Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-104 055-510-0290 Messrs. Hennigan & Parilo May 13, 1999 Page 2 2. If so,, can the Butte County Board of Supervisors override these amendments to the CMAEP? 3. If the Board of Supervisors does not take action to either amend the County General Plan or prepare (and adopt) overridingfindings within 180 days (of the adoption of the amendments to the CMAEP), would ALUC have the authority to review § ingle family building permit (applications) within the new CLUP? As is explained below, it is my opinion that: 1 ALUC does not have the authority to adopt changes to the comprehensive land use plan for the Chico Airport (the "CLUP") so as to prevent the construction of single family dwellings on existing parcels that are zoned "R- 1 ", if the practical effect is to prohibit any reasonable use of the real property, resulting in a taking of the private property. 2. The Board of Supervisors has authority under Public Utilities Code Section 21676 to overrule the Airport Land Use Commission's determination as to consistency between the CLUP and the County General. Plan and thereby, in effect, override the subject amendments to the CLUP. Any such action by the Board of Super -visors must be supported by specific and legally adequate findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes set out in Public Utilities Code Section 21670. 3. If ALUC finds that the County has not revised the County General Plan or, alternatively adopted findings overrule ALUC (in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 21676), ALUC may require the County to submit all subsequent actions, regulations and permit applications to ALUC for review until the general plan is amended or such overruling findings are made. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Factually, I have been advised that in October 1998, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopted amendments to the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs -Plan (CMAEP). The CMAEP constitutes a comprehensive land use plan ("CLUP") for the Chico airport consistent with the provisions for such plans contained in the Public Utilities Code Section 21675. In pertinent part, the 1998 amendments to the CLUP created an Overflight Protection Zone ("OPZ") around the Chico Airport. The 1998 amendments state that within the OPZ "development of new residential uses shall be prohibited in the area defined as Zone A..." and, "in Zone B no new single family residential uses shall be permitted." The amendments then state that "approval of E Messrs. Hennigan & Parilo May 13, 1999 Page 4 consistency with the CLUP. If the County does not concur with ALUC's determination of the consistency between the CLUP and the County general plan, the County may overrule ALUC's determination by adopting specific findings, supported by evidence, that the County's action is consistent with the purposes set out is PUC Section 21670. The instant legal opinion concerns certain amendments to the land use plan adopted for the Chico Municipal Airport in 1978, referred to as the Airport Environs Plan or CMAEP. QUESTION # 1. CAN THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CMAEP LEGALLY PROHMIT THE CONSTRUCTION. OF SrNGLE FAMFLY HOMES ON THE PREVIOUSLY SUBDIVIDED PROPERTY THAT IS WITHIN THE QPZ? While it is clear that under state law ALUC has the power to adopt a land use plan that restricts the right to use and to develop property within the planning area around the airport, the facts as presented in the instant opinion request raise the question as to whether the CLUP can, in effect, prohibit the building of single family residences on property that has been subdivided and zoned for that purpose. The answer'to this question involves an analysis of the right of governmental entities to regulate the use of private property, where the regulation has the potential to effectively deny the private property owners all economically viable and beneficial use of their property. Modernly, both the federal and state courts have characterized such regulations as constituting a "taking of real property" that requires compensation in accordance with the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In the absence.of payment of just compensation, such regulations are viewed as unconstitutional. In Lucas Y. South Carolina Coastal Commission (1992) 120 L Ed 2d 798, the United States Supreme Court considered'the question of whether South Carolina's Beachfront Ma nagement Act ("BMA") constituted a taking of two parcels of land, located on a barrier island off of the coast, owned by Mr. Lucas. At the time that Lucas purchased his property it had been subdivided and zoned for residential development. In adopting the BMA, the South Carolina legislature stated that (among other reasons) the BMA was necessary to protect life and property, to promote tourism and to protect the beaches and dunes along the coast. The trial court found that the effect of the BMA was to prohibit Lucas from building single family residences upon his two parcel and that this prohibition deprived Lucas of any reasonable economic use of the lots and rendered them valueless. (See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission (1992) 120 L. Ed. 2d 798 at 809.)6 In discussing the law in this area the U.S. Supreme Court commented: In considering the case before it got to the United States Supreme Court, the South Carolina Supreme Court had concluded that when a regulation respecting the use of private property is designed to. prevent serious public harm, no compensation is constitutionally required See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission (1992) 120 L. Ed. 2d 798 at 809. The U. S. Supreme Court disagreed. 0 9 Messrs., Hennigan & Parilo May 13, 1999 Page 5 "As we have said on numerous occasions, the Fifth Amendment is violated when land use regulation 'does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner economically viable use of his land'." (Id. at pg. 813) The Supreme Court acknowledged that governmental entities are clearly entitled to regulate land use and the fact that the regulations may negatively affect the value of property does not give rise to a violation of the constitution and a taking of property. "And the functional basis for permitting the government, by regulation, to affect property values without compensation — that 'Government hardly could go on if to some extent values incident to property could not be diminished without paying for every such change in the general law', does not apply to the relatively rare situations where the government has deprived a landowner of all economically beneficial uses. On the other side of the balance, affirmatively supporting a compensation requirement, is the fact that regulations that leave the owner of land without economically beneficial or productive options for its use — typically, as here, by requiring land to be left substantially in its natural state — carry with them a heightened risk that private property is being pressed into some form of public service under the guise of mitigating serious public harm." (Id. at pg. 814) - In Lucas the Supreme- Court concluded that when a private property owner is denied all reasonable and economically viable use of his property, such regulations can be upheld only when their affect is to prohibit harmful uses that, under common law, would amount to a nuisance by the private property owner. (Id. at pgs. 819-82 1) In the recent decision in Kavanaugh v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board (1997) 16 Cal. 4'h 76 1, at 773 -774, the California Supreme Court provided further clarification of the law, in stating: "The state and federal Constitutions prohibit government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 19; U.S. Const., 5th Amend.), ... the United States Supreme Court recognized that a regulation of property that 'goes too far' may effect a taking of that property, though its title remains in private hands. In such a case, the property owner may bring an inverse condemnation action, and if it prevails, the regulatory agency must either withdraw,the regulation or payjust compensation. (First Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County (1987) 482 U.S. 304, 317, 321 [107 S.Ct. 2378,2389, 96 L.Ed.2d 250].) Even if the agency withdraws the regulation, the property owner may have a right to just compensation for the temporary taking while the regulation was in effect. (Citation omitted.) Messrs. Hennigan & Parilo May 13, 1999 Page 7 Applying the courts' above teachings to the question of whether the 1998 amendments to the CLUP constitutes a taking of private property will most likely require an analysis of each of the individual parcels that are affected by these amendments and is beyond the scope of the opinion request. However, to the extent that the 1998 amendments prohibit any reasonable economically viable use of specific properties within the OPZ, then the regulation would constitute a taking of property and no further analysis would be needed and no further action would be required by the property owner in order to be able to proceed with litigation against the public entity adopting same.' From the facts described above, it is my opinion that to the extent that the 1998 amendments to the CMAEP are read as prohibiting the building of single family residences on parcels that have been subdivided and zoned for such use, there is a very real prospect that these'amendments could -be found to be unconstitutional as a "taking" of private property.' THE 1998 AMENDMENTS READ AS NOT CONSTITUTING A TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY As noted above, the 1998 amendments to the CMAEP prohibit development of new -residential uses within the OPZ. Of potential import here is the fact the these amendments do not provide any definition of what 6onstitutes residential development, or more precisely, "development of new residential uses". The absence of language in these amendments (or in the original 1978 CMAEP) whether the regulation "permit[s the property owner] ... to profit [and] ... to obtain a 'reasonable returri'on ... investment" (id. at p. 136 [98 S.Ct. at p. 2665]); (7) whether the regulation provides the property owner benefits or rights that "mitigate whatever financial burdens the law has imposed" (id. at p. 137 [98 S.Ct. at p. 2666]; Keystone, supra, 480 U.S. at p. 491 [107 S.Ct. at p. 1245]; Agins v. Tiburon, supra, 447 U.S. at p. 262 [100 S.Ct. at p. 2142]); (8) whether the regulation "prevent[s] the best use of [the] land" (Agins v. Tiburon, supra, 447 U.S. at p. 262); (9) whether the regulation "extinguish[es] a fundamental attribute of ownership" (ibid.); and (10) whether the government is demanding the property as a condition for [page 776]the granting of a permit (Dolan v. City ofTigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374, 3 85 [114 S.Ct. 2309, 23 16, 129 L.Ed.2d 304] (Dolan); Nollan, supra, 483 U.S. at pp. 831, 841 [107 S.Ct. at pp. 3150-315 1 ])". "This list is not a comprehensive enumeration of all the factors that might be relevant to. a takings claim, and we do not propose a single analytical method for these claims. Rather, -we simply note factors the high court has found relevant in particular cases. Thus, instead of applying these factors mechanically, checking them off as it proceeds, a c,ourt should apply them as appropriate to the facts of the case it is considering." ' In the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1997) 137 L.Ed.2d. 980, the Supreme Court found that the effect of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency's - environmental regulations was to prohibit Ms. Suiturn from building a modest residence on her property in the Lake Tahoe basin and provided a basis for a suit against the Agency for a taking of private property. " For a good discussion of the law relating to "regulatory takings" see Chapter 12, Curtin's California Land Use and Planning Law, 18 1h Ed (1998); also see article on "Zoning Regulations Limiting Use of Property Near Airports As Taking of Property", 18 ALR 4", 542. 0 Messrs. Hennigan & Parilo May 13, 1999 Page 8 clarifying what is meant by this term appears to invite .(or require) interpretation by the reader. It is one of the maxims of the law pertaining toffie interpretation of statutes (and ordinances) that where a law is susceptible of several interpretations, one of which invites serious constitutional problems, courts will construe the statute, if possible, to avoid the problems. (See F&L Fam Company Y. City Council (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 345.) If the choice here is between a reading of the 1998 amendments in a manner that results in an unconstitutional taking of real property (by depriving property owners of individual parcels that are zoned for single family use, the right to build homes) or, alternatively, construing the phrase "development of new residential uses" as applying to property that is susceptible of further land divisions or more intense development such as for commercial purposes, the courts may apply the latter construction, since it,��ould not amount to an unconstitutional taking of private property. QUESTION #2 DOES THE BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAVE AUTHORITY TO OVERRfDE THE 1998 AMENDMENTS TO THE CMAEP? PUC Section 21676 states in relevant part: "a) Each local agency whose general plan includes areas covered by an airport land use commission plan shall, by July 1, 1983, submit a copy of its plan or specific plans to the airport land use commission. The commission shall determine by August 3 1, 1983, whether the plan or plans are consistent or inconsistent with the commission's plan. If the plan or plans are inconsistent with the commission's plan, the local agency shall be notified and that local agency shall have another hearing to reconsider its plans. The local agencyrnay overrule the commimion after such hearing by a two-thirds vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article stated in Section 2167021 (Emphasis added.) Section 21670 states in relevant part: "(a) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that: (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 akports and the adoption of land use measures that 0 � 0 Messrs. Hennigan & Parilo May 13,1999 Page 9. minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas ar.e not already devoted to incompatible uses." (Emphasis added.) And as noted above,. Government Code Section 65302.3 requires the County to amend its general plan, as may be necessary to maintain consistency with the airport land use plan (CLUP), within 180 days of any amendment to the CLUP. Section 65302.3 further states that "if the legislative body does not concur with any provision of the plan required under PUC Section 21675, it may satisfy the provisions of this section by adopting findings pursuant to Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code." (See also PUC Section 21676.5, discussed below.) Read together, it is clear from these statutes that the C6unty Board of Supervisors has the authority to overrule a decision by ALUC concerning the consistency of the County General Plan (and the County's implementing ordinances) with the airport land use plan. However, an important limitation on the Board's authority here is that any such action by the Board must be supported by specific findings." With regard to the 1998 amendments it appears that in addition to the above discussion, the Board of Supervisors might have several reasons for concluding that continuing to allow the construction of single family homes on existing parcels is consistent with the purposes set out in PUC Section 21670. . First, to the extent that the decision is to simply to allow private property owners to build single family residences on individual parcels that are zoned for this purpose and are the product of past subdivision approvals, the County may determine that the subject parcels have "already been devoted to incompatible uses", within the meaning of Section 21670 (highlighted above). In concept, the argument here would be that the real discretionary decisions concerning land development typically occurs first with the adoption of the general plan and zoning ordinances which establish the uses to which property may be put, followed by more detailed decisions regarding the use of specific property when a property owner seeks subdivision approval. At each of these stages the public entity has the inherent discretion to allow or to prohibit the development in an area within its jurisdiction. Each of "' The question of the requirement for specific findings and what generally constitutes findings was addressed in the case of California Aviation Council v. City of Ceres (1992) 9 Cal.AppAth 1384. In Ceres the court concluded that the decision of the Ceres City Council to overrule the local airport land use commission's determination that an ordinance approving a specific plan for property covered by the local land use plan was not consistent with that plan, was no * t supported by adequate findings. The court concluded that the decision to overrule was adjudicatory in nature and required the Council to identify the facts that it was relying upon and to link those facts to its decision that the purposes of PUC Section 21670 were met in the instant case. The court referenced the case of Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) as to the requirements for specific factual findings for adjudicatory decisions. (Id at pg. 1392-1394) Messrs. Hennigan & Parilo May 13,1999 Page 10 these decisions must also be preceded with an evaluation of the environmental consequences and potential impacts stemming from the public agency's decision, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Once these approvals are in place and property has been subdivided and sold off to individuals, it can be hard, if not legally impossible, to roll back the clock without creating an unconstitutional taking of private property. The exception would be in those extraordinary situations where the use of the individual residential parcels may create a nuisance (per the above discussion.) Another basis for the Board's decision to overrule the ALUC might exist in what appears to be somewhat contradictory provisions of the 1998 amendments. To the extent the text in these amendments appears to allow development of multiple family residential projects while prohibiting development of single family homes on some or all of the property within the OPZ, it could be argued that such action would increase the population density within the OPZ and thereby be counter to the goals in PUC Section 21670, to minimize the public's exposure to noise and safety hazards in areas around the airport." QUESTION0 IF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DOES NOT TAKE ACTION TO EITHER ANEND THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN OR PREPARE (AND ADOPT) OVERRMING FrNDfNGS WITHIN 180 DAYS (OF THE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CMAEP), WOULD ALUC HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW APPLICATIONS FOR STNGLE FAMILY BUILDING PEFMTS WITHN THE OPZ? The reference to the 180 day time limit in which the County is required to amend the general plan is set out in Government Code Section 65302.3. That statute allows the Board of Supervisors to either amend the general plan or, alternatively, adopt findings in accordance with PUC Section 21676, "if the legislative body does not concur with any provision of the plan required under Section 21675 ...... The statutory intent here appears to be to give the Board of Supervisors some limited ability to overrule or to reject parts of the airport land use plan with which it may disagree. In reading Section 65302.3 1 note that it does not track precisely with the provisions in Section 21676. Specifically, the authority of the Board to overrule the ALUC by adopting findings is tied to a decision by ALUC concerning the consistency of the two plans or any zoning ordinances or building " The specific language that is of concern here is as follows: "The area defined as Zone B (of the OPZ) 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 aviation easements to the airport operator and notification of potential tenants of overflight activity." 0 Messrs. Hennigan & Parilo .May 13,1999 Page I I regulations adopted by the County. 12 In contrast, the requirement in Government Code Section. 65302.3 for the County to amend the general or specific plan is triggered by the amendment of the airport land use plan (CLUP), not by a separate determination of consistency between the two plans. If we assume that it is possible that the CLUP could be amended in such a manner so as to be totally consistent with the existing County General Plan, it would follow that in such a case, the Board would not have any obligation to take any further action under Section 65302.3. This raises the question then of how the County is supposed to know when it is obligated to take action under Section 65302.3 and the timing as to when the County's obligation arises. Under the rules of statutory construction, these statutes should be read together so as to harmonize them, if it is possible to do so. (See Mar v. Sakti International Corporation (1992) 9 Cal.AppAth 1780, at 1784) Reading these statutes in this manner leads to a conclusion that the 180 day time line for action by the Board of Supervisors should be begin with adoption or amendment of the CLUP, which ALUC has specifically determined requires the County to make amendments to the County General Plan. Unless ALUC specifically identifies existing provisions of the general plan which ALUC finds are inconsistent with the amendments to the CLUP when it adopts amendments to the CLUP, the County could be left to guess as to whether ALUC has determined the existing general plan to be inconsistent with the new amendments..In such a case, it would seem inappropriate to view the County as having an obligation to take action unless specific inco nsistencies between the two plans are identified by ALUC with direction given to the County to make appropriate amendments to the general plan. With respect to the 1998 amendments to the CLUP, the amendments do not appear to identify specific provisions of the County General Plan that are inconsistent with these amendments. The letter of transmittal notifying the County Planning Department of the 1998 amendments also does not appear to identify specific inconsistencies. Rather, that letter merely cites the provisions of the PUC and Government Code (discussed above) that create the obligation on the part of the County to take action, if inconsistencies exist. In light of this, it is my opinion and recommendation that if ALUC believes that there are inconsistencies between the CLUP, as amended in 1998, then ALUC should specifically identify the inconsistencies and notify the County of its duty to make appropriate amendments. The second portion of your third question seeks direction as to whether ALUC can require the County to submit applications for specific building permits (and I assume, other land use actions pending with the County) to ALUC for its review. In this regard, PUC Section 21676.5 states: " Also see PUC Section 21676.5 which authorizes ALUC to require the County to submit all subsequent (land use) actions to ALUC for review until the general plan is amended or specific findings are made. Messrs. Hennigan & Parilo May -13,1999 Page i2 "(a) If the commission finds that a local agency has not revised its general plan or specific plan or overruled the commission by a two-thirds vote of its governing body after making specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article as stated in Section 21670, the commission may require that the local agency submit all subsequent actions, regulations, and permits to the commission for review until its general plan or specific plan is revised or the specific findings are made. If, in the determination of the commission, an action, regulation, or permit of the local agency is inconsistent with the commission plan, the local agency shall be notified and that local agency shall hold a hearing to reconsider its plan. The local agency may overrule the commission after the hearing by a two-thirds vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article as stated in Section'21670." "(b) Whenever the local,agency has revised its general plan or specific plan or has overruled the commission pursuant to subdivision (a), the proposed action of the local agency shall not be subject to farther commission review, unless the commission and the local agency agree that individual projects shall be reviewed by the commission." Section 21676.5 gives ALUC the authority to require the County to submit pending land use actions, including but not limited to the approval of permits to ALUC for its review until the general plan is made consistent with the CLUP, or the Board of Supervisors adopts appropriate findings overruling ALUC. Of interest'here, nothing in Section 21676.5 expressly provides for or references a 180 day grace period from the adoption of any amendments to the CLUP. As noted above, the 180 day time line is set out in Government Code Section 65302.3. Again, being mindful of the requirement to read statutes in a manner so as to harmonize them, it would appear reasonable to infer that the authority of ALUC to require review of land use actions by the County should not begin until after the expirati . on of the 180 day time period set out in Government Code Section 65302.3. However, I also recognize, that from the standpoint of the public policy expressed in PUC Section 21670, there may be good reason to conclude that ALUC's authority to require review commences upon the adoption of any amendment to the CLUP which creates an inconsistency with the County General Plan. Unfortunately, my research and review of the law here did not provide any dispositive answer to this issue. Accordingly, I am at a loss to provide an opinion as to when this obligation arises. However, in any event, and referring back to the above discussion regarding an implied obligation on the part of ALUC to identify any inconsistencies between the two plans when the CLUP is amended, it is my opinion that ALUC could not reasonably exercise its authority to require the County to submit land use actions to it for review unless and until it finds that the general plan is inconsistent with the CLUP and identifies the inconsistencies. Messrs. Hennigan & Parilo May 13,1999 Page 13 It should also be noted that assuming that ALUC identifies inconsistencies between the CLUP and the County General Plan, under PUC Section 21767.5 (b), once the Board of Supervisors amends the general plan or overrules ALUC's consistency determination (with appropriate legally adequate findings), ALUC's authority to require review of pending land use matter's ekpires, unless the County otherwise agrees to ftirther review by ALUC. - I trust that the foregoing is responsive to your request. If the members of the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission have any questions or wish to discuss the issues addressed herein, I would be happy to attend their meeting to address. same. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. Very truly yours, 5Jes A. Curtis JAC:kbb P:VAU3utte\ALUC-opn-fin.wpd OM CITY FCHICO 11 C �'87Z -7 OFFICE OF THEW CITYMANAGER 411 Main Street P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 (530) 895-4800 FAX (530) 895-4825 ATSS 459-4800 PS-90-12-1/Chrono May 18, 109 NOTICE OF MEETING - CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE The next meeting of the City of Chico Airport Commission's Airport Master Plan Technical Advisory Committee will be'hel� as'follows: Wnda�:june'1411999 - 3:30 p.m. 'R'* e%,Chico Municipal Center Conference 06m #I "CWo, CA 4- 421 Main Street;, wi review -wit A e -ommittee,t At ihis­'ffieeiffig;-�the itvis,.airpoft-��la"'n-nin"g*"c*o-'n"si'�lidhf'�" ll-"" h'h—C­ he results of the x�ork thk has been completed since -the lal'sit meeting of the'Committee,, including: C or Traffic �dAal��is' the 'consulfing1ria'Al' en"irf6Ers' tiaffic &ner�tioni e*�tiiiiateg', recommendat ioAs for laning and intersections for the streets and highways around the Airport will be pre��nted. Noise study the consii1tant will pr6vide an update regarding the noise study to date and preliminary results of the computer noise modeling process. Facility inventory.'aviatioh-forecasts and aviatioii facili1y demands - A'dr'aft chapters of these sections of the Master Plan will be reviewed. Cultural Resources - this completed'itudy will b� reviewed by the consultant. Pavement evaluation and drainage studies - the'preliminary field work has been' completed and the consultant will review the current status of these studies. It is expected that this"meeting will last approximately two hours. Because ' the technical aspects of the Mas -ter Plan update project are'nearing completion, it is important that the consultant receive comments'from the Committee� regardiiig the� irifor'matibn to be presented. r Attendance by Committee members at this meeting is therefore very important and is strongly encouraged. 'T n o' ity - Q u' e­s't 16h S - , fe'g-aix d i h g t h e:'A i i � o rt,' M i i P Id'in" p-ri bic" 6's's'. I ffi a -y',_ be"d i f i �d t 6 d -.16 T omi 'a' d 5 C 7 Manager, 895-4802, or Bob Koch, Risk Manager, 895-4820. Distribution: Technical Advisory Committee Airport Master Plan Mailing List A Made Prom Recycled Paper CHIEF A�CMINISTRATIVAOFFICE, COUNTY OF BUTTE 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE i%uf r�t OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3380 Telephone: (530) 538-7631 Fax: (530) 538-7120 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD rAffit . JOHN S. BLACKLOCK CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER March 17,1999 . To: Airport Land Use Commission Department of Development Services .7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 From: Marion Reeves, Assistant Clerk of the Bood Subject: Appointment Expirations Airport Land Use Commission R.J.BEELER JANE DOLAN MARY ANNE HOUX CURT JOSIASSEN FRED C. DAVIS Our records indicate the following term(s) of appointment will expire as of May 3, 1999: Vacancy (Sutherland) Dr. Chester Ward. Fred Gerst Please advise our office if any of these individuals wish to serve another four year term. If not, please submit the name(s) of individuals wishing to serve in these positions and advise which positions will remain vacant. Thank you. MR:amh rr�ed�� phopl-d * *4(,o — 2 1/3 cadl'--d I 14-1101 r III To: Diana Shuey, Butte County DDS CC: Dave Doody, Butte County DDS From: Laura Webster, PMC Date: April 28, 1999 Subject: ALUC Agenda Materials for Shutt Moen Associates Ir,en Brody of Shutt Moen Associates (SNIA) has requested copies of Agenda Items EA, E.5., E.6., and F. from the ALUC's April 21, -1999 agenda packet. He is also requesting that a complete set of future ALUC agenda packets be, sent to him while SMA is working on the CLUP update. The noted items should be mailed at your convenience to: Shutt Moen Associates Attn: J�ren Brody 707Aviation Boulevard Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Please give me a call at 533-1131 if you 'have any questions regarding these requests. Thank you for your assistance. fA(SIMILE To: Till, Butte County DDS 'Subject: Laura's ALUC Staff Time.Houn for Ma Y I" MontW Status Report Fax: 538-7785 Pages: 1, including this cover sheet. Date: May 7,1999 Please add my ALUC staff time hours to the Monthly Status Report for May. Hours for pay periods 7 and 8 (3-20-9.9 ihrough'4-16-99) Laura Webster 19.75 Thank youl 10" planif r From the desk of... Pacft MuNdpm cwmubnts 1465 Myem, GbW 0MVige, CA 959ffi (53D) 533-1131 Fax (S30) 533-70M N March 12, 1999 ..... . . . . . . . L A N D OF,' NATURAL WEALTH A N b BEAUTY PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601 FAX: (916) 538-7785 George Kammerer Hefner, Stark and Marois 2710 Gateway Oaks Drive, Ste. 300 S. Sacramento, CA 95833-3505 Dear Mr. Kammerer., Enclosed are the copies of the tape recordings which you requested of the ALUC meeting of August 19, 1998. There is a $9.00 charge for the tape recordings. Sincerely, Diana Shuey ALUC Secretary