chairman Hennigan
Absent: Commissioners Hatley and Causey
Alternates Present: Chester Ward
Donald Walhich
Commissioner Lambert asked Alternate Papadakis take her place as a regular member at this meeting because the
agenda items where a continuation of items that the Commission had taken action on at the August 19, 1998 meeting,
and that Alternate Papadakis could follow through with these items.
C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES of August 19,1998.
• After a lengthy discussion on the content of the minutes, it was moved by Alternate Koch, seconded
by Commissioner Rosene, to approve the minutes of August 19, 1998, as presented.
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Rosene, Alternates Koch, Papadakis, and Chairman Hennigan
NOES: Commissioner Gerst
ABSENT: Commissioners Hatley and Causey
ABSTAIN: None
D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA
Commissioner Gerst requested that the Stephens' property be put back on the agenda with Business
Item EJ., for the following reason:
1. The Chico Airport Commission held a meeting on September 3, 1998, on the update
of the Airport Master Plan, and the City's Consultant spoke about the possibility of
extending one or both of the runways by 2,500 to 3,000 feet:
He said`:this would affect the Stephens' property, and should be addressed at this time.
Alternate Koch said that under the Brown Act the Commission can only add the item to the agenda
upon a two-thirds. majority vote, making the appropriate finding that these issues arose after the
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of September 16, 1998 ■ Page 1 ■
August 19, 1998 meeting, and that. action needed to be taken on it. The fact that the Board of
• Supervisors will be taking action on this project next week could be used to justify an emergency.
Commissioner Rosene agreed with Commissioner Gerst that at the Airport Master Plan meeting there
was information presented by the Consultant that was not made available to the Commission at the
August 19, 1998 meeting.
It:was moved by Commissioner Gerst, seconded by Alternate Papadakis, to add discussion of the new
information presented on the Stephens property since the last ALUC meeting held August 19, 1998,
to the agenda as item E.1B. ,
Alternate Koch was concerned with the potential legal consequences of placing the item on the
agenda at this time. He was interested in hearing Commissioner Gerst's points on this item, to see
if they are legally adequate to support the motion that the Commission was about to take.
Commissioner Gerst stated that the underlying conflict has.to do with the Inner Turning Zone and the
Noise Contours.
Alternate Koch asked if this information was available to the Commission at the last meeting?
Commissioner Gerst said that it was included in the materials provided for the item, but it was not
spelled out. He feels this was very important information that failed to get discussed.
• Alternate Koch said that procedurally the information was available at the last meeting,'but was
overlooked, and not. discussed. The Brown Act specifically states that certain criterion needs to be
met to add something to the agenda.
Commissioner Gerst said that the Commission can hear the information he has, and if it is not
adequate the Commission can dismiss it after it is heard.
Mr. Parilo mentioned that there would need to be reason to put it on today's agenda. He stated that
because the information was available to the Commission during the last meeting suggests that it is
not appropriate to add to today's agenda, under the Brown Act. He further mentioned that the Board
is scheduled to hear, but will not be taking final action on the Development Agreement on September
22, 1998. He suggested placing this on another agenda for the Brown Act requirements to be met.
Chairman Hennigan said that the Commission can' discuss the new information presented. The
Commission can then relay this information to the Board under the resolutions that the ALUC has
already passed.
The motion passed by.the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Alternate'Papadakis, and Chairman Hennigan
NOES: AlternateKoch
ABSENT: Commissioners Hatley and Causey
ABSTAIN: None
• ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of September 16, 1998 ■ Page 2 ■
It was moved by Alternate Koch, seconded by Commissioner Rosene, to move Agenda Item F.
• Monthly Status Report to the beginning of the agenda under Agenda Item E:, and add information
received by the Technical Advisory Committee's Consultant from their first preliminary report.
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Alternates Koch, Papadakis, and Chairman Hennigan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Hatley and Causey
ABSTAIN: None
F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT
Alternate Koch reported to the Commission on the information provided -at the first meeting of the
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the Chico Municipal Airport Master Plan, which was held
on September 3, 1998. The TAC was provided with the Consultant's report containing the facilities
analysis, the aviation forecast, and the demand capacity analysis, all of which are a preliminary
analysis of what is needed in the next 20 -year period. The Consultant recommended the extension
of the small runway, and the reservation of approximately 2,000 feet of area, for the future potential
extension of the main runway. He mentioned that the Consultant based this analysis on passenger
and general aviation usage, and will be reporting to TAC on his updated forecasts for freight and
cargo issue. He said that the next scheduled TAC meeting will be an Environmental Scoping Session
held on October 1, 1998, at 3:30 p.m., in Conference Room One. The City of Chico's Consultant,
the Environmental Consultant, and Staff will be in attendance to listen to an overview of the
• environmental review process and potential issues.
Commissioner Rosene said that according to the Consultant's recommendation the long runway -may
eventually be extended to 8,600 feet, and the shorter runway to 6,000 feet. He feels that since land
uses in the area surrounding the runway extensions will be greatly impacted, this information should
be included in the letter to the Board as another reason to delay action on the Stephens' project until
the Master Plan update is finalized.
Alternate Koch said that the Chico Airport Commission will have to approve the Master Plan, and
recommend that it be approved by the City Council. The City Council will ultimately be deciding
the future of the Chico Municipal Airport.
E. BUSINESS ITEMS:
ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS.
LA. Clarification of Required Condition for DEV99-01 Consistency Finding (Development
Agreement for Robert and Ann.Stephens'/George'Kammerer) on APN 047 -250 -141 -
Commissioner Gerst read Assembly Bill 2920 from 1982, and emphasized that the California League
of Cities states that zoning is not the only criterion the ALUC must consider. He said that the density
set in 1978 CLUP was a minimum lot size of 8,125 square feet, and that ALUC needs to look at it
that way when considering if the Stephens' project is compatible or not.
• ■ Butte County AirportLand Use.Commission ■ Minutes of September 16, 1998 ■ Page 3 ■
Mr. Parilo said the land surrounding the Chico Municipal Airport was zoned A-2 at the time of the
1978 CLUP. In the A-2 zone, a minimum lot size of 6,500 square feet would be possible if both
water and sewer systems were available, and at the time the 1978 CLUP was adopted the A-2 zone
was compatible. He reminded the Commission that ALUC is not looking at SR -1. The plan reflects
that the zoning was A-2 at the time and that that zoning was compatible with the CLUP. The A-2
zone allowed a 6,500 square foot lot size, and this minimum coincides with the Required Conditions
that the Commission included in identifying that future development of the site shall be consistent
with the CLUP. Mr. Parilo referred to the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan A-2 zoning on
page 6-7, and CIC -7 map, which shows the zoning.
Chairman Hennigan said that the existing zoning was A-2, but the existing parcel sizes were at least
40 acres or more. An applicant would have to go through the normal process to subdivide, and would
be required to subdivide to be consistent with Compatible Land Use Zone (CLUZ) V.
Discussion ensued on the land use recommendations under CLUZ V shown on page 8-20 of the Chico
Municipal Airport Environs Plan.
Alternate Koch further questioned whether the adoption of the CLUP changed the zoning, or did the
County change the zoning to comply with.the CLUP?
Mr. Parilo said that the County zoning should have changed to reflect the CLUP, but he wasn't sure
whether thatwas what actually took place. There was a statement in the.plan that stated the zoning
then was consistent with the CLUP.
• Chairman Hennigan said that was a Recommended Condition on the Stephens' property, and should
be Required Condition, because of the 1978 CLUP. He asked what the property was zoned today?
Mr. Parilo said currently SR -1, and the rezoning is to add a planned development.
Chairman Hennigan said that at sometime the County brought the zoning into conformity with the
1978 CLUP. Nina Lambert said that the rezone took place in 1979 or 1980 to SR -1.
Alternate Koch -asked if Commissioner Gerst wanted to remove the 6,500 square foot minimum lot
size comments from the Required Conditions?
Commission Gerst said yes.
Mr. Parilo went on to read page 6-8 from the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan, which read:
The evaluation of the existing county zoning classifications specified for properties located
within the study area revealed the entire area is generally compatibly zoned based on the land
use guidelines set forth in Exhibit 4-4 (Noise Analysis). Specifically, no residential zoning
is located within the 65 CNEL noise exposure contour and only small amounts of low density
residential developments are currently permitted within the 55 CNEL contour. Even the least
compatible R-2 zone, which is located near the 55 CNEL contour, could be judged to be
compatible based on these guidelines if interior noise levels are attenuated to reasonable
levels.
• ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of September 16, 1998■ Page 4 ■
Alternate Papadakis suggested that staff research this and report back to the Commission with their
•findings. 3 .
Mr. Parilo said that as this discussion goes forward. he is sharing staff's preliminary research on this
issue with the Commission. Page 8-20 from the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan 8.3.6 CLUZ
V. reads:
The CL UZ. V category' includes those peripheral parcels which are within the airport
influence area, i.e., within the CNEL 55 boundary. This area requires the least restriction
on development and, for the most part, carries a suitable zoning classification at the present
time.
He said that the suitable zoning was A-2 at the time, and that is how the 6,500 square foot minimum
lot sizes occurred at the August 19, 1998 meeting. The Commission's review under the Development
Agreement concerns the consistency of the 34 units with the CLUP at the time it was placed into
effect.
Commissioner Gerst said that he thinks there was no A-2 zoning left after the adoption of the 1978
CLUP. However, at the time the CLUP was adopted the area was zoned SR.
Alternate Koch said to have a better understanding, he would like to see a copy of the'Code in place
at that time, before changes are made to the Required and Recommended Conditions. Because there
are certain things that tie zones together in terms of what you can and cannot do.
• It was moved by Commissioner Gerst, to amend the Required Condition to read 8,125 square feet as
the minimum lot size, and to delete the 6,500 square feet requirements until such time as a different
evaluation is brought to the Commission.
Commissioner Rosene asked what effect this would have on the County's contract with the Stephens',
and what Mr. Kammerer could do if this happens to pass?
Mr. Parilo said that Mr. Kammerer was aware that this issue was on the agenda today, but could not
attend. He told the Commission that there is not a contract in effect at this time.
There were questions regarding the SR -1 zoning definition at the time of the 1978 CLUP.
The Commission called a meeting break at this time, and Mr. Parilo phoned the office to speak to Ms.
Leasure regarding the zoning in place at that time.
Mr. Parilo reported to the Commission that the 1976 Zoning Ordinance states that under the SR
zoning there was a minimum lot size of 8,125 square feet, except that parcels served by public water
and sewer could be as small as 6,500 square feet if it was an interior lot. If it was a corner lot, it
would have to be a minimum of 7,500 square feet. This Zoning Ordinance Code was revised again
in 1981.
• The motion did not pass for lack of a second:
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of September 16, 1998 ■ Page 5 ■
Alternate Koch suggested moving to Item 1.B. at this time. -
• LB. Discussion of additional information on DEV99-01 (Developmentg Agreement for Robert
and Ann Stephens '/George Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141
Commissioner Gerst referred to State Aeronautics Act Public Utilities Code Chapter 4, Article 3.5,
Government Code`21670 section (1) and (2), which states:
(1) It is 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 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety
problems.
(2) It is the purpose of this article to protect public 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 areas
around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to
incompatible uses.
He said the Commission should refer to Government Code 21670, and address the proposed
expansion of the airport and its impacts on adjacent land uses. He mentioned that without that
information available to the Commission, the Stephens' project should be found inconsistent.
• Alternate Koch agreed with Commissioner Gerst, that the Commission should consider these issues.
However, the expansion of airport facilities is based on a preliminary report by the City of Chico
Consultant, and that the runway extension in fact may never happen. He said that within the next ten
months there is an environmental review, Chico Airport Commission, and City Council discussion
process, and to act now on something that may not happen in the future puts the Commission in a
weak position in terms of how the ALUC actually based their decision. Legally, Alternate Koch did
not think the Commission could change their consistency finding based on something that has not
occurred, and may never occur.
Mr. Parilo said that at the August 19, 1998 meeting, the Commission recommended that the Board
delay any action on the Stephens' Development Agreement until the CLUP is updated. He said that
additional language could be added to make the Board aware that changes in the safety and turning
zones, along with the noise contours are a possibility with future runway extensions.
Chairman Hennigan directed staff to draft a letter to the Board fully explaining the Commission's
concerns involving the possible future expansion. The letter should also include the preambles
discussed at the August 19, 1998 meeting, and describe the essential services provided by the Chico
Municipal Airport including emergency, medical, freight, and passage services, disaster relief, law
enforcement, and natural resource's management.
ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS
0 ■ Butte County Airport ort Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of September 16 1998 ■ Page e 6 ■ g
2. Discussion and Possible Clarification of the Commission's August 19, 1998
• Recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding application of Butte County's
Proposed Flexible Lot Size Ordinance within the Airport Planning Areas
Commissioner Gerst said he would like to make a motion that no more clustering be permitted in the
Airport Planning Areas under the Planned Unit Development (PUD) provision of the Zoning Code.
Chairman Hennigan asked if Commissioner Gerst meant under the existing PUD?
Commissioner Gerst said yes.
Chairman Hennigan said a rezone is required to create clustering via a PUD, and that such a -
legislative action would require the applicant to come before the ALUC for review.
The motion did not pass for lack of a second.
3. Discussion of ,Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for the Airport Land Use
Commission
Chairman Hennigan went over the "Standard Operating Procedures" handout he provided with the
Commission;
"SUBMITTING PROJECTS OR: ACTIONS TO ALUC"Section 2, page 2. He said there
needs to be an organized way for handling projects submitted for review, and that the
• information on "How to Submit" would come from the Planning Department. He went over
the importance of having a routing slip attached to -each project for monitoring staff time to
support the establishment of a future fee schedule.
"FINDINGS" Section 3, page 4. He stated how crucial more specific findings are in the
ALUC review process.a "AGENDAS" Section 4, page 5, and- "CORRESPONDENCE"
Section 5, page 6.
Chairman Hennigan said that when projects are submitted into the department for review, staff should
list them on the Monthly Status Report for the Commission to receive in their monthly packet.
Alternate Koch questioned if Chairman Hennigan's intention was to briefly review this today, and
for it to be placed on October 21, 1998- agenda for a final review when all of the Commissioners are
present.
Chairman Hennigan said yes. In order for the Commission to conduct their business in a more
orderly fashion Chairman Hennigan would like to move toward having a Standard Operating
Procedures Handbook available. He asked the Commission to consider the SOPs, make suggestions
if they had any or add to them.
Mr. Parilo agreed with the idea of the Commission having SOPS, but cautioned that the CLUP is
going to occupy quite a bit of the Commission and staff's time, along with several other obligations
• ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of September 16, 1998 ■ Page 7 ■
that the Department of Development Services currently has. The Commission could make
suggestions along the way to be placed in the SOPS, but it may be sometime before they actually go
into effect. He also mentioned that the contract planner (Laura Webster) should not be involved in
the SOP process, because of her prior responsibilities.
Discussion ensued about adding the length of time that the ALUC meeting tapes should be kept, and
their availability within the Department of Development Services should also be added into the SOP.
It was suggested that Section 9 of the SOP, could be the Keeping of the Minutes and Records for the
ALUC, and that a policy should be written regarding the keeping of the tapes.
4. Report on the Status of the CLUP Update
Mr. Parilo stated that the first item that will be taking place is the Board of Supervisors action on the
contract. Following the Board's action will be adoption of the work program by Caltrans, and
execution of the formal grant agreement. He said that the Auditor cannot sign off on a contract until
there is a funding source in place, and a funding source will not be available until the formal grant
agreement with Caltrans is complete. The City of Chico will decide their participation of $5,000.00,
at their meeting on September 29, 1998. The earliest there could be a signed contract would be
October 6th or 7th.
5. Consideration of the California Pilot's Association Offer of Legal Intervention to Force
the County of Butte to Reinstall the Signs Required as Mitigation for the North Chico
Specific Plan (C.S.A. 87)
Mr. Parilo said that there had not been much change since his report last month. However, the North
Valley Pilot's Association has offered to put funds aside to provide for the long-term maintenance
and replacement :of the signs, but he was not sure if their offer could be accepted. He has spoken
with County Counsel and the County Administrator regarding the reinstallation of the signs. There
are several issues that need to be resolved in order for the signs to be reinstalled:
1. Can they be legally installed in the County right-of-way
2. Identification of a reliable funding source.
Mr. Parilo said that depending on the Commission's action, this could become a closed session topic
with the Board of Supervisors. The sign requirement is a mitigation measure and policy within the
North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP). There are two ways to carry out these mitigation measures:
1. The County can arrange to have the signs installed; ,
2. The signs can be installed one at a time, as development occurs.
Mr. Parilo said the Board of Supervisors could direct that the signs be placed within the locations
under the NCSP, and right-of-way. However, there are two ways that the signs can be reinstalled if
they cannot go in the County right-of-way:
1. Development on private property;
2. The County can acquire lands outside the County right-of-way.
• ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of September 16, 1998 ■ Page 8 ■
Commissioner Rosene brought up that the North Chico Specific Plan stipulates that the signs be in
place. He also said that this should have been done when the plan went into effect.
Mr. Parilo recommended that the Commission notify the Board of Supervisors, and ask them to
implement the provisions of the Specific Plan.
Alternate Papadakis felt that along with the letter to the Board, the minutes to the CSA 87 meeting
should be reviewed. He stated that the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to have the signs
installed during this meeting, and should be reminded of their actions.
It was moved by Commissioner Rosene, seconded by Alternate Papadakis, to write a letter to the
Board of Supervisors reminding them of the mitigation factors for CSA .87, and ask them to
implement the signage that was involved, in ari expeditious -manner.
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Alternates Koch, Papadakis, and Chairman Hennigan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Hatley and Causey
ABSTAIN: None
6. Discussion of City of Chico Response to Commissioner Rosene's August 18, 1998
Correspondence
Commissioner Rosene asked Alternate Koch if the City of Chico had a response to his letter.
Alternate Koch said that the City of Chico did not see the need to respond further. Furthermore, the
court has recently found that the override process was a moot issue, the approval of the City General
Plan stands. It is no longer subject to legal challenge.
Commissioner Rosene said that the override was not handled in an appropriate way, and the findings
were inadequate. He suggested the possibility of involving the Grand Jury to look into whether the
City acted appropriately, and if the guidelines were followed. '
Nina Lambert inquired about the disposition of the California Pilot's Association lawsuit. Chairman
Hennigan said the Judge upheld four of five causes,of action in one specific case. There are grounds
for a suit in the Englebert project. He was not sure what the California Pilot's Association will do
at this point. The California Pilot's Association's Attorneys will be reviewing the judgement, and
decide what the next step will be.
Commissioner Gerst felt that a summary should be made available.
Chairman Hennigan asked that it be placed on the October 21, 1998 ALUC agenda.
G. CORRESPONDENCE
NONE
■ Butte County Airport Land,Use Commission ■ Minutes of September 16, 1998 ■ Page 9 ■
H. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA
(Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by
State Law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on.the agenda)
NONE
Mr. Parilo said that this should actually ,be under the SOP section, but he requested that all additional items
for the October 21, 1998 meeting, be submitted for the agenda no later. than September 30, 1998. The
Chairman will then discuss with staff, what items will be placed on the agenda.
Chairman Hennigan said an informational item would be accepted for the agenda after that date, but nothing
complex because staff cannot respond in time.
I. ADJOURNMENT
There being no .further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:05 p.m.
Chairman Bob Hennigan
ti Minutes prepared by Paula Atterberry, Office Assistant III
• KWLUMUNUTMALUC98\SEPT-16_ WPD
• ■ Butte County Air ort Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of September 16 1998 ■ Pa ■
P . Page 10
�- A
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT ]LAND USE COMMISSION
• V 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965 ■ (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 ■
REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION
Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers
'25 County Center Drive, Oroville California
MINUTES
Date/Time: September 16,1998-9:00 a.m. ! AG AL HA FILE
AGENDA
ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
B. ROLL CALL
C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: August 19, 1998
D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA (Committee members or staff may request additions, deletions, or changes
in the Agenda order)
181E. BUSINESS ITEMS:
Items with Public Hearings
11
047-250-141: The Commission will review and discuss the minimum lot size requirement
which was effective within the Butte County SR (Suburban Residential) zoning district when
the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan was prepared and suggest'modifications to
the referenced condition, if necessary.
Items without Public Hearings
2. Discussion and Possible Clarification of the Commission's August 19, 1998
Recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding application of Butte County's
Proposed Flexible Lot Size Ordinance within the Airport Planning Areas: During the
August 19, 1998 meeting, the ALUC was given the opportunity to comment on Butte County's
proposed Flexible Lot Ordinance. The Commission recommended that the ordinance not be
applied within the Airport Planning Areas until after the updated CLUP has been adopted and
the ALUC has the opportunity to reconsider the ordinance and its application within the Airport
Planning Areas at that time. Commissioner Gerst would like to clarify the recommendation
with the Commission as he feels it did not accurately reflect the intent of his motion.
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
1 -
• 3. Discussion of Standard O ra ing Procedures for the Airport Land Use Commission,
Chairman Hennigan will present materials and suggested procedures for the Commission's
consideration.
4. Report on the Status of the CLUP Update: Staff will provide the Commission with an
update on the status of work program refinements, contract execution and the anticipated
timing of the first Consultant/ALUC Meeting.
5. Consideration of the California Pilot's Association Offer of Legal Intervention to Force
the County of Butte to Reinstall the Signs Required as Mitigation for the North Chico
Specific Plan (CSS This'item was placed on the agenda at the request of Chairman
Hennigan.
I Discussion of City of Chico Response to Commissioner Rosene's Auaust 18. 1998
Correspondence: This item was placed on the agenda, at the request of Commissioner
Rosene.
F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT
G. CORRESPONDENCE
H. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA
• (Presentations will be limited to five, minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by State Law from taking
action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda.)
I. ADJOURNMENT
Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact Paula
Leasure at (916) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you.
*Any person may address the Commission during the "Business From the Floor" segment of the Agenda.
*Copies of the Agenda documents relative to and Agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of $.08
per page.
•
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
2
Ll
RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS •
1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte ALUC
may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chairman at the appropriate time.
2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for "Public Comment' on the agenda.
The Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until a meeting at which the
matter can be put on the agenda.
i
3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon recognition
by the Chair.
4. After receiving recognition, please stand and state your name and address before making your presentation, so
that the Clerk may take down this information.
5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the Commission (original and
seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to the Commission and
made available for public inspection.
This Agenda was mailed to those requesting notice and posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at the
following locations:
Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case.
KAALUC\M EETI NGS\9-16MTG.AGD
'i
y
•
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
3 -
r
COUNTY OF BUTTE
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
Minutes of August 19, 1998
Chairman Hennigan called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m., August 19, 1998, in the Butte County Board
of Supervisor's Chambers, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California.
A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
B. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Koch, Rosene, Hodges, Hatley, Gerst,
Papadakis and Chairman Hennigan
Absent: Commissioner Hatley arrived prior to Agenda Item
E.5.
Alternates Present: Brian Baldridge
Chester Ward
Donald Wallrich
C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES of July 15, 1998.
The Commission had the following corrections to the minutes: On page 2, line 42, the applicant
• acquired the property in 1978 not 1961, and page 4, line 29, the City of Chico adopted their General
Plan in 1994 not 1999.
It was moved by Commissioner Koch, seconded by Commissioner Rosene, and approved to approve
the minutes of July 15, 1998, as corrected.
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Koch, Hodges, Papadakis, and Chairman Hennigan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Hatley
ABSTAIN: None
D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA
It was moved by Commissioner Gerst, seconded by Commissioner Koch, to move Business Item E.3.
to E.1., Business Item E.5 to E.2., and add the Supplemental Agenda item to the end of the Regular
agenda.
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Koch, Hodges, Papadakis, and Chairman Hennigan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Hatley
ABSTAIN: None
• ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Minutes of August 19, 1998 ■ Page 1 ■
•
•
Chairman Hennigan introduced hismew alternate, Donald Wallrich, at this time.
E. BUSINESS ITEMS:
ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items were taken out of order consistent with the Commission actions under
"Acceptance of the Agenda.
3. Possible Amendments to the ALUC By -Laws
It was moved by Commissioner Koch, seconded by Commissioner Papadakis, to approve both
amendments to the By -Laws with the new language presented in Agenda Item - E.3., dated August
11, 1998, regarding Alternate Commissioner Participation at Meetings and Committee Membership.
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Koch, Hodges, Papadakis, and Chairman Hennigan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Hatley
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Hatley was present at this time
5. ALUC Review of Proposed Butte County Flexible Lot Size Ordinance
Mr. Parilo summarized the proposed Flexible Lot Size Ordinance prepared by the Department of
Development Services. I He mentioned that the Planning Commission made a recommendation to
support the concept at their July 23, 1998 meeting, and that it is scheduled to be considered by the
Board at their September 22, 1998 meeting for possibleadoption.
Chairman Hennigan said he would like to see more information from someone with resources like
the University of California Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies, before changing ALUC's
policies near the airport.
Mr. Parilo said clustering will result in a greater amount of Open Space, to which a disabled aircraft
could possibly direct an emergency landing.
Members of the Commission expressed support for clustering in certain locations such as Timber
areas and locations with high fire hazards, but had considerable reservations regarding application
of the ordinance within the airport areas of influence.
It was moved by Commissioner Gerst, seconded by Commissioner Koch, and carried unanimously
that application of the proposed ordinance exclude the adopted Airport Planning Areas until the
Comprehensive Land Use Plans are complete, at which time, the Airport Land Use Commission could
revisit the ordinance and address its application within those areas.
• ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of August 19, 1998 ■ Page 2 ■
• Mr. Parilo questioned if this was a recommendation that the Board specifically preclude .this
ordinance from applying to the airport planning areas?
Commissioner Koch said yes. He also added that after the updated CLUP's have been adopted, as
a secondary issue the ALUC will review and consider application of the Flexible Lot Size Ordinance
within the Airport Planning Areas and may make specific recommendations to the Board that they
change the ordinance in some way.
Mr. Parilo asked that if the Board feels that it should apply the ordinance now, would the ALUC like
to offer any other specific recommendations that the Board could consider including into the Flexible
Lot Size Ordinance?
Commission members responded that without more information from the CLUP consultant or other
credible sources, they did not feel comfortable making specific recommendations and chose to adopt
the motion made by Commissioner Gerst.
Chairman Hennigan directed staff to develop guidelines for addressing cluster development with
airport areas, particularly with the cooperation of the CLUP consultant or pointing the ALUC to the
proper resources, such as copies of studies other agencies have produced.
1. ALUC File No. A98-09 (Butte County Use Permit UP98-27 - Ruddy Creek Partnership)
on APN 030-360-082, 083 and 084
• Ms. Webster summarized the Staff Report for the project.
Commissioner Gerst questioned the accuracy of the site map and how it was produced regarding the
location of the Inner Turning Zone.
Ms. Webster stated that the site map was prepared by the County's Geographic Information System
(GIS) staff based upon Figure 9G in the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, and she believed
it to be accurate.
Commissioner Gerst recommended if the project was to be approved that the project be set on four
units per acre, and not worry about eliminating lots or spaces from the southwest corner of the
property.
Chairman Hennigan opened the hearing to the public
Chuck LaFlamme, Ruddy Creek Partnership, said he was present today to answer any questions the
Commission might have regarding his project.
Commissioner Rosene questioned the construction of the manufactured homes.
Mr. LaFlamme said they are high in quality, and comparable to a site built single family home. The
exterior walls should be 2x6 construction, R30 installation, and double glazed windows. He
mentioned that,a factory in Sacramento will probably be doing the construction of these homes.
• ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of August 19, 1998 ■ Page 3 ■
• Commissioner Rosene brought up safety concerns if an emergency landing was to take place. He also
wanted to known the construction of the walls, and if Mr. LaFlamme had any concerns with the noise
levels, because the project is located beyond the 55 dB range.
Mr. LaFlamme said he would find out the information for Commissioner Rosene.
Chester Ward asked if sound proofing the units to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dB could be
made one of the conditions.
The hearing was closed to the public.
It was moved by Commissioner Gerst, seconded by Commissioner Rosene, to find the project
consistent with the 1985 Oroville Airport Comprehensive Land Use. Plan, subject to the following:
A. The project density should be reduced to not more than 4 dwelling units per acre.
B. The property owner shall sign an avigation easement granting the right of continued use of
the Oroville Municipal Airport in the airspace above the subject parcel and acknowledging
any and all existing or potential airport operational impacts.
C. An advisory notice shall be written into the rental agreement for all future tenants which
notifies them of the project's location in proximity to the Oroville Municipal Airport and the
potential for noise related impacts associated with flight operations. A signature line shall be
provided which indicates the tenant's acknowledgment of the notice - and waiver from
• . initiating future litigation against the Oroville Municipal Airport.
D. Residential dwelling units shall be designed and constructed to achieve an interior noise level
of 45dB.
E. All projects lighting shall be directed within the project site and shielded to prevent adverse
impacts on adjacent properties and aircraft flight activities.
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Hatley, Hodges, Papadakis, and Chairman Hennigan
NOES: Commissioner Koch
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
2. Butte County Development Agreement (DEV99-01 - Robert and Ann Stephens/George
Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141
Ms. Webster summarized the Staff Report and Draft Agreement.
Mr. Parilo said that in previous presentations to the Board the applicant's representative committed"
to a requirement that ALUC review the Tentative Map for the 34 units, however, the current draft of
the agreement does not say that.
• ■ Butte County Airport ort Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of August 19 1998 ■ Pa ■
gu e 4 g
• Ms. Webster suggested the removal of the top portion of Section 3, Item J. of the recommended
conditions, because the agreement is connected to the completion of the CLUP update. She also
recommended that the second half of Item J. be modified to delete the current procedures language,
and that it be replaced with "the applicants previous commitment to the Board of Supervisors
regarding Airport Land Use Commission review of the tentative subdivision map for the 34 "density
transfer units" (DTU's)."
Commissioner Papadakis asked if the promise of an easement for drainage by the applicant, could
be the reason the ALUC is reviewing this project again?
Mr. Parilo stated that an easement has nothing to do with a recommendation for finding of
consistency. However, the applicant is offering an easement to the County for purposes of creating
a canal, along the western portion of the property. A drainage bypass canal from Keefer Slough to
Mud Creek could possibly be the solution to drainage problems in the area. At this time, the issue
being addressed is flooding within the North Chico Specific Plan Area. The Department of Public
Works is currently engaging in a planning process with the Corp. of Engineers to develop a solution.
The earliest that a plan will be in effect will be a six months to one year time from the time the Corp.
of Engineers starts their planning effort in October of this year.
Commissioner Gerst suggested holding off on the project until there are answers to the problems that
exist in that area.
Mr. Parilo pointed out that it is ultimately a policy decision for the Board of -Supervisors.
• Commissioner Koch asked if the Commission finds this project inconsistent, would the Board have
to make an overriding finding?
n
u
Mr. Parilo said that this was a legislative action and if the Commission finds it inconsistent, they
would have to state why. Then, the Board would have to make overriding findings to approve the
agreement.
Commissioner Gerst feels that the project is inconsistent with the 1978 CLUP, and the Commission
could make that finding. He would like the new CLUP to be completed before making a decision.
Chairman Hennigan opened the hearing to the public
George Kammerer, Attorney and representative for the applicant, said there have been several
conditions added to make the project consistent with the current 1993 Caltrans Handbook. He
pointed out that not only is it.consistent with the 1978 CLUP, but also with requirements specified
within the Caltrans Handbook. He wanted to clarify that the terms of the development agreement
regarding the subdivision map for the additional 34 units will be modified so that the project will
voluntarily be brought back to ALUC for review. He said that the applicant will agree with the two -
acre limitation in the Inner Turning Zone as proposed by staff.
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of August 19, 1998 ■ Page 5 ■
Chairman Hennigan read a letter dated August 19, 1998, to the Chairman from Wendy Coggins, a
imember of the City of Chico Airport Commission, on questions and concerns she had with the
development of the Stephens property.
Barbara Hennigan presented a copy of a map used by the Board when they made overriding findings
to adopt C.S.A. 87, and an accident scatter map for the Chico Municipal Airport that is based on the
Caltrans Handbook.
Mr. Kammerer stated the project is shown as potentially affected by the accident scatter map.
However, the scatter map is theoretical not actual. He noted that on page 9-17 of the Caltrans
Handbook based per acre in the Inner Turning Zone with a runway length of 6, 000 feet or more there
is a three hundredth of 1% chance that an accident would occur.
Chairman Hennigan mentioned that the best thing that could happen is an extension of the runway
at the Chico Municipal Airport, in which case the project would become sideline property instead of
approach zone property.
Mr. Kammerer agreed. He finther stated to the Commission that he is here today for ALUC to find
the proposal consistent with the 1978 CLUP, but welcomed the Commission to make
recommendations to increase airport land use compatibility.
Chairman Hennigan suggested that an 8,125 square foot minimum lot size be established as a
requirement of consistency with the 1978 CLUP.
• Mr. Parilo noted that the minimum lot size was tied to the type of sewage disposal that is provided
and that the minimum would be 6,500 square feet if the lots were serviced by a public sewer system.
Mr. Parilo also brought up the fact that a Tentative Map is not required to be reviewed by ALUC.
Once an action has been found consistent with the CLUP, ALUC has no jurisdiction. However, the
applicant is giving ALUC jurisdiction on the 34 units. This concession should be reflected in the
Development Agreement.
•
The hearing was closed to the public.
Chairman Hennigan suggested that a preamble be prepared describing the essential services;
emergency, medical, freight, and passage services, disaster relief, law enforcement, and natural
resource's management that the Chico Municipal Airport makes possible and to request the Board
not act until the CLUP has been completed.
Commissioner Koch said that the emphasis on the preamble should be that the Master Plan and CLUP
process are underway.
It was moved by Commissioner Rosene, seconded by Commissioner Hodges, and carried
unanimously that a recommendation be made that the Board of Supervisors delay action on the
Development Agreement until the new CLUP is complete, and that a preamble be added describing
the essential services provided by the Chico Municipal Airport as listed above.
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 9 Minutes of August 19, 1998 ■ Page 6 ■
LJ
0
There was discussion of the 'recommended conditions listed in Section 4, and the Commission's
• changes to several of them. The Commission also discussed the concept that if the 34 units were
found to be inconsistent. The agreement could be modified to allow those units to be transferred to
some other property within the Specific Plan area if the applicant would give up the right to a Board
override, and agree to ALUC having the final project review.
Mr. Kammerer said that as a show of good faith the applicant would be willing.to do that.
It was moved by Commissioner Hodges, seconded by Commissioner Papadakis, that the project be
found consistent with the 1978 CLUP subject to the following:
Required Conditions:
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.
Recommended ' Conditions:
A. Residential development shall be restricted to those portions of the 126 acre SR-l/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.
. 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.
• ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of August 19, 1998 ■ Page 7 ■
• 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.
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 vyith 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 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.
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Hatley, Hodges, Papadakis, and Chairman Hennigan
NOES:
Commissioner Gerst, Koch, and Rosene
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. Consultant Selection for Butte County Comprehensive Airports Land Use Plan
There was discussion of the staff recommendations, and Commission's options.
Chairman Hennigan recommended that there be additional updating to the City of Chico Noise Study.
• ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of August 19, 1998 0 Page 8 ■
9 •
• Commissioner Koch stated that the Airport Manager will not recommend the Airport Commission
approve funding for an additional Noise Study, because the City does not believe it is necessary.
However, if additional funds are needed for the CLUP the City may be interested in contributing to
that.
Brian Baldridge questioned the cost of the City's FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study?
Commissioner Koch stated the cost of the Study was $110,000.00.
It was moved by Commissioner Koch, seconded by Commissioner Rosene, to recommend Option
1; that the Board of Supervisors approve the selection of Shutt Moen Associates as the consultant for
preparation of the Butte County Comprehensive Airports Land Use Plan for a contract amount equal
to the full amount.of the CAAP grant allocation ($81,000) and a total project amount of $90,000
(including a 10% staff. "in kind service" match) and to remove the non grant eligible item of preparing
airport diagrams for the two privately owned airports from the work program.
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Gerst, Rosene, Koch, Hatley, Hodges, Papadakis, and Chairman
Hennigan
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
• The Commission then discussed the option of having the Chairman write a letter to the Chico Airport
Commission requesting to' enter into negotiations to provide funding for the evaluation of the noise
calculations used in the.FAR Part 150 Noise Study and that the item be placed on their next agenda
for discussion.
It was moved by Commissioner Rosene, seconded by Comissioner Papadakis, to enter into
negotiations with the City of Chico Airport Commission to fumnd the update for the evaluation of the
noise calculations used for the Chico Municipal Airport in the FAR Part 150 Noise Study.
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Hatley, Hodges, Papadakis, and Chairman Hennigan
NOES: Commissioner Koch
ABSENT:, None
ABSTAIN: None
6. ALUC Review of Procedures for Staff Courtesy Comments to Agencies
Chairman Hennigan would like to have a list of all projects that "come to the ALUC for Courtesy
Comments. This list should give the date, project, and what became of it.
Mr. Parilo mentioned integrating this information into the Correspondence Log. He also brought up
that all the lead agencies have been notified to refer projects to the ALUC Staff for consistency
• ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of August 19, 1998 ■ Page 9 ■
•
• findings when they are required. Courtesy Comments would show as incoming correspondence, and
staff's responses would indicate what took place as outgoing correspondence.
7. ALUC Response to City of Chico Letter dated July 2, 1998 regarding Chico Municipal
Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program
Commissioner Koch submitted an additional letter to the Commission regarding an error in the City
of Chico's review of the Chico Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program. A
Notice of Correction is attached which was mailed to the FAA, explaining the error, and clearly
showing that the ALUC has not approved the study. The City also requested that the FAA advise
the City of Chico if there are any.impacts on the Record of Approval for the FAR Part 150 Studies
as a result of these corrections. Commissioner Koch told the Commission that when the City gets a
response back from the FAA he will inform the ALUC.
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA
8. Update on North Chico Specific Plan Signage
Mr. Parilo advised the Commission that the C.S.A. 87 funding source that provides for traffic and
drainage fees were used to install signs notifying existing and potential residents about airport
operations and potential impacts. The signs were ordered, and then installed -on July 23, 1998.
However, as installation was taking place the County received several calls, raising concerns
regarding the effect of the signs on property values.
• On July 29, 1998, a Public Works employee reported that one of the signs had been pushed over,
apparently by vandalism. Then, Public Works was contacted to discuss the overall issue of how they
maintain the signs and funding for reinstallation. Currently, there is no money within the C.S.A. 87
account, and no other funds available to earmark for this purpose. Because of the unanswered
funding issue, the action taken was to remove the signs until a program for long term maintenance
could be developed, and the question of funding could be answered.
There were questions as to how the signs were installed, who could install them and who has to pay
for the signs.
Mr. Parilo said because they are in the County right-of-way, they are installed in the ground without
cement, in the event that a car should. hit them, and for liability and standards. used in the placement
of signs, only County Workers can install the signs in the right-of-way. Payment of the signs comes
from people who develop property within the North Chico Specific Plan Area. So, as land is
developed, conditions are app
lied, a fee is paid, and those Rinds go to creating and installing the
signs. There is no fund for maintenance.
Commissioner Koch asked why the airport signs are not becoming Public Works signs once
installation has taken place. Other signs installed by the County or by a developer become the
ownership of the Department of Public Works. The Department of Public Works pays for them
somehow, or it comes out of their normal budget.
• ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of August 19, 1998 ■ Page 10 ■
Mr. Parilo said that this was a requirement of the Specific Plan. It is not a requirement of the Streets
and Highways Code that these signs be installed. The source for the requirement is different.
Commissioner Rosene asked how many signs they installed and how many have they removed ?
Mr. Parilo said that eight signs were installed. One was knocked over and the other seven remaining
signs were removed.
Commissioner Rosene believes that the people or person responsible for vandalizing the signs should
be punished, and the signs should not have been removed.
Commissioner Koch said he is the Risk Manager for the City of Chico, and that Steve Musselman
is the Risk Manager for the County. He said that the City and the County are self-insured. He
mentioned that they both have the money at their disposal in those self-insured funds to replace
damaged vehicles, damaged signs, and damaged public property. He feels that the signs should be
up, and if they are knocked down, Steve Musselman should be notified, and he could take care of it
through those funds.
Mr. Parilo said there needs to be a normal funding source identified. At which time the County would
repair, restore,. or provide the proper maintenance required for those signs. Mr. Parilo also said
another option was to have the signs installed on private property, and require that the developers of
the private property provide for .the ongoing maintenance of those signs.
. Brian Baldridge asked who's decision it was to remove the signs?
Mr. Parilo said the Public Works Department.
Commissioner Papadakis asked about increasing the developer's fee to cover any replacement costs.
Mr. Parilo said that there was nothing wrong with establishing a fee, but a fee has not been
established at this time.
Chairman Hennigan said that we have a condition that is not being mitigated.
Mr. Parilo said the Planning Commission expressed that some lots are being sold and the signs should
be up, but there needs to be -a way of installing all of the signs at once. The Board put a system in
place to purchase and install the signs, but there are no ongoing funds available for repair or
reinstallation.
Commissioner Koch asked why the debit account that is setup can not continue to be used towards
the purchase and installation of the signs. The signs could be reinstalled, and whatever maintenance
that occurs could be debited against that account. As more development occurs out there, it would
help pay back that traffic account.
Chairman Hen igan questioned why only County employees can put up.signs?
• ■ Butte County,Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of August 19, 1998 ■ Pae 11 ■
� g
•
0
• Mr. Parilo said because the signs are within the County right-of-way.
Brian Baldridge asked Mr. Parilo if there is a mechanism for a nonprofit organization to make a
donation to pay for the installation of a complete set of replacement signs?
Mr. Parilo said he would like to think'so, but it hasn't really been looked into at this time. He said
there ,would have to be some kind of agreement with the Board of Supervisors to accept those kinds
of funds. He would look into it.
Commissioner Koch said that most public agencies have donations, legacies and bequest procedures,
that let.either the Chief Administrative Officer or the Governing Board accept the money.
.Brian Baldridge said we could work on that.
F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT
Item #2. Cellular Tower Ordinance:
Chairman Hennigan,asked if the Ordinance covers more than just Cellular Towers
Mr. Parilo_ said this would cover all types of towers.
G. CORRESPONDENCE.
• Commissioner Rosene said that Bob Koch gave him information regarding the City of Chico's
override of ALUC during 1994 General Plan update. A copy was sent to the Planning Department,
and a letter was written to Bob Koch requesting additional information. A copy of Commissioner
Rosene's letter was given to each Commissioner and staff for their information. He said it could be
discussed at the next meeting.
Chairman Hennigan asked Commissioner Rosene if he would like this item on next month's agenda.
Commissioner Rosene said yes.
Ms. Webster mentioned that John Franklin had ,contacted her this week regarding the status of the
Paradise Airport Layout Plan and that he is. in the process of coordinating with Shutt Moen Associates
to contract independently with them to prepare his layout plan for Caltrans acceptance.
Brian Baldridge said that Gary Griggs, owner of Ranchaero Airport, asked him to inform the
Commission on the status of his airport. Both parties have signed the agreement and he is waiting
for FAA approval at this time. Gary Griggs asked for,an update on the proposed county ordinance
that was requested by the Commission. He wanted to know the status.
Ms., Webster said.on the Monthly Status Report we have shown that there have been difficulties in
completing draft revisions. The revised version of the ordinance will be forwarded to theALUC once
it has been completed.
• ■ Butte County Airport Land Use -Commis sion ■ Minutes of August 19, 1998 ■ Page 12
• H. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA.
(Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by
State Law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda)
NONE
I. CLOSED SESSION
NONE
'J. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m.
Chairman Bob HeMee"
Minutes prepared by Paula Atterberry, Office. Assistant III
K:\ALUC\MrNUTES\ALUC96\AUG19-9g.WPD
• ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of August 19, 1998 ■ Page 13 ■
■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 ■
REGULAR MEETING NOTICE OF THE COMMISSION
Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers
25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California
Date/Time: August 19, 1998 - 9:00 a.m. AGENDA & AUNUTEs
ALPHA FILE
SUPPLEMENTAL -
AGENDA
BUSINESS ITEMS
Update on North Chico Specific Plan Signage A brief oral report by Tom Parilo
regarding status of airport notification signs located in the North Chico Specific Plan area.
(This request was received August 11, 1998 and could not have been included in the
regular agenda which had already been posted. It will take a 2/3 vote of the total
Commission to determine that a need for immediate action exists, If 2/3 of the
Commission is not present, a unanimous vote of those present is required.)
Any disabled person needing special.accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact
Paula Leasure at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you. _
*Any person may address the Commission during the "Business From the Floor" segment of the Agenda.
*Copies of the Agenda documents relative to an Agenda'item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of
$.08 per page.
RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte
ALUC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chairman at the appropriate time.
2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for "Public Comment" on the
agenda. The Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until a meeting
at which the matter can be put on the agenda.
3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon
recognition by the Chair.
4. After receiving recognition, please stand and state your name and address before making your presentation,
so that the Clerk may take down this information.
5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the Commission (original
and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to the
Commission and made available for public inspection.
Posting Locations: Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case
K:%LUC%MEETINGS%UG 19.09BW GENADD. WPD
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
BUTTE COUNIk AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965 ■ (916) 53&7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 ■
REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION
Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers
25 County Center Drive, Oroville California
Date/Time: August 19, 1998 -9:00 a.m.
AGENDA
ALL ITEMS ARE' OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
B. ROLL CALL
C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: July 15, 1998
D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA (Committee members or staff may request additions, deletions, or
changes in the Agenda order)
E. BUSINESS ITEMS:
Items with Public Hearings
1. ALUC File No. A98-09 (Butte County Use Permit UP98-27 - Ruddy Creek
Partnership) on APN 030-360-082, 083 and 084: A request for consistency
findings fora use permit to create a 156 space manufactured housing community
to be operated as a mobile home park on property zoned AR. (Agricultural
Residential). The project site is located on the southeast corner of Feather Avenue
and 18th Street (Thermalito). Staff recommends that the Commission find the
project consistent with the 1985 Oroville Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
2. Butte County Development Agreement (DEV99-01 - Robert and Ann
Stephens/George Kammerer) on APN 047-250-141: A request for Consistency
Findings fora 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 of Hicks Lane immediately adjacent to
the Chico Municipal Airport, generally between Keefer Slough and Mud Creek.
Staff recommends that the Commission find -the project consistent with the 1978
Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan.
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
3. Possible Amendments to the ALUC By -Laws: * The Commission will consider
amendment of the current By -Laws to address participation by Altemates in
Commission discussions and staff membership on Commission Subcommittees.
This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Chairman Hennigan.
Items without Public Hearings.
4.- Consultant Selection for Butte County Comprehensive Airports Land Use
Plan: Staff and the Airport Land Use Commission Subcommittee recommend that
the firm of Shutt Moen Associates be selected to prepare the Butte County
Comprehensive Airports Land Use Plan. The Commission's recommendation will
be forwarded to the Butte County Board of Supervisors.
5. ALUC Review of Proposed Butte County Flexible Lot Size Ordinance: The
Commission will review and comment on the proposed ordinance prepared by the
Butte County Department of Development Services, Planning Division to allow
"clustered" development patterns where appropriate within the County.
6. ALUC Review of Procedures for Staff Courtesy Comments to Agencies: This
item -was placed on the agenda in response to the request made by the
Commission during the July 15, 1998 meeting.
7. ALUC Response to City of Chico Letter dated July 2. 1998 regarding Chico
Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program: This item was
placed on the agenda at the request of Chairman Hennigan.
F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT
G. CORRESPONDENCE
H. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA
(Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by State Law from
taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda.)
I. CLOSED SESSION
NONE
J. ADJOURNMENT
Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to
contact Paula Leasure at (916) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you.
"Any person may address the Commission during the "Business From the Floor" segment of the Agenda.
*Copies of the Agenda documents relative to and Agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at
cost of $.08 per page.
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
0
RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ,
r
1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of
Butte ALUC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chairman at the appropriate lime.
i
2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated foci' Public Comment" on
the agenda. The Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until
a meeting at which the matter can be put on the agenda.
3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of brat agenda item, upon
recognition by the Chair.
4. After receiving recognition, please stand and state your name and address before making your
presentation, so that the Clerk may take down this information.
5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Cieik of the Commission
(original and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents 'shall be disMbuted to
the Commission and made available for public inspection.
'i
This Agenda was mailed to those requesting notice and posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at
the following locations:
Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case. ,
• 't
A:18-19-98.MTG\8-19-98.AGD `
r
T
1� •
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
I
} .
• BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
'MINUTES
A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
B: ROLL CALL {
PRESENT: Commissioners Lambert, Rosene, Causey, and Gerst, Alternate Koch and
Chairman Hennigan
ABSENT: Commissioner Hatley
ALSO PRESENT: Laura Webster, ALUC Staff
Paula Leasure, Principal Planner ' -
Brian Baldridge (Alternate)
John Papadakis (Alternate)
Chet Ward (Alternate)"
Diana Shuey, Secretary.
Stacey Joliffe, City of Chico Senior Planner `
Jim Mann. .'
C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:. June 17;1998
It was moved by Commissioner Lambert,'seconded by Alternate Koch; and carried unanimously
for approval of the minutes as submitted." Y
D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA
It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Causey, and carried
unanimously to accept the agenda as presented
E. BUSINESS ITEMS:
.Y
Items with Public, Hearings ,
1. Request for Con sistency ALUC File No:. A98-08 - (City of Chico
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, General Plan Amendment and Rezone
for.Stonecreek Subdivision - Drake) on APN 048-043-012, 014 and 015:
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to divide 18 acres into 89 single family lots.
A General Plan Amendment from Offices to. Low Density Residential and a
Rezone from RP (Residential -Professional) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) is
necessary to accommodate the proposal. The project site, is located on the south
side of Eaton Road, between Eaton Road and East Lassen Avenue. The project
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - July 15, 1998 - Page 1
E
•
•
area is bisected by Ceres Avenue. Staff recommends that the Commission find
the project inconsistent with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan.
Ms. Webster summarized the agenda report, noting that a finding of inconsistency with the Chico
Municipal Airport Environs Plan and incompatibility with the viable. responsible operation of the
Chico Municipal Airport is recommended.
There was a discussion of height of the approachsurface and the fact that due to ground slope,
the distance may be even less than 250 to 300 feet in height.
HEARING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Stacey Joliffe, Senior Planner for the City of Chico was present to answer questions and receive
comments.
Jim Mann, the applicant's representative was present. He said that the applicant, Dan Drake, has
owned the property for some time and feels that residential use of the property would be
economically preferable to office uses: He was in favor of landowners being able to transfer
development rights and was in: favor of being able to satisfy ALUC requirements and still make
money on the property.
Chairman Hennigan asked if the reason for the zone and general plan change request is
• economic.
Mr. Mann said the applicant wants an economic return on the property and thinks it would be
better to have residential lots than a mix of residential and office uses.
Alternate Koch said the City of Chico staff is opposed to the project and he would vote against it.
Ms. Joliffe said as part of the initial study, staff is reviewing an EIR which was done in 1994 and
may be used for this project. In the EIR noise was found to be a problem and staff has similar
concerns about noise on this project.
John Papadakis noted that property around the airport lies within different jurisdictions and there
are problems with consistency from the different jurisdictions.
' Chairman Hennigan asked what was the zoning on the property when the applicant acquired it.
Ms. Joliffe said in 1994 the zoning was Neighborhood Commercial and in addition the Specific
Plan limited the property to only office uses.
Chairman Hennigan said the property was zoned A-40 when the applicant acquired it in 1978
and the property was appraised accordingly. The elevation of the site is higher in relation to the
approach surface than is at first apparent. He said the earlier zoning and general plan restrictions
• Butte County Y . Airport ort Land Use Commission minutes - Jul 1 S, 1998 - Page 2
g
• 0
Ak on the property were ignored when the property was rezoned in 1979. He recommended making
even tighter findings of inconsistency for the project that what is already written in the staff
report. He noted that the state recommends no greater than 60 dB CNEL on residential property
and Butte County is even more restrictive with a limit of 55 dB CNEL. This property is between
60 and 65 dB CNEL. There is also periodic use of air tankers and military training flights with
their single event noises. Chairman Hennigan also thought a reference in the findings should be
made to accident scatter as per the Caltrans Handbook.
Commissioner Gerst noted that according to information provided at the Visalia workshop; an
adjustment of 10 points can be added to measured CNEL in dB for suburban or rural
communities remote from large cities and industrial activity and trucking.
Chairman. Hennigan agreed that a penalty can be added due to the existing generally quiet
environment.
Commissioner Gerst recommended that the findings of the staff report address the issue of more
restrictive noise requirements than, what is required by zoning. He read from. the California
Municipal Law Handbook, published by the California League of Cities, which states that ALUC
can impose broader restrictions than required by. simple zoning.
Chairman Hennigan noted the same point is made by the Chico Municipal Code which contains
an overlay zoning which lists uses not allowed in the proximity of the airport.
• It was moved by'Commissioner Rosene, seconded by Commissioner Causey, and carried
unanimously to make the findings of inconsistency pursuant to Exhibit A of the Agenda Report
dated June 29, 1998, and also to include as additional findings the items which have been
brought up during this discussion.
2. Adoption of a Policy Establishing an Official Address for the Airport Land
Use Commission: This item was placed on the agenda by Chairman Hennigan.
Ms. Leasure said that discussion of this item needs to, be held as a public hearing since ALUC
policy is under discussion. She explained that mail which should be received by ALUC is
sometimes not received if it is addressed to the Butte County Planning Department. She
recommended that the various people and agencies which correspond with ALUC be notified
that they must specifically address'their correspondence to ALUC. .
Alternate Koch recommended that. the letterhead clearly indicate the correct address.
Chairman Hennigan recommended that for work on specific projects, a routing slip be used to
record who has possession of a document and the time and date received.by that person and
• Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - July 15, 1998 - Page 3
• forwarded to the next person. He said such a record of actual a on times spent project would help
p p J p
in justifying a fee schedule.
It was agreed that only projects would need such a record, not all correspondence.
It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, .seconded by Commissioner Causey, and carried
unanimously to adopt as an official address: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission, 7
County Center Drive, Oroville, California 95965, and direct various agencies to use the address,
and to include use of a routing slip and time keeping for projects and to change the letterhead to
reflect the changed address.
Items Without Public Hearings
3. Reconsideration of Deficiency. Findings Adopted the Ci of Chico when
adopting the 1994 General Plan: This item was placed on the agenda by
Commissioner Rosene.
Commissioner Rosene said this item was tabled during the MOU discussions with the City of
Chico and has not reappeared on the agenda since the MOU attempt failed. He said he would
• like to see a copy of.the findings which were made; he would like to know if a public hearing
was held related to those findings; and he would like ALUC to consider either revisiting the
subject or closing the discussion of the subject of the deficiency findings.
There was discussion of the ongoing disagreement between ALUC and the City of Chico
regarding the necessity for the City of Chico to submit projects for ALUC review. Other items
discussed included whether or not valid over-riding findings were made by the City during
adoption of the 1994 General Plan, if there was proper public notice of the meeting at which such
findings were made, and, if it is too late to challenge the validity of the findings.
Ms. Joliffe said the issues under discussion have been addressed by the City of Chico attorney
and she was not prepared to reiterate the attorney's opinion.
Alternate Koch said City staff has been directed that only General Plan Amendments, Rezones or
Specific Plans require ALUC review. In the opinion of the attorney for the City of Chico all
legal requirements were met for the over-riding findings.
There was more discussion of whether the timelines have passed to challenge the over -ride;
whether a new hearing should be held by ALUC in order to invite the City of Chico to provide
more information about the over -ride; whether there is no statute of limitations if there was no
41 Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes -July 15, 1998 - Page 4
• public hearing and no action, the ongoing lawsuit by the California Pilots Association; the failure
of the MOU as an interim solution; and, the urgency for completion of the CLUP's.
Ms. Leasure noted that available staff time for ALUC proj ects is limited and staff would not be
allowed additional time to work on non -mandated items.
Chairman Hennigan suggested holding a public hearing and making a finding that the Brown Act
was not satisfied when the over-riding findings were made by the City of Chico.
Alternate Koch suggested that Commissioner Rosene could be given the documentation on the
findings that he has requested and if Commissioner Rosene feels it is insufficient to answer his
concerns, then he can request that discussion of the findings be put back on the ALUC agenda for
public hearing.
Commissioner Rosene said that would be acceptable to him.
There was discussion of the, Floral Avenue project, which did not come to ALUC for review, but
would not normally come for ALUC for review anyway since it is not a legislative act.
Alternate Koch said the Floral Avenue project was not intended to go to ALUC, but only to the
Plannning Division for their comments.
• Ms. Leasure explained that requests for courtesy comments are handled briefly and provided
with standard conditions. According to prior direction from Tom Parilo, requests for courtesy
comments have not been presented for formal review and input by ALUC. She explained that
courtesy requests are handled briefly whereas projects coming to ALUC would require staff
analysis.
Commissioner Rosene felt that itis important for the ALUC budget to be sufficient for ALUC to
be able provide input on projects as necessary to protect the airport.
Ms. Leasure said the budget is based on mandatory requirements of ALUC which does not
include courtesy requests for comments. The Floral Avenue project did not involve a legislative
act. There would need to be additional funding if staff is required to review and present projects
which are not subject to mandatory review.
There was a discussion of ALUC wanting to be able to comment on anything in the airport planning area
or at least being made aware of the courtesy requests.
It was moved by Alternate Koch, seconded by Commissioner Lambert, and carried unanimously to put a
discussion of projects coming to ALUC for comment, on the August 19, 1998, . agenda and ask to Tom
Parilo to attend the meeting.
• Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - July 15, 1998 - Page 5
Ms. Webster noted that no proposals have been received as yet although one is expected, by the deadline of
4:00 p.m. today. She said five firms were sent the RFP and that if there are no responses, the firms will be
contacted as to the `reason they did not respond. She noted that Christa Engle of Caltrans was pleased with
the RFP.
F
Ms. Leasure said the RFP was written along the lines of those of other counties.' She said staff could
extend the deadline.
There was consensus that staff should extend the deadline for responses to the RFP if necessary.
Commissioners Gerst and Rosene volunteered to be members.of the sub -committee to review proposals
for preparation of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT
Regarding the Visalia workshop, there was consensus to direct staff to prepare a letter for the Chairman's
signature to the Pilot's Association thanking Brian Baldi-idge for providing transportation to the workshop.
Ms. Webster'reported on items of interest at the Visalia workshop.
Regarding Item #11, it was noted that the paragraph about Ranchaero Airport is incorrect in that the
General Plan for Chico in relation to the Ranchaero airport was found to be consistent and therefore only
legislative actions need ALUC review.
Ms. Leasure reported that the signs noticing the Chico Municipal Airport required by the North Chico
Specific Plan should be installed sometime in July and their locations are designated in the North Chico
Specific Plan. She noted that the ALUC comments on cellular towers were submitted to Planning staff,
which is working on the proposed ordinance.
Commissioner Gerst'said the requirements for painting and lights on cellular towers are inconsistent.
a.
Ms. Leasure said the consistency of requirements for cellular towers could be discussed at a Planning staff
meeting.
G. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - July 15, 1998 - Page 6
• s _
•
John Papadakis asked about the status of the Chico Master Plan Technical Advisory Committee.
Alternate Koch said the first meeting of the committee is tentatively scheduled to be held at 3':30 p.m. on
September 3, 1998 in Conference Room One.
H. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Bob Hennigan
Minutes by Diana Shuey
KAALUCVAYNUTESUULY-DS. WPD
•
•
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - July 15, 1998 - Page 7
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND US8 COMMISSION
■ Department of Development Services ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 ■
REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION
Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers
25 County Center Drive, Oroville California
DatefTime: July 15, 1998 - 9:00 a.m.
AGENDA
ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
B. ROLL CALL
C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: June 17, 1998
D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA (Committee members or staff may request additions, deletions, or changes.
in the Agenda order)
E. BUSINESS ITEMS:
Items with Public Hearings
Request for Consistency Findings ALUC File No. A98-08 - (City of Chico Vesting
Tentative Subdivision Map:, General Plan Amendment and Rezone for Stonecreek
Subdivision - Drake) on APN 048-043-012, 014 and 015: Vesting Tentative Subdivision
Map to divide 18 acres into 89 single family lots. A General Plan Amendment from Offices
to Low Density Residential and,a Rezone from RP (Residential -Professional) to R-1 (Single
Family Residential) is necessary to accommodate the proposal. The project site, is located
on the south side of Eaton Road,. between Eaton Road and East Lassen Avenue. The project
area is bisected by Ceres Avenue. Staff recommends that the Commission find the project
inconsistent with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan.
Commission: This item was placed on the agenda by Chairman Hennigan.
Items Without Public Hearings
3. Reconsideration of Deficiency Findings. Adopted by the City of Chico when adopting
the 1994 General Plan: This item was placed on the agenda by Commissioner Rosene.
4. Selection of a Sub -Committee to review proposals submitted for preparation of the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan:
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT '
G. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA
(Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by State Law from
taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda.)
H. ADJOURNMENT
s
0
■ Butte County ■.Airport Land Use Commission ■
Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact Paula
Leasure at (530 538-7601) prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you.
*Any person may address the Commission during the "Business From the Floor" segment of the Agenda.
*Copies of the Agenda documents relative to an Agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of $.08
per page.
RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte ALUC
may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chairman at the'appropriate time.
2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for "Public Comment' on the agenda.
The Commission may'not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until a meeting at which the
matter can be put on the agenda.
3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon recognition
by the Chair.
4. After receiving recognition, please stand and state your name and address before making your presentation, so
that the Clerk may take down this information.
5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the Commission (original and
seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to the Commission and
made available for public inspection.
This Agenda was mailed to those requesting notice and posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at the
following locations:
Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case.
K:\P LA N N I N G1AL U C\M E ET I N G SU U LY 15917-1598.AG D
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
MINUTES
June 17, 1998
A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
B. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Commissioners Lambert, Gerst, Rosene, and Hatley and Alternate
Koch and Chairman Hennigan
ABSENT: Jim Causey
ALSO PRESENT: Thomas A. Parilo, Director Development Services
Laura Webster, ALUC staff .
Diana Shuey, Secretary
Brian Baldridge (Alternate)
Chet Ward (Alternate)
Nick Ellena, Chico Enterprise Record
C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: May 20, 1998
The Commission had the following corrections: On Page 2, lines 12 and 13, delete the words: The motion
1"Das seconded by Commissioner-Gerst." On Page 2, lines 15 and 16, delete the words: "but there was
o second and replace with: "but he declined the nomination and seconded the nomination of
Commissioner Lambert."
It was moved by Alternate Koch, seconded by Commissioner Lambert, and carried unanimously for
approval of the minutes of May 20, 1998, as corrected.
D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA
Brian Baldridge asked to speak on a proposed subdivision on East Avenue which was not reviewed by
ALUC.
Chairman Hennigan suggested that the Public Comment period would be the appropriate time for Mr.
Baldridge to present his comments on the matter.
E. RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION: Resolutions of appreciation have been prepared for
John Franklin, Allen Campbell, Ron Bulber, and John Papadakis for their efforts as
Commissioners or Alternate Commissioners of the Airport Land Use Commission. Staff is
requesting the Commission adopt the proposed Resolutions.
Commissioner Lambert noted that John Papadakis will continue to serve as her alternate on ALUC.
*was moved by Alternate Koch, seconded by Commissioner Rosene, and carried unanimously for
adoption of the Resolutions of Appreciation for John Franklin, Allen Campbell and Ron Bulber.
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
0
• BUSINESS ITEMS:
Items with Public Hearings
1. Request for Consistency Findings ALUC File No. A98-07 - (Butte County General Plan
Amendment and Rezone GPA#98-04 - Faria) on APN 048-040-028: General Plan
Amendment from High Density and Low Density Residential to Commercial and a Rezone
from R4 (High Density Residential) and SR (Suburban Residential) to C-2 (General
Commercial), located on the east side of Cohasset Road, approximately 650 feet north of
East Avenue. Staff recommends that the Commission find the project consistent with the
Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan.
Ms. Webster summarized the staff report, noting that the applicant has since modified the proposal from
C-2 to C-1, which will lessen the density. She noted that the proposal would eliminate the potential for
residential development of the property.
It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Alternate Koch, and carried unanimously to make
the findings and adopt the conditions listed in Exhibit A of the Agenda Report dated June 2, 1998.
Items without Public Hearings
. 2. Request for information from the Federal Aviation Administration (EAA� The
FAA is seeking new ideas regarding how to better influence land use decisions
around airports in order to encourage and help State and local governments achieve
and maintain land use compatibility. Staff is requesting comments from the
Commission to forward to the FAA by June 22, 1998.
Commissioner Gerst suggested that when FAA guidelines are not followed, that the further funding not
be provided to the entity not following the guidelines.
Alternate Koch said there is a process in place to address violations of the guidelines.
Commissioner Gerst suggested that the FAA be alerted to the need for the guidelines being followed.
Commissioner Rosene suggested that the FAA provide an information bank on an Internet website to
make technical information available to local agencies to use in their own planning.
Commissioner Hennigan said there is a problem with the existing procedure on compliance with FAA
guidelines since it is negative. Compliance is assumed unless it can be proved that there is not
compliance. He thought it would be better to have an affirmative program wherein compliance must be
demonstrated or certified. He noted that denial of airport funding can effectively "kill' an airport. On the
other hand, with the principle of cross compliance, not just airport funding is withheld, but rather all federal
Wnding is withheld if there is not compliance, which protects the airport from being singled out for loss of
ding.
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
Oommissioner Gerst agreed with the Chairman's comments.
Commissioner Lambert recommended that there be more public disclosure, in order to reduce complaints
about airports. She suggested having maps available showing flight tracks and working with real estate
companies to make buyers aware of airports.
Commissioner Hennigan summarized the suggestions as being the need to strengthen public disclosure
and the accessibility to information.
Commissioner Rosene said mapping of flight tracks for Realtors is a good idea.
Commissioner Hennigan noted that only the areas of most dense flights can be indicated.
Mr. Parilo said that underlying zoning must be disclosed prior to a sale of property. He said the new
CLUP's could have overlay zoning that can be translated into zoning. The CLUP's-would have to be
implemented through compatible zoning. He said the FAA could encourage adoption of overlay zones.
Mr. Baldridge suggested that the FAA make available an informative video or CD ROM describing what
the FAA wants and needs regarding land use.
There was consensus that Chairman Hennigan would work with staff to compose a letter to the FAA
pressing the ideas discussed above.
3. Discussion of Standard Operating Procedures. In order to establish orderly
project processing and communication - with project applicants, and other
governmental agencies, standard procedures need to be developed. This item was
placed on the agenda at the request of Chairman Hennigan.
Chairman Hennigan said he would like to have a simple handbook of information on ALUC procedures
available. He would like people to be aware of ALUC procedures and not have project proponents be
surprised and delayed by ALUC review. He suggested having a three ring binder which would include
such information as how to get an item on the ALUC agenda. He would like to have a correspondence
log with only the most important items being copied for the Commissioners in their packets., He would
like to have a description of the CLUP's and a description of the annual update process for CLUP's. He
would like a description of how to make findings of consistency or inconsistency.
Commissioner Lambert suggested that developers should be notified early in the review process if their
project will need ALUC review:
Commissioner Lambert said that there should be information on what is necessary to make adequate
gal findings.
ii Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
•
•
•
Commissioner Hennigan said there should be a way to communicate with an applicant in the early stages
of the application in order to be helpful and informative without making a commitment. He visualized
compiling ideas into a draft document that could evolve over some time before being adopted.
Mr. Parilo said the CLUP's will address some of the items being mentioned. He noted it is important that
the types of projects which require ALUC review for each airport be identified. He said review
requirements for each airport are different because some airports have updated consistent documents.
Mr. Parilo noted staff time is limited and ALUC consider whether Ms. Webster's time is better spent
working on the CLUP process or standard operating procedures. She has currently worked twice as
many hours as originally projected on the mandatory functions. He recommended that Ms. Webster not
devote time to details that might be generated by the CLUP process.
Chairman recommended that staff and commissioners keep notebooks on ideas for standard operating
procedures and deal with compiling the procedures at a later date.
Mr. Parilo noted that a log is being kept of all ALUC correspondence, which can become part of the
monthly status report.
• (From Supplementary Agenda)
4. Butte County Specific Plan Amendment #97-01 (Kammerer) and Butte County General
Plan Amendment 97-02 on APN 047-250-141: This proposal is an amendment to the North
Chico Specific Plan changing the land use designation on approximately 187 acres located on
the west side of Hicks Land, approximately 1 mile south of Keefer Road, in the north Chico Area.
This item was found inconsistent by the Airport Land Use Commission on November 11, 1997.
This proposal has been modified and has not been referred back to ALUC for consistency
findings. This item is on this agenda for discussion. (Hennigan)
Mr. Parilo went over the recent history of this project.
Alternate Koch said the Chico Airport Commission was opposed to any residential development on the
property. That recommendation has not changed and will be reiterated at the Board of Supervisors
hearing.
Commissioner Hennigan was in favor of the Board of Supervisors postponing any decision on the project
until such time as the best alternative for the property can be created. He noted there has been talk of
relocating Hicks Lane and of creating a series of flood meadows to retain and convey floodwaters. He
thought there could be a solution of having industrial uses and at the same time solving flooding problems..
16e said that ALUC had thought industrial uses would be appropriate for the property but the outdated
LUP precluded such uses. He recommended the Board of Supervisors hold off on any action until a well
thought "win-win" solution can be achieved.
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
a
•
Commissioner Rosene said the project has been through so many changes that ALUC should review the
project again at some point. The land could be used in such a way as to enhance the airport.
Alternate Koch said the City of Chico manager's position is that nothing should happen until the CLUP is
complete.
Commissioner Gerst was in favor of waiting until the CLUP is complete. He mentioned that air tankers
fly low over the property at 200 feet.
Chairman Hennigan said the air tankers fly over the property for practice runs and to jettison their loads
and Aero Union engineers experiment with drops from new tanks.
Mr. Parilo noted the North Chico Specific Plan has assigned certain densities to properties_ which might
apply pressure for approval on the Board of Supervisors.
Alternate Koch asked if George Kammerer had received notice of today's meeting.
Mr. Parilo said that Mr. Kammerer was supposed to have been notified of today's meeting.
d
airman Hennigan recommended that the Board of Supervisors review the requirements needed to over -
e ALUC findings and remind them of the need for a super majority vote. The Board should also refer
to Exhibit A of the North Chico Specific Plan which is the scatter map used for accidents which indicates
accidents over this piece of property.
It was moved by Commissioner Gerst, seconded by Commissioner. Rosene to send a letter to the Board
of Supervisors from Mr. Parilo, requesting the Board not take any action until the CLUP and the Master
Plan for the airport are updated. Also, ALUC would like an opportunity to review and comment before a
final decision is made by the Board if they decide to take action on the project, and that they review the
requirements for them to overrule the ALUC's findings.
G. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT
Ms. Webster said the CAO has been designated as the person to sign the agreement with Caltrans for
the Caltrans Grant for CLUP preparation.' (#1) She said Caltrans comments on the RFP and airport layout
plans were received. -The RFP was updated and returned to Caltrans. The RFP has been distributed to
a list of consultants whose responses are due by July. 15.
Alternate Koch asked if the Commissioners can have copies of the RFP.
�. Parilo said copies of the RFP can be provided ,to the Commissioners.
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
Ms. Webster said Caltrans comments on the deficiencies in the Paradise and Ranchaero airport layout
plans. She said Gary Griggs is working on the new plan for Ranchaero airport. (#2)
Mr. Parilo recommended attendance at the; Visaliaworkshop.,.
Brian Baldridge offered air transportation to anyone wishing to attend the Visalia workshop. (#3)
At this time Chet Ward was introduced as Commissioner Gerst's new alternate.
Mr. Parilo reported on the status of signage for the North Chico Specific Plan. He said the money for the
signs will come from the ALUC/Planning Division budget although reimbursement may be possible from
developers. He said no funds have yet been generated by the NCSP and yet lots are being developed
and there are no signs up as yet. --
Commissioner Rosene requested that the signs be placed in highly visible locations. (#4)
Mr. Parilo said Craig Sanders will participate in the Chico Master Plan Technical Advisory Committee from
the Planning Division.
�
mmissioner Rosene recommended that Ms. Webster should attend the Master Plan Committee
etings as part of her paid time.
Mr. Parilo said he would explore the possibility of Ms. Webster attending the Master Plan meetings and
would discuss the issue with her employers.
Alternate Koch said the Master Plan Committee would meet 4 or 5 times for 2 to 3 hours. (#8)
H. CORRESPONDENCE
I. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA
Mr. Baldridge said he attended a City of Chico Planning Commission this past Monday (June 15, 1998)
and was surprised to see a tentative subdivision on the agenda for approval which is near the approach
zone of the airport and was not sent to ALUC for review.
Commissioner Hennigan asked staff to investigate the proposed subdivision and report back to ALUC at
the next meeting. .
Mr. Baldridge said urgency may be an issue. He said it appeared the project would be approved subject
to review by ALUC regardless of ALUC's comments on the project. It was said that' -without an MOU,
LUC's comments are irrelevant.
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
{
Alternate Koch asked that the Commissioners be supplied with an updated roster of the new ALUC
members and alternates.
J. ADJOURNMENT.
Chairman Bob Hennig
Minutes by Diana Shuey
•
•
K:\PLANNINGWLUC\MINUTESWLUC98UUNE98.WPD r
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
fJGE7?A4 9/%GLnit7�s
BUTTE COUNTY V Tib Al"OIE T LAND USE COMMISSION
■ Department of Development Services ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 ■
REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION
Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers
25 County Center Drive, Oroville California
Date/Time: June 17, 1998 -9:00 a.m.
AGENDA
ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
B. ROLL CALL
C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: May 20, 1998
D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA (Committee members or staff may request additions, deletions, or changes
in the Agenda order)
E. RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION: Resolutions of appreciation have been prepared for
John Franklin, Allen Campbell, Ron Bulber, and John Papakakis for their efforts as
Commissioners or Alternate Commissioners of the Airport Land Use Commission. Staff is
requesting the Commission adopt the proposed Resolutions.
F. BUSINESS ITEMS:
Items with Public Hearings
1. Request for Consistency Findings ALUC File No A9"7 - (Butte County General Plan
Amendment and Rezone GPA#98-04 - Faria) on APN 048-040-028: General Plan
Amendment from High Density and Low Density Residential to Commercial and a Rezone
from R4 (High Density Residential) and SR (Suburban Residential) to C-2 (General
Commercial), located on the east side of Cohasset Road, approAmately 650 feet north of
East Avenue. Staff recommends that the Commission find the project consistent with the
Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan.
Items without Public Hearings
2. Request for information from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) The
FAA is seeking new ideas regarding how to better influence land use decisions around
airports in order to encourage and help State and local governments achieve and
i\ ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
maintain land use compatibility. Staff is requesting comments from the Commission
to forward to the FAA by June 22, 1998.
3. Discussion of Standard Operating Procedures, In order to establish orderly project
processing and communication with project applicants, and other governmental
agencies, standard procedures need to be developed. This item was placed on the
agenda at the request of Chairman Hennigan. 4
G. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT
H. CORRESPONDENCE
1. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA
(Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by State Law from taking
action on any item presented if it isnot listed on the agenda.)
J. ADJOURNMENT
Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact Paula
Leasure at (916) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you.
*Any person may address the Commission 'during the "Business From the Floor" segment of the Agenda.
*Copies of the Agenda documents relative to and Agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of $.08
per page -
RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte ALUC may
do so upon receiving recognition from the Chairman at the appropriate time.
2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for "Public Comment" on the agenda. The
'Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until a meeting, at which the matter can
be put on the agenda
3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon recognition by the
Chair.
4. Atter receiving recognition, please stand and ;state your name and address before making your presentation, so that the
Clerk may take down this information:
5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the Commission (original and seven
copies) prior to Call of Omer of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to the Commission and made available
for public inspection.
This Agenda was mailed to those requesting notice and posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at the
following locations: y
Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case.
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ -
s S
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES
• May 20, 1998
A. Pledge of Allegiance
C. Roll Call '
Present: Commissioners Rosene, Hennigan, Gerst and Hatley, Alternates
Hodges and Koch and Chairman Franklin
Also Present:- Thomas A. Parilo, Director of Development Services
Laura Webster, ALUC Staff
Diana Shuey, Secretary
Nick Ellena, Chico Enterprise Record,
B. Introduction. of New Commissioners (selected,by Board of Supervisors and City
Selection Committee) -
Commissioners Rosene andHatley were introduced by Chairman Franklin.
D. Approval of Minutes of March 18, 1998. -
The Commission had the following correction: On Page 5, line 8, the word "Master" was misspelled.
It was moved by Alternate Koch, seconded by; Commissioner Hennigan, and carried unanimously for
approval of theminutes of March 18, 1998 as corrected.
• • H. - Acceptance .of the Agenda
' There was a consensus to select the Public Member prior to nomination and election of Chairman and
Vice -Chairman. '
F.. Nomination and Election of Public Member
Commissioner Gerst nominated Nina Lambert to be Public_ Member. The nomination was seconded
by Commissioner Rosene.
• Alternate Koch nominated John Franklin to be Public Member. There was no second.
In response to a question regarding the necessity to second a nomination, Mr. Parilo said the Bylaws
do not address that issue, but normally, a second would be required especially with more than one
nomination.
The vote was unanimous for Nina Lambert to be the Public Member at Large.
E.. Nomination and Election of Chairman'and Vice -Chairman
Chairman Franklin conducted -the selection of the new Chairman and abstained from voting. Newly
appointed Commissioner Lambert participated in the voting.
' Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - May 20;.•1998 -Page 1
• It was noted that the Vice -Chairman normally becomes the Chairman but in this case, former Vice -
Chairman Allen Campbell is no longer an ALUC_ member.
Commissioner Gerst nominated Commissioner Hennigan to be Chairman. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Rosene.
The vote was unanimous for Commissioner Hennigan to be Chairman. Commissioner Hennigan took
John Franklin's place as Chairman.
Alternate Koch noted that the Vice -Chairman is required by the Bylaws to have served on ALUC for
one year. He nominated Commissioner Lambert to be Vice -Chairman.
Commissioner Lambert nominated Commissioner Gerst to be Vice -Chairman, but he declined the
nomination and seconded the nomination of.Commissioner Lambert.
The vote was unanimous for Commissioner Lambert to be Vice -Chairman.
G. Introduction of Laura Webster, Pacific Municipal Consultants
Mr. Parilo introduced the new ALUC staff person', Laura Webster.
A description of the arrangement, which has been worked out with Pacific Municipal Consultants for
the period from April 1 to June 30, 1998, was distributed.
• Mr. Parilo summarized the arrangement with Pacific Municipal Consultants. He said the contract will
provide the.immediate services to support the mandated responsibilities. There is a primary emphasis
on coordinating the update of the CLUP's for all four airports. ' Ms. Webster has established contact
with,the Division of Aeronautics staff of Caltrans to secure additional grant funds and in coordinating
the RFP process, which must be completed prior to soliciting proposals from consultants. Mr. Parilo
said that after this first three months period, a contract will be negotiated for the following year, which
will coincide with the County's budget year. Mr. Parilo asked that any direct contacts regarding
administrative issues be directed to Paula Leasure, or in her absence, Mr. Parilo. He recommended
that Ms. Webster's time be directed toward supporting the mandated responsibilities rather than
administrative issues. Ms. Webster will advise staff when reviewing projects, or changes to a General
or Specific Plan, or areas around the airports where the General plan is not in conformity with the
current CLUP. Ms. Webster will attend all meetings and coordinate update of the CLUP's.
Ms. Webster introduced herself and described her background.
There was a discussion on the level of experience available in Airport Land Use Planning by Pacific
Municipal Consultants.
Mr. Parilo noted that any planner who has worked with, public agencies has had involvement with
airport planning, since every community has at least one public use airport, so there is a general
familiarity with Airport Land Use Planning.
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - May 20, 1998 - Page 2
• Alternate Koch said that ALUC has expressed a desire to have staff which has extensive or specialized_
experience in Airport Land Use Planning -- not'just generalized experience. He said ALUC has
discussed specialized training for staff. He asked if money has been set aside for training and who
would be taking the training if any -- Ms. Webster or Ms. Leasure?
Mr. Parilo said specialized training would be funded separately as part of the annual budget that has
been prepared.
Chairman Hennigan noted there are courses offered by the University of.California and Caltrans that
would be relevant and should be included in the budget and included -in Ms. Webster's schedule.
Mr. Parilo said under the first contract the essential components of the mandate should be emphasized,
but under a long term relationship, specialized training should be a component.
y
L. Closed Session
i
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision of Section'54956.9.
One potential case:
Mr. Parilo said according to County Counsel the two parties involved in the litigation have come to +
• an agreement and are in the process of signing the agreement, so County Counsel has asked that the
Closed Session be postponed to the following meeting in case the two parties do not '"reach an
agreement.
Chairman Hennigan said that in addition to the litigation, there is -the issue of the County Code. He
asked if that issue could be discussed in Open Session.
Mr. Parilo agreed issues relating to the County Code could be discussed in Open Session, but would
have to be placed on the Agenda. He noted that ALUC has previously given staff direction to work
4
with County Counsel on amending the County Code so the provisions of the current code would apply
to all the public use airports. At the next meeting, draft language could be provided to amend the code.
and an ordinance change could be requested of the Board of Supervisors'
Commissioner Hennigan said the language is unclear in the code -= using "airports" in the plural but
only referring to one airport -- Chico Municipal Airport. Also the code does not cite specifically the
standards contained in the Federal. and State codes, which should be incorporated into the language
of the code, either by reference or explicitly. Also, there should be an enforcement mechanism.
Mr. Parilo said at the next meeting draft language can be provided addressing those concerns. He
noted that Neil McCabe of County Counsel's office, has been working with both attorneys in the
litigation, and -the situation appears very hopeful for resolution.
I. Business Items
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - May 20, 1998 - Page 3
ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS - -
None
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA
Appointment to the Chico Municipal Aimort Master Plan Technical Advisory
Committee (TAQ The Chico Airport Commission has requested the Butte County
Airport Land Use Commission consider appointing., -a representative to serve on the
Chico Municipal Airport Master Plan Technical Advisory Committee. The appointee
should have a technical or practical background in aviation and airport related matters.
Alternate Koch said the Chico Airport Commission has invited a representative from ALUC to
participate in work on the Chico Municipal Airport Master Plan Technical Advisory Committee as a
voting member. The County Planning staff was also invited to send someone as an ex -officio member.
Commissioner Lambert nominated Chairman Hennigan to be the representative. The nomination was
seconded by Commissioner Gerst. The selection was approved by the following vote: ,
AYES:. Commissioners Lambert, Gerst, Rosene, and Hatley and Alternate Hodges and Chairman
Hennigan
NOES:. 0 -
ABSTAIN: Alternate Koch
ABSENT: 0.
Commissioner Rosene suggested that Ms. Webster be included in the TAC as the Planning staff
person.
Mr. Parilo said he would confer witli Tom Larido and Alternate Koch as to whether they would prefer
someone purely from the Planning Department. He agreed it would be good to have Ms. Webster
involved with the TAC, but budget -resources would have to be allocated.
Commissioner Gerst asked if meetings on the Master Plan for the, Chico Municipal Airport are open
to the public...
Alternate Koch said that is correct.
ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC,HEARINGS
1. Review of proposed Bylaws, Version -No. 9: Review of proposed Bylaws for.
operation of the Airport Land Use Commission. The proposed Bylaws have been
amended to reflect staffing. _ p'
Mr. Parilo said draft N6.9 of the Bylaws is ready for review.
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes --May 20, 1998 Page 4
• Commissioner Gerst referred to Page 4, line 44, regarding "unexcused absences" and how to handle
a vacant seat.
There was a discussion of the paragraph, but no agreement was reached on modifying the paragraph
and it was left unchanged.
Alternate Koch recommended that the word "proxy"wherever it appears be replaced by the word
"alternate" for the sake of consistency.
It was moved by Alternate Koch, seconded by Commissioner Hatley, and carried unanimously to
replace the word "proxy" to "alternate."
Alternate Koch said that on Page 6, line 30, the wording is unclear regarding Special Meetings. He
said the wording in the second sentence about "the chair may call a special meeting" should be deleted
since the second sentence is about a meeting being called by the Commissioners.
It was moved by Alternate Koch, seconded by Commissioner Gerst, and carried unanimously to use
the following wording: "A special meeting may be called upon a majority vote of the Commissioners
at a regularly scheduled meeting."
Commissioner Gerst said the first paragraph on Page 5 is confusing and contradictory.
Mr. Parilo said that Section 1.3.1 of the Bylaws covers the members representing the cities of the
• County and does not identify an elected official as that member.
It was moved by Commissioner Gerst, seconded by Alternate Koch for deletion of lines one through
three at the top of Page 5 since membership is covered by the Public Utilities Code.
•
Chairman Hennigan noted that the membership of ALUC includes applicable sections of the State
Code by reference on Page 3. He read aloud from PUC 21670 that "public officers whether elected
or appointed may be appointed and serve as members of the Commission during their terms of public
office."
There was consensus that the Bylaws should not attempt to reinterpret the PUC section.
The motion for deletion of lines 1-3 at the top of Page 5 was unanimously carried.
Alternate Koch suggested that on Page 7, "Acceptance of the Agenda" be included in the "Order of
Business."
There was consensus to include "Acceptance of the Agenda", after "Approval of Minutes."
Chairman Hennigan noted that the Bylaws can be amended by the Commission at any time, if there
are any items which Commissioners wish to include at a later date.
Commissioner Lambert suggested including wording at this time about amending the Bylaws.
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - May 20, 1998 - Page 5
Y
• Mr. Parilo recommended including the paragraph on amendment of the Bylaws from the current
Bylaws,-- which could be handled -without requiring circulation for minor changes. He said the
Bylaws could be circulated if the Comrriission so desires.
Alternate Koch summarized the wording from draft No.7 of the Bylaws regarding amendment of the
Bylaws'and requiring circulation.
It was moved by. Alternate Koch, seconded by Commissioner Lambert, and carried unanimously, to
amend Draft No.9 of the Bylaws to incorporate ARTICLE VI of the current Bylaws, which says:
"These Bylaws may be amended, revised or repealed at any regular meeting of the Butte County
ALUC by a vote of 4 of the members of.said Commission."
Chairman Hennnigan noted that any change to the Bylaws would be placed on the Agenda and receive
public notice as required by .the Brown Act.
It was moved by Alternate Koch and seconded by Commissioner Hatley to adopt the Bylaws as
presently amended.
Mr. Parilo asked if the signature of -the Vice -Chair would be necessary on theBylaws.
Alternate Koch amended his motion on approval of the Bylaws to eliminate the signature of the Vice -
Chair on Page 10. The amendment of the motion was seconded by Commissioner Hatley.
There was consensus that references to code sections (which • are shaded) should be retained in the Bylaws, but the editorial notes (which are also shaded) should be deleted. .
The Bylaws'as presently amended'were adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Gerst, Rosene, and Hatley, Alternates Koch and Hodges and Chairman
Hennigari. ,
NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Lambert '
ABSENT: 0 -
J. Public Comment on items not on the agenda.
Commissioner. Lambert congratulated ,Commissioner Rosene, on, his appointment and thanked the
Commission- for their years' of cooperation. 'She presented ' Commissioner Gerst with a token of
appreciation for his dedication to the Commission. .
K. ALUC Monthly Status Report,
(Item #3)
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - May 20, 1998 - Page 6
• 0
• Ms. Webster said that 'she would notify the Chico Airport Commission of Chairman Hennigan's
appointment to the City of Chico's Airport Master Plan Technical Advisory Committee.
(Item #5)
Mr. Parilo said no budget resources for preparation of the CLUP's were included in the budget which
was submitted since the funding source for the CLUP's is not secured. Once the grant is secured a
budget adjustment can be made. Since the State will pay in various "draws" after work is complete
the actual budget resources will be less than the total amount of the grant.
Chairman Hennigan asked for clarification on the requirement for a secure budget source since
preparation of the CLUP's is mandated by the State.
Mr. Parilo explained that it is a matter of form over substance. He noted that if a consultant is selected
who will exceed the cost of the grant, the Board will have to approve the additional appropriation. He
noted the grant resources are much greater than originally expected, but the true costs are unknown
at this time. Once the true costs are known the Board can be asked for additional budget resources.
(Item #6)
Ms. Webster said in her conversations with Christa Engle she was told the California Transportation
Commission did approve the second request for grant allocation for preparation of the CLUP's which
would be $40,000 added to the original $41,000. As soon as written notification of the grant is
received, it will be forwarded to ALUC. She said staff resources will be acceptable for the 10%
matching funds.
John Franklin, owner of the Paradise Airport, said he discussed the Airport Layout Plans with Christa
Engle and learned that Caltrans does not like the Paradise or Ranchaero Airport Layout Plans. Mr.
Franklin was concerned that unacceptable layout plans for Paradise and Ranchaero airports could delay
the entire CLUP process for all four airports. He was concerned about lack of funds for doing the
layout plans for Paradise and Ranchaero airports and dealing with the frustration of working with the
Caltrans staff in preparing new Airport Layout Plans.
(Item #7)
Ms. Webster said she talked with Ms. Engle about the status of the layout plans and the concerns for
the Paradise and Ranchaero layout plans. The Airport Layout Plan for Chico is not a concern since
a Master Plan is being created. Updating the layout plans for Paradise and Ranchaero could be
included in the RFP for CLUP preparation so the costs could be determined. ALUC could address the
issue of whether the Airport Layout Plans could be funded with the grant funds.
Chairman Hennigan felt the grant funds could be used to revise the Airport Layout Plans since there
is a public interest in the airports. He noted that the Paradise airport is the only one for the town and
is available when the valley is foggy. He encouraged using the funds to revise the layout plans even
though the airports are privately owned.
Ms. Webster said an updated,RFP was submitted to Caltrans and according to telephone discussions
with Ms. Engle, the Aeronautics Program should have very few comments on the updated version once
received. Ms. Engle's comments on the layout plans could be included as a task within the RFP.
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - May 20, 1998 - Page 7
• Alternate Koch asked how significant the modifications to the layout plans would be.
Ms. Webster said there were extensive suggestions from the Caltrans in-house consultant on how the`
layout plans should be improved. Ms. Engle intends to review the suggestions to determine what
would be an absolute necessity versus a good idea of the consultant. Once- correspondence from
Caltrans is received, we will have a better idea regarding the extent of the modifications.
Alternate Koch asked if the Paradise layout plan would need FAA approval.
Mr. Franklin did not think it would need FAA approval. He expressed concern in dealing with the
Caltrans bureaucratic process.
Ms. Webster said she has expressed to Caltrans the urgency of moving forward with the CLUP process
and noted that a letter from Caltrans identifying the specific issues of concern will be very helpful.
Mr. Parilo asked the Chairman to assist staff by taking an active role in working with Caltrans.
There was more discussion of the selection of a consultant and Caltrans involvement in that process.
Commissioner Rosene asked about the status of development in CSA 87 and signage about the airport.
Mr. Parilo said signage is required for development in CSA 87, and is to be'installed upon recordation
of the final maps. Previously lots have been sold, which did not have the benefit of signage.
Mr. Rosene said that at the previous Chico Aviation Commission meeting, members of the public
living near Keefer Road objected to airplane noise. Although they signed avigation easements they
are ready to form a group to combat the airport. If the signs could be installed at least new people
would be aware of the airport.
Chairman Hennigan said ALUC discussed the, signs previously. He asked what progress was made
on getting the signs put up.
Mr. Parilo said apparently the size of the signs created a difficulty in terms of costs. It was thought
that all the signs could be ordered when the first sign is to be installed, which will be triggered by the
first map ready to record. •
Chairman Hennigan said the public education portion of CSA 87 should be implemented. The
mitigations are actually supposed to be completed. He asked Mr. Parilo to report back on the status
of signage at the next meeting.
Mr: Parilo said he would check on the County's ability to front the cost of the signs.
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - May 20, 1998 - Page 8
• Mr. Parilo said apparently the size of the signs created a difficulty in terms of costs. It was thought
that all the signs could be ordered when the first sign is to be installed, which will be triggered by the -
first map ready to record. ;
Chairman Hennigan said the public education portion of CSA 87 should be implemented. The
mitigations are'. actually supposed to be completed.,, He asked Mr. Parilo to report back on the status
of signage at the next meeting.
Mr. Parilo said he would check on the County's ability to front the cost of the signs.
Commissioner Gerst asked if copies of California Pilot could be obtained for Commission members.
• Mr. Parilo said copies could be included in the meeting packets if provided to. County staff.
The Commission approved- of the Monthly Status Report_ provided by staff.
M. -Adjournment
IF
Chairman Robert Hennigan
Minutes by Diana Shuey ,
• • w • y[, T
K:\PLANNING\ALUC\MEETFNGS\MAY20.098\MINUTES.DS
Butte. County Airport Land Use Commission minutes May 20, 1998 - Page 9
+B=IE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION +
■ Department of Development Services ■ 7 County,Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 ■
REGULAR MEETING NOTICE OF THE COMMISSION
Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers,
25'County Center Drive, Oroville, California
Date/Time: May 20, 1998 - 9:00 a.m.
AGENDA
ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Pledge of Allegiance —
B. Introduction of New Commissioners (selected by Board of Supervisors and City Selection
Committee)
C.' Roll Call
D. Approval of Minutes of March 18, 1998.
E. Nomination and Election of Chairman and Vice -Chairman
=. Nomination and Election of Public Member
G. Introduction of Laura Webster, Pacific Municipal Consultants
H. Acceptance of the Agenda (Committee members or staff may request additions, deletions
or changes in the Agenda order.) ,
I. Business Items
ITEMS WITH PUBLIC, HEARINGS
None
ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Review of proposed By -Laws, Version No. 9: Review of proposed By -Laws for operation -
of the Airport Land Use Commission. The proposed By -Laws have been amended to reflect
staffing.
J. _Public Commerit on items not on the agenda.
K. ALUC Monthly Status Report
■ Butte County i Airport Land Use Commission ■
+BUTT E COUNTY AIRPORT ILA USE COMMISSION+
■ Department of Development Services ■ 7 County Center Drive, oroville, CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 ■
L. Closed Session
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION.
Initiation of litigation pursuant*to subdivision of Section 54956.9.
One potential case.
M. Adjournment
ti
•
+BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION+
Department of Development Services ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 ■
REGULAR MEETING NOTICE OF THE COMMISSION
Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers
25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California
Date/Time- May 20, 1998 - 9:00 a.m.
SUPPLEMENTAL CLERK OF THE BOARD
AGENDA
BUSINESS ITEMS
Appointment to the Chico Municipal Airport Master Plan Technical Adviso
Committee. The Chico Airport Commission has requested the Butte County Airport
Land Use Commission consider appointing a representative to serve on the Chico
Municipal Airport Master Plan Technical Advisory Committee. The appointee should
have a technical or practical background in aviation and airport related matters.
Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact
Paula Leasure at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you.
*Any person may address the Commission during the "Business From the Floor" segment of the Agenda.
*Copies of the Agenda documents relative to an Agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of
$.08 per page.
RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte
ALUC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chairman at the appropriate time.
2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for "Public Comment" on the
agenda. The Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until a
meeting at which the matter can be put on the agenda. -
3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon
recognition by the Chair.
4. Ater receiving recognition,, please stand and state your name and address before making your
presentation, so that the Cleric may take down this. information.
5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the Commission (original
and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to the
Commission and made available for public inspection.
Posting Locations: Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case
K\PLANNINGWLUCWIEETINGSVWAY20.098V1GENADD.W PD
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
+B COUNTY ABORT LAND USE COMMISSION +
Department of Development Services7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ' (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 '
MEMORANDUM*
TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission
FROM: Paula Leasure, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Cancellation of April 15, 1998, ALUC Meeting
DATE: April 6, 1998
The April 15, 1998 ALUC meeting is canceled as no projects have been received for Commission review.
The Department of Development Services has retained Laura Webster of Pacific Municipal Consultants
to act as ALUC staff beginning this April. Either TomParillo or Paula Leasure will'attend the meetings
until Ms. Webster is knowledgeable of ALUC, issues.
Mr. Alan Campbell resigned as the City of Oroville Public Works Director. His last day at the city's April
24, 1998. The City Selection Committee has been notified of the'pending vacancy.
If you have any questions, please call between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Butte County' Airport Land Use Commission'
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES
• _ March 18, 1998
A. 'Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
PRESENT: Commissioners Hennigan, Lambert, and Causey, and Alternates
-Rosene, Koch, and Hatley, and Chairman Franklin
'ALSO PRESENT: Thomas A. Pirilo, Director Development Services
Paula'Leasure, Principal Planner
Diana Shuey, Secretary
Fred Gerst.(Commissioner)
Terry Hodges (Alternate)
John Papadakis (Alternate)
Hal Hermes (Alternate),
Nick Ellena, Chico Enterprise Record
i
C. Acceptance of the Agenda '
It was moved by Alternate Koch, seconded by Commissioner Lambert, -and carried unanimously to
include the item on the Supplemental Agenda under the regular Business Items.
•' D. Approval of Minutes of February 18, 1998.
The Commission had the following corrections: On Page 5, line 16, delete the word "were." On
Page 5, line 37, place the sentence about the policy plan in a separate paragraph from the sentence
about the Bylaws. On Page 8;line 35, replace "pay or not" with "approve or disapprove." On Page
10, line 4, delete the word "and" after "ALUC."
It was moved' by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Hennigan, and carried
unanimously for approval of the,minutes as corrected.
E.• Business Items
ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS
NONE
ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS
Consideration of Supplemental Grant Fundin-. The Aeronautics Program will seek additional
funds for the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission to assist in financing Consultant
services for preparation of the Comprehensive Land Use Plans for Chico, Oroville, Paradise,
Airport Lad Use Commission - March 18 1998 - Pae 1
. Butte County rp ng .
W
• and Ranchaero Airports. The Commission needs to advise the Aeronautics Program of the.
type of grant funding they would like to receive. (Supplemental Agenda item)
Workshop for the Consideration of Comments on the Draft Policy Plan dated
October 6,1996. The Draft Policy Plan is intended to be the guideline for the update
of the Comprehensive Land Use Plans. The Policy Plan establishes compatibility
guidelines for noise and safety considerations. (Continued from February 18, 1998)
Chairman Franklin said that he and Ms. Leasure had held discussions with Christa Marie Engle of
Caltrans. Apparently Caltrans feels the policy plan is not a good plan in certain areas, especially in the
language. Ms. Engle indicated a possibility of getting approximately $90,000 to do -all the CLUP's and
maybe a policy plan as well by using a consultant. There are two methods: 1) for Caltrans to provide
"quick money" or 2) Caltrans can go to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) in May
1998, which would create little or no delay since Caltrans will continue working on the RFP and the
scope of work. Discussion of the policy plan may not be an issue at this time, since its original
purpose was to get a start on doing the CLUP's in-house.
Commissioner Lambert asked if that would mean not continuing with the policy plan, in favor of the
CLUP's.
Chairman Franklin said that basically Ms. Engle thinks parts of the draft policy plan are out of date
and there are some inconsistencies. Chairman Franklin thinks a consultant could do the CLUP's and,
in time,, a policy plan as well.
• Commissioner Hennigan agreed the policy plan was preparatory to the CLUP's. The CLUP's are the
goal. The Caltrans Handbook envisions CLUP's as being brought up to date annually, which has,not
been done. An argument against getting a policy plan out of the CLUP process is that the policy plan
would apply to any future airport development, and to remain a significant document, regular updates
would be necessary.. Perhaps Caltrans and the consultant'could make a recommendation as to the need
for a policy plan as a product rather than as a "bridge" to get to the CLUP's.
Chairman Franklin said a policy plan would apply to a new airport. '
Commissioner Hennigan said that likelihood of a new airport is small and the.task of keeping the
CLUP's up to date has overwhelmed ALUC's resources so he was skeptical about keeping a policy
plan up to date.
Alternate Koch said with four new CLUP's in place, any new airport would have examples available.
Chairman Franklin felt that if the Chairman of ALUC works closely together with Christa Marie Engle
of Caltrans and county staff, the CLUP's will get done, but the Chairman needs to stay on top of the
process and be in weekly contact with Caltrans. Caltrans should be held to their timelines..
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission - March 18, 1998 - Page 2
,.
At
•
.7
t
Alternate Koch asked what is needed to obtain the additional money without further delaying the
process.
Chairman Franklin said he has already signed a letter to be sent, with ALUC's approval, asking
Caltrans to request the funding from the CTC. Chairman Franklin said that Ms: Engle will continue
with the RFP and scope of work while requesting the additional money. He emphasized the need to
work closely with Caltrans and pointed out that working with Caltrans and a consultant would be more
efficient than ALUC trying to get the policy plan done and waiting for Caltrans comments. The
Chairman should be involved on a weekly basis with Caltrans.
Mr. Parilo's opinion is that Caltrans is recommending the abandonment of a policy plan in favor of
CLUP's, with each CLUP tailored to the features of the respective airports.
Commissioner Lambert asked if funding for the CLUP's would still need to be included in the ALUC
budget, as discussed at the previous ALUC meeting.
Mr.. Parilo said the cost of professional services needs to be identified and could be budgeted for
$80,000 to $90,000 to cover the cost -of the consultant, also indicating the expected revenue from
Caltrans. Caltrans generally pays at the end of the process, but there may be intermediate draws
possible.
There was consensus that a consultant who Caltrans feels comfortable with, will facilitate the process.
It was moved by Alternate Koch, seconded by Commissioner Hennigan and carried unanimously to
table discussion of the policy plan for six' months.
Ms. Leasure explained that Caltrans can provide 100% of the existing grant of $41,000 with a-10%
matching contribution. -An additional $41,000 would also have to be met with 10% staff time.
It was moved` by Commissioner Hennigan, seconded by Commissioner Lambert, and carried
unanimously to ask Caltrans, to request the CTC for additional funding.
F. Public Comment on items not on the agenda.
'John Papadakis said the Butte County Land Commission will hold an open house at the City of Chico
council chambers on March 30, 1998; from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. regarding the realignment of Highway
32.
G. Correspondence:
H. ALUC Staff Report
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission - March 18, 1998 - Page 3
Ms. Leasure said the request,for an opinion on enforcement of PUC section 21659 at Ranchaero
• airport, has been referred by County Counsel to a Sacramento law firm and there should be a response
by the April meeting. That would include an opinion on the intent of the language of the ordinances
if there was an oversight in not including all airports in the language.
Commissioner Hennigan asked if one of the products of the legal opinion would be a resolution for
the Board of Supervisors to clear up the discrepancy.
Ms. Leasure said that is correct.
Ms. Leasure noted approximately $76,000 in specialized services"has been budgeted for ALUC.
Mr. Parilo followed up on items brought up at the,February meeting. He said according to County
Counsel, it is not appropriate for ALUC to hold a closed session for organizational issues since ALUC
does not have the authority to hire or fire staff. Any concerns could be discussed in an open session.
Based on County Counsel's direction, a closed -session will not be scheduled for April. It would be
appropriate for ALUC to evaluate staff if they wish and forward their evaluations to the Director at the
time of regular staff evaluations. At the present time there are .not staff evaluations coming due.
Commissioner Hennigan asked for an update on ALUC staffing.
Mr. Parito said Mr. Lucas has been reassigned to other duties within'the department and other options
are currently being evaluated to provide primary staff, including assignment of another in-house staff
person, or providing contract staff, which could help avoid 'a possible adversarial role if certain
standards and policies are included in future CLUP's -- which could affect County land planning
issues. There has been concern about having to provide staffing needs while serving the interests of
the County on land use planning issues. The County Administration Office is looking into providing
ALUC with staff which would have greater independence and autonomy. Hopefully a decision can
be made regarding staffing at the April meeting. It has been difficult meeting demands of ALUC while
meeting other demands in the department. Also there has been concern about what items come before
the Commission and are they part of ALUC's mandatory responsibilities under the PUC. Sometimes
there are issues which may not have a direct relationship to the mandatory functions, and a different
structure could help provide a focus and ALUC would know what the budget is, with an actual
demonstration of how time has been spent and costs incurred.
It was moved by Commissioner Hennigan,, seconded by Commissioner Lambert, and carried
unanimously for the Chairman to draft a letter thanking Stephen Lucas for his services, and the two
letters received at this meeting which praise his work with two community groups should be placed
in his record.
• Butte County Airport Land Use Commission -,March 18, 1998 - Page 4
There was_ a discussion of the situation on the Stephens property where ALUCfelt industrialuses
would be appropriate and. the: different point of view from the land use planning perspective, in such
issues as traffic.
Commissioner Hennigan asked for an update on the Northern California Aviation Systems Plan and
,the City of Chico's tMa 'E =an.
Alternate Koch said the contracting procedure is -being completed.with the consultant for the Master
Plan and some preliminary, work hasbegun. The scope 'of work will'include input'at public meetings -
which will be a major emhasis.
Ms.. Leasure said BCAG will begirt work on the NCASP in the 1998-99 fiscal year and will ask ALUC
to, participate.
J. Adjournment'
f;
Ehairman John Franklin
Minutes by Diana Shuey
JADRC\ALUC\M NUTES.WPD
Butte County Airport Air ort Land Use Commission '7 March 18, 1998 Page 5
,. 9
+BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION+
■ Department of Development Services ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 ■
REGULAR MEETING NOTICE OF THE COMMISSION
Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers
25 County Center Drive, Oroville,. California
Date/Time: March 18, 1998 - 9:00 a.m.
AGENDA
ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT .
A. Pledge of Allegiance'
B. Roll Call
C. Acceptance of the Agenda (Committee members or staff may request additions,
deletions or changes in the Agenda order.)
D. Approval of Minutes of February 18, 1998.
E. Business Items
ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS
NONE
ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Workshop for'the Consideration of Comments on the Draft. Policy Plan dated
October 6, 1996. The .Draft Policy Plan is intended to be the guideline for the update of
the Comprehensive Land Use Plans. The Policy Plan establishes compatibility guidelines
for noise and safety considerations. (Continued from February 18, 1998)
F. Public Comment on items not on the agenda.
G. Correspondence: (These items are informational only, if the Commission wishes to take action
on any item it must be assigned to a regular agenda as a Business Item.)
H. ALUC Staff Report
J. Adjournment
Any disabled person needing special accommodafion to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact Paula
Leasure at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you.
'Any person may address the Commission during the "Business From the Floor' segment of the Agenda.
'Copies of the Agenda documents relative'to an Agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the., Commission at cost of $.08
per page.
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
i
+BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION+.
■ Department of Development Services ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 ■
REGULAR MEETING NOTICE OF THE COMMISSION
Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers
25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California
Date/Time: March 18, 1998 -9:00 a.m.
SUPPLEMENTAL
. AGENDA
BUSINESS ITEMS
Consideration of Supplemental Grant Funding. The Aeomautics Program will seek
additional funds for the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission to assist in
financing -Consultant services for preparation of the Comprehensive Land Use Plans
for Chico, Oroville, Paradise, and Ranchaero Airports. The Commission needs to
advise the Aeronautics Program of the type of grant funding they would like to receive.
(This request was received March .16, , 1998 and could not have been included in the
regular agenda which had already been posted. It will take a 2/3 vote of the total
Commission to determine that a need for immediate action exists, If 2/3 of the
Commission is not present, a unanimous vote of those present is required.)
Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact
Paula Leasure at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you:
'Any person may address the Commission during the 'Business From the Floor" segment of the Agenda.
'Copies of the Agenda documents relative to an Agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of
$.08 per page.
RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte
ALUC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chairman at the appropriate time.
2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for 'Public Comment' on the
agenda. The Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until a
meeting at which the matter can be put on the agenda.
3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon
recognition by the Chair.
4. After receiving recognition, please stand and state your name and address before making your
presentation, so that the Clerk may take down this information.
5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk'of the Commission (original
and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to the
Commission and made available for public inspection.
Posting Locations: Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case
,
K\PLANNINGWLUCWEETINGS\MARI8-98.MTGWGENADD.WPD
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
A. Plec
A
r
TE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE -COMMISSION MINUTES=
7 FEBRUARY 18, 1998
.11egiance
ana Haney, ana unairman'rraniain
Absent:, Alternate Koch '
Also Present: Stephen Lucas, Associate Planner f `
Thomas A: Parilo,'Director Development Services -
;Diana Shuey Secretary
Nick Ellena; Chico Enterprise Record
Terry Hodges'(Alternate)
John Papadakis (Alternate)
Hal Hermes (Alternate) r
Clif Sellers, City of Chico
Jeff -Carter, Attorney
C. Acceptance of the Agenda
Commissioner Hennigan announced that his new alternate, Hal Hermes, is present today. He
wanted to -report back on the comparison of the two plans BobKoch was so adamant about being
• the same, and to discuss the University of California extension airport noise class, later on the
Agenda.
D. Approval of Minutes of January"21;'1998.
It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, -seconded by Commissioner Hennigan and carried
unanimously, for approval of the minutes for January 21, 1998. as submitted.,
E. Business Items
ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Butte County Tentative Parcel Map #98-13, APN 030-160-02 1 (Runge): A Request
for Consistency Findings for a tentative parcel map to divide a 6.7 acre parcel into four
lots of. 1. l acres each and a remaining parcel of 2.2acres on property zoned AR located
x
on the east side of Middlehoff I Lane approximately 400 feet north of Wray Ct.,
Thermalito area. Recommended Action: Find Consistent with the Oroville Airport
Land Use Plan.
'Stephen Lucas summarized the staff report.
-----------------
Butte County Airport Lane Use Commission minutes February 18, 1998 Page 1
It was moved by Commissioner Hennigan, seconded by Alternate Hatley and carried unanimously for
approval with the recommended condition for avigation easement.
The following Item Without Public Hearing was taken out of order:
3. Discussion of Operational Status of Ranchaero Airport: The Commission will consider the
request of the Airport Manager to support the protection of the Runway Clear Zone.
Jeff Carter, attorney for Ranchaero Airport, was present with Gary Griggs, the interim manager of
Ranchaero Airport. Mr. Carter updated the Commission regarding the situation at Ranchaero Airport,
noting that the anticipated avigation easements were not granted, the settlement fell through and
litigation was commenced and is now pending. Settlement with the owners is still being discussed with
the owners of the adjacent properties and it is hoped that there will be a settlement. There is a trial date
for April and if it appears settlement cannot be reached they will go to trial. He is not asking ALUC
for intervention with the litigation. His purpose is to remind ALUC of the effect of state law -- PUC
21659 - and to ask what effect is to be given to this law? Caltrans Aeronautics Program has indicated
that it is not an enforcement body for that particular law and has indicated that the law is to be a matter
deferred to local authorities for enforcement. To date, the County has not determined whether it should
vigorously enforce the mandate of PUC 21659. There is a local basis for airport operations set forth
in Chapter 24 of the Butte County Code. Unfortunately it gives little help for Ranchaero Airport,
• because by definition in Chapter 24, airport is defined to mean "Chico Municipal Airport," but Mr.
Carter thinks that the purposes of airport zoning law set forth in Butte County Ordinance would apply
to any public use airport in Butte County. Mr. Carter read the purpose set forth in Section 24.2 of the
Butte County Ordinance.
Sec. 24.2 Purpose of chapter.
The board of supervisors deems it necessary to create an "Airport Air Zoning Ordinance" under and pursuant to
law and particularly the provisions of article 6.5 of chapter 2, division 1, title 5, of the Government Code of the
state known as the "Airport Approaches Zoning Law," for the purpose of promoting the health, safety and general
welfare of the inhabitants of the County of Butte by preventing the creation or establishment of airport hazards,
thereby protecting the lives and property of the users of the Chico Municipal Airport and of the occupants of the
land in its vicinity, and preventing destruction or impairment of the utility of the airport and the public investment
therein in accordance with and as part of any future comprehensive master plan of the airports within Butte
County. (Ord. No. 591, § 1).
Mr. Carter said it seems that those same purposes would apply to any'public use airport in the County
and would be a matter of appropriate concern for ALUC and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Carter said
there is some historical precedence. In research for the pending lawsuit, an old Butte County
Ordinance 364 was stumbled upon. The particulars of the Ordinance as to when it was adopted, or
superseded or repealed are unclear, but Butte County Ordinance 364 basically, likewise restricted
obstructions, whether manmade or natural, in airport safety zones and airport approach surfaces, and
it was made applicable to any airport in the County of Butte that is owned, operated or controlled,
either directly or indirectly by the County of Butte or any agency thereof or any municipality therein,
the State of California, or any agency thereof. Mr. Carter said that any public use airport is of course
controlled, directly or indirectly, by the State of California, and to the extent the County has zoning
lJ
Butte County Airport Lane Use Commission minutes - February 18, 1998 - Page 2
•
ordinances that apply to it, by the County as well. Mr. Carter suggested that ALUC ask the Board of
Supervisors to consider what effect it will give to PUC Section 21659 in the future and likewise maybe
to review Chapter 24, Article I of the Butte County Ordinances to see if it should be broadened to apply
to more airports that just Chico Municipal Airport.
Commissioner Hennigan suggested this issue may be in area where there is no clear responsibility for
enforcement. He said the Board of Supervisors has voted on'two occasions in the past to protect
public use airports. The later document seems to refer specifically to the Chico Municipal Airport..
Although it uses "airports" plurally it is ambiguous. Was Chico Municipal Airport being used as an
example, or did they mean the ordinance to be specific to Chico Municipal Airport? Commissioner
Hennigan said there are two things that need to be done: 1) find out who would enforce this code and
this ordinance, and 2) ask the Supervisors to revisit the code and ordinance and clarify the intent.
Obviously in the old Ordinance 364, it•was clearly the intent to address all airports. In Chapter 24 the
intent is perhaps less clear because they mention Chico Municipal Airport by name,
Mr. Lucas said it was indicated to staff by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics that Public Utility Code
and Government Code sections are the responsibility of the District Attorney's office -- not necessarily
under the local County Code Enforcement Officer involved with the enforcement of County codes.
That issue could be further explored. There may have been contact with the DA's office and maybe
reluctance to proceed with the case. Chapter 24 would be enforced by County Code Enforcement
officers. Regarding Ordinance 364 -- that is a good question -- is it still in force? Research on that
answer was put on hold last year when it appeared that there was a potential resolution without
litigation and it was decided not to go forward in "creating more waves." It may be time to look again
into the question of Ordinance 364.
Commissioner Hennigan moved that ALUC: ask the Supervisors to clarify Chapter 24 of the Butte
County Code, did they mean to use Chico Municipal as an example -- because at other places in the
Ordinance they use "airports" in the plural -- they. should revisit that ordinance and perhaps clarify the
language. Then in a separate action, he made a second motion to clarify the enforcement authority both
of the District Attorney and of the County Code Enforcement Officers so that as this occurs again,
ALUC will know what the procedure is.
Mr. Lucas asked the Commission to inquire of Mr. Carter if he would feel that this action would
jeopardize in any way his current situation.
Mr. Carter said he thought the action would be unrelated to his lawsuit. The specific problem he is
dealing with is already in litigation and will deal with the future of Ranchaero Airport. He thinks there
is a bigger question which would be important for other airports.
Mr. Parilo suggested that ALUC go beyond asking for clarification and request that the Board of
Supervisors consider an amendment to the Ordinance for purposes of clarifying it rather than asking
them to either interpret or clarify the language.
Butte County Airport Lane Use Commission minutes - February 18, 1998 - Page 3
Commissioner Hennigan said that addition would be an improvement to his motion.
Chairman Franklin said that on the other half of the motion, he would direct the District Attorney to
enforce that PUC Section.
Mr. Carter said a violation of the Code Section is indicated in the Code Section to be a misdemeanor.
Commissioner Hennigan agreed with the language about asking the DA to enforce the Code Section.
Mr. Parilo said that perhaps County Counsel should be asked to research the matter to clarify that in
fact the District Attorney has jurisdiction over enforcement of the state code. If that is indeed the case,
then presumably staff could write a letter under the,chairman's signature requesting enforcement.
Chairman Franklin seconded the motion as revised and revised.
The motion was carried unanimously to: request that the Board of Supervisors consider an amendment
to Chapter 24 of the Butte County Ordinance for purposes of clarification (does it refer to all Butte
County Airports or only Chico Municipal Airport) and to ask County Counsel to research the issue
of jurisdiction over enforcement of the state code, and if the District Attorney is responsible, then for
staff to prepare a letter under the Chairman's signature requesting enforcement of PUC Section 21659
by the District Attorney.
2. Consideration of Comments on the Draft Policy. Plan dated October 6, 1996. The
Draft Policy Plan is. intended to be the guideline for the update of the Comprehensive
Land Use Plans. The Policy Plan establishes compatibility guidelines for noise and
safety considerations. (Continued from January 21,.1998)
Mr. Lucas -said that at the previous ALUC meeting it was agreed to accept all comments at this time
and then to establish a March meeting for a workshop. For expediency today, all comments could be
accepted without a line by line discussion at this time, reserving that discussion for the workshop.
Commissioner Hennigan asked if Caltrans has submitted comments on the draft policy plan.
Mr. Lucas said he received a fax yesterday that Caltrans was completing their comments on the policy
plan -- their comments should be available for the workshop.
Commissioner Hennigan said it is important to find out if anyone present wants to comment and then
the oral testimony can be closed and the deadline extended for accepting written testimony.
HEARING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Butte County Airport Lane Use Commission minutes - February 18, 1998 -Page 4
. � r
• John Papadakis asked if this will be the last opportunity, for public.comments.
_ t
There was a discussion. of the time that should be allowed for written comments including those`from
Caltrans:
Mr. Lucas said that if comments are submitted by March 4, 1998, he would have time to prepare any
written -responses and establish a working program for the Commission.
It was moved" by Commissioner Hennigan, 'seconded by Commissioner Lambert and carried
unanimously to establish a March 4, 1998, deadline for written testimony.
Mr. Parilo asked if, according to prior,direction; the Commission wants comments included in the
policy plan as edits or to use the workshop to discuss written comments and then provide staff with
direction to include the comments in some manner.
Chairman Franklin said it would be nice to have the comments in an order that reflects the plan itself.
Mr. Lucas said staff could reproduce the pages where the comments would be applicable without
reproducing the entire plan.
Commissioner Hennigan said that such a.parallel document would-be fine.
Mr. Lucas suggested that for the City of Chic_ o comments, he. could indicate where the numbered
•. comments belong in the, parallel.document. `•
Chairman Franklin said that if the coriments• could be organized in order of the plan and copied and
stapled -- that would be adequate.
Mr. Lucas said staff could organize the comments in the appropriate order so the commissioners can
go page by page -through the policy plan.
The commission agreed that would be fine.
Mr. Parilo asked if discussion of the bylaws should be put off 'to a later meeting.
Chairman Franklin said'the Bylaws should be put off until later.
+ He -suggested ALUC might, let Caltrans know the date of discussion of the policy plan.
Mr. Parilo said staff would let Caltrans know of the extended date for written comments and request
that the comments be provided by the deadline.
Butte County Airport Lane Use Commission minutes - February 18, 1998 Page 5
ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS
•
4. Consideration of Memorandum of Understanding between the Airport Land Use
Commission and Board of Supervisors: At the request of the Chairman, the Director
of Development Services will provide a status report regarding staffing and training
agreements contained in the Memorandum of Understanding.
Chairman Franklin noted the wording of this particular item on the Agenda had been modified from
what he had originally suggested. Also the wording of the letters sent to Caltrans and the City of
Chico regarding FAR PART 150 had been modified. He said the MOU evolved from a need to clarify
the relation of this Commission to staff and these examples of modification of language are indicative
of that need for clarification.
Commissioner Hennigan questioned why staff did not attend the workshop on airport noise?
Mr. Parilo said that it is important that letters which go out from the department under his direction be
written in an objective and professional manner. The issue of staff training is based upon the budget
and there was not funding available for the noise class. He said that there is not -a separate budget for
ALUC. The Board of Supervisors is required to provide funding to meet ALUC's mandate. ALUC
may disagree with the level of funding provided. The opportunity to obtain funding is through this
budget process.
• Chairman Franklin said ALUC spends too much time worrying about this MOU and the one with the
City of Chico, which is distracting from doing other things that need to be done. Chairman Franklin
asked if Mr. Parilo will review everything Mr. Lucas brings to ALUC? He said ALUC would like to
know,,when the budget is done, what money is available. ALUC does not want to be in the position
of not being able to do things because of mistakenly thinking they had the money to do it.
Mr. Parilo said the CAO's budget goes to the Board in July and is adopted at the end of August. Staff
can provide a report to ALUC at that time.
Chairman Franklin said that would be fine.
Mr. Parilo suggested that ALUC members participate in the budget adoption process. He suggested
the chairman ,participate in requesting funding ALUC feels is critical to the operation of the
Commission.
Chairman Franklin asked if ALUC could have,a closed session for a discussion of staffing -- to talk
about the MOU and internal rules that staff is working under.
Mr. Parilo did not know if ALUC has the ability to hold a personnel session, but he would find out.
He said that primary staff will be working within the organizational structure of the department.
Butte County Airport Lane Use Commission minutes - February 18, 1998 - Page 6
Chairman Franklin said he is assuming Mr. Lucas is the designated staff person at this point.
Mr. Parilo said Mr. Lucas has not been designated as'primary staff person for ALUC.
Alternate Rosene said the MOU stipulates designation of a primary staff member to ALUC.
Chairman Franklin asked Mr. Parilo to explain to'ALUC how the MOU will be implemented.
Chairman Franklin said not to schedule the closed personnel session for the next meeting but rather
for the April meeting --'after the policy plan.
5. Discussion and Consideration of the 1998-1999 Work Proeram and Budeet Request to
be Submitted to the Department of Development Services for Inclusion in the Planning
Division Budget Request for the 1998-1999 Budget Year: Presentation of a draft work
program -for the 1998-1999 fiscal year. Staff is requesting Commission input to. the work
program in order for staff to augment the draft budget request being presented to the
Commission.
The Draft Work Program was distributed to -the commissioners.
Mr. Parilo said the CLUP's are being viewed as the major work program. A proposal is being put forth
• ' that would identify an additional $20,000 for the Comprehensive Land Use Plan updates since the
$41,000 state grant would probably not cover the total expense. The -10% matching will hopefully be
accomplished through staff services. The $5,000 for professional and specialized services could be
applied. to 1'egal expenses that would not be provided by County Counsel for one reason or another.
And $5,000 for travel.
Mr. Parilo clarified that education is part of transportation and travel.
Commissioner Hennigan suggested including an expenditure of $70,000 for the CLUP updates. The
$41,000 Caltrans funds could be shown as input and any other funds that may be discovered.
Mr. Parilo said the cost is not 'really known. Staff might be able to do the CLUP's for the smaller
airports. Until the RFP process, the cost really can't be known.
Commissioner Hennigan saidthere should be a realistic amount in the Work Program and it should be
made clear to the Board, of Supervisors that ALUC's intention is to .update the CLUP's for all the
airports this year -- within a year.. The County :will be involved in a lawsuit unless a contemporary
plan is created and that should be included in the Work Program and be made clear to the Board that
within a year ALUC wants to have a contemporary CLUP.
Butte County Airport Lane Use Commission minutes - February 18, 1998 - Page 7
• Mr. Parilo said the 1998-99 budget will accommodate that. If ALUC wants an additional $30,000 that
could be done. Until the costs are known it will be hard to communicate to the Board, what additional
amount will need to be picked up by the County. He agreed that ALUC has been stopped "dead in the
water" and in order to get off dead center, it needs to go through the RFP process. Once that is done,
the total cost will be known and the budget can be built around what that total cost is ultimately, and
hopefully that amount will be known before the final budget is prepared. He said noted that the MOU
with the City of Chico, which Caltrans had tied to release of the grant funds, never materialized.
Mr. Lucas said the only reason not to go out with an RFP is because Caltrans indicated that would be
premature and might affect their ultimate decision. Mr. Lucas said the last indication from Caltrans
is that they had reviewed the scope of work and the RFP which was submitted. There were problems
with some aspects of the scope of work. Before Caltrans will enter into an agreement and release those
funds they want to have an approved scope of work. They intended to contact staff this week and iron
out those last few points of scope. If ALUC were to issue an RFP on its own, Caltrans could consider
that an out of process action which could jeopardize the grant. It is correct that ALUC has a choice of
continuing with the Caltrans process in hopes they will ultimately release those funds or put those
funds at risk or forget about them and move forward with the RFP process on its own. Mr. Lucas said
an RFP is prepared and could be sent out. The RFP was sent to Caltrans for their review along with
the scope of work.
Commissioner Hennigan asked if staff will sort that situation out with Caltrans.
• Mr. Lucas said he is in regular contact with Caltrans. He said the RFP is ready to be sent out subject
to Caltrans approval.
Commissioner Hennigan said that there could conceivably be a response to that within 60 days.
Chairman Franklin said 120 days is more likely.
Mr. Parilo suggested the Commission identify costs. Once those costs are known and with the state's
commitment, things can move forward. He suggested budgeting $70,000 for the cost of the CLUP's.
The grant would credited to the department's budget..
Commissioner Lambert asked about any future monies possible from Caltrans. She also asked what
if Caltrans doesn't like the plan upon completion -- does Caltrans have the authority to approve or
disapprove?
Mr. Lucas said Caltrans does have complete authority over the RFP since it is their money, and also
the scope of work must meet their standards in order to receive their funds. A separate issue is the
policy plan which is an internal document and has no potential land use application but is merely a
policy guideline. Caltrans will review it but they have no statutory obligation to approve it nor does
ALUC have to accept any' approval or comment from Caltrans on that document. The CLUP's need
to be submitted to Caltrans for their review and they will ultimately determine if they feel the CLUP's
Butte County Airport Lane Use Commission minutes - February 18, 1998 - Page 8
are adequate. ALUC can still adopt a CLUP even if Caltrans does not feel satisfied. There appears to
• be some confusion over the level of Caltrans control over the CLUP process.
Commissioner Hennigan wanted to know if there is anything ALUC can do to hasten that process.
Mr. Lucas suggested a letter from the Chairman indicating that is ALUC's wish. Caltrans has asked
for a response to their December 2, 1997 letter to Chairman Franklin from Marlin Beckwith itemizing
the 4 or 5 points that were potentially deficient at this time.
It was moved by Commissioner Hennigan that the staff be authorized to respond to the December 2,
1997 letter in the affirmative and that ALUC direct the staff to proceed as rapidly as they can consistent
with the Caltrans process, and to circulate that Request for Proposal and get some proposals to ALUC.
Mr. Parilo said the RFP that was sent to Caltrans describing the work program has parameters which
are open-ended. Everyone acknowledges the plan will cost more than $41,000 and the County will
have to pick up a substantial amount of expenses just because of the very vague nature of the RFP. For
instance there are no limits placed on meetings or interaction with other agencies or the' public and
processes like that can take up a•significant amount of financial resources.
Chairman Franklin said he is inclined to limit those process since they eat up not only money but years
of time.
ALUC members are to receive copies of letters that are sent out. Mr. Lucas is to respond to the
December 2 letter from Caltrans.
Mr. Lucas said the December 2 letter discussed the process. and included six items that need to be
followed: approval of the scope of work,, review and approval of the RFP, approval of the consultant
selection, drafting of the grant agreement for the release of the funds, and hiring the consultant. The
letter outlined those steps and Caltrans wants a response back saying that ALUC accepts, understands,
agrees and knows its responsibility regarding those items. Once the. scope of work is approved, the
RFP can be modified as necessary.
Chairman Franklin said ALUC apparently agrees on the $70,000 cost to be budgeted for the cost of the
CLUP preparation and for staff to respond to Beckwith's December 2, 1997 letter.
F. - Public Comment on items not on the agenda.
John Papadakis said the Chico Airport Commission will hold a public hearing on the Chico Airport
Master Plan. He recommended that ALUC go on record with their concerns and that individual ALUC
members should attend and make their own comments which might have an impact on the consultant
as to ALUC's concerns. The five items he has been bringing up at ALUC meetings he feels are very
•Butte County Airport Lane Use Commission minutes - February18 1998 - Page 9
-•
x .
important. Mr. Papadakis feels strongly that something coming from ALUC as well as individuals
a . would have an impact. +
E
Chairman Franklin disagreed and said that ALUC should not try -to extend its- influence as a
commission beyond what it is clearly spelled out to be. -
Mr. Papadakis felt an airport cannot operate without visualization of what is going on around ,the
airport:
Chairman Franklin said thafthe City of Chico as owner of the airport will determine what they wish
to do with their,airport, then it is incumbent upon ALUC to protect whatever they wish to do. ,.
Mr. Papadakis felt it would be important to keep the City of Chico aware of ALUC's concerns•which -
might help"prevent the ongoing conflicts.
Chairman Franklin said the Master Plan is a separate issue. The Master Plan deals only with the airport
itself:
Mr. Papadakis said that as 'an example, the issue of traffic circulation is very important to the airport:
FAR PART 150 Noise Study "
Commissioner Hennigan said that regarding the previous discussion in January about the FAR PART
150 plan that was, submitted by the City of Chico to ALUC, the plan was twice rejected by ALUC.
Once the motion died for. lack of a second and `the second time it was voted down. Commissioner
Hennigan was able to seethe -disputed plan and found that theplan with ALUC's name on it only has
52 pages. The plan that was submitted to ALUC has more,than three times that number of pages.
G. Correspondence:
1. Letter dated 2/2/98 from Marlin Beckwith, Caltrans Aeronautics Program to all City
and County Planning Agencies concerning the obligation for project review by the
Aeronautics Programa
H. ALUC Staff Report
Mr. Lucas -said BC.AG has not commenced work yet on the Northern California Aviation System Plan,
but is planning on beginning ori that project in 1998-99 and will request the participation of ALUC.
The letters which ALUC requested to be sent to the City of Chico and the FAA regarding the City. of
Chico FAR PART 150'Noise Study, have been prepared and signed and will be mailed and the
Butte County Airport Lane Use Commission minutes:- February 18, 1998 - Page 10
commissioners'will be given copies. He suggested that a running list could be kept regarding requests
• which ALUC has asked of staff. -
Alternate Rosene said he would like 16 -be kept aware of the status of commission inquiries.
Mr. Lucas said ALUC does receive_ the agendas for the Airport Commission and staff could ask the
City of Chico to keep ALUC members apprised of the Master Plan process..
Chairman Franklin was opposed to asking more sof staff. He wished to keep staff focussed on the
CLUP's and not spread their resources too thin.
Mr. Lucas said he received a fax from the California Pilots. Association via the Airport Manager's
office that the California Pilots Association is putting on workshops for ALUC members and others
interested in ,land'use near California 'airports. Mr. Lucas said -there are other opportunities. for
information and training such as, the quarterly Northern California Airport Managers meetings. -There
are property management seminars that relate to dealing with both onsiie and offsite airport land use
issues. The Cal Berkeley Institute of Transportation Studies will hold'a program in San Francisco in
the fall regarding noise compatibility programs. ALUC's request that the City of Chico write a letter `
to ALUC to be sent on to Caltrans regarding progress on the Master Plan, was received and submitted.
Completion of the-Maste'r' Plan should be within 8 months to a year. An additional airport layout plan
was submitted which will be sent to Caltrans.
Commissioner Hennigan asked when the scoping'session'will be held'for the Master Plan.
Mr. Lucas said,that date has not been established:
Clif Sellers, speaking from the audience, noted that the -consultant has not yet signed a contract.
I. dj o ent
airm John Franklin',-
. ! ,
Minutes by Diana Shuey
K:WLUOMMUTES\ALUC98\FEB-18.98 r
Butte County Airport Lane Use Commission minutes - February 18, 1998 - Page 11
FILE lAgenda 8, Minutes)
07Y AdRPOIlt7[' LAND fISE COYSSdON+
vices ■ 7 County Center. Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ■ (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 ■
REGULAR MEETING NOTICE OF THE COMMISSION
Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers, 25 County
Center Drive, Oroville, California
DateiTime: February 18, 1998 - 9:00 a.m.
AGENDA
ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
C. Acceptance of the Agenda (Committee members or staff may request additions,
deletions or changes in the Agenda order.)
D. Approval of Minutes of January 21, 1998. -
E. Business Items
ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS
Butte County Tentative Parcel Map #98-13, APN 030 160 021(Runae)• A Request for
Consistency Findings for a tentative parcel map to divide a 6.7 acre parcel into four lots.
of 1.1 acres each and a remaining parcel of 2.2 acres on, property zoned AR located on
the east side of Middlehoff Lane approximately 400 feet north of Wray Ct., Thermalito
area. Recommended Action: Find Consistent with the Oroville Airport Land Use
Plan.
2. Consideration of Comments on the Draft Policy Plan dated October 6 1996 The
Draft Policy Plan is intended to be the guideline for the update. of the Comprehensive Land
Use Plans. The Policy Plan establishes- compatibility guidelines for noise and safety
considerations. (Continued from January 21, 1998)
ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Discussion of Operational Status of Ranchaero Airport: The Commission will consider
the request of the Airport Manager to support the protection of the Runway Clear Zone.
4. Consideration of Memorandum of Understanding between the Airport Land Use
Commission and Board of Supervisors: At the request of the Chairman, the Director
of Development Services will provide a status. report regarding staffing and training
agreements contained in the. Memorandum of Understanding.
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
i
+BUTT E C®�� AIRPORT EaT LAND lkm C'�1' ��II'rr'�yy�11 I I�\�yf
®`' ll�llV �ll®1 V
■ Department of Development Services ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ■ (916)538-760 — I FAX (916) 538-7785 ■
5. Discussion and Consideration of the 1998 -1999 -Work Program and Budget Request
to be Submitted to the Department of Development Services for Inclusion in the
Planning Division Budget Request for the 1998-1999 Budget Year: Presentation of
a draft work program for the 1998-1999 fiscal year. Staff is requesting Commission input
to the work program in order for staff to augment the draft budget request being
presented to the Commission.
F. Public Comment on items not on the agenda.
G. Correspondence: (These items are informational only, if the* Commission wishes to take action
on any item it must be assigned to a regular agenda as a Business Item.)
Letter dated 2/2/98 from Marlin Beckwith, Caltrans Aeronautics Program to all City and
County Planning Agencies concerning the obligation for project review by the Aeronautics
Program.
H. ALUC Staff Report
Adjournment
Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact
Stephen Lucas at (916) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you.
`Any person may address the Commission during the 'Business From the Floor" segment of the Agenda.
'Copies of the Agenda documents relative to an Agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of $.08
per page.
RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte
ALUC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chairman at the appropriate time.
2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for `Public Comment' on the
agenda. The Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until a meeting
at which the matter can be put on the agenda.
3.. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon recognition
by the Chair.
4. After receiving recognition, please stand and state your name and address before making your presentation,
so that the Clerk may take down this information.
5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be'given to the Clerk of the Commission (original and
seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to the Commission and
made available for'public inspection.
This Agenda was mailed to those requesting notice and posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at the
following locations:
Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case
K\PLANNINGWLUC\MEETINGS\FEB18-98.MTGWGENDA.WPD
0 Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
ray
+BU'ICT E COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE C®MMISSION+
■ Department of Development Services ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ■ (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 ■
REGULAR MEETING NOTICE OF THE COMMISSION
Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers, 25
a .County Center Drive, Oroville, California.
Date/Time: January 21, 1998 - 9:00 a.m.
AGENDA
ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
C. Acceptance -of the Agenda (Committee members or staff may request additions,
deletions or changes in the Agenda order.)
D. Approval of Minutes of November 11, 1997; November 19, 1997 and December 17, 1997
E. Business Items
ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Consideration and Adoption of the Draft Polite Plan dated
October 6. 1996. The Draft Policy Plan is intended to be the guideline
for the update of the Comprehensive Land Use Plans. The Policy
Plan establishes compatibility guidelines for noise and safety
considerations. (Continued from December 17, 1997)
ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Consideration and Adoption of the Airport Land Use Commission By -Laws
Version 7: (Continued from December 17, 1997)
F.. Public Comment on items not on the agenda.
G. Correspondence: (These items are informational only, if the Commission wishes to
take action on any item it must be assigned to a regular agenda as a Business
Item.)
H. ALUC Staff Report
I. Adjournment -
■ Butte County m Airport Land Use Commission ■
r
Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to
contact Stephen Lucas at (916) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you.
*Any person may address the Commission during the "Business. From the Floor" segment of the Agenda.
*Copies of the Agenda documents relative to an Agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at
cost of $.08 per page.
RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of
Butte AL UC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chairman at the appropriate time.
2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for "Public Comment" on
the agenda. The Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until
a meeting at which the matter can be put on the agenda.
3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon
recognition by the Chair.
4. After receiving recognition, please stand and state your name and address before making your
presentation, so that the Clerk may take down this information.
5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the Commission
(original and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to
the Commission and made available for public inspection.
This Agenda was mailed to those requesting notice and posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at
the following locations:
Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case.
K:\ALUCWIEETINGSUAN21.98\AGENDA.WPD
f
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
• BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES,
January 21, 1998
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
PRESENT: Commissioners Hennigan, Lambert, and Causey, Alternates Koch
and- Rosene and Chairman Franklin
ABSENT: Commissioner Campbell
ALSO PRESENT: Diana Shuey, Secretary
Stephen Lucas,.Associate Planner
Paula Leasure, Principal Planner
Thomas A. Parilo; Director Development Services
Nick Ellena, Chico Enterprise Record
Clif Sellers,.City, of Chico
John Papadakis, Alternate
C. Acceptance of the Agenda
f� Commissioner Hennigan asked for the following items to be included on the agenda for
discussion:
1) The FAR PART 150 study
2) the MOU between".ALUC and Butte County regarding staffing
3) the status of the Caltrans grant for preparation of the CLUPs
D. Approval of the Minutes of November 11, .19 and December 17, 1997
November 11, 1997
It was moved by Commissioner Hennigan, seconded by. Chairman Franklin and carried
for approval of the'minutes by the following vote:. .
AYES` Commissioners Hennigan and Causey, Alternate Rosene and Chairman.
Franklin
NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Lambert and Alternate Koch
ABSENT: Commissioner Campbell
November 19, 1997
It was moved by Commissioner Hennigan, seconded by Alternate Koch, and carried for
approval of the minutes by the following voter
AYES: Commissioners Hennigan, Causey, Lambert, Alternates Rosene and Koch and
•
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission- January 21, 1998 - Page 1
• Chairman Franklin
NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
ABSENT: Commissioner Campbell
December 17,1997-
It
7,1997It was moved by Alternate Koch, seconded by Commissioner Lambert, and carried for
approval of the minutes by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Causey, Lambert, Alternates.Rosene and Koch and Chairman
Franklin
NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Hennigan
ABSENT: Commissioner Campbell
E. Business Items
ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Consideration and Adoption of the Draft Policy Plan
dated October 6, 1996. The Draft Policy Plan is intended to
be the guideline for the update of the Comprehensive Land
Use Plans... The Policy Plan establishes compatibility
• guidelines for noise and safety considerations. (Continued .
from December 17, 1997)
There was a discussion of postponing discussion of the Draft Policy Plan until all the
public comments have been received.
Clif Sellers, of the City of Chico, was not opposed to continuance of"the discussion,
which would provide more time for his comments to be reviewed by the Commissioners.
Mr. Lucas noted that Caltrans would be submitting comments on the Draft Policy Plan.
There was a discussion of establishing a cutoff date for comments.
It was moved by Alternate Koch and seconded by Commissioner Lambert to continue
the hearing on the Draft Policy Plan to February 18, 1998, and to close the public
.hearing at the close of the February meeting unless there is a compelling reason to do
otherwise.
John Papadakis reminded the Commission of the five items which he feels will have an
important impact on the future of the Chico airport including:
1) realignment of Highway 32
2) the Chico Airport Master Plan
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission - January 21, 1998 - Page 2
• 3) Cohasset Road improvements
4) the City of Chico Capital Improvements Program items which relate to the airport
5) the Chico Area Economic Development Plan for the west side of the airport
He noted that the smaller runway should 'be extended and improved before resurfacing
of the main runway.
The motion to continue_ the hearing on the Draft Policy Plan as stated above, was
carried unanimously. ~
Discussion of the FAR PART 150 study
Commissioner Hennigan, referring to the "FAA Record of Approval, FAR PART Noise
Compatibility Program, Chico Municipal Airport", Item II B, third paragraph, said the
statement is incorrect that ALUC adopted the Land Use Plan of Exhibit III -1 because
the document was not submitted to ALUC. He requested that staff find out the basis for
the error -- was it an assertion by the City of Chico or what?
There was consensus that staff should research the basis for the FAA statement that
ALUC adopted the FAR PART 150 Noise Study.
doCommissioner Hennigan said the fifth version -- the Draft Final Report of the Noise
Study indicates that itwas prepared for ALUC although it was not submitted to ALUC or
authorized by ALUC or paid for by ALUC`
Alternate Koch said the confusion may be because the document was submitted to
ALUC but not adopted by ALUC. _
Chairman Franklin said the document was submitted as an Airport Land Use Plan
rather than a Noise Study and ALUC did not feel the safety issues were adequately
addressed -- which a complete plan should do.
Mrs. Barbara Hennigan said the document submitted to ALUC was dated 1994. The
document dated 1997 with ALUC's name on it, was neverbrought to ALUC.
There was discussion that the document which was submitted to ALUC was an earlier
document which included the Land Use issues.
Commissioner Hennigan objected to having ALUC's name on a document it did not
approve and the document being accepted by the FAA based on a misapprehension
that the document had ALUC approval.
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission - January 21, 1998 - Page 3
• Alternate Rosene noted ,thatialthough ALUC may not use the document, it is being used
and referred to in other documents. He did not think the Noise Study is a good study.
Commissioner Hennigan said that although numerous air tankers departed during the
three day study, none were included in the measurements or added into the study by
computer simulation. Commissioner Hennigan was told "the DC -9's do not come to
Chico anymore." Commissioner Hennigan would like to know why air tankers were not
part of the document.
Chairman Franklin said ALUC does not have, to use the study.
Alternate Koch said the study is a public document and contains the noise contours
established -by the FAA. ,
Mr. Lucas said ALUC does not have to accept the document. Part of doing the new
CLUP can be a revised or new noise study that meets ALUC approval.
Alternate Rosene said the Noise Study is inaccurate and he does not feel comfortable
using it. ,
Mr. Lucas suggested the accuracy -of the Noise Study should be addressed at the time
of doing the CLUP.
• Commissioner Lambert said there were some inconsistencies between the policy plan
and the noise study that would need to be rectified.
•
Mr.- Lucas said the issue of the accuracy of noise contours is a separate issue from
acceptable noise levels for certain types of uses.
There was more. discussion of.the significance of ALUC's name being on the FAR
PART 150 document.
Alternate Koch said that. the City of Chico.is not at the present time or in the future
creating documents with ALUC's name on them without ALUC's permission:
Mr. Lucas suggested writing to the City of Chico requesting that the City no longer
represent the document as being adopted by ALUC, and notifying the FAA that the
document was not adopted by ALUC, since their acceptance of the document may in
part be due to their belief in ALUC's approval of the document.
The motion was so moved by Commissioner Hennigan and seconded by Chairman
Franklin to send a letter to the City of .Chico requesting them not to represent the FAR
PART 150 Noise Study as an ALUC adopted document and to send a separate letter
notifying the FAA also that the document was not adopted by.ALUC.
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission - January 21, 1998 - Page 4
f
• AYES: Commissioners Hennigan, Causey,, Lambert, Alternate Rosene and.Chairman
Franklin'
NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: Alternate Koch ,
ABSENT: Commissioner Campbell
Status of the Caltrans grant
Mr. Lucas said release of the Caltrans funds is tied to the Master Plan for the Chico
airport. There are different issues for the different airports. According to Caltrans, the
Ranchaero and Paradise airports do not have a currently adopted airport`layout plan,
although there is a layout plan for the Paradise airport.which is being used for Use'
Permits. The airport managers for Paradise and Ranchaero airports should provide
airport layout plans to Planning staff so they can be.submitted to Caltrans. Staff should `
be directed to provide those layout plans to Caltrans indicating 20 year growth
potential.
Chairman Franklin directed -staff to obtain airport. layout plans for the Paradise and
Ranchaero airports from their airport managers. .
Mr. Lucas said the Oroville airport 1992 Airport Layout Plan appears to be adequate for
Caltrans. The Oroville CLUP is probably not as high priority as the`Chico CLUP and
could be put off for the time being although there may be compatibility issues to
address later on. Caltrans might consider allowing, use of the airport layout plan for the
Chico airport.
Chairman Franklin said he has the impression that the airport layout plan would be
acceptable as long as work on the Master _Plan,is making. progress.
Alternate Koch said it appears from comments by Martin Beckwith that the current
airport layout plan can be -submitted for review and may be acceptable during the time
that the Master. Plan is being updated.
Mr. Lucas suggested that Alternate Koch ask the City of Chico to prepare a letter
regarding the progress on the Master Plan which can be attached to the airport layout
plan and sent on to Caltrans'by' Planning staff.
Alternate Koch said he would provide such a letter and encourage release of the funds.
Chairman.Franklin asked about the progress on the RFP.
Mr..Lucas said the RFP has been completed and staff is prepared to send it out as
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission'- January 21, 1998_- Page 5
• soon as there is some assurance of funding for the CLUPs.
Chairman Franklin asked if the grant is mainly for the Chico CLUP.
Mr. Lucas said the original idea was for funding of all four CLUPs as a comprehensive
document. It now appears that the funding will be prioritized for Chico. Maybe the four
documents can be produced separately and become a comprehensive plan although
not as originally intended. The policy plan will provide guidance for the CLUP's
although they can each move forward without the policy plan. The comprehensive plan
is'esseritially all four CLUP's.
Commissioner Hennigan asked about progress on the Chico Master Plan.
Alternate Koch said the.consultant has been provided'with numerous documents
concerning the airport and is beginning the outline process. A public scoping meeting
will take place.soon after wh'ich'-direction will be given to the consultant. Regarding
west side development .in general, the environmental -review process and wetlands
delineation is moving forward: The west side economic development grant work is
being done by an engineering firm. Items being addressed include access to Highway
99 and the airport, impacts to,Hicks Lane and to infrastructure. The off site work is
being addressed separately from the on-site work of the Master Plan.
• Commissioner Hennigan asked about the status of the Northern California Aviation
System Plan.
•
Mr. Lucas said ALUC staff has not been included in that process but he could find out
about it.
John Papadakis suggested that milestones be established for the work ahead, by the
.City of Chico and ALUC.
Alternate Koch said the City of Chico is already moving ahead on the Master Plan and
ALUC' doesn't have a consultant yet.
P
Chairman Franklin said that Caltrans might .allow use of the current airport plan to be
used for the Chico CLUP until the Master Plan -is complete. t
Commissioner Lambert asked for clarification of,the various plans in process.
Alternate Koch said the Master Plan is a 20 year development plan for the airport
proper -- the runways, taxiways etc. The airport layout plan is more precise than the
general development plan of the airport -- it shows what improvements are on the
property now or planned for the future and is necessary for FAA funding for such items
as improvement of a taxiway. The airport layout.plan is like an engineering map of the
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission - January 21, 4998 - Page 6
• current existing facilities. Whereas the airport layout plan and Master Plan are specific
to the airport property, the CLUP addresses surrounding properties.
Chairman Franklin said the CLUP is for protection of the airspace around the airport.
Commissioner Hennigan said'if Chico is to become a regional airport and extends the
runway in the Master Plan, the operation of air tankers would change and their
departure profile would change which would change the.air space needing to be
protected. Also the mix of air carriers would change for a regional airport. Currently the
Chico airport is served. by smaller aircraft. The policies of the -Master Plan could
change the footprint of what happens around the airport.
Alternate Koch asked about the status of Ranchaero airport.
Chairman Franklin said they were closed for night flights but are still in operation.
Mr. Lucas was to report back to ALUC on the status of the Ranchaero airport.
RECESS
ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Consideration and Adoption of the Airport.Land Use Commission
• By -Laws. Version 7: (Continued from December -17, 1997)
•
MOU between ALUC and Butte County
Tom Parilo noted that the. discussion of the Bylaws was.postponed until an agreement
was reached on the MOU. He suggested that staff can revise Version #7 of the Bylaws
in light of the new MOU:
Chairman Franklin said Bylaws should concern the process of ALUC meetings and
staffing should be a separate issue.- If necessary, the MOU could be modified without
having to also change the Bylaws.
Alternate Koch suggested that the Bylaws refer to staff as referred to in the MOU..
Mr. Lucas read from the MOU items #1 and #2 which refer to a "primary staff member."
Mr. Parilo suggested that staff amend Version #7 of the Bylaws to reflect the MOU.
Commissioner Lambert suggested if ALUC no longer wishes to follow the LAFCo
format, the existing shorter Bylaws could be a starting point.
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission - January 21, 1998 - Page 7
s