Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CONCEPTSInteroffice Memorand- um TO: - M.A. Meleka, Principal Planner FROM: Dan Breedon, Senior Plannerr) SUBJECT: ALUCP Consistency Study Department of Development Services Phone: 538-6571 DATE: May 8, 2002 FAX: 538-7785 This memo is regarding the status of the ALUCP Consistency Study currently being performed by ESA consulting services. On May 8, 2002, Department of Development Services staff, which included you and myself, met with ESA Project Managers David Full and Sarah Yackel (ESA). ESA provided a power point presentation on the various General Plan inconsistencies for each of the four airports, providing the location, size, and alternatives for each inconsistency. ESA also discussed four alternative solutions for addressing the General Plan inconsistencies. ESA would like County staff to assist in reviewing existing land uses, -the proposed alternatives, and to set up a joint informational study session with ALUC and the Planning Commission. Staff has tentatively set this public meeting for June 19 at 9:30. This meeting would provide the Planning Commission and ALUC a status report on the consistency study, as well as provide an opportunity to learn about how the County's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance would be amended: Staff instructed ESA to concentrate on areas that are the most challenging with respect to size, degree of inconsistency, and location. I will be working with our GIS staff to develop some maps that will more clearly show existing parcelization in the airport areas to determine existing land uses. I will also be working with clerical staff to set up the June 19 Study Session. Additionally, I will be reviewing ESA's Task II report more closely, and the alternatives that are provided. J:\Task II memo ESA.doc 1 • 2 Appendix C 3 _ 4` Airport Land Use Compatibility Concepts 5 Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan 6 ` 7 OVERVIEW 9 The land use compatibility concerns addressed by ALUCs can generallygrou.ped funder four headings: noise, 10 safety, airspace protection, and overflight. 'While this information' -b qht ,to tie.disclosed to prospective 11 buyers, the seller/agent may not understand (or have objective i`ways to olescrlbiWhow the level of noise, 12 number of aircraft operations, or accident potential at a particular�airpoh aff6 t:aparticular property. 13 14 The table on page C-7 briefly describes the nature of4tfiese compatibility concerns 15 of and identifies land use measures available to ALUCs for addressrngthem. 'V_ " 16 . The discussion which follows highlights some additional facfors'�to be recognized when airport land use 17 compatibility issues are examined. A` ' 18 19 20 Noise: 21 22 Aircraft sounds mavlbermeasured_Iscientificallv,..but.ahey,are perceived subjectively.»Airports are like 23 schools: somem'eople.:w YA to 'live',across thestreet 'others drr bothered by the noise and actions of 24 children cuttin'q'across..theira lakis" K �A6o, theln'dise sensitivity W;6 -he person verses another is variable. 25 Residential `NoiseiCompatibility,Criteria Alternatives piven: in tMrCa/trans Handbook and shown on Page 26 C-11 indicabPtha't'aapplvih_ a 55dB�contou'--foralanal�useYtlesignations is advisable for airports in quiet 27 rural locations ;bbt individuals may still be annoved,or feel'threatened by that level of aircraft noise. 28 F j. ,oKy� �:. 29 Measuring Norse .1m a 30 .;p, �µ 31 The principal tooI for assessing airport noise impacts 32 is through calculation of4Com'�munity Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contours. In making such assessments, 33•. however, then Aiations oWNEL contours are essential to recognize. 34 ' rl n ,35 ► Averaging CNELicontours represent a single day's average of all of the aircraft noise events which take 36 place at aniai�port#over a year's time. The contours are a composite of individual noise events and thus do 37 not directly;measure-',these events. However, because noise is measured on a logarithmic scale, the contours 38 can be igrific an affected by a. few particularly loud events or aircraft types. Another limit to the 39 usefulness of�CNEL is that particularly annoying noise (such as high -pitch sounds or ones which create 40 vibration�dr' that occurs at night such as engine maintenance run -ups on fire -fighting aircraft) are not 41 explicitly taken into account. Consequently, other noise factors often must be considered in land use 42 compatibility planning evaluations. 43 44 ► Accuracy - Even when noise monitoring data is available - which is not the case for any of the airports in 45 Butte County - many assumptions go into the calculation of noise contours, his particularly at 46 general aviation airports. -A 2-3 dB accuracy with regard to calculation of existing contours is considered 47 good. For future contours, the added uncertainty of forecasting. both activity levels and aircraft technology 48 means that an accuracy of + 5 dB is as much as can realistically be expected. 49 50 ► . Scope — As normally depicted, cumulative noise level contours do not encompass the total area affected by 51 aircraft noise around an airport. • ,Use of noise contours to show marginally affected areas ism 52 imprecise because of the varied distribution of flight tracks and altitudes which occurs with increased distance 53 from the runway ends. 54 55 56 57 Revised C -1 a 2 3 Airport Land Use Compatibility Concepts / Appendix C 4 6 ► Single -Event - Noise Footprints of Individual Aircraft -A different perspective.on airport noise impacts can be 7 obtained by examining sound level data for individual aircraft operations as opposed to the composite 8 contours described above. Page C-8 shows a series of single -event levels or 9' i 9 aircraft noise footprints.. For each o aircraft listed, these contours;mdicate the momentary, maximum 10 sound levels experienced on the ground as the aircraft flies ovei while approaching and departing a runway. 11 The 65 dBA sound level (the'outermost contour) is significant in that thisJs the levell'at which interference with 12 speech begins to be significant. 13 r - 14" urt_ 14 Formatted in this way, the noise'levels of various types of aircrdily,be-compared: The footprints 15 dramatically illustrate, for example, why 1970s -era business jets androther not§y aircraft (especially fire attack 16 aircraft) have a major effect on the size of .the cumulative noise contours at Cliico Municipal Airport despite 17 their relatively small number of annual operations. This exp lains'why the;cumulative noise contour on 18 Exhibit 4G, based on a day durinq a fire, is much�largeritAi;i the av, rape day represented by the 19 CNEL.' The footprints also show the relatively small*noiselimpact ofrcontempofary regional airline jets - about . 20 the same as an average, twin piston -engine airplane'% .s Y `[� 21 22 ► Noise Episode - Because only 5% of�Californ►a airports haVe-CDF fire=fighbng bases, there is no 23 'method in the ALUC handbook to1q4u9nt1fWfir"e-fi4ht1ng activity.( How6verogPecial terms have been 24 used by severalX61if6rnia airportA-.tof identify .ai►tactivity thatroccurs r p atedly, that continues for 25 some significant duration ofgti►neCancd may be-(soinewliat predictable. This term identifies prolonged 26 training exerc ses ,aiinuaI air.,shows'�or regularly scheduled 1 1i4ris which may last several days and 27 result in'a. greater than_normalfuge of the"'airport.LCD'F activity during a fire is undeniably a "noise 28 episode'` �4Ten�years.'6f,hist6ric:r"ecordstofi'len-qth..&t'-fire seasons, start and finish days, -gallons of 29 retardan"t delvered:?.to fires analinumbers of .da►Ivflights durinq several campaign fires are also . 30 includ6d;in dhapterr4 :This=infarmationt,will,ttie u eful`to an individual who wishes to assess how 31 much and?when A6&tdin actio"ity occurs-iandlto determine whether the level of activity will be 32 annoying t° r' '� k� 33 d s 34 Relationship,to:Land Use's Noise contours by themselves +indicate nothing as to whether a given type of land 35 use is compatible at a particular nroise� xposure. Basic compatibility guidelines have been established by both A .*Z - 4 t � 36 the federal and=state �governments; but adjustment of these criteria to reflect local community and airport 37 conditions isstilliessential:t,(,For eX ple, the higher background noise levels found -in the urban areas south of 38 Chico MunicipalF`A r compared to the quieter, rural environs in most other portions of the airports' environs 39 makes a di e' ence in ithe' intrusiveness of aircraft noise events. This adjustment process is often referred to as 40 normalization. Everi a er normalization has been applied, however, the comparative noise sensitivity of one 41 person versus another still remains as a variable. 42 43 Safety 44 45 Assessing Aircraft Accident Risks 46 . 47be assessed _n terms; of tw 48 ' 49 ;-aFp-- events %A.1hieh happen it, when they do, the eensequenees ean be seve-6. better appFe ,50 51 52 -' 53 54 55 56 57 58 , 59 . 60 t. 61 62 Revised C - l b i r P i r- 2 3 4 Airport Land Use Compatibility Concepts / Appendix C 5 , 6 ` 7 There has lonq been a qeneral consensus within the airport industry that someldegree of safety concern 8 exists beyond the typical boundaries of an airport and its runway protection Tones. 'Two issues relating 9 to safety on the -ground are: (1) Location: where (relative to the airport] runway) is an accident likely to -10 occur, and (2) Severity: What are the consequences of an aircraft accident. 12<� 13 A third issue--"frequency--How' often is an accident likely to happen here?!'==remains a controversial 14 sub►ect because for any particular parcel the probability numbers: are somlowt.as to seem insignificant 15 Accident probabilities as a function of time can be calculated usingnatioj wide,.ratios of accidents to aircraft 16 operations and then multiplying by the number of aircraft operations expected to'take;place at an individual airport 17 over a specifiedperiod of time. For any particular parcel or small area however, the resulting probability numbers 18 are so low as to seem insignificant. The problem is that the number'sby�themselves1 lack context. Sometimes, 19 attempts are made to give them a sense of scale by making comparisons with :the probability of an individual 20 being struck_ by lightening or experiencing some other calamity. Even then, though, it i,Adifficult to base land use 21 policies on risk data comparing widely different types ;of events: A one�,inik.10,000 chance of an 22 accident/year/acre can be stated as "there is aikelihoodtof an accident occurrmglon this property once 23 in 10,000 years". But it would be equally=true`ltotsay there is the likelihood of,;dn accident occurring in 24 this neighborhood once every ten years".k(Botiitstatemeiitsl arelaccdrate, butd a first lacks a meaningful 25 context in which towmake a home .purchase rdecision Ano"ther protilem with usinq frequency to discuss 26 safety is that each,'accidenids an!iiidependent euent.`rTherg mayJidtlhave been an aircraft accident at an 27 airport for fiftyyyears,"but.that ddeeh6t`mean thaty`0 re-'couldn'tWe'Ve accidents tomorrow. 28 -N. follo,..+ 29 Safety compatiti�lity"�ssues�,arelso.basedlon�the iwing: (1) -generalized Flight Tracks --where do .30 planes norinalhUiy,(2).rperfoimance(limitationszofthe�a rcraft, and (3) actions of the pilot that can cause 31 or con tribute-Jto�gmergency situatidhs'l. tt . two, 32 TY .' 33 A further aspect�of the per,-oblem, especially W1th regard to aircraft accident risks, is that public perception is 34 perhaps morelimportant thantstatistics 4While the reality is that accidents involving light, general aviation aircraft 35 seldom causeimal)r damage or death -ton the ground, public perception usually is that only "luck" prevented any 11 4 36 particular eve from beir6' major catastrophe. Accidents involving larger aircraft - business jets and airline 37 aircraft - are,,, re likely:fo. have significant consequences to land uses; but there are fewer such aircraft flying at 38, most airports and; on, a national basis, the accident frequency is lower than for small planes. Also important - 39 especially wienlconsdering the fundamental role of ALUCs to protect airports - is that, when an aircraft accident 40 happens nearan,+aifport public response is usually in favor of restricting the airport usage, not the surrounding 41 land uses.rru'�}- 42 y llv 43 Ultimately, tFiis�issue boils down to the question.of: what is acceptable risk? The answer to this question is ,44 something which individual communities must each decide. In urban locations, people generally accept a 45 somewhat higher level of risk than they might in rural areas, just as they accept a higher level of ambient noise. It 46 is simply one,of the disadvantages of urban living which go hand in hand with the advantages. Safety is relative, 47 not absolute. 48 49 Aircraft Accident Locations 50 ; 51 The number of off -airport aircraft accidents at any particular airport is too small to provide a meaningful indication 52 of where accidents may occur near that airport in the future. To better assess the geographic. distribution of 53 aircraft accident risks near. -an airport, a larger database is necessary.. A database of this type was initially 54 developed for the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook 'published by the California Department of 55 Transportation Aeronautics Program. The database was expanded in 1999 and now contains information on 56 some 873 general aviation aircraft accidents (445 arrival accidents and 428 departure accidents) which occurred 57 within 5 miles of an airport, but not on the runway. (This data. includes accidents at airports nationwide over 58 roughly a 10 -year period. However, because precise location data is not available for most accidents, the 59 database represents only a fraction of the total number of off -airport accidents that took place during this time 60 span.) ; 61 62 Revised �. C - 2 r• 2 3 Airport Land Use Compatibility Concepts / Appendix C 4 5 6 The charts on pa-ges C -9 and C-10 depict the relative geographic intensity of general aviation aircraft accident 7 risks for arrival and departure accidents, respectively. Each dot represents the locatiF j of an aircraft accident site •8 mapped with respect to the approach or departure runway which the aircraft was.intgnding to use for landing or 9 had used on takeoff. The 20% contour represents the highest or most,�600ncentrated risk intensity, the 40% 10 contour represents the next highest risk intensity, etc. Each contour intervval'is drawn(so as to encompass 20% of 11 the dots within the most compact area. ' 12 13 The charts reveal several facts: t _ dwj,rte J. 14 Do -About half of arrival accidents and a third of departure accidents take place within the FAA defined runway 15 protection zone for a runway with a low -visibility, instrument approachtprocedure'(a 2,500 -foot long trapezoid, 16 varying from 1,000 feet to 1,750 feet in total width). This fact lends'validi,t. to,the importance of the runway 17 protection zones as an'area within which land use activities shoul&be,;minimal!.xd 18 19 ► Although the runway protection zones represent thedocations withimwhich risUevelsrare highest, a significant 20 degree of risk exists well beyond the runway p�rtection`z one boundaries. Amongall near -airport (within 5 21 miles) accidents, over 80% are concentrated within 1 5 toi2?miles Ma runwa y,en&f,,` 22'`I 1 23 ► Arrival accidents tend to be concentrated relatively close `to the extended runway centerline. Some 80% 24 occur within a sttnp�x ending 1 0;000 feet f�mythe unway landing threshold a d 2,000 feet to each side of 25 the runwaycenterline ,�� Y 26 t= t'c 27 Do -Departure,_, -1 6'comparatively more,gdispersed' laterally from the runway centerline, but are 28 concentratedkcloser to.l,the ru hwayfend. Many departure accidents also occur lateral to the runway itself, 29 particularly,,when the nJnway is,long. Approxirnatelyr80%''of the departure accident sites lie within an area 30 2,500 fromytl e� runway;centerline,and 6,000 feet beyondythe runway end or adjacent to the runway.` 31 1 V~III '�1� r.y r 32 This data does not address)tf a otherfima)or components of aircraft accident risk: the potential consequences of i M * 33 accidents when they occur,and the.frequency with which they occur. The intent is merely to illustrate the relative 34 intensity of the risks on a geograpric scale.` 35 4 36 Furthermore;-) as, with noise`i'contou s; risk data by itself does not answer the question of what degree of land use 37 restrictions should bbAestal lished in response to the risks. Although most ALUCs have policies which restrict 38 certain land �use actiNie in locations beyond,.the runway protection zones, the size of the area in which 39 restrictions are established and the specific restrictions applied vary from one county to another. Y 41 Severity , 42 :- 43 The nature of the impact that occurs•wheri a small aircraft comes down off -airport can vary from a nearly 44 normal landing to a catastrophic crash.. When the aircraft remains under control and a reasonably open 45 emergency landing site can be found, the impact can be -relatively minor. The potential for injury to 46 people on the ground is small and the aircraft occupants have a strong probability of surviving. The most 47 serious accidents, in terms of risks to people on the ground and to the aircraft occupants, are those in 48 which the pilot either loses control of the aircraft and is unable to regain control because of damage low 49 altitude, or improper procedures: or unable ­to select a .reasonable forced landino spot because of 50 darkness, fog, or no landing spot exists. 51 521/ Data were gathered regarding•the probable effects of a small aircraft colliding with a typical house or 53 other small building. - There were many variables: (1) aircraft weight, (2) amount of fuel on board (3) 54 aircraft speed, both horizontally and vertically, at the time of the collision. (4) The angle of contact with 55 ' the structure (i.e.,yiancing or head-on), (5) aircraft attitude when the collision occurs (6) -composition of 56 the building surface, and (6) the occurrence of fire after the impact. The study determined that the 57 'i 'combination of these variables is so great as to preclude definitive conclusions. The effects can only be 58 \estimated within a wide range of possibilities. 50, 60 61 Revised C - 3 r • 2 , 3 Airport Land Use Compatibility Concepts / Appendix C 4 5 6 To the extent that anv meaningful conclusions can be reached from the data obtained, they can be sum - 7 marized as follows: Other factors being equal (which, for anv two accidents, they never are), more 8 dama a will be Produced b larger, faster aircraft than b smaller and slower ones. 9 /l ,,� ti 10, The amount of -kinetic energy, produced by� a small, but fully loaded;, single-engine airplane flying at 11 minimum speed is equivalent to that of a small automobile traGelihd,-'at tabouft55 miles per hour. By 12 comparison, a cabin -class twin would generate kinetic energyAiniilar toithat'`df �a loaded 10 -ton truck 13 traveling 60 miles per hour (McElroy 1973). 'Unlike automobiles,:air`craftrarefnot}designed for collisions. 14 The disintegration of the wings and fuselage of a small, general.'aviationaircraft as it collides with a 15 buildin_g dissipates much of the kinetic energy that would otherwise:be tleliv'red to the structure, but 16 neither data nor analyses can predict the actual effects of a particularid{cid6nt. 18 As canla can-aex ected off -airport aircraft accidents tend to -be more+severe than1o7es occurring on or near a 19 runw a aircraft is destroyed in some 75% 'of-�'off='air orttaccidents.Moreover fatal in'uries occur 1,,20 more\thatY half of the time. It must be remembered��howevei that: these A4dres� are relative to the total 21 number of accidents. No information is availatile!iegardingikhowl ofted,li rcraft, make an emergency i 22 landing on or off of an 'airport without-incurnn-4 sdBstantial Mdamage or. resulting in serious or fatal 23---•.iniuries. r 24 ,5ouY-ci_ 25 Airspace Protection' T` $� -� 27 The Federal 1Aviation.Administration`establishes the -criteria which erm h detines the airspace essential to the safe 28 flight of airc aft to from and _iaround:-airports. There are, two separate sets of criteria, each with a different 29 purpose. 30 31 Criteria usedAto 1iprotect the -airspace around airports,,:f�om tall structures which could pose hazards to flight are 32 established in Part 77 of tfie1Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). The regulations, though; do not give the FAA 33 direct authority to'limit the:�,height of,,structures. This authority rests with state and local governments. Rather, 34 Part 77 sereestprimarily as'a otificatio F device. ' Before a structure which would exceed the Part 77 surfaces is 35 built, noti ication_,l, us t be`s. ittedito�the FAA. The FAA then conducts an aeronautical study to determine 36 whether they otij ct woulourld`fnot be a hazard to air navigation. The FAA also may indicate that an 37 obstruction shoulde+marked and/or lighted. 38 39 The FAA's direcO`authon` ,rrity with .regard to airport airspace is to define instrument approach procedures. The 40 criteria used .for th'is.rpurpose .are outlined in the United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures 41 (TERPS). Unl.ike'FAR-Part 77 which sets desirable, limits on the height of structures, TERPS takes these objects 42 as a given and''tFien uses that information in the procedure design. If a new structure is built which penetrates .�_ P 9 43 one of the 'ERPS surfaces for an existing procedure, the procedure must be redesigned with higher approach 44 minimums or perhaps eliminated altogether. 45 ' 46 In general, FAR Part 77 surfaces ,for a particular airport are lower than those defined by TERPS. Part 77, 47 however, does not specifically take into account turns in approaches or, more significantly, in missed approaches. 48 Also, it does not take into account VFR (Visual Fight Rules) noise abatement procedures that may be 49 established by the airport operator, such as the noise abatement departures used by airtankers or the 50 agricultural aircraft arrival path at Chico Municipal. Thus, it is possible for a structure to be built to a height 51 which does not exceed the Part 77 limits, but still adversely affects an existing instrument approach procedure. 52 Also .to be considered is that a structure which does not adversely affect an existing procedure could be the 53 critical obstacle for a future, not yet designed, procedure. For airports such as Chico Municipal Airport and 54 Oroville Municipal Airport which have existing or planned instrument approach procedures, a review of TERPS 55 surfaces can be an important land use compatibility component. 56 4 57 Homebuyers are not usually affected, however, unusual structures such as antennas multi -story 58 structures. ' or buildinq sites on high . terrain within the limits of the FAR Part 77 surfaces may be 59 restricted. 60 s 61 Revised , C-4 I 2 3 Airport Land Use Compatibility Concepts / Appendix C 4 ^ 5 a 6 Overflight 7 ,. 8 Assessing Overflight Annoyance 9 10 A general definition of overflight impacts is that they are noise -rel 11 typical contours described by cumulative' noise level metrics. ` 4 12 Also, they seem 13 concerns. Often the impacts are revealed "in the form of annoyan( 14 airport. 15 16 Traffic patterns are usuallv depicted as arrows indicatinq the.d 17 the airspace around an airport. Individuals unfamiliar with - 18 indicating a "roadway in the sky" and assume that aircraft mus 19 to stay on a road. The only time wheri aircraft are f6116wing�1 a "rc ted impactsf affecting locations outside the 4 :)iinclud elements,of both noise and safety :'expressed{bysome people living near an -esti n andlgeneral location of aircraft in iglit 7may ,"interpret these arrows to be :stav on tliesedines as cars are reauired 20 from the runways, or on roll-out or touchdown on�a runway a r t'^ 21 ;r F 22 The illustrations from the Caltrans Handbook, reproduced on pace C-11 compare these stylized traffic 23 patterns with the reality of actual aircraftAlj�movements.(bas'.ed on5raalar tracking)'at Sacramento Airport. 24 When approaching or. Veparting an.airSdrt� aircraft follow,"iAtrack�.thais analogous to the movements of a 25 boat entering or leaving a harbor�'tt"�' 26 Itr, Zcu27 For this ButteaCounty AUCPrgenerahzed flight.,are depicted by areas of color which is more 28 accurate anal:"more,iiifor'rnatiue to;t/ie genera1/nonw�aviation;lpublic. 29 till 30 Although ou�erflight noise'is detectablk. 7e and thereforeameasurable, the highly subjective individual reactions to 31 overflights makes;the value of•measurement on'a decibel scale questionable. A more representative measure of 32 overflight impacts�s the absolute umber of Psive which occur, but there is no agreed-upon, scientific 33 standard for what an acceptable number might be. 34 Y r�^ass ,_� 35 For the purp� ses;of airp�ortlland u FgG patibility planning, a simpler form of assessment may be more practical. 36 This app roa h;p;�e�sumes,that airchoverflight impacts are potentially a concern anywhere along the standard 37 aircraft traffic pattern fi* ;tracks for an airport , 38 or,in`�the airport vicinity where aircraft fly at' or below traffic pattern altitude while approaching or 39 departing the runway 40 41 Whether a sFgnificanti degree of overflight annoyance will actually occur in the vicinity of an airport is influenced by 42 a variety offactors, both environmental and human: Building type and design, ambient noise levels, the 43 characteristics and predictability of the noise itself, and (as noted above) the frequency of occurrence are among. 44 the environmental factors involved.'An individual's sense of annoyance at overflights depends upon such'factors 45 as characteristics of the land use activity being disrupted, personal sensitivity to noise, attitudes toward aviation, 46 and experience and expectations regarding noise levels in the community. 47 48 Buyer Awareness Measures . 49 50 The basic means available to ALUCs for addressing overflight issues is through 51 buyer awareness measures . which recognize the subjective nature of annoyance. 52 The likelihood of people being annoyed by airport activity can be reduced if they are made, 53 aware of the airport's proximity and the nature and location of aircraft overflights before moving into the airport 54 area. 55 - 56 Buyer awareness is really'an umbrella term for three "separate types of measures all having the objective of 57 ensuring that prospective buyers of property in the vicinity of an airport are informed about the airport's impacts on 58 the property. Although variations are sometimes created, the three basic types of buyer awareness measures 59 are: 60 '• 61 Revised - C - 5 62 .3 Airport Land Use Compatibility Concepts / Appendix C 4 5 1 6 ► Avigation Easement Dedication - A requirement -for avigation easement dedication is usually applied only 7 to new development.- It is the most comprehensive and stringent form of buyer awareness measures. 8 Although the rights associated with most avigation easements are establishA4in other forms (e.g., local, F,+ 9, airport -vicinity, height -limit zoning ordinances,' and Federal Aviation Regulations), an avigation easement 10 clearly conveys these rights to the airport owner. '' { i 12 ► Deed Notices -Deed notices' are similar to avigation easements inithat the y.,,are recorded with the deed to a 13 property and are usually implemented only in conjunction with some form,(of.'development approval process. ko- a :q A k ��1 14 Unlike 'easements, though, they do not convey any property, rights Deed notices'serve only to formalize the 15 fact that a property is subject to aircraft overflights and noise. yRy^ , 16 w 17 ► Real Estate Disclosure Real estate disclosure is the least formal method of implementing a buyer 18 awareness program. It relies upon standard real estate disclosure laws_and practices to ensure that . z � � � 4 �:�.YA . 19 prospective buyers of property in the airport vicinity arekinformedfabout the proximity of a nearby airport and 20 the impacts it creates... The likelihood of this information lbei 9 disclosed can�be increased if the airport or the 21. local land use jurisdiction provide official notification to local real estate brok6is.,66d,title companies. 22- aipal 23 The City of Chico has'an avigation,e ement,`proaramlinp/ace'at ChicovMAirport but neither 24 Paradise, Orovillefnor,Butte CoLidty."have-establislied.dimilakr,.i5r-dcedures around County Airports. 25' }. - Y ~ , X14 ` # Si' " 26 The Butte County At UC has adopted a disclosure,statementat' can be used to inform prospective 27 buyers'odti3 oiperty. around the.aiii�ort abou`t4information regarding the noise and accident potential of 28 , airport area propeitieS.4 The disclosurefsiatement.isifoun$f in the new Appendix K and directs the 29 inquire"r. , other informa°tionravailable On diiVALAUCP.; 30 31 The mostRcomplete.�nformation:kpackaae:,about�`i ButtejCounty airport that has been prepared by the 32 Butte County ALUCpwould dlso.'include: '.x 33 I. 34 (1) Thea.background'datawapter on the selected'airport (Chapter 4, 5 6 or 7) 35 (2) Appendix d which discdsses the compatibility concepts as applicable to a decision to 36 purchase land. -round:an)airport, and 1. 37 (3) The, section._ofnChaptei 3 which maps the comatibility zones around each airport and lists the J 38 indiOddid,aiMport policies. This would be useful -for determining what appropriate use can take 39 place %6i7 theWroperty before it has been purchased. 0 4 - + 42 43 44 45 r 46 , 47 48 , 49 50 , J: 51 52 53 54 55 ' w. . 56 ,. 57 58 59, - r 60 61 62 Revised' C 6 The most accurate way to describe activity at an air attack base is to give factual descriptions of th history of the base at Chico. Data is from CDF flight logs --the official public records of operations maintained for accounting and legal purposes. Fire Season: (Fig. 1) The general time frame of fire season is predictable, generally starting mid- May in Northern California, as shown by this graphic of start and stop dates for 1989-1999. Fire season has started as early as April 11th and ended as late as Dec. 13th. Fire season generally lasts from 5-7 months. ' Fire Season Severity: (Fig. 2) May be measured by the amount of retardant usec Gallons of retardant loaded into aircraft durinc the 1991-99 seasons. Note that even though ar average can be calculated, only a single fire season -1983 -came' near to being "average." 1600000 -� — 1400000 1999-1;3!88,38d'gal 1200000 v�1r000000 - z 800000 s — — 600000 _ -- — 3. .1988 -37,610 400000 — — — ----- 200000'-- 0 00000" — -- — — — YEAR (-4, , -4 OOD ; OD co DATES of FIRE SEASON in BUTTE COUNTY --1989-1999 1994 Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1989 Sep X XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX Nov 1990 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X 1991 XX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 1992 XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX 1993 r X XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX 1994 XX XXXX XXXX -XXXX XXXX XXXX X 1995 XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 1996 r XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 1997 XX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X 1998XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X 1999 XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX"XX Earliest B Latest: 'Apr. 11, 1988 . ' a Dec. 13, 1959 1600000 -� — 1400000 1999-1;3!88,38d'gal 1200000 v�1r000000 - z 800000 s — — 600000 _ -- — 3. .1988 -37,610 400000 — — — ----- 200000'-- 0 00000" — -- — — — YEAR (-4, , -4 OOD ; OD co 1994 1 '21 3 4 • 51 61 7 8 91101 111 12 131 141-151 16 17 18 19120121 22123124125 26 27128129 30 31 JunI 1 12 2 5 2 21 1 11 1 2 3 5 4 8 3 62 Jul 1 31 2, 21 1 ' 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 7 1 11 3 8 .21 2 1 2 2 3 1 Aug 2 81 1 11 8 2 22 1 7 `3 20 .3. 3 1 10 6 38 6 4 6 22115 1 25 33 4 1 Sep 1 1, 3 -5 3 '21 31 3- 1 r 2 1 12 71 29 62 74 2 71 41 2 16 4 Oct.- 1 6. 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 6 31 '11 2 1 1 1 Nov 1 1 2 ' I 1 _ .1 1 1 1 1 Daily Activity: (Fig. 3) • - This shows the variableness'in`even a very heavyfire season. This graphic gives the number of take -offs daily for the year 1994, there are manydays when no airtanker.flew at all. - Revised 12/2001 4-1b C OP 1 2 3" 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 . 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37' 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 .48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Appendix C Airport Land Use Compatibility Concepts Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan OVERVIEWxt� ' t The land use compatibility concerns addressed by ALUCs can gene rallysbe�groupedlunder four headings: noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight. While this informatioyn,..ou�ght ,to.'bb: disclosed to prospective Mnverc fhn cnllnr/nnnn♦ mw-�%I nn Aorc}onrl /nr hwn nhinrfivz IWaVC fri hPCCPI %1CIAArIw the IPVPI of nn' The table onpaq�C-7 briefly describes the nature of and identifies land use measures available to ALUCs for a weO: The discussion which follows highlights some additions compatibility issues are examined. I �' Noise ,_A joss.their"a lawns.".' A l.T� ;of-th-ese comp' tibility concerns des sings hem. eel- tbrs, to be recognized when airport land use '«i are like rural locations.fbut individuals niiVkill be annoyed,'or feel threatened by'i Q444hat level of aircraft noise. Measuring r`Noise Impacts The pnncipa_tool'' { h `':� assessing assessinairport noise impacts is through calculation of Co -m- munity�,Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contours.MRS smeol ► Averaging 7 CNEL?contours represent a single day's average of all of the aircraft noise events which take place atlA a6o�rt�over a year's time. The contours are a composite of individual noise events and thus do not directly measure)these events. However, because noise is measured on a logarithmic scale, the contours can be tign'ificantly affected by a'few *particularly loud events or aircraft types Aire= Another limit to the usefulness oKCNEL is that particularly annoying noise (such as high -pitch sounds or ones which create vibration's3o'r that occurs at night such as engine maintenance run -ups on fire-fighting`aircraft) are not explicitly taken into account. - Consequently, other noise factors often must be considered in land use compatibility planning evaluations. - No, Accuracy - Even when noise monitoring data is available - which is not the case for any of the airports in Butte County - many assumptions go into the calculation of noise contours, s particularly tie at general aviation airports. A 2-3 dB accuracy with regard to calculation of existing contours is considered good. For future contours, the added uncertainty of forecasting both activity levels and aircraft technology means that an accuracy of + 5 dB is as much as can realistically be expected. ► Scope - As normally depicted, cumulative noise level contours do not encompass the total area affected by aircraft noise around an airport. Use of noise contours to show marginally affected, areas is imprecise because of the varied distribution of flight tracks and altitudes which occurs with increased distance from the runway ends. Revised C -1a f Airport Land Use Compatibility Concepts / Appendix C 4 +' 6 ► Single -Event - Noise Footprints of Individual Aircraft -A different perspective'on airport noise impacts can be 7 obtained by examining sound level data for individual aircraft operations as opposed to the composite 8 contours described above. Page C-8 shows a series of I single' -event levels or 9 aircraft noise footprints. For each o aircraft listed, these contours indic.4d the momentary, maximum 4 10 sound levels experienced on the ground as the aircraft flies over wl ile'-approaching,and departing a runway. 11 'The 65 dBA sound level (the outermost contour) is the'levelat which interference with 12 speech begins to be significant. 14 Formatted in this way, the noise levels of various types of aircraft cant rea'dily.:be�compared. The footprints 15 ,(� dramatically illustrate, for example;'why 1970s -era business jets �andkotl'er�noisy,aircraft (especially fire attack 16 °Caircraft) have a major effect on the size of the cumulative noise`coritours at' - hic�o Municipal Airport despite 17 lacid ir tively small number of annual operations. This explains1wh.y the cumulative noise contour on 18 N ff4 ased on a da durin fir is much lar er�than�'the avers ektda :,re resented b the CNEL. 19 The r nts also show the relatively spall noise imp5ct ofrcoriti mporary`,`�egional airline jets about the 20 same as an average, twin piston -engine airplane.. "''i."�� 21 22 ► Noise Episode - Because only 5% of. California -ir" "orfs have'=CDF fire=fi htm baes th a is no 23 method in the ALUC handbook to1q'uanti 'fire-fi6ti6 aciivit�.] Howeverls ecial'te 4ve been 24 used by severaloCalifornia airports,.toliden"tify arisactivity thatyoccurs,repeatedly, that ntinues for 25 some si nificantiduration ofitimeia a belsomewiiat prVW66ble. This term identifies rolon ed 26 training ex6ercises _annual air�shol s'or iegilhirO scheduledwfl -ins which may last several days and 27 result in`Jt rester thah4hor 'du- of thVj& rtk=# aciivit' durinq a fire is undeniabl a "noise 28 a isod4 ;Ten�'ears,of�iii `ri "recor s ' lenk-tli-ro Afire seasons start and finish days gallons of 29 retardaiit:,delivered:rtor.fi ss'a d5lnumbe s;:;of, .daH .,,Mfihts during several cam ai n fires are also 30 includeWiii!C-haptei,"-A� cT formationiwill[beVuseful to an individual who wishes to assess how 31 much andawh'en`' activit .:occ`u'rs anduto: 3 - Airport Land Use Compatibility Concepts / Appendix C 4 ' �5 6 ' There has Iona been -a aeneral consensus within the airport industry that some .de ree of safety concern 7 'exists beyond the &Dical bo ndaries of an air rt and its runway protection zones. Two issues relatin 8 to safety on the aMund are:0) Loc tiono-whe a relative to the airport runwa is an accident likeIV to 9 occur, and 2 Se rit What are the 6onsequefices of an aircraft accident. 10 12 A third issue--"frequencv--How often is an accident likely .to happen here?a' =remains a controversial 13 subiect because for any particular parcel the probability numtiers,are sovl6wrasl to seem insignificant 14 Accident probabilities as a function of time can be calculated usinkg'natio�wide Frat s of accidents to aircraft 11 15 operations and then multiplying by the number of aircraft operations ekpectedi 0 take place at an individual airport 16 over a specified period of time. For any particular parcel or small area;�bhowever, thelresuiting probability numbers 17 are so low as to seem insignificant. The problem is that the numbers,y'themselve§l lack context. Sometimes, 18 attempts are made to give them a sense of scale by making comparisons Altffi& probability of an individual ve 19 being struck by lightening or experiencing some other c�lami�ty� Ek" n hen , though, it is difficult to base land use 20 policies on risk data comparing widely differenV'Ipes,;olf events, A one1-in"A10,000• chance of an 21 accident/year/acre can be stated as "there is a likelihood:iof an accident occurrinpl on this property once 22 in 10,000 years" But it would be equally true1t6,r!ay4" there is thewkelihood,of an1 accident occurring in 23 this neighborhood once every tenyears;�.-vBoih�staterhents areta—ccurate, 6utdhh— first lacks a meaningful 24 context in which to make a home pure` a -s- a decision�IAnother iii-661em withAis—inq frequency to discuss 25 safety is that each acdident is an indeiodndentlev'enf'-:rliere1 maii`Tnotlhave been an aircraft accident at an 26 airport for fifty years Ybut that doesindt'mean-that4t ere'couldn'tWeifiwe accidents tomorrow. 74 28 Safety comp�atitiility issues areIso�ba'sed onl!(1)r.genld FlighTracks =-where do planes normally fly, 29 (2) perforr danCe4iiinitati6ds, Of th'e a rcraft andA actions'1 of the pilot that can cause or contribute to 30 emergencylgitbdiions. -= r �" , 31'T..�; 32 A further aspect �of the prob'ledm, especially withpregard to aircraft accident risks, is that public perception is 33 perhaps more�important than�statistics While the reality is that accidents involving light, general aviation aircraft 34 seldom cause°major damageior deathslon the ground, public perception usually is that only "luck" prevented any 35 particular event',from bel'Ad a major catastrophe. Accidents involving larger aircraft.- .business jets and airline 36 aircraft - are! m' to have significant consequences toAand uses, but there are fewer such aircraft flying at 37 most airports `and on a natio al b�a�s�the accident frequency is lower than for small planes. Also important - 38 especially when considerinc he fundamental role of ALUCs to protect airports - is that, when an aircraft accident 39 happens near^an airport, public response is usually in favor of restricting the airport usage, -not the, surrounding 40 land uses. 41 42 Ultimately, thi!�5Nissue' boils down to the question of: what is acceptable risk? The answer to this question is 43 something whichindividual communities must each decide. In urban locations, "people generally accept a 44 somewhat higher, level of risk than they might in rural areas, just as they accept a higher level of ambient noise. It 45 is simply one of the disadvantages of urban living which go hand in hand with the advantages. Safety is relative, 46 not absolute. 47 48 Aircraft Accident Locations 49 . 50 The number of off -airport aircraft accidents at any particular airport is too small to provide a meaningful indication 51 of where accidents may occur near that airport in the future. To better assess the geographic distribution of 52 aircraft accident risks near an airport; a -larger database is necessary. A database of this type was initially 53 developed for the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the California Department of 54 Transportation Aeronautics Program. The database was expanded in 1999 and now contains information on 55 'some 873 general aviation aircraft accidents (445 arrival accidents and 428 departure accidents) which occurred 56 within 5 miles of an airport, but not on rthe runway. (This data includes accidents at airports nationwide over 57 roughly a 10 -year period. However, because precise location data is not available for most accidents, the 58 database represents only a fraction of the total number of off -airport accidents that took place during this time 59 span.) 60 61 ' 62 Revised C-2 1 2 . 73 Airport Land Use Compatibility Concepts / Appendix C 4 . 5 - •6 The charts on pages C -9 and C-10 depict the relative geographic intensity of general aviation aircraft accident 7 risks for arrival and departure accidents, respectively. Each dot represents the location of an aircraft accident site 8 mapped with respect to the approach or departure' runway which the aircraft was intending to use for landing or. 9 had used on takeoff. The 20% contour represents the highest or, most-f�600ncentfated risk,intensity, the 40% 10 contour represents the next highest risk intensity, etc. Each contour interval is drawniso s to encompass 20% of 11 the dots within the most compact area., 12 13 The charts reveal several facts: Y 14 Do -About half of arrival accidents and a third of departure accidents"take,place within the FAA defined runway 15 protection zone for a runway with a low -visibility instrument a roach.; rocedure' a 2,500 -foot Ion trapezoid, p Y. Y PPS• }P%iE �.4. 9 P 16 varying from 1,000 feet,to 1,750 feet in total width). This fact,lends+,validi,t to ,the importance of the runway 17 protection zones as an area within which land use activities'should[66minimal: 18 19 ' ► Although the runway protection zones represent the+locations withinLwhich nskjlevel&are highest, a significant 20 degree of risk exists well beyond the runway per tection(z one boundaries. Among ;all near -airport (within 5 �'_� 22 miles) accidents,,over 80% are concentrated withliriOI to smiles of airunway.-end?_ 23 ► . Arrival accidents tend to be concentrated relatively close ,to the extended �r�u` niway centerline. Some 80%' 24 occur within a strip extending 1 0 0004eet f6m4eYunway landing threshold and 2,000 feet to each side of 25 the runway centerline�� If 14 r JFn `C' 27 ► Departure` accidents" aye': comparatively more`:Aispersed- lateryally from the runway centerline, but are 28 concentrated closer foFthe runway end.:• Many,departur&accidents also occur lateral to the runway itself, 29 particularly„when the, runway isllong. Approximately 80% of the departure accident sites lie within an area p : y W6. w k "A., A 30' 2,500 from,the runway centerline and 6,000�fd�efbe',�&A'4he runway end or adjacent to the runway. 31 32 This data does'not address'tle other major components of aircraft accident risk: the potential consequences of 33 accidents when`they occ,ir d the"Irequ *riency with which they occur. The intent is merely to illustrate the relative 34 intensity of thesks on algeographric scale. 35 5, r 36' Furthermoreyas with noise -.contours -risk data by itself does not answer the question of what degree of land use' 37 restrictions should bAgt6l lished lin response to the risks. Although most ALUCs have policies which restrict 38 certain landuse-activities in locations beyond the runway protection zones, the size of the area in which 39 restrictions are,established and the specific restrictions applied vary from one county to another. 401 Severity�'r 42 . 43 The nature of the impact that occurs when a small aircraft comes downff--air o an vary from a nearly' 44 normal landing to a catastrophic crash. When the aircraft remains und&­rmatr6l and a reasonably open ' .45 emergency landing site can be found, the impact can be relatively minor. The potential for injury to 46 people on the round is small and the aircraft o cu ants have a sLronq probabilitVof survivin . The most 47 serious accidents in terms of risks to eo a round to the aircraft occu ants are those 48- in which the o -Le "th os_es�c-Q t rol f thea cr ec se of damage, low altitude or im ro er 49 rocedure is unable to reain cont ro • or is unable ct a reasonable forced landing sot because . 50 of darknes o_g, or no n_g spot exists. 51�, 52 Data was --gathered regarding the probable effects of a small aircraft colliding with a typical house or other 53 . small buildinq. There were manV' Variables: (1) aircraft weight,” (2) amount of fuel on board, (3) aircraft 54 speed, both horizontally and vertically, at the time of the collision, (4) The angle of contact with the 55 structure (i.e., glancing or.head-on), (5) aircraft attitude when the collision occurs, (6) composition of the 56- building surface, .and (6) the occurrence of fire after the impact. The study determined 'that the 57 combination of these variables is so -great as to preclude definitive conclusions. The effects can only be 58 stimated within a wide ran - e of possibilities. 59 60c�-V 61 Revised C - 3 • 1 .• 2 ' 3 Airport Land Use Compatibility Concepts / Appendix C _ 4 .5 flight of aircraft.to;� fro 6 To the extent ti 7. marized as fol ' 8 dama_-ge will be 9 runty "...the i 10 The amount o 11 minimum spee 12 comparison, a 13 travelinq 60 mi 14 The disintegra 15 buildinq dissir 1 neither data nc flight of aircraft.to;� fro '17 purpose. �c } r18As ca be ex e / runty "...the i 31 20 more han hAIJ r 21 rwmbe acg landin_-q on or direct authority :to limit 23 24 25 injuries. Airspace Prot 26 27 The Federal~Av nv mean, Other Vced by if the tim Tents. N ff of an �.Aion, y tionAdmii 28 flight of aircraft.to;� fro 29- purpose. �c } 30 31 Criteria used r,tosprotec 32 established n,Part 77 33 direct authority :to limit ' 34 Part 77 servesRprimaril r;T,and �a tz.a:; . -r _� Yi' - r.. mation is availa without-incu"rein V ��es ablishes the• ind�airports. T66 I, more irinng at ur. By n Mirk . off-opport,ik '. ibWdver, thi �regardin_gth te�awh are'.twc r. incident:, vresaare relative h d��etermines the airspace essential to the safe separate sets of criteria, each with a different airspaM ela round airports f om tall structures which could pose hazards to flight are ,bderal}�Aviation RegMations (FAR). The regulations; though, do not give the FAA ieight of structures. This authority rests with state and local governments. Rather, al otification device. Before a structure which would exceed the Part 77 surfaces is k 4 ' k =� - k 35 built, notification 1must be submitted,to5the FAA. The FAA then conducts an aeronautical study to determine _t ..r r- �n 36 whether the object wouldi or would not be a hazard to air navigation. The FAA also may indicate that an �;�_+r b - d b 37 obstruction shoule�marked and/or lighted. 38 39 The FAA's direct,authoyfy with regard to airport airspace is to define instrument approach procedures. The 40 criteria usedtfor, �tl is' purpose are outlined in the United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures 41 (TERPS). Unlike�FAR Part .77 which sets desirable limits on the height of structures, TERPS takes these objects 42 as a given ao �;# en uses that information in the procedure design. If a new structure is built which penetrates 43, - one of the TERPS surfaces for an existing procedure, the procedure must be redesigned with higher approach 44 minimums or perhaps eliminated,altogether. 45 46' In general, FAR Part 77 surfaces for a particular airport are lower than those defined by TERPS. Part 77, 47 however, does not specifically take into account turns in approaches or, more significantly, in missed approaches„ p_JJ 48 'VFR visual Fi ht Rules noise abatement rocedures that may be established b the airport operator,' J 49 such as the noise abatement departures used by airtankers or the agricultural aircraft arrival path`at �e ✓✓✓✓ 50 Chico Municipal. Thus, it is possible for a'structure to be built to a height which does not exceed the Part 77 G51 limits, but still adversely affects an existing instrument approach procedure. Also to be considered is that a Vol 52 structure which does not adversely affect an existing procedure could be the critical obstacle for future, not yet 53 designed, procedure: For airports such as Chico Municipal Airport and Oroville Municipal Airport which have 5 existing or planned instrument approach procedures, a review of TERPS surfaces can be an important land use compatibility component. ' 56 57 58 59 60 61 ' RCYIDWU 2. 3 Airport Land Use Compatibility Concepts / Appendix C 4 5 6 Overflight ,7 8 Assessing Overflight Annoyance ' 10 A general definition of overflight impacts is' that they are noise -related impactsfaffectieg locations outside the 11 typical contours described by cumulative noise level metrics. �U 12 . Also, they seem toprnclude elements1of both noise and safety 13 concerns. Often the impacts are revealed in the form of annoyancEl"(44'n `by;'some people living near an 14 airport. 15 16 Traffic patterns are usually depicted as arrows indicating the derat location of aircraft in 17* the airspace around an airport. Individuals unfamiliar witA,:YIiCiKt:.,-may Mterpret these arrows to be 18 indicating a "roadway in the sky" and assume that aircraft must,,stag on these lines as cars are required' 19 to stay on a road. The only time when aircraft are following�a `froad!!ti's whehWfey are actually taxiing to or 20 from the runways, or on roll-out or touch down on�a runway: V` z 21 , ? a _ . 22 The illustrations from the Caltrans Handbook reproduced.on page- C-11 compare these stylized traffic ' 23 patterns with the reality of actual aircraftAmoveinentsj,(b sed ohiadar trackin_g)"at Sacramento Airport. a 24 When approaching orldeparting an.airport! aircraft fdllowpa',track,thati 2. ` 43 r Airport Land Use Compatibility Concepts / Appendix C 4 5 ` .6 ► Avigation Easement Dedication - A requirement for avigation easement dedication is usually.applied only 7 to new development. It is the most comprehensive and stringent, form, of buyer awareness measures. 8 Although the rights, associated with 'most avigation easements areestablished in other forms (e.g., local, 6_a._ 9 , airport -vicinity, height -limit zoning ordinances,' and Federal Aviati(Tt Regulations),'an avigation-easement 10 clearly conveys these rights to the airport owner.+ ' L2.y 12 ► Deed Notices. -'Deed notices are similar to avigation easements t theyyare recorded with the deed to a �.F 13 property and are usually implemented only•in conjunction'with some form 0f�develoPment approval process. 14 Unlike easements, though, they do not convey any property rights Deed notices erve only to formalize the 15 fact that a property is subject to aircraft overflights and noise.ez £ 16 t..'�r r • '. 17 ► Real Estate Disclosure - Real estate disclosure is the least rformal method of implementing a buyer 18 awareness program. It relies upon standard real estate disclosure laws°kand practices to ensure that 19 prospective buyers of property in the airport vicinity„�einform ed(about the roximity of a nearby airport and ' 20 the impacts it creates. The likelihood of this mforrnationbemg�discloed canF ber rcneased if the airport or the 21 local land use jurisdiction provide official notifi�ccation to,local real estaate brokers andjtitle companies. 23 The Cit of Chico has an ave ation,e ern ro ram_ in laciiA Chico°„Municial Airport, but neither 24 Paradise Oroville*or Butte Courit rdh etestablliidhi'U imilar `#"° around Count Airports. 26 The Butte{County ALIUC hastadopted a disclosurejstatement,`that can be used to inform prospective 27 buyers. c'ifproperty',:a' Ad theFWi ort aboutinformation re_gardin_g the noise and accident potential of 28air ortaa`rea "ro ertie`s:: Ther°disclosureistate- - is.�fount% in the new A endix K and directs the 29 in uirer to,other information avaiiable in�tli _ +� `` 30 31 The moStacomplet&4nforma__ ackagelabout a Butte County airport that'has been prepared by the 32 Butte County ALUG 33 would alsoGinclude: ;r= � ' 34 (1) T.he+backgro`und dataU hapter on the selected airport (Chapter 4,5, 6, or 7) .35 (2) -A peridix d ivMch discusses the compatibility concepts as. applicable 'to a d6cision to 36 purchase landaround'anlairport, and _t 37 3 Tiie rsectidn.'of C, ha ter 3 which ma s t e compatibility zones around each' air ort and lists the 38 indiwoual ryaiiiibrt policies. This be useful for determining whatAuse can made-ef. ',39 roperfy E it has been purchased. 41 42 ,43 ' ;,44 ; • 45 , 47 48 '49 a 50 L 51 52 , 53 54 55 56 - 57 58- 59 t 60 61 J 62 Revised i C - 6 . 1 z • w Background Data: 5 Chico Municipal Airport 3 Ta 6 . 7 INTRODUCTION 9 Chico Municipal Airport, is the largest 'and busiest airport in Butte County%)r Occupying some 2.3` 10 -square.miles omthe northern edge of the city of Chico, the airport;currently undies nearly 70,000 11 aircraft takeoffs and landings annually and is home to more lth6130 basedaircraft. The airport's 12 6,724 -foot long primary runway is' equipped with a�cisionriinstrument landing system and is 13 capable of accommodating a full range of business ajetraircraft' The airport'rhas an airport traffic 14' control tower and limited scheduled commuteraihine service. � 1 One , 15 ' of only 13 -fire -fighting air attack bases Ah. Ga'lifornia is, Zate there ` as? well hich has 16 implications for noise and safety consid'erati6ns17 .,` 18 Land use compatibilityslias long been a concern at Chico Municipal airport. When originally ;00"V, .'« t . .� i 1' �. 19 • developed by the military. during W6'rld'War II, theJ56Iity,,was-situated several miles from the edge of 20 the city. O ver•theyyea� though;�urban expansion has gradually c\ept closer. Current community 21 land•use plans call•fo expansive new development st<6 fiof the airport.. 23 Two actions taken in ithe ,late 1970s have14provided some protection from incompatible nearby k ":I „ ... �� - "1 0-4 =_krc -Y Nom- .1.11 24" development} Perhapgz mi bst significant was jth;e.city s acquisition of all property within a 1/2 -by -1; 25 mile area beyond each a d of they main runwaa'y. Secondly, the city and county jointly sponsored 26 preparation Of�a hico Munic�ipal�Airport Environs Plan. This plan was used to set modest limitations 27 on development�tprimarily�residental development ---on the' basis of noise -impacts. Safety was 28 deemed as not being a.4�concern beyond the 1 -mile acquisition area boundary. Prior to preparation of ` 29 'the present�Cornpatibility'jPlan, [t64' Environs Plan also served as the basis for the Butte County 30 Airport Land Use Comm sion compatibility polices for the airport. y 3i 32 Another, more recent; action also potentially will have an effect on land use compatibility near the air 33 airport. Concurrently with the preparation of the Compatibility Plan, the city of Chico is preparing a 34 new Chico Municipal Air,g ort master plan. The new plan is expected to include proposed extension 35 of both runway a 1,000 -foot northward addition to the primary runway and a doubling e parallel 36 runway to 6.0000 feet in length. New noise contours reflecting the runway extension I and noise 37 impacts on a peak fire attack day have been developed as a joint product of both_ studies, (see 38 exhibits 4E, 4F; and 4G in this chapter). 39 e. 40 Historic data of CDF activity tart date and lengths.of fire seasons, gallons of fire retardant 41 pumped,'record of flights during an•actual campaign fire, and a daily diary of flights during a 42 representative. one-year period) may be used to characterize the impact of fire -fighting 43 aircraft. 44 t z 45 46 , ,47 48 _ 49 50 Revision Adopted: 4 -1a N 3 4 ' Background Data: .F 6 Oroville Municipal Airport }' 7 i•t jt. 8 .9 INTRODUCTION 10 11 Oroville Municipal airport -is situated within• an extension of W61broville city'}I m,ts some 2.5 miles 12 west of the remainder of the city. Although the city;s*sp ire o nfluence extends a mile west of the 13 airport, only the airport property and some privat landjto'ithe�nortii and west jare urrently within the 14 city boundary. The surrounding unincorporated,arealincl,udes then' - unity'of.'Shermalito situated 15 northeast of the airport.' To the southwest and southeast; Mie srtate=ownedwateniproject and wildlife 16 refuge lands. 17 s..k " 18 An airport has existed,on.the present site since 1.936 wien the�,city of Oroville acquired the original 19 188 acres. During World War Il; the, U -S Army took:# emporary�control of the airport. The army 20 made various improvements including establishing thelbasic runway configuration which remains 21 today. -The facility reverted to the�dity in 19,4:7. In,ithe subsequent half century of owning and 22 operating the airport, thefcify-has.acquired additionalJlpn�dia made -numerous improvements to the -23 facilities. Among the manyK changes, the recent�project which extended and shifted the primary 24 runway •to the southwe�4has beenvthe mowst significant from an off airport land use compatibility 25 persp ctiv 'y k �' I� "al AiFper-L.) 27 e irports :historically mode rate .,activity levels, even including the Oroville AirFair and local 28 EAA ha ter.._:activiti.es; together�4ith the extensive agricultural and open space lands in the 29 undingh are -51 have kept compatibility conflicts to a minimum. The light industrial development 30 planned adjacent, to the, airport is also potentially suitable.from a compatibility standpoint. 31 r• 32= " M r ; 33 • . °Although the recent runway modificationsomewhat diminishes .the 34 potential oEconff cts more intensive residential development within the southwestern area of ,35 Thermali0presents the major future compatibility concern, particularly if the types of aircraft .36 activities listed in a recent Oroville City Council Resolution occur. 37 'et hin calm 38 . 39 The Oroville City Council is considerinq updatinq Oroville's Airport Master Plan and General 40 Plan to included expanded airport services, such as more,frecuent business iet flights, small 41 scale airline commuter services, pilot training, freight transport and flights by -'California 42 Division of Forestry fire fiphtinq aircraft -(Resolution 5655-11/2100). Increased business jet .43 flights and commuterservices or the relocation of the CDF Base will mean, not merely an 44 increase in activity, but.a change in the character of operations as these --O involveSiar-ger 45 and noisier aircraft than those now common at Oroville. 46 l 47 48 49 50 51 Revision Adopted: '5 -1 w' , 2 1 ` 3 4 5 Background Data: _r " 6 Ranchaero Airport''" �Qy � 7 s.. 8 'INTRODUCTION `' R 10 Situated near the southwestern edge of the city of Chico; ._in yi RancFiaero Airport serves a 11 combination of recreational, flight training, agricultural, and' -limited business. functions. Current 12 activity is estimated at only some 5,000 aircraft operations peroyea The airports short, 2;200 -foot 13 . ' runway limits its use to small twin -engine or single='engineY airplanes and helicopters. Historic 14 photos show aircraft as large as a DC -3 at Ranchaero. Thet. North Va11e�74P"ilots Association , 15 and EAA Chapter #427 are located here whic'k rd Eh ces occastona/ surges.of activity during 16 club activities and fly -ins, usually on, weekends and:eveningsJ Recent.lielicopfer operations 17 involved flight training -which produced "manyshor`t'local fltglifs v 18 19 Modification to placemerbt of the runway thresholds;is�scfieduled for construction in 2000 along with 20 various building`jarea`,upgradesl, including new, aircraft. hangers. Overall, though; the basic 21 configuration ofathis,privatelytownedrai�strip hasir'e�mainedIunchanged since its construction in 1946. 22 23 Historically, laOusempatibil tyC nflicts involving�the'airport have stemmed from two sources. 24 The major issue'=arosetiecause of:'the airport's lack of control over the runway protections zones. 25 As a resultY4orck�ards were'.planted which became obstructions to the runway approaches. This F 1 *A � � _. 26 situation no w+appears to beesolvedwith theyairport's acquisition of easements over the inner parts 27 of the run wzay;protectionezones 'JThe second, continuing, conflict is presented by the subdivision 28 north of the airport whichzw,as approved by the County in 1983 without having been submitted 29 to ALUC. 30 31 To avoid .overflightoflthe homes, most aircraft landing to the southeast at the airport turn for final 32 approach le�ss:than 1;000 fee from the runway end. Aircraft taking off toward the north also usually 33 make a close1-in left turn. Some residents of this subdivision, not understanding the rules of 34 flight, believa tha 4pilots are "required'.' to stay south of the creek. However these procedures 35 constitute sbme'kazard to, the pilots in order to protect the quality of life for the residents of the 36 subdivision.1dwFes, tegethei: with the , have minim ed 37 pfeb}em. There are man reasons'why a pilot might choose to make the standard strai ht -in 38 approach. The pilot's decision would be based -on Wevel of experience, the amount of time 39 to ed in a particular aircraft the known flight characteristics of that aircraft at low ds 40 the Pilots unfamiliarity with the airport, th mence of Passengers in the aircraftl9vhich 41 affect the weight and balance of the aircraf 1r. The fact -that many local pilots choo a to 42 make steeper angled approaches or to —91(a turns immediately after departing the runway 43 •• does not mean that they are, or can be, required to do so. 44 " 45 For the future, no,significant new compatibility issues are currently foreseeable. No major changes 46 in the character of either the airport or the surrounding land uses are anticipated. The city of Chico 47 urban development area boundary and the Butte County "green line" both preclude extension of 48 urban uses into the agricultural lands west of the city. , 49 ' 50 51 52 Revision Adopted: 7-1 1 ,2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Appendix K Real Estate Disclosure for, Butte County Airports Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Disclosure Requirements for Real Estate Sales Purpose of this Document J. This document is intended to assist real estate sellers and real estate ages requirements for real property affected by the four Public Use Airports ocatecI7 incl Butte.County Airport Land Use Commission ("ALUC") is charged with protecting Ll oth Butte County airports and the welfare of people living near them. One way'to accom be certain that people moving near the airports understand the nature,of the,fopei occurring near their homes. Airport Disclosure Requirements" s As you also may be aware, the ancient maxim caveat empt67TUIetithe,buver bewa application to California real estate transactions. Underdapplicablel property has both a common law and statutory duty. -.-to, disc)"ose ally property before the close of the purchase escrowfi,Such material f< materially affect the value or desirability of they operty ' �A California Civil Code Section ,11( units) who has actual knowledge. described in California��Code of'C airport uses) must give' wntten,x transferred. . f In addition to the. seller's disclos estate agent to certify that he,d." property, and that lie or she t-as'cc accessible areas of,:the property. A 0= I discovered by the inquiry andinsp Airport Land UselCo - atibilityPlan ' L The primary impactsaon,;;property caused by 'its close proximity to an airport relate to: (1) NOISE, (2) SAFETY, (3) FEDERAL�AIRSPACE RESTRICTIONS, (4): OVERFLIGHT CONCERNS and (5) POSSIBLE RESTRICTIONS or APPROVALS REQUIRED FROM. ALUC for the USE, DEVELOPMENT and IMPROVEMENT of the property. The ALUC adopted the current COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN (the "Plan") on December 20, 2000, which is primarily concerned with real property located under the 'aircraft approach and departure area designated by Federal Air Regulations (14 CFR Part 77). This property is generally located within 2-3 miles of the four Public Use airports in Butte County: Chico Municipal, �Ranchaero, Oroville Municipal, and Paradise Skypark. ?.17. requires a sellerAof resi hatlthe.;.property is affected�t vil CProcedure Section 7�311ak`( otic e,�ofthat knowledge-�.G.as ire, California CivilXode Section 1102.6'requires the seller's real he has,Jmade an inquiry of the seller regarding the condition of the 'nducte'd a reasonably competent and .diligent visual inspection of the The real estate agent is required to describe any negative matters action: )rnia trial woul A with disclosure Butte County. The -the future utility of plis4H'this task is to ;Aons that will be M incliic has little or no seller of real i buyer of the all facts that al: property (one -to -four dwelling zoned to allow an industrial use emanufacturing, commercial or i as practicable" before title is How to Use this Document ...e smal. ffi.aps ei� the next page The compatibility maps on pages K-3 to K-6 (from Chapter 3 of the Plan and reproduced in black and white) can be used to determine if the subject property is located within the area of influence for any of Butte County's four' public use airports. If there is any doubt about the location of,a particular parcel, a broker or title company representative or City/County Planning Departments will be able to help.. If the property is located within the airport area of influence, then consult the Plan for more detailed information. K-1 1 - ' 2 Real Estate Disclosure /Appendix K 3 , 4 Identifying Details of Affected Properties - 6 "Exactly how noisy does it get? Is it safe here? Who owns the air'above this house?" and "Do 7 planes fly over this property at night?" are all questions that a prospective, homeowner has a. right to 8 ask. Only the people who will actually live in the houses have the right to determine how much aircraft 9. overflight, or noise, or risk they are willing to accept. 10 11A copy of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is available for viewing at the Butte County 12 Planning Department and at Butte County Libraries. i- 13 14 • Chapter 1,of the Plan has an introduction and a gereal discussion about airport land 15 use compatibility planning. , 16 17 Chapter 2 contains airport compatibility and -'review' policies applicable to Butte County. -18 s� 19 Chapter 3 contains the compatibility map for eachairport 4to{gether with individual 20 policies and explanatory notes for that airport. Determine if th'e,subject real property is 21 located within Zone A, B1, B2, C, C11 2,&4 The use, development and improvement 22 of the subject property could be restricted�tby, the Planor sublect�to;7ALUC approval. This 23 information will be useful for. those�.who, intend to develop pr'operty;�for their own use or ,. , 24 for resale. 25 26 • Chapters�'4 7 include*background information for each airport. This data was used by 27 ALUC+to3determinefwhere,compatibility 65the's1 should'%e located. Each,chapter contains 28 a, senes of maps individually detailing thereff'ects of�airport activities. 29.x•; 30 Appendix: C hof thte,Pl�n explains tompatibility concepts in laymen's terms and 31, . provides Con'text for-,understandmgkthe various maps in Chapters 4-7. This discussion is 32 ,intended to,-',e'more accessiblelth6A,Ahke aviation -speak of the Plan. 33 ,' ! 34 The appendixes ©f4the Plan provide information related to airport land, use planning in general . 35 and to Airpo Land Use,CO. mi sion.'s •in particular., iricluding applicable State and 36 Federal Laws,,,,.-- 37 aws,,,.37 38 "As soon gas practicable" before title is transferred to the prospective buyer, disclose in writing nom. 39 any information'alio`utthe subject property that indicates it is affected by an airport. This could be 40 accomplish Ya copy of the relevant chapters of the Plan and providing. them to the 41 prospective buyer alorigdwith other written disclosures required. 42_k� t K 43 The Plant'can�be updated annually. These actions are taken in response'to such things as new 44 master plans by the airport operators, runway reconfigurations, changes in FAA requirements, changes 45 in the use of the airport, etc. ALUC staff will help in any future update of this disclosure document. 46 - 47 48 ` 49 , 50 51 52 53 Adopted:' 54 55 Prepared by the Disclosure Document Committee K-2 The most accurate way to describe activity at an air attack base is to give factual descriptions of th history of the base at Chico. Data is frorr flight logs --the official public records of operations maintained for accounting and legal purposes. Fire Season: (Fig. 1) The general time frame of fire season is predictable, generally starting mid-May in Northern California, as shown by this graphic of . start and stop dates for 1989-1999. Fire season has started as early as April 11th and ended as late as Dec. 13th. Fire season generally lasts from 5-7 months. DATES of FIRE SEASON in BUTTE COUNTY --1989-1999 . -Year - � � I � � .. I I _ '. � 1 I I I ! � I I I I I ISI TI r, � Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul ' Aug Sep Oct Nov 1989 Sep- X XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX Note that even though`an 1990 — - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X 1991 1983 -came near to being XX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 800000 1992 1 XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX 1993 600000 X XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX ,1994 XX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X 1995 XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 1996 XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 1997 XX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X 1998 XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X 1999 - XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I XX Earliest & Latest: Apr. 11, 1988 Dec. 1; Fire, S (Fig. 2) ' 1600000 May be measured by the - � � I � � .. I I _ '. � 1 I I I ! � I I I I I ISI TI r, � amount of retardant used. r 1 12 2 5 2 2 1 1 2 3 5 4 `8 3 62 Gallons of retardant 1 3 2 21 1 1 2 1 .1 1 1 2 11 21 2 3 7 1 1 31 8 2 2 ,1 2 2 3 1 1400000 loaded into aircraft during Sep- 1 13 5 3 2 3 '3 1 2 1 12 71 29 62 74 2 7 4 2 16 4 the 1991-99 seasons. 1 6 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 6 3 1 2 1 1 1 1200000 Note that even though`an 1988-37,610 — - average can be calculated, • to 1000000 only a single fire season- Z 1983 -came near to being Q ' "average.' f 800000 j (D 600000 400000 A 000 200 0 ' -• - � � I � � .. I I _ '. � 1 I I I ! � I I I I I ISI TI r, � ',1999 -1,346,384 gr r 1 12 2 5 2 2 1 1 2 3 5 4 `8 3 62 Jul 1 3 2 21 1 1 2 1 .1 1 1 2 11 21 2 3 7 1 1 31 8 2 2 ,1 2 2 3 1 . 1994-1,024,088 gal . I Sep- 1 13 5 3 2 3 '3 1 2 1 12 71 29 62 74 2 7 4 2 16 4 Oct 1 6 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 6 3 1 2 1 1 1 Nov 1 1 .2 1988-37,610 — - DailyActivity: (Fig. 3) This shows the variableness in even a very heavyfire season. This graphic gives the number of take -offs daily for the year 1994, there are many days when no airtanker flew at all. Revised 12/2001 4-1b YEAR . 4 -4 o c000 e4_ o Cn -+•-�-+--f-�-•�---T- - � � I � � .. I I _ '. � 1 I I I ! � I I I I I ISI TI 1994 1 2 3 41 51 61 7 81' 9110111112 13 14115116 17 18 19120 21122 23 24 25 26127128 29 30 31 Jun 1 12 2 5 2 2 1 1 2 3 5 4 `8 3 62 Jul 1 3 2 21 1 1 2 1 .1 1 1 2 11 21 2 3 7 1 1 31 8 2 2 ,1 2 2 3 1 Aug 2 8 1 11 8 2122 1 7 . 3 20 3 31 1110 6 38 6 4 6 22 15 1 25 33 4 1 Sep- 1 13 5 3 2 3 '3 1 2 1 12 71 29 62 74 2 7 4 2 16 4 Oct 1 6 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 6 3 1 2 1 1 1 Nov 1 1 .2 I'! I i i E t..L� I S I %;{ !! I l i I.I I I I I•! DailyActivity: (Fig. 3) This shows the variableness in even a very heavyfire season. This graphic gives the number of take -offs daily for the year 1994, there are many days when no airtanker flew at all. Revised 12/2001 4-1b The most accurate way to describe activity at an air attack base is to give factual descriptions of the history of the base at Chico. Data is from CDF flight logs—the official public records of operations maintained for accounting and legal Fire Season: (Fig -1) The general time frame of fire season is pre- dictable, generally starting mid-May in Northern California, as shown by this graphic of start and stop dates For 1989- 1999. Fire season has started as early as April l l th and ended as late as Dec. 13th. Fire season generally lasts from 5-7 months. r%ATCr- :.f MOF SEASON in BUTTE COUNTY -1989-1999 Fire Season Severity (Fig. 2) May be measured by the amount of retardant used Gallons of retardant loaded into aircraft during the 1991-99 seasons. Note that even though an average can be calculated, only a single fire season -1983 - came near to being "average". 1.e00.OW— i 1.W0000 + --- W0.0w ' -- -- -- I� . 6WOW }-- — �I aKOW i soo.OW — W.000 ;.. of W 271 281 291 301 31 Daily Activity: (Fig. 3) the number of take -offs daily for the This shows the variableness in even a v heavy fire season. This graphic gives year 1994, there are many days when no airtanker flew at all. Revised 12/2001 4-1b oeeeeeeeemmmmmmmmmmmmoemmE un Jul eeeee1eee�eeeeeeeeeeeeMSe1 Aug Oct1ee11ee11e11SeEMSEN eeeeeeee■eEm�0emEreemeem0i e�eeeeeeeeSmoeemmmmmmmE�ei oeemeei NOV r 271 281 291 301 31 Daily Activity: (Fig. 3) the number of take -offs daily for the This shows the variableness in even a v heavy fire season. This graphic gives year 1994, there are many days when no airtanker flew at all. Revised 12/2001 4-1b j A • k t •. y. i t A 9711 ' ADAMS BUSINESS FORMS � • A• E r ,i The most accurate way to describe activity at an air attack base is to give factual descriptions of th history of the base at Chico. Data is from CDF flight logs --the official public records of operations maintained for accounting and legal purposes. Fire Season: (Fig. 1) The general time frame of fire season is predictable, generally starting mid- May in Northern California, as shown by this graphic of start and stop dates for 1989-1999. Fire season has started as early as April 11 th and ended as late as Dec. 13th. Fire season generally lasts from 5-7 months. Fire Season Severity: (Fig. 2) May be measured by the amount of retardant used . Gallons of retardant loaded into aircraft during the 1991-99 seasons. Note that even though an average can be calculated, only a single fire season -1983 -came near to being "average." - t t t # t f 4--+- DATES of FIRE SEASON in BUTTE COUNTY --1989-1999 -- Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1989 1400000 X XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX .. ........ . ........ .. .. . .. .. 1990 1 1 3 5 3 2 3 3 1 2 1 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X 1991 Nov XX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 1992 1 XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX This shows the variableness in even a very heavy fire season. 1993 for the year 1994, there are many days when no airtanker flew at all. X XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX 1994 XX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X 1995 XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 1996 XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 1997 XX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X 1998 XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X 1999 XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX Earliest & Latest: Apr. 11, 1988 Dec. 13,1959' - t t t # t f 4--+- 1600000 -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111112 13 14115116117 18119120121 22 23124125126 27128129130 31 Jun 1 12 2 5 2 2 1 1 2 3 5 4 8 3162 Jul 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1400000 19W-37, 810 2 8 1 1 8 2 22 1 7 3120 3 3 1110 .. ........ . ........ .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. ... 1 1 3 5 3 2 3 3 1 2 1 12 71 29 62 74 2 7 4 2 16 4 Oct _ 1+6 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 6 3 1 2 1 1 1 Nov 1200000 Daily Activity: (Fig. 3) This shows the variableness in even a very heavy fire season. This graphic gives the number of take -offs daily for the year 1994, there are many days when no airtanker flew at all. Revised 12/2001 4-1 b z J Q 1000000 800000 0 600000 400000 A 200000 0 • ♦ • ♦ • • YEAR 4 � cn w o oo cn ro o CD cn - t t t # t f 4--+- 1999 -1,348.384 gel. 1994 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111112 13 14115116117 18119120121 22 23124125126 27128129130 31 Jun 1 12 2 5 2 2 1 1 2 3 5 4 8 3162 Jul 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 7 1 1 3 8 2 2 1 2 2 3 1 19W-37, 810 2 8 1 1 8 2 22 1 7 3120 3 3 1110 .. ........ . ........ .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. ... - t t t # t f 4--+- 1994 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111112 13 14115116117 18119120121 22 23124125126 27128129130 31 Jun 1 12 2 5 2 2 1 1 2 3 5 4 8 3162 Jul 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 7 1 1 3 8 2 2 1 2 2 3 1 Aug_ 2 8 1 1 8 2 22 1 7 3120 3 3 1110 6 38 6 4 6 22 15 1 25 33 4 1 Sep 1 1 3 5 3 2 3 3 1 2 1 12 71 29 62 74 2 7 4 2 16 4 Oct _ 1+6 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 6 3 1 2 1 1 1 Nov 1 2 Daily Activity: (Fig. 3) This shows the variableness in even a very heavy fire season. This graphic gives the number of take -offs daily for the year 1994, there are many days when no airtanker flew at all. Revised 12/2001 4-1 b 1.5.2. Other Land Use Actions Subject to ALUC Review - In addition to the. above types of land use actions for which ALUC review is mandatory, other types'of land use actions are subject to, review under the following circumstances: . (a) Until such time as (1) the Commission' finds that a local agency's general plan or specific plan is consistent with the Airport Land Use. Compatibility Plan. ALUCP , or (2) the local agency has overruled the Commission's determination of inconsistency, state law requires the local agency to refer all actions, regulations, and permits involving land within an airport influence area to the Commission for review Public Utilities Code 216761b)). Only those actions which the ALUC elects not to review are.exempt i from this requirement. Commission policy is that only the major land use actions listed in Policy 1.5.3 shall be submitted for review in a public hearing: A non -major land sue action shall initially be reviewed by the ALUC Secretary/staff. If such action is found to be consistent with the ALUCP, the ALUC Secretary/staff shall inform the referring agency. If such action is found to be inconsistent> the action shall be submitted for review in a public hearing: All actions referred by a local agency must be submitted with the-Butte.County . ALUC ReferralForm and any applicable review fee as established by -the ALUC. If a non -major land use -action is found to be consistent with the ALUCP, the review fee shall be 'returned. (b) After;a local agency has revised its general. plan or specific plan - for consistency with the Compatibility Plan (see Policy 2.4.3) or has'overruled the Commission; the Commissioh no longer has authority under state law to require that all.actions, regulations, and permits be referred for review. However, the Commission and the local agency ,can agree that the Commission should continue to review individual projects in an'advisory.capacity. (1) The Commission requests local agencies to continue to , submit major land use actions as listed in Policy 1:5.3. (2) Review of these actions is requested only if a -review has not previously been conducted as part of a general plan, specific plan,-or'zoning ordinance action or if sufficient project -level detail to enable a full assessment of compatibility was not available at the time of a previous review. (3) Because the ALUC is acting in an advisory capacity when 2-6 reviewing projects under these circumstances, local jurisdictions are not required to adhere to the override ' process if'they elect to approve a,project without incorporating design changes or conditions suggested by the Commission. (c) Proposed redevelopment of a property for which the existing use is consistent with the local general plan and/or specific plan, but nonconforming with the compatibility criteria set forth in this plan, shall be subject to ALUC.review. (Also see'.Policies 2.4.3, 2.4.4.(b), and.2.4.4.(c).) (d) Proposed land tis.e aetiom eovered by Paragraphs, (a), (b), and (e) above shall ed by the ALUG Seeretary. If the h t 2-7 4 SpObr',:Cheryl From: Spoor, Cheryl"-' -Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 4:20 PM ; To: 'BarbHnign@aol.com'. Subject: ALUCP Modifications' Barb, , I have gone over the documents and done some reformatting to'conform as closely as possible to the original. The folio ing documents are listed inyour composite list but not included in the transmissions so far: 14=161&r4=fic-' (I do have the copies from'the last meeting, but wonder if you could e-mail the originals so I won't keep distributing next-generation copies which tend.to get more unreadable with each distribution) map \ v7T map t �� 7=7 map Additional graphic_' eC--11 Disclosure docs K-3, K-5, K 6 >>�:y • ��jC.�,05Ci1� Q� ' You've also sent me pages not listed on the com posite list which include: C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6. You've done a great job! '(1 will be out of the office Dec 6-7 and Dec 10, so I'll only have Dec 11th and the morning of the 12th to get the mailing out. Please.update me on the status of the referenced. items above. Thank you. Cheryl Spoor ` Butte County Development Services -Planning (' Report from the Disclosure Committee Page 3 ; Additional/Revised Pages Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan State aeronautics law allows for annual updates of the CLUP. It is expected that this will occur around the end of the calendar year., To facilitate revision, the Bute Co�uty1-d ALUC directed that the document be in a loose-leaf binder format and that a revisionstpage shou• be added to the front of the binder. Each revised page will also be dated' Copyh6ld6f,s.,oT record will receive the annual updates so that they may keep their copies current Individuals may wish to check with Butte County Planning to determine if they have the,-mo'sf current;version of the Plan. n Date of Hearing Additional/ Revised Pages. t� 3' Replacement Pages 12/19/2001 4-1 r4-;IdirT' 1 b 4-1 c GG 4-9 ma =1 �' `��r; '-'_ 4'9.- GG 5-1 '' _ ,s �;�=F GS els;. 5-7A �maP) �` -y�"�wi 5- A r+ r ll r� -;� �� t7=1� Y - Appen ix Cs+. ` Revised text c -.-&- a -<C=1 b; � -1 c, Additional graphic C-11 " jAppendix K (new) Disclosure Document K-1 to K 6 31( d3 - t is , This draft revision of the first page of Chapter 4 is intended to be useful to the non - aviation reader and is a more accurate description of the activities and history of Ranchaero. New information is in dark type, deleted information is shown with ste- euts. Chapter 4 draft revision Background Data: Chico Municipal Airport INTRODUCTION Chico Municipal Airport is the largest and busiest airport ' utte County. Occupying some 2.3 square miles on the northern edge of the city of Chico, the a' ort currently handles nearly 70,000 aircraft takeoffs and landings annually and is home to more th,pfi 130 based aircraft. The airport's 6,724 -foot long primary runway is equipped with a precisio instrument landing system and is capable of accommodating a full range of business jet aircraft. The airport has an airport traffic control tower and limited scheduled commuter airline se ice. One of only 13 fire -fighting air attack bases in Calif or is located there as well which has implications for noise and safety considerations. Land use compatibility has long been a co cern at Chico Municipal airport. When originally developed by the military during World War II, a facility was situated several miles from the edge of the city. Over the years, though, urban exp ion has gradually crept closer. Current community land use plans call for expansive new develo ment west on all sides of the airport. Two actions taken in the late 1970 ave provided some protection from incompatible nearby development. Perhaps most significant w the city's acquisition of all property within a 1/2 -by -1- mile area beyond each end of the main way. Secondly, the city and county jointly sponsored preparation of a Chico Municipal Airp0 Environs Plan. This plan was used to set modest limitations on development --primarily residential evelopment---on the basis of noise impacts. Safety was deemed as not being a concern beyon the 1 -mile acquisition area boundary. Prior to preparation of the present Compatibility Plan, the EZtfilbility irons Plan also served as the basis for the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission com polices for the airport. Another, more recent, action also potentially will have an effect on land use compatibility near the air airport. Concurrently with the preparation of the Compatibility Plan, the city of Chico is preparing a new Chico Municipal Airport master plan. The new plan is expected to include proposed extension of both runways: a 1,000 -foot northward addition to the primary runway and a doubling of the parallel runway to 6.0000 feet in length. New noise contours reflecting the runway extension, and noise impacts on a peak fire attack day have been developed as a joint product of both studies, (see exhibits 4E, 4F, and 4G in this chapter). Historic data of CDF activity (start date and lengths of fire seasons, gallons of fire retardant pumped, record of flights during an actual campaign fire, and a daily diary of flights during a representative one-year period) may be used to characterize the impact of fire -fighting aircraft. Revised 12/2001 4 -la - r �ti F p`- E New page to be'added "to CLUP. 4 Revised pages--Butte County Airport Land Uae Plan • 1) December 19, �4-1; 4-2 replaced.by4-1 d, 4-1 b, 4- l c,4-2 4 l 5-1, �5-2. �« « : 5-1 �2 7-1, 7-2 t« « 7-1, 7-2 -VLVL�� F. • 1 , , • � ° , a y*i ,fir Page 1 of 1 T 4 Spoor, Cheryl To: BarbHnign@aol.com Subject: RE: missing pages Thank you, Barbara! Cheryl -----Original Message ----- From: BarbHnign@aol.com [mailto:BarbHnign@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 20017:44 PM To: cspoor@buttecounty:net Subject: missing pages _i am maillr�a_vnu conies of the pages I have had K-3 thru K 6 are the maps with the 2 page disclosure document that you have already passed out with the zones from chapt 3, just add the new page numbers The graphic is two graphics from the Caltrans Handbook fig. 6-D and 6-E shrunk down enough to fit on a singe page will -mail --its maps=4=9,5,77=and 7 7>are-being=mailed�hdont' have them in electronic form c741:b=&=1c=are being=mailed'same problem as above c4c had me confused, went back and checked', t started one document and then the list concurrently, and mis figured how many pages I was.adding to the existing appendix c, didn't want to have to go through and renumber (and republish ) the whole thing. I don't think I needed aC-1 c affter all. O w+ ably have to renumber everything after all the stuff to be deleted LY is deleted. � who knows many pages there will be then! Better add the rest of the C's to the list Thanks 11/30/2001 Appendix K REAL ESTATE DISCLOSURE FOR BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORTS Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Disclosure Requirements for Real Estate Sales Purpose of this Document This document is intended to assist real estate sellers and real estate agents with disclosure requirements for real property affected by the four Public Use Airports located in Butte County. The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ("ALUC") is charged with protecting both the future utility of Butte County airports and the welfare of people living near them. One way to accomplish this task is to be certain that people moving near the airports understand the nature of the operations that will be occurring near their homes. Airport Disclosure Requirements As you also may be aware, the ancient maxim caveat emptor ("let the buyer beware") has little or no application to California real estate transactions. Under applicable California law, the seller of real property has both a common law and statutory duty to disclose all material facts to a buyer of the property before the close of the purchase escrow. Such material facts would include all facts that materially affect the value or desirability of the property. California Civil Code Section 1102.17 requires a seller of residential property (one -to -four dwelling units) r who has actual knowledge that the property is affected by or zoned to allow an industrial use described in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 731 a (certain manufacturing, commercial or airport uses) must give written notice of that knowledge "as soon as practicable" before title is transferred. In addition to the seller's disclosure, California Civil Code Section 1102.6 requires the seller's real estate agent to certify that he or she has made an inquiry of the seller regarding the,condition of the property, and that he or she has conducted a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of the accessible areas of the property. The real estate agent is required to describe any negative matters discovered by the inquiry and inspection. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan The primary impacts on property caused by its close proximity to an airport relate to: (1) NOISE, (2) SAFETY, (3) FEDERAL AIRSPACE RESTRICTIONS, (4) OVERFLIGHT CONCERNS and (5) POSSIBLE RESTRICTIONS or APPROVALS REQUIRED FROM ALUC for the USE, DEVELOPMENT and IMPROVEMENT of the property. The ALUC adopted the current COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN (the "Plan") on December 20, 2000, which is primarily concerned with real property located under the aircraft approach and departure area designated by Federal Air Regulations (14 CFR Part 77). This property is generally located within 2-3 miles of the four Public Use airports in Butte County: Chico Municipal, Ranchaero, Oroville Municipal, and Paradise Skypark. How to Use this Document --all maps on out norlin The compatibility maps on pages K-3 to K-6 (from Chapter 3 of the Plan and reproduced in black and white) can be used to determine if the subject property is located within the area of influence for any of Butte County's four public use airports. If there is any doubt about the location of a particular parcel, a broker or title company representative or City/County Planning Departments will be able to help. If the property is located within the airport area of influence, then consult the Plan for more detailed information. Adopted: December 19, 2001 K-1 Real Estate Disclosure/ Appendix K Identifying Details of Affected Properties "Exactly how noisy does it get? Is it safe here? Who owns the air above this house?" and "Do planes fly over this property at night?" are all questions that a prospective homeowner has a right to ask. Only the people who will actually live in the houses have the right to determine how much aircraft overflight, or noise, or risk they are willing to accept. A copy of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is available for viewing at the Butte County Planning Department and at Butte County Libraries. • Chapter 1 of the Plan has an introduction and a general discussion about airport land use compatibility planning. • Chapter 2 contains airport compatibility and review policies applicable to Butte County. • Chapter 3 contains the compatibility map for each airport together with individual policies and explanatory notes for that airport. Determine if the subject real property is located within Zone A, 61, B2, C, C1, C2, or D. The use, development and improvement of the subject property could be restricted by the Plan or subject to ALUC,approval. This information will be useful for those who intend to develop property for their own use or for resale. • Chapters 4-7 include background information for each airport. This data was used by ALUC to determine where compatibility zones should be located. Each chapter contains a series of maps individually detailing the effects of airport activities. • Appendix C of the .Plan explains the compatibility concepts in laymen's terms and provides context for understanding the various maps in Chapters 4-7. This discussion is intended to be more accessible than the "aviation -speak" of the Plan. The appendixes of the Plan provide information related to airport land.use planning in general and to Airport Land Use Commissions in particular. including applicable State and Federal Laws, "As soon as practicable" before title is transferred to the prospective buyer, disclose in writing any information about the subject property that indicates it is affected by an airport This could be accomplished by making a copy of the relevant chapters of the Plan and providing them to the prospective buyer along with other written disclosures required. The Plan can be updated annually. These actions are taken in response to such things as new master plans.by the airport operators, runway reconfigurations, changes in FAA requirements, changes in the use of the airport, etc. ALUC staff will help in any future update of this disclosure document. K- 2 Adopted: December 19, 2001 rA I Background Data: Chico Municipal Airport INTRODUCTION Chico Municipal Airport is.the largest and busiest airport in Butte County. Occupying some 2.3 square miles on the northern edge of the city of Chico, the, airport currently handles nearly 70,000 aircraft takeoffs and landings annually and is home to more than 130 based aircraft. The airport's 6,724 -foot long primary runway is equipped with a precision instrument landing system and is capable of accommodating a full range of business jet aircraft. The airport has an airport traffic control tower and limited scheduled commuter airline service. One' of only 13 fire -fighting air attack bases in California is located there as well which has implications for noise and safety considerations. Land use compatibility has long been a concern at Chico Municipal airport. When originally developed by the military during World War II, the facility was situated several miles from the edge of the city. Over the years, though, urban expansion has gradually crept closer. Current community land use plans call for expansive new development west on all sides of the airport. - Two actions taken in the late 1970s have provided some protection from incompatible nearby development. Perhaps most significant was the city's acquisition of all property within a 1/2 -by -1 - mile area beyond each end of the main runway. Secondly, the city and county jointly sponsored preparation of a Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. This plan was used to set modest limitations on development --primarily residential development ---on the basis of noise impacts. Safety was deemed as not being a concern beyond the 1 -mile acquisition area boundary. Prior to preparation of the present Compatibility Plan, the Environs Plan also served as the basis for the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission compatibility polices for the airport. Another, more recent, action also potentially will have an effect on land use compatibility near the air airport. Concurrently with the preparation of the Compatibility Plan, the city of Chico is preparing a new Chico Municipal Airport master plan. The new plan is expected to include proposed extension of both runways: a 1,000 -foot northward addition to the primary runway and a doubling of the parallel runway to 6.0000 feet in length: New noise contours reflecting the runway extension , and noise impacts on a peak fire attack day have been developed as a joint product of both studies, (see exhibits 4E,.4F, and 4G in this chapter). Historic data of CDF activity (start date and lenqths of fire seasons, gallons of fire retardant pumped, record of flights during an actual campaign fire, and a daily diary of flights during a representative one-year period) may be used to characterize the impact of fire- fighting aircraft. Revised: December 19, 2001 5 4 -1a 1 s .. .� a � t. S • { a 4 y1 1 n �� . a "� . R • .. • 4 f . ji �� _ i ���✓ � v �� . �4. .' �; �\V�titi/////J a �, ., r _i .. Y � t i _ .. •� ' � 1 �� j, fir � � � �_�. �. � r '� r.—' —4. �— r . _ �.� ... .. ` � y H • ! �. , �} ., , 4- ., ... .,4 . z , . • i� _ ,=+- a F • �� ' u ' .� ,� . . � • '� r, • a ' 5 Background Data: Oroville Municipal Airport Introduction Oroville Municipal airport is situated within an extension of the Oroville city limits some 2.5 miles west of the remainder of the city. Although the city's sphere of influence extends a mile west of the airport, only the airport property and some private land to the north and west are currently within the city boundary. The surrounding unincorporated area includes the community of Thermalito situated northeast of the airport. To the southwest and southeast, lie state-owned water project and wildlife refuge lands. An airport has existed on the present site since 1936 when the city of Oroville acquired the original 188 acres. During World War II, the U.S. Army took temporary control of the airport. The army made various improvements including establishing the basic runway configuration which remains today. The facility reverted 'to the city in 1947. In the subsequent half century of owning and operating the airport, the city has acquired additional land and made numerous improvements to the facilities. Among the many changes, the recent project which extended and shifted the primary runway to the southwest has been the most significant from an off airport land use compatibility perspective. The airport's historically moderate activity levels, even including the Oroville AirFair and local EAA chapter activities, together with the extensive agricultural and open space lands in the' surrounding area, have kept compatibility conflicts to a minimum. The light industrial development planned adjacent to the airport is also potentially suitable from a compatibility standpoint. Although the recent runway modification somewhat diminishes the potential or conflicts, more intensive residential development within the southwestern area of Thermalito presents the major future compatibility concern, particularly if the types of aircraft activities listed in a recent Oroville Citv Council Resolution occur. The Oroville City Council is considering updating Oroville's Airport Master Plan and General Plan to included expanded airport services, such as more frequent business iet flights, small Division of Forestry fire fightin_q aircraft -(Resolution 5655-11/2/00). Increased business iet flights and commuter services or the relocation of the CDF Base will mean, not merely an increase in activity, but a change in the character of operations as these all involve larger and noisier aircraft than those now common at Oroville. Revised: December 19, 2001 5-1 7 Background Data: Ranchaero Airport Introduction Situated near the southwestern edge of the city of Chico, tiny Ranchaero Airport serves a combination of recreational, flight training, agricultural, and limited business functions. Current activity is estimated at only some 5,000 aircraft operations per year. The airport's short, 2,200 -foot runway limits its use to small twin -engine or single-engine airplanes and helicopters. Historic photos show aircraft as large as a DC -3 at Ranchaero. The North Valley Pilots Association and EAA Chapter #427 are located here which produces occasional surges of activity during club activities and fly -ins, usually on weekends and evenings. Recent helicopter operations involved flight training which produced many short local flights. Modification to placement of the runway thresholds is scheduled for construction in 2000 along with various building area upgrades including new aircraft hangers. Overall, though, the basic configuration of this privately owned airstrip has remained unchanged since its construction in 1946. Historically, land use compatibility conflicts involving the airport have stemmed from two sources. The major issue arose because of the airport's lack of control over the runway protections zones. As a result, orchards were planted which became obstructions to the runway approaches. This situation now appears to be resolved with the airport's acquisition of easements over the inner parts of the runway protection zones. The second, continuing, conflict is presented by the subdivision north of the airport which was approved by the County in 1983 without having been submitted to AL UC. To avoid overflight of the homes, most aircraft landing to the southeast at the airport turn for final approach less than 1,000 fee from the runway end. Aircraft taking off toward the north also usually make a close -in left turn. Some residents of this subdivision, not understanding the rules of flight, believe that pilots are "required" to stay south of the creek. However these procedures constitute some hazard to the pilots in order to protect the quality of life for the residents of the subdivision. , have MiRimized the pFeblem. There are many reasons why a pilot might choose to make the standard straight -in approach. The pilot's decision would be based on his level of experience, the amount of time lopped in a particular aircraft, the known flight characteristics of that aircraft at low speeds, the pilots unfamiliarity with the airport, the presence of passengers in the aircraft, which affect the weight and balance of the aircraft, etc. The fact that many local pilots choose to make steeper angled approaches or to make turns immediately after departing the runway does not mean that they are, or can be, required to do so. For the future, no significant new compatibility issues are currently foreseeable. No major changes in the character of either the airport or the surrounding land uses are anticipated. The city of Chico urban development area boundary and the Butte County "green line" both preclude extension of urban uses into the agricultural lands west of the city. Revised: December 19, 2001 7-1 Appendix C Airport Land Use Compatibility Concepts Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan OVERVIEW The land use compatibility concerns addressed by ALUCs can generally be grouped under four headings: noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight. While this information ought to be disclosed to prospective buyers, the seller/agent may not understand (or have objective ways to describe) how the level of noise, number of aircraft operations.or accident potential at a particular airport affect a particular property. The table on page C-7 briefly describes the nature of these compatibility concerns s of and identifies land use measures available to ALUCs for addressing them. . The discussion which follows highlights some additional factors to be recognized when airport land use, compatibility issues are examined. Noise Aircraft sounds may be measured scientifically, but they are perceived subiectively. Airports are like schools: some people want to live across the street, others are bothered by the noise and actions of children cuttinq across their lawns. Also, the noise sensitivity of one person verses another is variable. Residential Noise Compatibility Criteria Alternatives given in the Caltrans Handbook and shown on page C-11 indicate that applying the 55dB contour for land use designations is advisable for airports in quiet rural locations, but individuals may still be annoyed or feel threatened by even that level of aircraft noise. Measuring Noise Impacts The principal tool for assessing airport noise impacts is throughcalculationof Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contours. assessments, are essential t Averaging - CNEL contours represent a single day's average of all of the aircraft noise events which take place at an airport over a year's.time. The contours are a composite of individual noise events and thus ,do not directly measure these events. However, because noise is measured on a logarithmic scale, the contours can be significantly affected by a few particularly loud events or aircraft types, Also; Another limit to the usefulness of CNEL is that particularly annoying noise (such as high -pitch sounds or ones which create vibrations or that occurs at night such as engine maintenance run -ups on fire-fightinq aircraft) are not explicitly taken into account. Consequently, other noise factors often must be considered in land use compatibility planning evaluations. • Accuracy - Even when noise monitoring data is available - which is not the case for any of the airports in Butte County - many assumptions go into the calculation of noise contours, particularly at general aviation airports. A 2-3 dB accuracy with regard to calculation of existing contours is considered good. For future contours, the added uncertainty of forecasting both activity levels and aircraft technology means that an accuracy of + 5 dB is as much as can realistically be expected. • Scope - As normally depicted, cumulative noise level contours do not encompass the total area affected by aircraft noise around an airport. Use of noise contours to show marginally affected areas ist imprecise because of the varied distribution of flight tracks and altitudes which occurs with increased distance from the runway ends. Revised December 19, 2001 C - 1 a �""--- °vYt..J .. �1�G� . Airport Land Use Compatibility Concepts/ Appendix C • Single -Event - Noise Footprints of Individual Aircraft -A different perspective on airport noise impacts can be obtained by examining sound level data for individual aircraft operations as opposed to the composite contours described above. Page C-8 shows a series of single -event levels or aircraft noise footprints. For each aircraft listed, these contours indicate the momentary, maximum sound levels experienced on the ground as the aircraft flies over while approaching and departing a runway. The 65 dBA sound level (the outermost contour) is Signifioant the level at which interference with speech begins to be significant. Formatted in this way, the noise levels of various types of aircraft can readily be compared. The footprints dramatically illustrate, for example, why 1970s -era business jets and other noisy aircraft (especially fire attack aircraft) have a major effect on the size of the cumulative noise contours at Chico Municipal Airport despite their relatively small number of annual operations. This explains why the cumulative noise contour on page ff4-8 based on a day during a fire is much larger than the average day represented by the CNEL. The footprints also show the relatively small noise impact of contemporary regional airline jets - about the same as an average, twin piston -engine airplane. Noise Episode - Because only 5% of California airports have CDF fire-fightin_g bases there is no method in the ALUC handbook to quantify fire-fi_phtin_g activity. However special terms have been used by several California airports to identify an activity that occurs repeatedly, that continues for some significant duration of time and may be somewhat predictable. This term identifies Prolonged training exercises, annual air shows or regularly scheduled fly -ins which may last several days and result in a -greater than normal use of the airport. CDF activity durinq a fire is undeniably a "noise episode". Ten years of historic records about lenqth of fire seasons, start and finish days, _gallons of retardant delivered to fires and numbers of daily flights during several campaign fires are also included in Chapter 4. This information will be useful to an individual who wishes to assess how much and when that activity occurs and to determine whether that level of activity will be annoying. Relationship to Land Uses - Noise contours by themselves indicate nothing as to whether a given type of land use is compatible at a particular noise exposure. Basic compatibility guidelines have been established by both the federal and state governments, but adjustment of these criteria to reflect local community and airport conditions is still essential. (For example, the higher background noise levels found in the urban areas south of Chico Municipal Airport compared to the quieter, rural environs in most other portions of the airports' environs makes a difference in the intrusiveness of aircraft noise events. This adjustment process is often referred to as normalization. Even after normalization has been applied, however, the comparative noise sensitivity of one person versus another still remains as a variable. Revised December 19, 2001 C - 1 b , ' 1 Airport Land Use Compatibility Concepts/ Appendix C There has long been a _-general consensus within the airport industry that some degree of safety concern exists beyond the typical boundaries of an airport and its runway protection zones. Two issues relating to safety on the -ground are: (1) Location --where (relative to the airport runway) is an accident likely to occur, and (2) Severity --What are the consequences of an aircraft accident. A third issue--"frequency--How often is an accident likely to happen here?" --remains a controversial subject because for any particular parcel the probability numbers are so low as to seem insignificant Accident probabilities as a function of time can be calculated using nationwide ratios of accidents to aircraft operations and then multiplying by the number of aircraft operations expected to take place at an individual airport over a specified period of time. For any particular parcel or small area, however, the resulting probability numbers are so low as to seem insignificant. The problem is that the numbers by themselves lack context. Sometimes, attempts are made to give them a sense of scale by making comparisons with the probability of an individual being struck by lightening or experiencing some other calamity. Even then, though, it is difficult to base land use policies on risk data comparing widely different types of events. A one in 10,000 chance of an accident/year/acre can be stated as "there is a likelihood of an accident occurring on this property once in 10,000 years". But it would be equally true to say "there is the likelihood of an accident occurring in this neighborhood once every ten years". Both statements are accurate, but the first lacks a meaningful context in which to make a home purchase decision. Another problem with using frequency to discuss safety is that each accident is an independent event. There may not have been an aircraft accident at an amort for fifty years, but that does not mean that there couldn't be five accidents tomorrow. Safety compatibility issues are also based on (1) generalized Flight Tracks --where do planes normally flv, (2) performance limitations of the aircraft, and (3) actions of the pilot that can cause or contribute to emergency situations. A further aspect of the problem, especially with regard to aircraft accident risks, is that public perception is perhaps more important than statistics. While the reality is that accidents involving light, general aviation aircraft seldom cause major damage or deaths on the ground, public perception usually is that only "luck" prevented any particular event from being a major catastrophe. Accidents involving larger aircraft - business jets and airline aircraft - are more likely to have significant consequences to land uses, but there are fewer such aircraft flying at most airports and, on a national basis, the accident frequency is lower than for small planes. Also important - especially when considering the fundamental role of ALUCs to protect airports - is that, when an aircraft accident happens near an airport, public response is usually in favor of restricting the airport usage, not the surrounding land uses. Ultimately, this issue boils down to the question of: what is acceptable risk? The answer to this question is something which individual communities must each decide. In urban locations, people generally accept a somewhat higher level of risk than they might in rural areas, just as they accept a higher level of ambient noise. It is simply one of the disadvantages of urban living which go hand in hand with the advantages. Safety is relative, not absolute. Aircraft Accident Locations The number of off -airport aircraft accidents at any particular airport is too small to provide a meaningful indication of where accidents may occur near that airport in the future. To better assess the geographic distribution of aircraft accident risks near an airport, a larger database is necessary. A database of this type was initially developed for the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the California Department of Transportation Aeronautics Program. The database was expanded in 1999 and now contains information on some 873 general aviation aircraft accidents (445 arrival accidents and 428 departure accidents) which occurred within 5 miles of an airport, but not on the runway. (This data includes accidents at airports nationwide over roughly a 10 -year period. However, because precise location data is not available for most accidents, the database represents only a fraction of the total number of off -airport accidents that took place during this time span.) Revised December 19, 2001 C-2 Airport Land Use Compatibility Concepts/ Appendix C The charts on pages C -9 and C-10 depict the relative geographic intensity of general aviation aircraft accident risks for arrival and departure accidents, respectively. Each dot represents the location of an aircraft accident site mapped with respect to the approach or departure runway which the aircraft was intending to use for landing or had used on takeoff. The 20% contour represents the highest or most concentrated risk intensity, the 40% contour represents the next highest risk intensity, etc. Each contour interval is drawn so as to encompass 20% of the dots within the most compact area. The charts reveal several facts: About half of arrival accidents and a third of departure accidents take place within the FAA defined runway protection zone for a runway with a low -visibility instrument approach procedure (a 2,500 -foot long trapezoid, varying from 1,000 feet to 1,750 feet in total width). This fact lends validity to the importance of the runway protection zones as an area within which land use activities should be minimal. Although the runway protection zones represent the locations within which risk levels are highest, a significant degree of risk exists well beyond the runway protection zone boundaries. Among all near -airport (within 5 miles) accidents, over 80% are concentrated within 1.5 to 2 miles of a runway end. Arrival accidents tend to be concentrated relatively close to the extended runway centerline. Some 80% occur within a strip extending 1 0,000 feet from the runway landing threshold and 2,000 feet to each side of the runway centerline. Departure accidents are comparatively more dispersed laterally from the runway centerline, but are concentrated closer to the runway end. Many departure accidents also occur lateral to the runway itself, particularly when the runway is long. Approximately 80% of the departure accident sites lie within an area 2,500 from the runway centerline and 6,000 feet beyond the runway end or adjacent to the runway. This data does not address the other major components of aircraft accident risk: the potential consequences of accidents when they occur and the frequency with which they occur. The intent is merely to illustrate the relative intensity of the risks on a geographic scale. Furthermore, as with noise contours, risk data by itself does not answer the question of what degree of land use restrictions should be established in response to the risks. Although most ALUCs have policies which restrict certain land use activities 'in locations beyond the runway protection zones, the size of the area in which restrictions are established and the specific restrictions applied vary from one county to another. Severity The nature of the impact that occurs when a small aircraft comes down off -airport can vary from a nearly normal landing to a catastrophic crash. When the aircraft remains under control and a reasonably open emergency landing site can be found, the impact can be relatively minor. The potential for injury to people on the ground is small and the aircraft occupants have a strong probability of surviving The most serious accidents, in terms of risks to people on the ground as well as to the aircraft occupants are those in which the pilot either loses control of the aircraft and, because of damage low altitude or improper procedures, is unable to regain control: or is unable to select a reasonable forced landing spot because of darkness, fog, or because no landing spot exists. Data was gathered regarding the probable effects of a small aircraft colliding with a typical house or other small building. There were many variables: (1) aircraft weight, (2) amount of fuel on board (3) aircraft speed, both horizontally and vertically, at the time of the collision. (4) The angle of contact with the structure (i.e., glancing or head-on), (5) aircraft attitude when the collision occurs, (6) composition of the building surface, and (6) the occurrence of fire after the impact. The study determined that the combination of these variables is so great as to preclude definitive conclusions. The effects can only be estimated within a wide range of possibilities. Revised December 19, 2001 C - 3 T Airport Land Use Compatibility Concepts/ Appendix C To the extent that any meaningful conclusions can be reached from the data obtained, they can be sum- marized as follows: Other factors being equal (which, for any two accidents, they never are), more damage will be produced by larger, faster aircraft than by smaller and slower ones. The amount of kinetic energy produced by a small, but fully loaded, single-engine airplane flying at minimum speed is equivalent to that of a small automobile traveling at.about 55 miles per hour. By comparison, a cabin -class twin would generate kinetic energy similar to that of a loaded 10 -ton truck traveling 60 miles per hour (McElroy 1973). Unlike automobiles, aircraft are not designed for collisions. The disintegration of the wings and fuselage of a small, general aviation aircraft as it collides with a building dissipates much of the kinetic energy that would otherwise be delivered to the structure, but neither data nor analvses can predict the actual effects of a Particular incident. As can be expected, off -airport aircraft accidents tend to be more severe than ones occurring on or near a runway... the aircraft is destroyed in some 75% of off -airport accidents. Moreover, fatal injuries occur more than half of the time. It must be remembered, however, that these figures are relative to the total number of accidents. No information is available regarding how often aircraft make an emergency landing on or off of an airport without incurring substantial damage or resulting in serious or fatal iniuries. Airspace Protection The Federal Aviation Administration establishes the criteria which determines the airspace essential to the safe flight of aircraft to, from, and around airports. There are two separate sets of criteria, each with a different purpose. Criteria used to protect the airspace around airports from tall structures which could pose hazards to flight are established in Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). The regulations, though, do not give the FAA direct authority to limit the height of structures. This authority rests with state and local governments. Rather, Part 77 serves primarily as a notification device. Before a structure which would exceed the Part 77 surfaces is built, notification must be submitted to the FAA. The FAA then conducts an aeronautical study to determine whether the object would or would not be a hazard to air navigation. The FAA also may indicate that an obstruction should be marked and/or lighted. The FAA's direct authority with regard to airport airspace is to define instrument approach procedures. The criteria used for this purpose are outlined in the United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). Unlike FAR Part 77 which sets desirable limits on the height of structures, TERPS takes these objects as a given and then uses that information in the procedure design. If a new structure is built which penetrates one of the TERPS surfaces for an existing procedure, the procedure must be redesigned with higher approach minimums or perhaps eliminated altogether. In general, FAR Part 77 surfaces for a particular airport are lower than those defined by TERPS. Part 77, however, does not specifically take into account turns in approaches or, more significantly, in missed approaches, or VFR (visual Fight Rules)noise abatement procedures that may be established by the airport operator, such as the noise abatement departures used by airtankers, or the agricultural aircraft arrival path at Chico Municipal. Thus, it is possible for a structure to be built to a height which does not exceed the Part 77 limits, but still adversely affects an existing instrument approach procedure. Also to be considered is that a structure which does not adversely affect an existing procedure could be the critical obstacle for a future, not yet designed, procedure. For airports such as Chico Municipal Airport and Oroville Municipal Airport which have existing or planned instrument approach procedures, a review of TERPS surfaces can be an important land use compatibility component. 4 Homebuyers are not usually affected, however, unusual structures such as antennas, multi -story structures or buildinq sites on high terrain within the limits of the FAR Part 77 surfaces may be restricted. Revised December 19, 2001 C-4 Airport Land Use Compatibility Concepts/ Appendix C Overflight Assessing Overflight Annoyance A general definition of overflight impacts is that they are noise -related impacts affecting locations outside the typical contours described by cumulative noise level metrics. GempaFed- to the Also, they seem to include elements of both noise and safety concerns. Often the impacts are revealed in the form of annoyance expressed by some people living near an airport. Traffic patterns are usually depicted as arrows indicating the direction and --general location of aircraft in the airspace around an airport. Individuals unfamiliar with flight may interpret these arrows to be indicating a "roadway in the sky" and assume that aircraft must stay on these lines as cars are required to stay on a road. The only time when aircraft are following a "road" is when they are actually taxiinq to or from the runways, or on roll-out or touch down on a runway. The illustrations from the Caltrans Handbook reproduced on page C-11 compare these stylized traffic patterns with the reality of actual aircraft movements (based on radar tracking) at Sacramento Airport. When approaching or departing an airport, aircraft follow a track that is analogous to the movements of a boat enterina or leavina a harbor. For the Butte County CLUP generalized flight tracks are depicted by areas of color which is more accurate and more informative to the general non -aviation public. Although overflight noise is detectable and therefore measurable, the highly subjective individual reactions to overflights makes the value of measurement on a decibel scale questionable. A more representative measure of overflight impacts is the absolute number of intrusive events which occur, but there is no agreed-upon, scientific standard for what an acceptable number might be. For the purposes of airport land use compatibility planning, a simpler form of assessment may be more practical. This approach presumes that aircraft overflight impacts are potentially a concern anywhere along the standard aircraft traffic pattern flight tracks for an airport , or in the airport vicinity where aircraft fly at or below traffic pattern altitude while approaching or departing the runway. Whether a significant degree of overflight annoyance will actually occur in the vicinity of an airport is influenced by a variety of factors, both environmental and human. Building type and design, ambient noise levels, the characteristics and predictability of the noise itself, and (as noted above) the frequency of occurrence are among the environmental factors involved. An individual's sense of annoyance at overflights depends upon such factors as characteristics of the land use activity being disrupted, personal sensitivity to noise, attitudes toward aviation, and experience and expectations regarding noise levels in the community. Buyer Awareness Measures Amnon The basic means available to ALUCs for addressing overflight issues is through buyer awareness measures . which recognize the subjective nature of annoyance. The eeneep4 is that the likelihood of people being annoyed by airport activity can be reduced if they are made aware of the airport's proximity and the nature and location of aircraft overflights before moving into the airport area. Buyer awareness is really an umbrella term for three separate types of measures all having the objective of ensuring that prospective buyers of property in the vicinity of an airport are informed about the airport's impacts on the property. Although variations are sometimes created, the three basic types of buyer awareness measures are: Revised December 19, 2001 C-5 Airport Land Use Compatibility Concepts/ Appendix C Avigation Easement Dedication - A requirement for avigation easement dedication is usually applied only to new development: It is the most comprehensive and stringent form of buyer awareness measures. Although the rights associated with most avigation easements are established in otherforms (e.g., local, airport -vicinity, height -limit zoning ordinances, and Federal Aviation Regulations), an avigation easement clearly conveys these rights to the airportowner. Deed Notices.- Deed notices are similar to avigation easements in that they are recorded with the deed to a ' property and are usually implemented only in conjunction with ,some form of development approval process. Unlike easements, though, they do not convey any property rights. Deed notices serve only to formalize the fact that a property is subject to aircraft overflights and noise. Real Estate Disclosure.- Real estate disclosure is the least formal method of implementing a buyer awareness program. It relies upon standard real estate disclosure laws and practices to ensure that prospective buyers of property in the airport vicinity are informed about the proximity of a nearby airport and the impacts it creates. The likelihood of this in being disclosed can be increased if the airport or the local land use jurisdiction provide official, notification to local, reale state brokers, and title companies. The City of Chico has an avigation easement program in place at Chico Municipal Airport, but neither Paradise, Oroville, or Butte County have established similar requirements around County Airports. The Butte County ALUC has'adopted a disclosure statement that can be used to inform prospective buyers of property around the airport about information regarding the noise and accident potential of airport area properties. The disclosure statement is found in the new Appendix K and directs the inquirer to other information available in the CLOP. The most complete information package about a Butte County airport that has been prepared by the Butte County ALUC would also include: (1) The background data chapter on the selected airport (Chapter 4,5, 6, or 7) 2 Appendix C which discusses the compatibility concepts as applicable to a decision to purchase land, around an airport, and. %. (3) The section of Chapter 3 which maps the compatibility zones around each airport and lists the individual airport policies. This will be useful for determining what use can be made of Property BEFORE it has been purchased. a Revised December 19, 2001 C-6 Regular ALUC Meeting December 19, 2001 Report from the Disclosure Committee The Committee offers this collection of revisions and inclusions for the 2001 annual update of the CLUP because the Commission had determined that a "well-informed airport neighbor" is likely to be a "good airport neighbor". We have augmented information in the CLUP with relevant data from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and with information contained in the Caltrans Handbook. Also, our intention was to simplify some of the "aviation' speak" written by and for people who knew about airplanes and airports and to provide some relevant examples to make compatibility concepts more accessible to the general reader. Here are the specific sources and reasons for the additions and changes listed below: 1) Pages 4 -la to 4-1 c Introduction - Background Data - Chico Municipal Airport From the perspective of the neighbors, the most intrusive and dangerous activity that takes place at CMA is fighting fires with very loud, old aircraft that are not required to meet the maintenance standards of every other airplane in the U.S. The fact the fire fighting only occurs about half the year means that property buyers may not know that it occurs. The minutes of the Chico Airport Commission record one woman who sat in the back yard of a prospective home purchase -for an entire afternoon and decided that she would be able to live with the amount of airplane activity. It had been a lovely April afternoon. Now, she was at the Airport Commission to complain about the noise of the airtankers. Because only 13 California airports have CDF bases, there is no guidance in the Caltrans Handbook as to how to quantify that activity. The best we can do for people like that homebuyer is to give actual historical data and point out that the future will look a lot like the past. The data was taken from CDF logbooks, as well as some information by letter from the Emergency Command Center at Oroville, and from the Associated Airtanker Pilots Memorial List. Information on the fleet mix came from materials published by the Interagency Command Center at Boise, ID. Copies of all these materials have already been presented at ALUC hearings starting in 1999 and should be available in ALUC files. 2) Pages 4-9, 5-7, 7-7 Accident Risk Intensity Maps for Chico Oroville and Ranchaero The current maps show accident potential zones for flights in only one direction. This could confuse unknowledgeable people because it appears that there is lesser accident risk off one end of the runway than off the other. Since all these runways are used in both directions and because each take -off and landing is an independent activity, the accident scatter is appropriate and accurate when portrayed in both. directions. The consultant's map for Paradise reflects accurately that all operations occur off the south end of the runway and so will not need to be corrected. The commission may want to decide if the accident scatters should be portrayed on the short runways at Oroville and Chico as well These drafts can be properly done on GIS if adopted. It is obvious that all the maps will have to be re -centered to take the accident scatter out of the writing in the legends. Page 1 of 2 d �� . i 4 S' � � '.x f � + � .�� . • ,� ' . �. �� � . '* i �. P - ' � - r ; g� • f. ' :. �} � • � � . F .� _ �� +', . � _ � ,_ . _ �+ � � i �' - � :c' . ' i .� y' r ,. � ;, 1 ��� � � , r � i • '1- � �!�( �.. • �� !� +' � � .. Ny '� . ' y`!� - , rl�, .y u S �` } nt , 3) Page 5-1 Introduction - Background Data - Oroville Municipal Airport The Oroville City Council Resolution 5655, adopted in November 2000 indicates an increase of activity that should be recognized in our document, if only to alert future ALUC members as well as the public to the possibility of changes. 4) Page 7-1 Introduction - Background Data - Ranchaero Airport A 1998 letter to the chairman of ALUC from an angry homeowner in the subdivision north of Ranchaero prompted research into the permitting and development of that subdivision. We also learned of the residents' inaccurate information concerning FAA regulations. The writer had purchased a home directly on the centerline, 1000 feet from the threshold and was offended that during a weekend fly -in "at least four [pilots/ flew `straight in' over my house His misunderstanding of airport operations was the impetus for the documents currently being presented by the Disclosure Committee. 5) Appendix C Airport Land Use Compatibility Concepts Page C- lb (New material on "Noise Episodes".. Zamporini Field in Torrence has such.a special designation and identifies these activities in their public relations material. Page C - lb & C-2 (Assessing risks) This is an example of use of statistics built on developer's assertions during public hearing processes. Other new material comes from Caltrans Handbook Chapter 8, Aircraft Accident Characteristics. Page C - 3 & C - 4 (Severity) new material from Caltrans Handbook Chapter 8, Aircraft Accident Characteristics. The issue of severity is not addressed at all in the current version of Appendix C. Page C - 6 (new material at end) This is a list of where information that affects prospective property owners can be found. Our hope is that people will research thoroughly before they purchase near an airport and that this document makesthat information accessible and understandable. 6) Page C 11 (new graphic) Too often we have seen attorneys argue that particular home site or a school site would be safe because it was located BETWEEN traffic pattern tracks. Being able to compare a simplified graphic and reality will be very useful. Both these graphics come from the Caltrans Handbook. Pages K - 1 and K - 2' are the result of several meetings of ALUC and a lot of contact with the real estate community. They wanted a short document because they already have a great deal to disclose and we wanted a document that would give exhaustive detail, both for future homeowners as well as establishing factual bases for future ALUC determinations. Appendix K will -meet the real estate requirements by being only three pages: it will meet our needs by indicating where more substantial information will be found in Appendix C and the Background' Data Chapters. Pages K - 3 through K - 6 are black and white copies of the color maps'in Chapter 3. They will be easier to copy and not loose too much information. Page 2 of 2 Additional/Revised Pages Adopted: as of December 20, 2001 Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ' State aeronautics, law allows for annual updates of the CLUP. 'It is expected that this will occur around the end of the calendar year. ' To facilitate revision, the Butte County ALUC directed that the document be in a loose-leaf�binder format and that a revisions page should be added fo the front of the. binder. Each revised page will also be dated.. Copyholders of record will receive the annual updates so that they may keep their copies current. Individuals may wish to check with Butte County Planning,to determine if they have the most current version of the Plan. Date of Hearing Additional/ Revised Pages Replacement Pages ° '12/19/2001 4_l 4-la, 4-lb, 4-1c « 4-9. (map) 4-9 5-1 5-1 5-7 (map) 5-7 7-1 .7-1 , 7-7 (map) 7-7 " Appendix C . -Revised text- ­C-la, a, C-1 b, C-1 c--- C-6 Additional .graphic C-11 " Appendix:K (new) -Disclosure Document- K-1 to K-6 r 1 This draft revision of the first page of Chapter 5 is intended to be useful to the non - aviation reader and is a more accurate description of the activities and history of Ranchaero. New information is in dark type, deleted information is shown with stfike-etAs. Chapter 5 draft revision Background Data: Oroville Municipal Airport Introduction Oroville Municipal airport is situated within an extension of the Oroville city limits some 2.5 miles west of the remainder of the city. Although the city's sphere of influence extends a mile west of the airport, only the airport property and some private land to the north and west are currently within the city boundary. The surrounding unincorporated area includes the community of Thermalito situated northeast of the airport. To the southwest and southeast, lie state-owned water project and wildlife refuge lands. An airport has existed on the present site since 1936 when the city of Oroville acquired the original 188 acres. During World War II, the U.S. Army took temporary control of the airport. The army made various improvements including establishing the basic runway configuration which remains today. The facility reverted to the city in 1947. In the subsequent half century of owning and operating the airport, the city has acquired additional land and made numerous improvements to the facilities. Among the many changes, the recent project which extended and shifted the primary runway to the southwest has been the most significant from an off airport land use compatibility perspective. Nfimieipal Airpei4.) The airport's historically moderate activity levels, even including the Oroville AirFair and local EAA chapter activities, together with the extensive agricultural and open space lands in the surrounding area, have kept compatibility conflicts to a minimum. The light industrial development planned adjacent to the airport is also potentially suitable from a compatibility standpoint. . Although the recent runway modification somewhat diminishes the potential or conflicts, more intensive residential development within the southwestern area of Thermalito presents the major future compatibility concern, particularly if the types of aircraft activities listed in a recent Oroville City Council Resolution occur. The Oroville City Council is considering updating Oroville's Airport Master Plan and General Plan to included expanded airport services, such as more frequent business jet flights, small scale airline commuter services, pilot training, freight transport and flights by California Division of Forestry fire fighting aircraft -(Resolution 5655-11/2/00). Increased business jet flights and commuter services or the relocation of the CDF Base will mean, not mergly an increase in activity, but a change in the character of operations as these all involve larger and noisier aircraft than those now common at Oroville. Revised 12/2001 5-1 This draft revision of the first page of Chapter 7 is intended to be useful to the non - aviation reader and is a more accurate description of the activities and history of Ranchaero. New information is in dark type, deleted information is shown with stFike-eu s. Chapter 7 draft revision Introduction Background Data: Ranchaero Airport Situated near the southwestern edge of the city of Chico, tiny Ranchaero Airport serves a combination of recreational, flight training, agricultural, and limited business functions. Current activity is estimated at only some 5,000 aircraft operations per year. The airport's short, 2,200 -foot runway limits its use to small twin - engine or single-engine airplanes and helicopters. 'Historic photos show aircraft as large as a DC -3 at Ranchaero. The North Valley Pilots Association and EAA Chapter #427 are located here which produces occasional surges of activity during club activities and fly -ins, usually on weekends and evenings. Recent helicopter operations involved flight training which produced many short local flights. Modification to placement of the runway thresholds is scheduled for construction in 2000 along with various building area upgrades including new aircraft hangers. Overall, though, the basic configuration of this privately owned airstrip has remained unchanged since its construction in 1946. Historically, land use compatibility conflicts involving the airport have stemmed from two sources. The major issue arose because of the airport's lack of control over the runway protections zones. As a result, orchards were planted which became obstructions to the runway approaches. This situation now appears to be resolved with the airport's acquisition of easements over the inner parts of the runway protection zones. The second, continuing, conflict is presented by the subdivision north of the airport which was approved by the County in 1983 without having been submitted to ALUC. To avoid overflight of the homes, most aircraft landing to the southeast at the airport turn for fmal'approach less than 1,000 fee from the runway end. Aircraft taking off toward the north also usually make a close -in left tum. Some residents of this subdivision, not understanding the rules of flight, believe that pilots are "required" to stay south of the creek. However these procedures constitute some hazard to the pilots in order to protect the quality of life for the residents of the subdivision. , tegAeF with the aifpeft's. There are many reasons why a pilot might choose to make the standard straight -in approach. The pilot's decision would be based on his level of experience, the amount of time logged in a particular aircraft, the known flight characteristics of that aircraft at low speeds, the pilots unfamiliarity with the airport, the presence of passengers in the aircraft, which affect the weight and balance of the aircraft, etc. The fact that many local pilots choose to make steeper angled approaches or to make turns immediately after departing the runway does not mean that they are, or can be, required to do so. For the future, no significant new compatibility issues are currently foreseeable. No major changes in the character of either the airport or the surrounding land uses are anticipated. The city of Chico urban development area boundary and the Butte County "green line" both preclude extension of urban uses into the agricultural lands west of the city. Revised 12/2001 74 page 1 of 3 REAL ESTATE DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORTS PART I- DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR REAL ESTATE SALES PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT. This document is intended to assist real estate sellers and real estate agents with disclosure requirements for real property affected by the four Public Use Airports located in Butte County. The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ("ALUC") is mandated by the State to protect both the future utility of Butte County airports and the welfare of people living near them. One way to accomplish this task is to be certain that people moving near the airports understand the nature of the operations that will be occurring near their homes. AIRPORT DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS. As you also may be aware, the ancient maxim caveat emptor ("let the buyer beware") has little or no application to California real estate transactions. Under applicable California law, the seller of real property has both a common law and statutory duty to disclose all material facts to a buyer of the property before the close of the purchase escrow. This disclosure will include all facts that materially affect the value or desirability of the property. California Civil Code Section 1102.17 requires a seller of residential property (one -to -four dwelling units) who has actual knowledge that the property is affected by or zoned to allow an industrial use described in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 731a (certain manufacturing, commercial or airport uses) must give written notice of that knowledge "as soon as practicable" before title is transferred. In addition to the seller's disclosure, California Civil Code Section 1102.6 requires the seller's real estate agent to certify that he or she has made an inquiry of the seller regarding the condition of the property, and that he or she has conducted a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of the accessible areas of the property. The real estate agent is required to describe any negative matters discovered by the inquiry and inspection. AIRPORT LAND USE COMPA TIBILITY PLAN. The primary impacts on property caused by its close proximity to an airport relate to: (1) Noise, (2) Safety, (3) Federal Airspace Restrictions, (4) Overflight Concerns and (5) Possible Restrictions or Approvals Required From ALUC for the Use, Development and Improvement of the property. The ALUC adopted the current Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (the "Plan") on December 20, 2000, which is primarily concerned with real property located under the aircraft approach and departure area designated by Federal Air Regulations (14 CFR Part 77). This property is generally located,within 2-3 miles of the four Public Use airports in Butte County: Chico Municipal, Ranchaero, Oroville Municipal, and Paradise Skypark. These airports operate 24 -hours a day unless otherwise posted. HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT. The small maps on the next page can be used to determine if the subject property is located within the area of influence for any of Butte County's four public use airports. If there is any doubt about the location of a particular parcel, a broker or title company representative or City/County Planning Departments will be able to help. If the property is located within the airport area of influence, then consult the Plan for more detailed information. page 2 of 3 Four maps from Chapter 3 reduced and in black and white page 3 of 3 Part II -- IDENTIFYING DETAILS OF AFFECTED PROPERTIES "Exactly how noisy does it get? Is it safe here? Who owns the air above this house?" and "Do planes fly over this property at night?" are all questions that a prospective homeowner may ask. Only the people who will actually live in the houses can determine how much aircraft overflight, noise, or risk they are willing to accept. A copy of the currently adopted Plan is available for viewing at the Butte County Planning Department and at Butte County Libraries: ❑ Chapter 1 of the Plan has an introduction and, a general discussion about airport land use compatibility planning. ❑ Chapter 2 contains airport compatibility and review policies applicable to Butte County. ❑ Chapter 3 contains the compatibility map for each airport together with individual policies and explanatory notes for that airport. Determine if the subject real property is located within Zone A, B1, B2, C, Cl, C2, or,D. The use, development and improvement of the subject property could be restricted by the Plan or subject to ALUC approval. This information will be useful for those who intend to develop property for their own use or for resale. ❑ Chapters 4-7 include background information for_ each airport. This data was used by ALUC to determine where compatibility zones should be located. Each chapter contains a series of maps individually detailing the effects of airport activities. The appendixes of the Plan provide information related to airport land use planning in general and to Airport Land'Use Commissions in particular which include State and Federal laws. Appendix C explains the compatibility concepts and provides context for understanding the various maps in Chapters 4-7..This is intended to be more accessible to the general public than the "aviation - speak" of the Plan. Appendix E contains compatibility guidelines for specific land uses near Butte County airports. "As soon as practicable" before title is transferred to the prospective buyer, disclose in writing any information about the subject property that indicates it is affected by an airport. This could be accomplished by making a•copy of the relevant chapters of the Plan and providing them to the prospective buyer along with other written disclosures required. The Plan can be updated annually. These actions are taken in response to such things as new master plans by the airport operators, runway reconfigurations, changes in FAA requirements, changes in the use of the airport, etc. ALUC staff will help in any future update of this disclosure document. Published Camyaien Fires. (Fig. 4) This graphic lists the dates and number of operations (take -offs or landings) of aircraft for several representative campaign fires where CMA was used as a reload base. 1994 30 -Jun 1910 1:59 PM 11:18 AM a:au rm 8:18 PM I" 67 # Minutes 9:00 274" 1A8 PM 7:44 PM # of tanker between Hours of Year Date First Flight Last Flight operations flights operation 1890 7 -Jul 7:48 AM 8:04 PM 84 8:47 12:18 6:02 6 -Aug 2:17 PM 8:19 PM 38 9:32 1014 10'04 7 -Aug 9:41 AM 7:45 PM a 14:16 11:53 11 -Aug 8:46 AM 7:28 PM 30 21:24 10,42 12 -Aug 8.48 AM 7:48 PM 63 10:30 11:02 134" 9:04 AM 8:35 PM 33 17:18 9:31 1992 12 7:36 AM 5:49 PM 83 7:24 1014 6:01 22 -Sep 2:48 PM - 8:48 PM 42 8:38 7:05 23 8:82 AM 3:57 PM 34 12:30 -So 24—Sep 4:59 PM 5:32 PM 16 2:04 0:33 25 -Sep 1222 PM 7:29 PM 56 7:37 7:07 1994 30 -Jun 1910 1:59 PM 11:18 AM a:au rm 8:18 PM I" 67 _._. 8:04 9:00 274" 1A8 PM 7:44 PM 42 8:29 5:58 1014 AM 7:48 PM 63 8:57 914 18.Sep 228 PM 7:31 PM 23 13:16 5:05 19 -Sep 8:40AM 7:04 PM 142 4:24 1014 10'04 20 9:41 AM 7:45 PM 58 1025 -SM 21-W 9:39 AM 7:19 PM 124 4:41 9:40 22 -Sep 8.08 AM 6:54 PM 149 4:20 10:48 The aircraft used in fire -fighting include: DC4s, DC6s, DC7s, P2Vs, C130s, PB4Y- 2s, P -3s, S-2Fs, large agricultural aircraft as well as the occasional exotic from Canada. These are large noisy, aged aircraft. State and Federal agencies contract with many operators, and the agencies support and co-operate with each other. For example, Chico is a joint CDF-US Forest Service Base so any of the aircraft in this list may be operating out of CMA as resources are drawn from the Western region. While the North American fire -fighting fleet is too small to generate any meaningful statistics about accident probabilities, there are over 120 pilot fatalities listed on the Memorial list maintained by the Air Tanker Pilots Association. Most accidents occurred over a fire where the flying is most dangerous, however, these older aircraft are not immune to engine failures, nor are they exempt from near airport accidents. The locations of all fatalities are not, identified, but of the 42 listed where some indication as to location is given, 25% were identified as occurring on take -off, during landing or as a result of mid-air collisions at airports. The Memorial list does not cover "incidents", for example, when an engine failure occurred and the pilot avoided an -'accident. When engine failure occurs pilots immediately dump all the retardant to lighten the aircraft. A retardant dumps results in a concentrated quantity of fire retardant striking the ground from a low, altitude. A P-3 load weights over 13 1/2 tons and when released .is traveling at 250 feet/ second. Firefighters are given a one-hour training course to teach them how to protect themselves if they are near a drop target. Revised 12/2001 4=1c Rpr 19 01 13:41- Chico Rir Rtteek Base (530) 095-6029 p.1 , IO18 = STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION ' 174 Nelson Avenue A9` �i'ovi118, Caliiomia 95865 _ �i ,530) 538-7.111 ' March 23, 2000 Mrs. Barbara. Hennigan 5244 Anita Road Chico, California 95926 Dear Mrs. Hennigan: ' Following is the information that you requested on the start and ending dates for , fire season in Butte County. We have assembled dates that go back ten years. "1n addition I have included the earliest and latest opening and closing dates that we have records for. ` s Ygar Date Fire Season Started Date Fire Season Ended 1999 May 17 November 9 1998 June 15 November 1 1997 May 191, November 3 1996 June 3 . October 31' 1995 June 5 November 28 1994 May 16 November 7- 19,03 May 24 October 18 (reopened 10/27 —11115) 1992 May 11 October 26 1991 May 20 October 31 1990 May 7 November 5 1989 May 29 October 24 The earliest starting date was April 11in 1988 and the latest starting date was June 15" in 1988 and 1973. The latest ending date was December 131h in 1959 and the earliest ending elate was September 161h in 1962. I hope this information will prove helpful in the completion of your project. if you have any further questions you may contact Battalion Chief Steve Iverson at 895-6505. Sincerely, Iliam R. Sager Unit Chief sl cc: Battalion Chief Steve Iverson The most accurate way to describe activity at an air attack base is to give factual descriptions of the history of the base at Chico. Data is from CDF flight logs --the official public records of operations maintained for accounting and legal lj �pva. MA9F�e s"cio= c1=es[]N in BUTTE COUNTY -1989-1999 Fire Season: (Fig -1) The general time frame of fire season is pre- dictable, generally starting mid-May in Northern California, as shown by this graphic of start and stop dates For 1989- 1999. Fire season has started as early as April 11th and ended as late as Dec. 13th. Fire season generally lasts from 5-7 months. Fire Season Severity: (Fig. 2) May be measured by the amount of retardant used Gallons of retardant loaded into aircraft during the 1991-99 seasons. Note that even though an average can be calculated, only a single fire season -1983 - came near to being "average". 1994 i 1,846,384 gal. --► ,.2w.000'1 --- - - - --- — --- 1994 — 11024,099 gal. 800.000 _....- — --- - -- ---- — 1988 — 37.610 gal 400.000 :.. ._ Avg. 200.000; ------ i, cr, 2 2 26127128129130131 3eoemmm ism 0�eeeaeeneei ieee�eeeeeeeeeeeee�e eme NMI Boom mom ICE ©�t�©[N. comm©n reffifflorr eem1110■ ©01111111 Daily Activity: (Fig. 3) This shows the variableness in even a very heavy fire season. This graphic gives the number of take -offs daily for the year 1994, there are many days when no airtanker flew at all. Camyaisn Fires: (Fig. 4) This graphic lists the dates and number of operations (take -offs or landings) of aircraft for several representative campaign fires where CMA was used as a reload base. 1994 30 -Jun 1:59 PM rrou rM 104 67 # Minutes - - 9'00 19 -Au 11:18 AM 8:18 PM # of tanker between Hours of Year Date First Flight Last Flight , operations flights operation 1990 7 -Jul 7:48 AM 8:04 PM 84 8:47 12:18 6 -Aug " 2:17 PM 8:19 PM 38 9:32 6:02 7 -Aug 7:35 AM 7:28 PM 50- 14:16 11:53 11 -Aug 8:46 AM 7:28 PM 30 21:24 10:42 12 Aug 8:48 AM 7:48 PM 63 10:30 11:02 13 -Aug 9:04 AM 8:35 PM 33 17:18 9:31 1992 12-A 7:36 AM 5:49 PM 83 7:24 10:14 22 -Sep 2:48 PM 6:49 PM 42 8:36 e:Ot 23 -Sep 8:52 AM 3:57 PM 34 12:30 7:05 24 -Sep 4:59 PM 5:32 PM -16 2:04 0:33 26 -Sep 12:22 PM 7:29 PM 56 7:37 7:07 1994 30 -Jun 1:59 PM rrou rM 104 67 _• 8:04 - - 9'00 19 -Au 11:18 AM 8:18 PM 27 -Aug 1:48 PM 7:44 PM 42 8:29 5:59 28 -Aug 10:24 AM 7:48 PM 63 8:57 - 9:24 18SeP 228 PM 7:31 PM 23 13:16 5:05 19 -Sep 8:40 AM 7:04 PM 142 4:24 104 i 20 -Sep 9:41 AM 7:45 PM 58 10:25 10:04 21 -Sep 9:39 AM 7:19 PM 124 4:41 9:40 22 -Sep 8.08 AM 6:54 PM 149 4:20 10:48 The aircraft used in fire -fighting include: DC4s, DC6s, DC7s, P2Vs, C130s, PB4Y- 2s, P -3s, S-2Fs, large agricultural aircraft as well as the occasional exotic from Canada: These are large noisy, aged aircraft. State and Federal agencies contract with many operators, and the agencies support and co-operate with each other. For example, Chico is a joint CDF-US Forest Service Base so any of the aircraft in this list may be operating out of CMA as resources are drawn from the Western region. While the North American fire -fighting fleet is too small to generate any meaningful statistics about accident probabilities, there are over 120 pilot fatalities listed on the Memorial list maintained by the Air Tanker Pilots Association. Most accidents occurred over a fire where the flying is most dangerous, however, these older aircraft are not immune to .engine failures, nor are they exempt from near airport accidents. The locations of all fatalities are not identified, but of the 42 listed where some indication as to location is given, 25% were identified as occurring on take -off, during landing or as a result of mid-air collisions at airports. The Memorial list does not cover "incidents" for example, when an engine failure occurred and the pilot avoided an accident. When engine failure occurs pilots immediately dump all the retardant to lighten the aircraft: A retardant dumps results in a concentrated quantity of fire retardant striking the ground from a low altitude. A P-3 load weights over 13 1/2 tons and when released is traveling at 250 feet/ second. Fire fighters are given a one-hour training course to teach them how to protect themselves if they are near a drop target. ,nInnnl A.1.•