HomeMy WebLinkAboutALUC CORRESPONDENCE READING FILE LOG 1997>::>:::::::>::>::>::>::>::>::>"::":>::>:"«<::::>:::::<:::>::>::>::;::::>::>":; ..ALU'C.Corres " :ondenceReadin . F� L ........................................................................................
P.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.::.:::.::.::.:::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.:::.:::.:::.::...........:.:.::.::.::.;:.;:.;:.; 9:.;:.;:.;:.;:.::.::.::.;:.::.;:.::.::.::.::.::.;:.;:.;;:.;:.::.::.::.::.::.;:.:;.:;.;:.;:.;:.;:.;: <.; ::..:;:::.:.:::::. :
199'><<>><'<>>>><`>°<«><
<<><«<><>><<<>`> `<`><>`><`>`<>< ><<
DATE
TO
FROM
BY
SUBJECT'
1.9_97 •
Tom Hayes, Planning Manager `
Paula Leasure
ALUC review of Assisted Care Facility
City of Chico
located at the southeast corner of
Cohasset and Lassen Ave.
1-29-97
Paula Leasure,
Priscilla Hanford
Unit Meeting on Air Transportation and
Airport Land Use ,
2-25-97
Fred Gerst & ALUC '
Jay White
Names of corp. of law school, senior
citizen & Chico CityCouncil members
3-18-97
Scott Browne
Paula Leasure
Chico over-ride of ALUC findings
4-9-97
Tom Parilo
Fred Gerst
Attending joint meeting
4:10-97
Jay White
Fred Gerst
Attending joint meeting
e o
2�►ns Ex64A-a-7es
-
Z�-9
d
�7
ldqvs o�7,21ot
G,G�a.h�,/ G
5 f�✓� VC-?
�.-I 7 �I
-e-
a Sip , D.e -eq s
la h ear, , a c,�-,
C 0-o'n y
c. tlV►, 5 e(
5.rsa 1
�i h�Si 4 h
c v h /; ct o %h �e �s r
o L6
7-I 0-97
. ,�
To
C° y�
LOvhS
nC{ -�
9 a,, �i p,ic�l,o
o-kq- c
-TA&I
Fr494
W
accs
k:\planning\aluc\correspo\log.97
-I��CT7C�IE c�O AIRPORT LAISMfs - COI�I�I[ISSION +
• Department of DevelopmentServices • 7 Countyen ernve, rove e, CA 95965 e(916) 538- •
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stacey Jolliffe, Senior Planner, City of Chico, Planning Division
City of Chico Planning Commission
FROM: Airport Land Use Commission
DATE: April 16, 1997
RE: Foothill Park East Project and Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report.
The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR) at its
regular meeting on April 16, 1997. The ALUC considered the attached staff analysis and determined that the RDEIR did not
fully address all the potential impacts associated with the Foothill Park East Project. It was also found that the RDEIR did not
incorporate as mitigations the five (5) recommended comments as outlined in the memorandum of November 27, 1996 from
ALUC to the Chico Planning Commission. These five (5) recommended comments were the cornerstone for an ALUC
acceptance of the Aircraft Operations and Conflict Study prepared for the City.
The review of the RDEIR does not in any way diminish the original ALUC finding that this project is inconsistent with the Chico
Municipal Airport Environs Plan. Any action to approve this project must include the appropriate legal overriding findings as
required by State Aeronautics Law.
In the event of an override of the inconsistency finding for the project, the ALUC voted unanimously to request that Chico
Planning Commission incorporate as conditions of project approval the following five (5) comments/conditions:
In order to minimize the noise and safety impacts to residents in the Foothill Park East development, a 1000 foot wide
open spaceflight corridor should be established and maintained along the approximate course of the Sycamore Creek
Diversion Channel and Sycamore Creek.
2. The project proponents and the City of Chico should devise enhanced disclosure measures that may include deed
notices; public notices, inclusion of information in the Department of Real Estate Public Report, and signage along
entrances to the project. Signage should provide adequate information concerning the operation of fire -fighting tankers
such the times of operation, height of aircraft above ground and the noise levels associated with such operations.
3. The City of Chico should provide public education materials concerning the aerial fire -fighting tankers including
informational bulletins, interpretive displays at the airport, and other measures devised for this intended purpose.
4. The flight corridor may impact some areas of the project that are designated for residential development. Development
proposed in these areas should be clustered away from the flight corridor, include sound attenuation features in the
building designand provide limited or reduced sized windows along the flight corridor. The safety of future inhabitants
should be considered in the overall design of the project site.
5. The Commission recommends a minor technical adjustment to the second radius of the turn as the turn is too tight and
adversely affects aircraft operations.
Attachments: 1. ALUC analysis of April 8, 1997.
k:/aluc/corresp/foothill.con
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •
STATE OF, CALIFORNIA --BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, Govemor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AERONAUTICS PROGRAM M.S. #40
1120 N STREET - ROOM 3300
P.O. BOX 942874 ,
SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001
(916) 654-4959
FAX (916) 653-9531 �.
October 14, 1997
Mr. John Franklin, Chair
Butte County ALUC
Department of Development Services
7 County Center Drive �-
Oroville, CA 95965
Dear Mr. Franklin:
CRAP # BUT -VAR -96-1 and August 13, 1997 Letter .
This letter is to provide a follow up to our previous letter to you dated
August 13, 1997, in which the California Department of Transportation, Aeronautics
Program, outlined some information regarding the Butte County CRAP grant allocation to
the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). At issue is what will be required for the
Butte County ALUC to obtain the allocated funds. In that letter, we stated that we would
first need to review the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which was, to our
knowledge, being formed by the County, the City of Chico and the ALUC. Further, we
stated in that letter that " ... we will need to be able to support its basic contents." To date,
we have not received the MOU for review, which concerns us in light of the ALUC's need
to update its airport comprehensive land use plans (CLUPs).
The Aeronautics Program is most interested in the ALUC's plans to update the
county's CLUPs and is prepared to release the funds when the requirements are satisfied
and a grant agreement is fully executed. Certain requirements must be met by all
applicants. My staff has verbally explained to-- both the City and County staff what is
required for the allocations to be released. For your information, we will provide you with
this clarification as well.
• Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21675(a) requires that the ALUC formulate
the CLUP. Therefore, the allocation is released to the ALUC; not to the county,
the airport or any other entity.
• Furthermore, that same section of the statute states:
The -commission plan shall include and shall be based on a long-range
master plan or an airport layout plan, as determined by the Division of
Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation, that reflects the
anticipated growth of the. airport during at least the next 20 years.
F "Mr. John Franklin
October 14, 1997
Page 2
This section of the law has been tested in a prior court case, which supports the
statutory mandate that the CLUP be based upon a document that reflects the next twenty
years of growth as forecast by the master plan. Specifically, the CLUP must include
elements of the master plan which encompass the forecasts and other pertinent
information. For those airports which do not have a master plan or never will have a
master plan, the law states that the Aeronautics Program can allow the use of an Airport
Layout Plan (ALP) for planning purposes in the preparation/update of a CLUP. Thus, for
those airports with a master plan, in accordance with the law, we require that the CLUP be
based upon a current twenty-year master plan.
If the master plan and the CLUP are being simultaneously updated, we have allowed
in those circumstances that a current and fully annotated ALP be used as the basis of the
CLUP preparation. However, the use of the ALP for this purpose is restricted until the
completion of the master plan and only as an interim planning document as it pertains to
the CLUP preparation/update. Accordingly, at the time the master plan is completed, the
CLUP must then be updated if necessary in order to contain the required elements from
the master plan. As a statutory requirement, this is applied to all applicants.
• Since the Chico Municipal Airport has a master plan, we will require that the
CLUP be based upon an updated, twenty-year master plan. We are cognizant
of the fact that the current master plan is very old and is not a viable
document for this purpose. The master plan must be updated in order to be
used for as a basis for the CLUP. If both documents are simultaneously
updated, a current and fully annotated ALP might be used, subsequent to our
review and approval of the ALP. These steps must be followed regardless of
whether or not the Butte County ALUC receives funds from the Aeronautics
Program. It is the law and it has already been tested by the courts.
• For your information, the Aeronautics Program's grant process requires that
we review and approve -of the project's scope of work and consultant
selection. Once the scope of work is reviewed and approved, the grant can
be executed. Grant monies are reimbursements to funds paid out by the
ALUC (or its agent) to the consultant preparing the work. They are not "up
front" dollars. Our procedures require a ten percent holdback until the final
payment which is made upon completion of the terms of the grant. The
grant monies allocated represent the 90 percent maximum to be paid by the
State. The local agency is responsible for a tenpercent match to the state's
allocated funds. All applicants must follow these procedures.
• As referenced earlier, the ALUC is the local agency responsible for the work
in the preparation of its CLUP(s). Thus, we will require that the Butte
County ALUC review and approve all drafts. All applicants must follow
these procedures.
"Mr. John Franklin
October 14, 1997
Page 3
• The only additional requirement we will ask of the Butte County ALUC is
for the Aeronautics Program to review and approve all drafts as well.
Typically, the applicant asks us to do this as a matter of protocol.
• PUC Section 21675 (d), and (e)• requires that a copy of the final document be
sent to the Aeronautics Program for our review and comment. We are
required to notify the ALUC if the CLUP does not contain the required
elements. PUC Section 21674.7 mandates that the CLUP update be
prepared pursuant to the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines.
This is also.a statutorily mandated function, regardless of the funding entity
for the CLUP.
We sincerely hope that this will provide any needed clarification regarding the grant
processing requirements. We await the MOU and are prepared to assist the Butte County
ALUC move through the steps toward a fully executed grant agreement and a well-
prepared CLUP. We trust that you will inform us of your intentions in this matter. Should
the Butte County ALUC.decline these funds, we will need to have a letter confirming your
refusal of the allocation.
Sincerely,
MARLIN BECKWITH, Program Manager
Aeronautics Program
c: Thomas Lando, City Manager, City of Chico
Thomas Parilo, Director, Department of Development Services
COPIES OF THIS AGENDA PREPARED: January 20, 1998
AVAILABLE FROM:
City Manager's Office POSTED: January 22. 1998
411 Main Street
Chico, California PRIOR TO: 5:00 p.m.
Telephone: (916) 895-4803
AGENDA
CITY OF CHICO AIRPORT COMMISSION -
Chico Municipal Center - Conference Room No. 1 - 421 Main Street
REGULAR MEETING -- TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 1998 -- 7:30 P.M.
Items Not Appearing on Posted Agenda. This agenda was posted on the Council Chamber Building Bulletin Board at
least 72 hours in advance of this meeting. In order for the Commission to take action on an item not appearing on the posted
agenda, other than merely acknowledging receipt of correspondence or other information, the Commission must make one of the
following, determinations -
'Z iX�.. „. _ �; ,j . .,
_ (1)' Determine by a ma�onty vote that an emergency exists as defiried in Government Code Section 54956:5.
(2) Determine by a two-thirds'vote of the members piesent,'orby a unanimous vote if less than two-thirds of the
Commission is present, that there is a need to take immediate action and that the need for action came to'the attention of the City
subsequent to the agenda being posted.
(3) Determine that the item appeared on a posted agenda for a meeting occurring not more than 5 calendar days prior
to this meeting, and the item was continued to this meeting.
1. ROLL CALL.
2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS.
For the. 1998 calendar year, the Commission will elect a Chair and Vice Chair and appoint two
Commissioners as Airport Architectural Review Committee. The officers for 1997 were
Commissioner Lucas, Chair; Commissioner Mohler, Vice Chair; Commissioners Coggins and
Mohler, Architectural Review Committee; and Commissioner Sherwood as alternate for the
Architectural Review Committee.
3. CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine
and will be enacted by one motion. Resolutions and Minute Orders will be read by title only. There.
will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of.the Commission or:persons in the
audience request specific items'to -be removed from theConsent Agenda to:the Regular=Agenda for
separate�discussiorf prior to the time`the`Co fission votes, the -motion to-adopt`the=Consent Agenda.
If any items,are removed from the Consent Agenda, the items will be considered at the ning of the
RegularAgenda. , .� �, _.. _ ... _" .. _ _ _nm9 Division
..•:JAN 2 6�1998
Oroville, California
Page 1 of 3
•
l 4} �
j�
,
• {
4
1..
p
- a
'
.s
r
, �
.��
��
_ _ _.
.. a1`.
,.�
Y
��
i�
i�
��
(F
1
_�`�
i�
j�
•
+ ��yy
�.I`F
r
t
..' Y. � .....1 IT -G' �, �,. r -i...
"� r r. .... ..
"_ ! t� - � t �.
�
_ . ., ry`
�. �`�'< .�a1 �.
�� _ .
.. �� __
-
.
.
r
ly r
I�.
cl
Ilii
• �1 �
f
� �� '-
� �
-
Ik
I�
�I
j
i�
r'
' y f i 1. �i.. �.
� .. { t
..,. .,
r ..i �
..
,
`�rt6
.ter J. �� r..
-'._ -
�� -
!�`�
.
� � ..
.Tt
rte.. .. t-.
. r *li ti:�l. ��� i�1 tr
•• ..•,. � -
-... ^�..r ..
....
� r n.�lr .. .1: V..,t �.
. .
1�
'.
�`
i�
��i
�I
I�
3.1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 12/16/97:
The Commission has been provided with copies of minutes for its meeting held on 12/16/97.
4. REGULAR AGENDA.
4.1. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA.
4.2. DISCUSSION OF THE THADDEUS KERNS STATUE.
At the 12/16/97 meeting, Commissioner Coggins requested that this topic be discussed at
tonight's meeting. Staff will review the history of this matter as it relates to the Commission's
previous consideration thereof.. Barbara Hennigan will be present to answer questions regarding
the statue.
4.3: AIRPORT MANAGER POSITION.
At the 12/16/97 meeting, the Commission requested staff to review the potential for the
reassignment of existing City Managers Office staff to, accommodate the appointment of a
separate Airport Manager position on a half-time basis, and report back to the Commission at
tonight's meeting. By. memorandum dated 1/22/98, the City Manager indicates that the. most
practical way to meet the Commission's desires in this regard is to appoint the Risk Manager as
Airport Manager. If the Commission concurs, a motion confirming the appointment and
recommending City Council approval would be appropriate.
Staff will review this memorandum with the Commission and answer any Commission questions.
4.4. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.ACTIVITIES REPORT.,
Management Analyst Forbes will report to the Commission regarding economic development
activities at the Airport, including the contract change.for the operation of United Express.
4.5. REPORT ON BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC) MEETINGS OF
12/17/97 AND 1/21/98.
Risk Manager Koch will review for the Commission items relevant to CMA which were included. in
the ALUC meetings of 12/17/97 and 1/21/98.
4.6. REPORT ON STATUSOF AIRPORT ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE.
Risk Manager Koch will review any significant past due accounts receivable.
4.:7. ITEMS ADDED AFTER POSTING OF THE AGENDA.
5. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR: A member of the general public may address the Airport
Commission on any matter not appearing' on the agenda which is of interest to such person and which is
within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Where a member of the general public seeks to address the
Commission under Business From The Floor, the Commission may ask questions of such person, but
may not discuss the matter unless and until the matter is included on a posted agenda at a
subsequent meeting; or make one of the determinations listed on the first page of this agenda in
the unnumbered section entitled "Items Not Agoearin4 on Posted Aoenda
6. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: None.
Page 2 of 3
7. ADJOURNMENT: The Commission
will adjourn to Tuesday, February 24, 1998, at 3:30 p.m. in .
Conference Room No. 1. of the Chico Municipal Center.
Distribution:
A/C Industrial, Nick Buck
Aero Union Corp., Vic Alvistur
Commission - 5* .
Allan, Ella
News Media.- 11
Aviation Committee, Sandy McLean
CM/RM/AA-Airport - 3*
Baldridge, Brian
City Clerk and. Council -.8_
, Beachfront_D_eli, Pam. Wilson
City Attorhey - 1*
Butte County Admin., John Blacklock
ACA - 1
Butte County'Dev. Svcs, Tom Parilo
DPW/ADPW-E/ADPW-O&M - 3*
Butte County Supervisor Dolan
CDD/PI.Dir./CDA - 3*
Butte County Supervisor Houx
MA -ED
CDF Air Attack Base
AS -ACM*
Chico Chamber of Commerce, CEO
Chief of Police'- 1
FAA Control Tower, Martin Clark
Finance Director - 1
Fleetwood MotorHomes, Rick Karl
Fire Chief/Station #3 - 2
Fortress -Independence, Karl Hall .
Public Review Binder- 1`
Hennigan, Bob & Barbara
Post
Herfi Aircraft, Retta Herfi
File
League of Wmn Voters, Catherine Monceau
Extra - 6
Merit Medi -Trans, Inc., Stan Gungl
Paradise Town Manager, Chuck Rough
Schooler Flying Co., Harold Schooler
Team Chico,•Bob Linscheid
Page 3 of,3
oust
TO:
BY:
SUBJECT:
Y
INTER -DEPARTMENTAL -MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF BUTTE COUNTY COUNSEL
Opinion X97-016
Thomas A. Parilo, Director of Development Services /
Robert W. MacKenzie, Chief Deputy County Counsel.
Limits on anticipated Request'for annual Budget and Dedi ated Staff
by County Airport Land Use Commission
DATE:. July 10, 1997
ISSUE
Thomas A. Parilo, Director of Development Services, queries whether
State law requires that a county board of supervisors dedicate paid county
staff members and/or a yearly budget for operations to a requesting airport
land use commission (ALUC).:
SHORT ANSWER
State law provides that counties are obligated to provide ALUCs staff
assistance, necessary quarters, equipment and supplies and that the usual and
necessary operating expenses of ALUCs shall'be' a county charge.. Approval of.
the Board of Supervisors is required before an ALUC may hire employees or
consultants at county expense.
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Pari-lo's concern apparently stems from an anticipated request by the
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ,(the*Commis.sion) for dedicated staff
and an annual budget. Development Services Administrative Analyst Brian A.
Larsen included in the request for an opinion by this office a copy of a
draft of proposed Commission bylaws which includes a provision that the
Commission shall develop a work program for the following year, determine the
expenses necessary to perform the tentative work program (with the help of
Development Services Department staff) and submit its -recommended. work
program and cost estimates to the Director of Development Services, who shall
include them in the Department's annual budget proposal to the Board of
Supervisors.
I. APPLICABLE LAW
A. Airport Land Use Commissions: What Are They?
Public Utilities Code §21670, enacted in 1967 and amended in 1993 and
1994, currently, mandates that all counties in which there is an airport
01
Tom Parilo •
July 10, 1997
Page 2
served by a scheduled airline or operated for public benefit shall establish
an ALUC for the purpose of promoting orderly development and expansion of
each public use airport in the State so as to protect public health, safety
and welfare and minimize the public's exposure to excess noise and safety
hazards within areas around public airports.
The Legislature has flip-flopped on whether the creation of an ALUC in
each county is mandatory or optional. The 1993 amendment made creation of
an ALUC optional under some conditions. The 1994 amendment made the creation
of an ALUC mandatory for every county in which there is an airport served by
a scheduled airline'or operated for public benefit.
B. Powers and Duties of Airport Land Use Commissions
Public Utilities Code §21674 sets forth the following duties of ALUCs:
"(a) To assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land
uses in the vicinity of all new airports and in. the -
vicinity of existing airports to the extent that the
land in the ' vicinity of those airports is not already
devoted to incompatible uses.
(b) To coordinate planning at the 'State, regional, and
local levels so as to provide for the orderly
development.. of , air transportation,- while . at the same
time protecting the public health, safety., and welfare.
(c) To prepare and adopt an airport land use plan
pursuant,to.Section 21675.
(d) To review the plans, regulations, and other actions
of local agencies and airport operators pursuant to
Section 21676.
(e) The powers of the commission. shall in no way be
construed to give the commission jurisdiction over the
operation of any airport.
(f) In order to carry out its responsibilities, the
commission may adopt rules and regulations consistent
with this article.
i
ALUCs are empowered to review "all actions, regulations and permits
within the vicinity of an airport" prior to adopting a -comprehensive airport
land use plan. The Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook defines "all
actions" as general and specific plans, ordinances and regulations, individual
development projects and airport plans (Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook, 4-2, 4-3). Public Utilities Code §21675.1 provides, in -pertinent
part: 1
"(b) Until a.commission adopts a comprehensive land use
plan, a city or -county shall first submit all actions,
regulations, and permits within the vicinity of a public
airport to the commission for review and approval.
2.
Tom Parilo • •
July 10, 1997
Page 3
Before the commission approves or disapproves any
actions, regulations, or permits., the commission`shall
give public notice in the same manner as the city or
county is required to give. for those actions,
regulations, or permits. As used in this section,
"vicinity" means land which will be included or
reasonably could be included within the plan. If the
commission has not designated a study area for the plan,
then "vicinity" means land within two miles of the
boundary of a public airport.
(c) The commission may approve an action, regulation, or
permit if it finds, based on substantial evidence in the
record, all of the following:
(1) The commission is making substantial progress toward
the completion of the plan.'
(2) There is a reasonable probability that the action,
regulation, or permit will be consistent with the plan
being prepared by the -commission.
(3) There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment .to or interference with the future adopted
plan if the action,, regulation, or permit isultimately
inconsistent with the plan. �.
(d) If the commission disapproves an action, regulation,
or permit., the commission shall notify the .city or
county. The city or county may overrule the commission,
by a two-thirds vote of its governing body, if it,makes
specific findings that the proposed action, regulation,
or permit is consistent with_ the purposes of! this
article, as stated in Section 21670.
i
(e) If a city. or county overrules the commission
pursuant. to subdivision (d), that action •shall' not
relieve the city or county from further compliance with
this article after the commission adopts the plan±.
(f) If a 'city or county overrules the commission
Pursuant to subdivision (d) with respect'to a publicly
owned airport that the city or county does not operate,
the operator of the airport is not liable for damages to
property or personal injury resulting from the city's or
county's decision to proceed with the action,
regulation, or permit.
(g) A commission -may adopt rules and regulations which
exempt any ministerial permit for single-family
dwellings from the requirements. of,subdivision (b) !if it
makes the findings required pursuant to subdivision (c)
for the proposed rules and regulations,, except that the
3
Tom Parilo •
July 10, 1997
Page 4
rules and regulations .may not exempt either of the
following:
(1) More than two single-family dwellings by the same
applicant within a subdivision prior to June 30,,1991.
(2) Single-family dwellings in a subdivision where 25
percent or more of the parcels are undeveloped."
Public Utilities Code §21675 provides:
"(a) Each commission shall formulate a comprehensive land
use plan that will provide for the orderly growth of
each public airport and the area surrounding.the airport
within the jurisdiction of the commission, and; will
safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within
the vicinity of the airport and the public in general.
The commission plan .shall include and shall be based on
a long-range master plan or an airport layout plan, as
determined by the Division of Aeronautics of the
Department of Transportation,, that reflects the
anticipated growth of the airport during at least the
next 20 years. In formulating a land use plan:, the
commission may develop height restrictions on buildings,
specify use of land, and determine building standards,
including soundproofing adjacent toiairports, within the
planning area. The comprehensive land use plan shall be
reviewed as often as. necessary in order to accomplish
its purposes, but shall not be amended more than once in
any calendar year. ;
(b) The commission may include, within its plan
formulated pursuant to subdivision (a), the area within
the jurisdiction of the commission surrounding any
federal military airport for all of the purposes
specified in subdivision (a). This subdivision does not
give the commission any jurisdiction or authority` over
the territory or operations of any military airport.
(c) The planning boundaries shall be established by the
commission after hearing and consultation with the
involved agencies.
(d) The commission shall, submit .to the Division of
Aeronautics of the department one copy sof the plan and
each amendment to the plan. 1
e If a comprehensive land use plan does not include
( ) P
the matters required to be included pursuant to this
article, the Division of Aeronautics of the department
shall notify the commission responsible for the plan."
In City of Coachella v. Riverside County Airport Land use Commission,
(1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1277, the California Court of Appeal set aside an
4
Tom Parilo
July 10, 1997
Page 5
ALUCIS long-range land use plan because the plan did not comply with the
requirement in Public Utilities Code §21675(a) that airport land use plans
must include a long-range master plan reflecting anticipated growth over the
next 20 years. Thus, it is essential that the Commission develop a long-
range airport land use plan which incorporates a study of anticipated growth
of the airport during at least the next 20 years.
Public Utilities Code §21674.5 provides that the Department of
Transportation shall assist in the training and development of the staff of
ALUCs and suggests the following type of assistance:
"(1). The establishment of a process for the development.
and adoption of comprehensive land use plans.
(2) The development of criteria for determining airport
land use planning boundaries.
(3) The identification of essential elements which
should be included in the comprehensive plans.
(4). Appropriate criteria and procedures for reviewing
proposed developments and determining whether proposed
developments are compatible with the airport use.
(5) Any other organizational, operation, procedural, or,
technical responsibilities and functions which the
department determines to be appropriate to provide to
commission staff and for which it determines there is a.
need for staff training or development.
(c) The department may provide training and development
programs for airport land use commission staff pursuant
to this section by any means it deems appropriate.
Those programs may be presented in any of' the following
ways:
(1) By offering formal courses or training programs.
(2) By.sponsoring or assisting in the organization and
sponsorship of conferences, seminars, or other similar
events.
(3) By producing and making available written
information.
(4) Any other feasible method'of providing information
and assisting in the training and development of airport`
land use commission staff."
Public Utilities.Code §21614.7 provides that the formulation,; .adoption
and amendment of comprehensive airport land use plans by ,ALUCs shall be
guided by information provided by the Department of Transportation
(Caltrans). Caltrans has developed and published written guidelines for ALUCs
entitled Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The handbook is lengthy and
5
Tom Parilo a •
July 10, 1997
Page 6
imposes the consideration of a significant number of factors on an ALUC which
is developing a comprehensive airport land use plan.
Public Utilities Code §21676 provides, in pertinent part:
(b) Prior to the amendment of a general plan or specific
plan, or the adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or
building regulation within the planning boundary established
by the airport land use commission pursuant to Section 21675,
the local agency shall .first refer the proposed action to the
commission. If the commission determines that the proposed
action is inconsistent with the commission's plan, the
referring agency shall be notified. The local agency may,
after a public hearing, overrule the commission by a two-
thirds vote of its governing body if it makes specific
findings that the proposed action is consistent with the
purposes of this article stated in Section 21670..
(c) Each public .agency owning any airport within the
boundaries of an airport land use commission plan shall,
prior to modification of its airport master plan, refer such
proposed change to the airport land use commission. If the
commission determines that the proposed action is
inconsistent with the commission's plan, the referring agency
shall be notified. The public agency may, after a public
hearing, overrule the commission by a two-thirds vote of its
governing body if it makes specific findings that the
proposed action is consistent 'with the purposes of this
article stated in Section 21670.
(d)Each commission determination pursuant to subdivision (b)
and (c) shall be made within 60 days from the date of
referral of the proposed action. If a commission fails to
make the determination within that period, the proposed
action shall be deemed consistent with the commission's plan.
It is apparent from Section 21676 that each ALUC has ongoing duties
which continue long after the formulation, adoption and amendment of its
comprehensive airport land use plan has been completed. In California
Aviation Council v. Ceres (1992) 9 Cal. App.4th 1384, the City of Ceres
enacted an ordinance approving development within the approach and
transitional surface of the Modesto Airport. The local ALUC reviewed the
ordinance and found it incompatible with its Airport Comprehensive Land Use
Plan. After a public hearing, the city overruled the ALUC's finding of
inconsistency and found the ordinance compatible with its Airport
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The California Aviation Council sued the city
on the basis that the findings made by the city when it had overruled the
ALUC's finding of inconsistency were inadequate. Although the trial court
sided with the city, the Court Of Appeal reversed the trial court and held
that the city's findings were insufficient because the findings were not fact
specific, but merely conclusory. Thus, if a city or county disagrees with
an ALUC by overruling a finding by the ALUC that a plan is inconsistent with
a comprehensive airport land use plan, in order to prevail in a lawsuit
brought against it, the city or county must have made fact specific findings
Tom Parilo
July 10, 1997
Page 7
that the plan is indeed compatible with the ALUC's comprehensive airport land
use plan.
After an ALUC has developed a comprehensive airport land use plan, if
a city or county has neither revised its general plan or specific plan to be
compatible with the ALUC's comprehensive airport land use plan nor overridden
the ALUC with regard to the general plan or specific plan, the ALUC may
require.that it review all subsequent actions of that city or county until
its general plan or specific plan is revised or it overrides the ALUC.
Public Utilities Code §21676.5 provides:
"(a) If the commission finds that a local—agency has not
revised its general plan or specific plan or overruled
the commission by a two-thirds vote of its governing
body after making specific findings that the proposed
action is consistent with the purposes of this article
as stated in Section 21670, the commission may require
that the local agency submit all subsequent actions,
regulations, and permits to the commission for review
until its general plan or specific plan is revised or
the specific findings are made. if 11 in the
determination of the commission, an action, regulation,
or permit of the local agency is inconsistent with the
commission plan, the local agency shall be notified and
that local agency shall hold a hearing to reconsider its
plan. The local agency may overrule the commission
after the hearing by a two-thirds vote of its governing
body if it makes specific findings that the proposed
action is consistent with the purposes -of this -article
as stated in Section 21670.
(b) Whenever the local agency has revised its general
plan or specific plan or has overruled the commission
pursuant to subdivision (a), the .proposed action of the
local agency shall not be subject to further commission
review, unless the commission and the local agency agree
that individual projects shall be reviewed by- the
commission."
C. Required County Expenditures; Limitations on Required Expenditures;
Authorization for ALUC Fees
Public Utilities Code §21671.5 provides, in pertinent part:
"(c) Staff assistance, including the mailing of notices
and the keeping of minutes and necessary quarters,
equipment, and supplies shall be provided by the county.
The usual and necessary operating expenses of the
commission shall be a county charge.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this
article, the commission shall not employ any personnel
either as employees or independent'contractors without
the prior approval of the board of supervisors.
7
Tom Parilo
July 10, 1997
Page 8
(f) The commission may establish a schedule of fees
necessary to comply with this article. Those fees shall
be charged to the proponents of actions, regulations, or
permits, shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost
of providing the service, and shall be imposed pursuant
to Section 66016 of the Government Code. , Except as
provided in subdivision (g), after June -30,. 1991, a
commission which has not adopted the comprehensive land
use plan required by Section 21675 shall not charge fees
pursuant to this subdivision until the commission adopts
the plan.
(g) In any county which has undertaken by contract or
otherwise completed land use plans for at least one-half
of all public use airports in the county, the commission
may continue to charge fees necessary to comply with
this article until June 30, 1992, and, if the land use
plans are complete by that date, may continue charging
fees after June 30, 1992. If the land use plans are not
complete by June 30, 1992, the commission shall not
charge fees pursuant to subdivision (f) until the
commission adopts the land use plans."
II. DISCUSSION
The legislature granted ALUCS certain powers and duties, required
them to consult written materials prepared by the Department of
Transportation in exercising their duties and provided that counties must
provide staff assistance, necessary quarters -and supplies to ALUCS and
also that the usual and necessary operating expenses of ALUCS shall be a
county charge. To the extent that ALUC requests for staff and/or
particular items in an annual budget are actually required for the
exercise of the ALUC'S powers and the performance of the ALUC'S duties,
the county is legally obligated to grant those requests.
A statute imposing county requirements similar to those discussed
above, which requires counties in the Lake Tahoe region to pay a share of
the support costs for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, has been held to
be a constitutional exercise of the Legislature's power. In People ex
rel. Younger v. County of El Dorado, (1971) 5 Cal.3d 480, the California
Supreme Court ordered the Counties of E1 Dorado and Placer to pay to the
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency their statutory share of the support costs
for the agency's activities, pursuant to Government Code §66801. The
Legislature created the Tahoe Regional Planning Commission and provided
for the financing of its operations by enacting Government Code §66801.
The two counties had refused to pay the amount which the Commission had
determined they owed. In Younger, the court rejected a number of state
and federal constitutional challenges by the two counties to Government
Code §66801.
At least one other statute requiring counties to pay "necessary"
expenses of county agencies has been held to require county boards of
8
1 ..
4 •
Tom Parilo
July 10, 1997
Page 9
supervisors to pay incurred expenses which the agencies had demonstrated
were necessary to the performance of their statutory duties. In Hicks v.
Board of Supervisors, (1977) 69_Cal.App.3d 228, the Court of Appeal held
that the Orange County Board of Supervisors was obligated to pay the
expenses of the District Attorney for investigators assigned to
investigate criminal activity. The Board of Supervisors had transferred
22 District Attorney investigators to the Sheriff's department. The
transfer was characterized by the Board as budgetary in nature. The Court
of Appeal held that the transfer was, in effect, an attempt to implement a
plan of reorganization which would place all investigative functions -under
the control of another agency.
The Hicks court specifically noted the language of Government Code
§29601, which provides that certain expenses which are necessarily
incurred by the Sheriff and/or the District Attorney are county charges,
and ruled that a board of supervisors may not, by failing to appropriate
funds, prevent the District Attorney from incurring those expenses.
The language of Government Code §29601 is similar to that of Public
Utilities Code §21671.5(c), which provides.that the usual and necessary
operating expenses of an ALUC shall be a county charge. Thus, it appears
that if the Commission can demonstrate that specific items included in a
request for an annual budget are necessary for it to perform its statutory
duties, the County would be legally obligated to pay those expenses.
There are limits, however, to the demands for resources that a
county agency can make on a county board of supervisors. In County of
Butte v. Superior Court,.(1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 693, the Butte County
Sheriff and several other parties filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandate
in the Butte County Superior Court in an effort to halt implementation of
a County budget which reduced the Sheriff's staff by eliminating 23
positions. The Sheriff requested that the Superior Court order the County
to provide for staffing at the previous year's level in its budget. The
Superior Court did so. In reversing the Superior Court's order, the Court
of Appeal held that the Board of Supervisors was acting within the scope
of its constitutional role in undertaking to reduce the size of the
Sheriff's staff, in light of evidence which indicated that it had reduced
the size of the staff of a number of County departments during a financial
crisis. The Court distinguished Hicks by noting that the Butte County
Board of Supervisors had not engaged in the type of reorganization
condemned by Hicks. There was no evidence in the County of Butte case to
suggest that the Board's action had been calculated to transfer any of the
Sheriff's functions to another County office:
The County of Butte Court also found that Government Code §29601 did
not constitute a legal basis for an action by the Sheriff to compel Butte
County to include in its budget sufficient funding to provide ongoing law
enforcement services at the level desired by,the Sheriff, because §29601
discusses expenses that have already been incurred, not proposed future
expenses.
One might contend that County of Butte allows a county to refuse to
appropriate a future annual budget to an agency such as the Commission,
because the County of Butte Court drew a distinction between future
Tom Parilo ;
July 10, 1997
Page 10
expenses and those already incurred. A categorical refusal to appropriate
funds for an ALUC, however, may be unlawful because the usual method which
is utilized to pay necessary expenses of agencies which a county is
required to fund is for the board of supervisors to approve all or a
portion of an agency's proposed budget for the next fiscal year, based on
the agency's needs and the county's available revenue.
In a situation similar to the one being considered here, the County
has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Butte County Local
Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), in which the County has agreed, among
other things, to pay for various LAFCo support services and also to pay
for an Executive Officer, who has specified duties. It is relevant to
compare and contrast the statutes through which the legislature imposed
duties on counties to fund LAFCos and ALUCs, because the two entities are
similar and the responsibilities imposed on counties to fund them are also
similar.
The Legislature created LAFCos by statute to encourage orderly
development and discourage urban sprawl. As is stated above, LAFCos are
very similar to ALUCs. This is true both in terms of their respective
duties and also in terms of the statutory responsibilities placed on
counties to fund their activities. Government Code §56380 provides that
the board of supervisors shall furnish the LAFCo within its borders
necessary quarters, equipment, and supplies, and that the usual and
necessary operating expenses incurred by a county's LAFCo shall be a
county charge. This portion of Government Code §56380 is identical to the
language of Public Utilities Code §216.71.5(b) and (c), describing what
counties shall provide ALUCs. There are, however, important differences
between the requirements imposed on counties to fund LAFCos and those
imposed on counties to fund ALUCs.
Government Code §56380 also requires that counties use the budget
SppSBpriatidaetoced:edurtheet forth in Government Code §56381, in meeting
a requirement that county boards appropriate at least as much money to an
ALUC as the ALUC has determined is necessary for its activities. These
areas appear to be left up to the discretion of each county board of
supervisors.
There is another significant area which is also left to the
discretion of a county board of supervisors. Government Code §5.6375(m).
empowers LAFCos "To appoint and assign staff personnel and to employ or
contract for professional or consulting services to carry out and effect
the functions of the commission." In contrast, Public Utilities Code
§21671.5(d) provides:
"Notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, the
10
Tom Parilo • •
July 10, 1997
Page it
commission shall not employ any personnel either as employees or
independent contractors without the prior approval of the board
of supervisors."
One might contend that by not mandating that counties utilize a
budget appropriations process to fund ALUCs, by not requiring that
counties fund ALUCs at the level that the ALUC determines is necessary and
by providing that the board of supervisors must approve any hire of ALUC
employees or independent contractors at county expense, that the
Legislature meant to allow counties to refuse to appropriate a future
annual budget to an ALUC and/or refuse categorically to dedicate county
staff or hire independent contractors at county expense for an ALUC.
Such an approach would be fraught with danger, however, as a county
which refused to appropriate anv -budget for an ALUC, or which refused
categorically to dedicate county staff or to hire independent contractors
for an ALUC might very well be viewed by the courts as attempting to
circumvent statutory requirements to pay an ALUC's necessary expenses.
This might be particularly true if the ALUC had demonstrated a necessity
for the dedication of county staff or the hiring of independent
contractor(s).
Thus, although the above referenced statutes discussing ALUCs appear
to grant county boards of supervisors discretion in the actual process
they use to fund ALUCs, there is definitely a legal duty imposed on
counties to provide necessary expenses for ALUCs. The difference between
the statutory responsibilities imposed,on counties funding ALUCs and
LAFCos is mainly that the actual determination of what is "necessary and
usual," and, in particular, whether the hiring of ALUC employees or
independent contractors at county expense is necessary, is left up to the
discretion of the board of supervisors.
Apparently, members of the Airport Land Use Commission have expressed
their desire for a dedicated staff, independent of any existing county
agency, yet paid for by the county. Although the question of whether the
county must merely provide staff assistance to the commission or whether
the county must provide a dedicated staff was not resolved for every
future situation by the legislature, it is apparent that the legislature
provided language which each county may use to resolve the question. For
instance, if conflict(s) develop between the county and the commission,
then it may become quite difficult for county staff members, who answer to
a county department head, to perform tasks requested by the Commission.
Thus, if ALUC's request for dedicated staff were accompanied by an
explanation of why ALUC members believe a dedicated staff is necessary to
do the agency's business, the Board of Supervisors would be much more able
to assess whether a dedicated staff is -necessary under the mandate of
§21675(c).
III. CONCLUSION
The Legislature did not provide a blueprint with which to decide all
future ALUC funding issues. The Legislature did, however, provide county
boards of supervisors with a standard by which each board could determine
whether or not to grant specific requests for funding and/or staff on a
11
Tom Parilo
July 10, 1997
Page 12.
case-by-case basis. Butte County,, it,appears, should proceed on such a
case-by-case basis to decide whether the Commission will receive the
budget and staff'services'which it requests.
(opinion\97-016)
�c
Copies of this Agenda • City Planning Office Agenda Prepared: 6/23/97
Available from 411 Main Street Agenda Posted: 6/24/97
Telephone: (916) 895-4851 Prior to: 5:00 P.M.
i
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING. OF JUNE 27, 1997
Chico Municipal Airport -109 Convair Avenue
9:00 A.M.
Special Agenda - The Commission will be meeting jointly with members of the City
Council, Airport Commission, and Butte County representatives for an Airport orientation.
The purpose of this orientation is to provide an aerial familiarization with Chico Municipal
Airport flight patterns, to give an overview of Airport operations, and to provide. insight as
to how incompatible land uses might impact Airport operations. Brief flights around the
Airport environs will be provided by Pacific Flight Services.
gdiournment -.The Commission will adjourn to the Regular Meeting of July 7; 1997.
Planning Division
J U N 2 61997
proville, California
OFFICE- OF COUNTY COUNSEL
COUNTY OF BUTTE
25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE
qu
•OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3380 •PHONE (916) 538-7621
•FAX (916) 538-6891 .NEIL H. McCABE
i1 ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL
SUSAN MINASIAN { DAVID M. McCLAIN
COUNTY COUNSEL ' , CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL
` ROBERT W. MacKENZIE
CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL.
GREGORY P. EINHORN
SPECIAL COUNSEL
June 16; 1997
Board of Supervisors
Department'Heads
Planning Commission
Water Commission.
Surface Mining Aggregate Operations Committee
Re: Workshop,on July 15, 1997
I have been•requested.by the Water'Commission to answer questions
about conflict of interest issues, Proposition 208 and other
Political Reform Act matters. Because of the importance of these
issues to many. County Boards and Commissions, I have decided_ to
hold a workshop and encourage widespread participation. The
workshop will be held on July -15,'1997 from 3:00 --6:00 p.m. in the
Board of Supervisors' Room. A specialist in this area of law from
Sacramento will be present to brief.you and answer any questions
you may have.
Please feel free to'call me if you have any questions about this.
Very truly yours,
Susan Minasian
Butte County Counsel
Planning Division
(workshop.mem) JUN 19 997
Oroville, CallfornTz;
r
OFFICE'OF THE
CITY MANAGER
411 Main Street
CITYocCHICO P.O. Box. 3420
INC. 187: Chico. CA 95927
(916) 895-4800
FAX (916) 895-4825
ATSS 459-4800
June 9, 1997
Butte County Board of Supervisors
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission and Staff
Chico City Council
City Planning Commission and Staff
Vic Alvistur, General Manager, Aero Union Corporation
Paul McAfee, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection,
Chico Air Attack Base
Martin Clark, Manager, FAA Chico Control Tower
The City of Chico Airport Commission, in cooperation with Pacific Flight Services,
Inc., the Airport fixed base opeerator, invites you to an Airport orientation on Friday,
June 27, 1997, at 9:00 a.m., at Pacific Flight Services, 109 Convair Avenue, Chico.
( The purpose of this orientation is to provide an aerial familiarization with Chico
Municipal Airport flight patterns, to give an overview of Airport operations, and to
provide insight as'.to-how incompatible land uses might impact Airport operations.
Brief flights around the Airport environs will be provided by Pacific Flight Services.
A continental breakfast will be served. Please RSVP to City of Chico Administrative
Analyst Pete Serl at 895 -4803 -no later than Tuesday, June 24; at 5:00 P.M.
I look forward to seeing you at the Airport.'
Sincerely, F
Steve Lucas, Chair
Chico Airport Commission
i
cc: Airport Commission
Airport Manager
Pacific Flight Services ,
Risk Manager
Management Analyst, Economic Development
Community Development Director
UAWPNEW4IIRPORTUNVITE.I.TR D-90-2/Chroo
". . •, %fade From Recycled Paper
Mr. Fred Gerst,.Chairman
Airport Land Use Commission
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
April 29, 1997
Tom Lando; City Manager
City of Chico
P.O. Box 3420
Chico, CA 95926
Dear Mr. Lando:
As Chairman of the Airport Land Use Commission I am naming Nina Lambert, Bob
Hennigan and myself as the three members of the °MOU Subcommittee" and Alan
Campbell as Alternate.
You have suggested that your presence at any such meeting -would constitute a quorum
of the ALUC by nature of your appointment to the Commission. It should be clear that you
can not serve in two capacities concurrently. If you are, to attend as City Manager you
forfeit your ability to represent ALUC. It may be prudent to temporarily remove yourself as
the Airport Manager's representative. ;
Sincerely,
r d rst, airman y
Airport Land Use Commission
cc: ALUC Commission
Paula Leasure
Mr. Fred Gerst, Chairman
Airport Land Use Commission
7. County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
April 29, 1997
,Tom Parilo, Director
Department of Development Services
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Dear Tom:
The Airport Land Use Commission has taken action on the issue of the proposed By -Laws
and this action intended to adopt Version No 7 with minor corrections as discussed by the
Commission. The ALUC directed_ that this item be placed on the May 21, 1997 meeting
agenda.
As Chairman, I do expect that staff will follow the direction of the Commission when such
direction is concluded in a public meeting. If there is any reason for any direction to be
modified by staff, it shall be the Chairman who approves such changes, or the matter must
be presented to the full Commission for_ any further interpretation. In no case should staff
dismiss an item from the agenda by its own action' If there is any confusion as to this
procedure I suggest you present the matter to the full Commission.
I do expect this item and all others directed by the Commission .or the Chairman be
included in the upcoming agenda.
Sincerely,
fst, Chairman
Airport Land Use Commission
,
+BLT°g'7[°IE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND Ut COMMISSION +
• Department of Development Services • 7 County Center rive, Oroville, CA 95965•(916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-T785
TO: Chico City Councilmembers
:FROM: ALUC staff
DATE: April 17,.1997. ,
At the recent meeting of April' 16, 1997 between the City Council and ALUC, the Caltrans
Aeronautics Program representative made references to two letters from Marlin Beckwith,
Program Manager to the City of .Chico., The Caltrans representative indicated he was uncertain
as to whether the Councilmembers received these letters and requested ALUC staff to make
copies available. If their is any additional information desired, ALUC staff is always available for
assistance.
• Butte County • Airport Land: Use Commission •
1
Mr. Fred Gerst, Chairman
Airport Land Use Commission
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
April 10, 1997
Jay White
California Pilots Association
P.O. Box 6868
San Carlos, CA 94070
Re: Joint Meeting
Dear Jay:
Due to all your involvement and concerns on many of the ALUC past and present projects, I'd like
to personally invite you to attend the joint meeting of the Commission, Chico City Council, Board
of Supervisors, and Airport Commission.
It will be held at the City of Chico Council Chambers at 4:00 p.m. on April 16, 1997. They will
discuss, issues relating to land use within the Airport Land Use Commission's planning area for the
Chico -'M1 n' icipal Airport, as well as other general airport planning issues. This will include a
discussion 'of the Airport Land Use Plan and, as appropriate, the authority of the Butte County
Airport Land Use Commission, the County, and the City.
Sincerely,
FreZGer�, Chairman
Airport Land Use Commission
Mr. Fred.Gerst, Chairman
Airport Land Use Commission_
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
April 9, 1997
Mr. Tom Parillo, Director
Department of Development Services
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
As Chairman of the Airport Land Use Commission I am requesting that Mr. Scott Browne
attend the joint meeting of the Commission,.Chico City Council, Board of Supervisors,
and Airport Commission. Due to the possibility of litigation with the City of Chico, I
believe it would be in the best interest of the Commission. I have solicited input from two
additional Commissioners and they agree that his presence is needed.
Sincerely,
Fr d erst, Chairman
Airport Land Use Commission
- Airport Land Use Commission - Butte County -
JAY WHITE 4`1'53661915 P.01
California Pilots Association
P.U. Box 6868
San Carlos, CA 94070 ;
Tel. 1-800-244-1949; FAX (415) 366-1915
FAX TRANSivirrTAL
February 25, 1997:
To: Fred Gerst, Chairman`
Butte County Airport Land 'Use `Commission
From:. Jay White, President
. Subject: Names
Fred:
Will you please provide me names of the following:
1) The corporation or person sponsoring the law school project;
• Pat i±]ring
2) The corporation or person sponsoring the senior citizen facility;
Qxry .&aroma Archit6ct
3) Names of all Chico City Council members.
iIry A *ews, Steve ��)Beat%m Livid Cuzzetti, Coleen Jannis,
Rick Keer ie, hinberly rd g and
Thanks, seventh seat va=t.j
Post -Its brand fax transmi me 7671 # of pages 0 -
.
j
To To
s
Co. Co.
'i (110 ALI
Dept... Phone
41
5c/ (/!/��%/
Fax # !J � Fax q
/,�'' /
Planning Division ,
_ __
1
r
{�,'
� �
i
� 1
A
y�
�k
._ '�� �
�
� - � . �
_��
�
J . �I
♦Y
+A
+
1
- Ilii: '�'
f� � .
�
� r '�L�
1
♦
y
Y•
R - tttt� f
, �.+ a
_
.
�
.y
{
y J
�
�
,} _
i� ,�,
;�
.
-
s�
•t, .
.. �
� � 1�
+
,'
.. . ,� L , ..
,�
-. ,;�
..
�:
;.
'
1
f
�
� �
�
n
I .." .},
'
r
.� MM
-
�
. � �
_
_ ..- .. .. _ ..v ._..........
_._. ...._.- _-------,�--�----�..�—.—. _ . ,4., .. _�
_
• �
�
_
�� �
]` ,
< �•
`
�� -
� ��
if
-
d
.1JLUC•
League of Women Voters of Butte County
P.O. Box 965 Chico; CA 95927
January 29, 1997
Paula Leasure, -Executive Officer
Butte County LAFCO
7 County Center Dr.
Oroville, CA,95965
Dear Paula:
The Butte County League of Women Voters, Natural Resources
Committee, is holding_a Unit Meeting on.Air Transportation and
Airport Land Use'on Friday, February 7,-11:30 a.m.-l:,30 P m at
the Chico Branch Library, East 1st and .Sherman Aves., Chico.
Per membership direction at our 1996 Annual Meeting,.the
League.is working on updating our Transportation Position, last"
reviewed -in 1983. Missing from earlier studies was review of the
role of the Chico Municipal Airport as a multi -facetted
transportation link for Butte County, embracing many services and
activities of local and regional significance, including vital
emergency services. Recent development proposals have aroused
member interest in learning more about how decisions are taken
regarding compatibility of new development with current and
projected airport operations.
Invited speakers at the Feb,. 7.unit meeting include Crista
Maria Engle,'CalTrans Division of Aeronautics, who will highlight
airport land -use planning guidelines and share experiences of how
other similarly -sized municipalities addressed the compatible
land use challenge; Bob Hennigan, ALUC member, who will highlight
current Airport services and activities of local and regional
significance; and a Chico City Staff representative.(Bob Koch or
E.C. Ross) who will share the City's planning and management
perspective on Airport role now and in the -future.
We hope you may be•able to attend, to'share through
questions and comments your perspective on Airport role and
function vis-a-vis emerging land use challenges. Your ALUC staff
experience will afford many insights on current "challenges and
constraints Please join us onFeb. 7! "Brown -bag lunch"!-
SiR cere1y;
• Priscilla L. Hanford, Chair
LWVBC Natural Resources Comm.
' Planning Division
JAN 3 0 1997
Oroville, Calitornia
•
.r� 'r► �..�1rlSiJ �'' r. t R'i�
r'4 Ar
to
1y 41 ": ♦ '(} �r i l . t \. 1i 1a-• {+ 1 r a �W .,J �tj�,r'1�.x
..7.�''. �•J. 1 �1�'1:. � � '. .r '{-Cj �, r -f1 x-. ,_ ,+r..+J :.�i .,J� LTr F�
r ...� Y 1r ' a LJ:.{� i•7ia t .':+~ t s i �� Ar_ i ?^+ t..: C4i
'tel'. a i L,3iT: art ''\.. .Y`� v�r, , ..,I. Y �'�...�.j9�.G`.�•;:`.
�1,0. . ,.'i+'t". t �•� iL �ttfR.�.
Arj r,-.� .7 ..!'T i - "t .. N .rl~r'• 1..r1 y r.. 4. \. a G '�.r )•; ? �.!- li., ri�{' � .'�f� � (j'•Ca.. Cf 3X
,
3.'J rl
r r •' •' {. ,_ •.:.."' 4YL r4 . x '-T .� '. o ! r 1 `'T : {. I 4 i5
.. :. i...�t xr4 (. S 1 i c _.'i I ritS, i �, '� t ;[ � r.3 ..:' `•.. .. �}rT't {.'Lr—, c` '.i� AJ r.. '
aAU.�aA"S Ai,— !`• til ��: A'�i�i_!y£. .�f7'. SJ1r:Tjr �l... Ni >tifl`i>ii r
-fir 11...... -`iq+ 'Lri.!}+'i J:. ,'ai.t;7� J.tr J A',� .�/ 7''.•Ia7..xi '. n(�f,: ;�rL•i-' ...
N
.e. J OTT ti T ~ yr . i�. .. .. �? .'�r Y. ��Il. : ��� ' (�".: ♦. 1: �F. '' • '{r
.r i3. ..'IL.. t ..f. `1i.'r'. �� '`Fi��l.•. % �!+. •, �.r` .. i� ti"�IaS.+'ti;'.'
'
is
q
a.
. ,..:tj:.-! � •7.:1lr�?• is ,t..iJlJ.th�'� r��*J:
r+-
1,
I BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION I
Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 -.(916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785
2
January 9, 1997
Tom Hayes, Planning Manager
City of Chico
P. O. 3420
Chico, CA 95927
Re: ALUC Review of Assisted Care Facility located at the Southeast corner of Cohasset and Lassen Ave.
Dear Tom:
It is my understanding that the City of Chico Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding �a Use Permit for an
assisted care facility on Monday January 6, 1997. At this meeting it was stated that ALUC staff was contacted and did not
have a problem with the proposal. Unfortunately, ALUC has no record of receiving a request for comments, nor does
ALUC staff recall having discussed this proposal with City of Chico staff. Based on the location of this project, ALUC staff
would have issued preliminary comments only and set a date for presenting the proposal to the Commission for
Consistency Findings.
When requesting comments from the Airport Land Use Commission, please make sure all communications are specifically
directed to ALUC. Past experience indicates that items addressed to the Butte County Planning Department do.not get
routed to the Commission.
If you have any questions, please call Monday through Thursday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
Sincerely,
Paula Leasure ao '
Principal Planner
cc: Commissioner Jeff Carter