Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutALUC MEETING NOTESHere are the comments from former head of Cal -Trans Aeronautics Division, and AOPA state rep, Mr.,Jack Kemmerly. Dear Butte County ALUC.Commissioners, Creating what you are calling an "airport authority" is probably most commonly done by'forming an "airport district". This process is afforded through current state laws _..and9'requires.a local election process. Cameron Airpark is one of_the most recent airports ,that I'm aware, of that was formerly owned and operated by EI Dorado County . who wanted to get-ndof the,airporC The.persons in the airpark decided to form an airport district and take over, ownership and operation of the airport. Because the district is considered a "public agency" it is, still eligible for; public funds from the,Feds.and the state. x a One thing that'doesn't change however is the land use authority remains with the county or city,within which the airport is located. I don't know of any airport operated by a district (Cameron Airpark, Big Bear, Santa"Maria and several others) or operated by an airport authority (Burbank,. San Diego Lindbergh =both created by•state statute) that . has land use.authority:In fact, that;is one of the problems that several of -these airports , face like Burbank who`can't get the City of Burbanks approval to build a new terminal - because the city has the authority over land use. Bottom line is. if you want to increase airport influence+over surrounding land' use decisions, that can't be accomplished by forming ,an `airport:district or authority. Local, land use decisions still come under the jurisdiction of the elected legislative bodies(city council or•cou.nty supervisors) subject to influence by the ALUC. , Please feel free to contact me with'any questions you:might have regard your endeavor to protect,Butte'County, airports:;Good.luck and keep -up the good•work! Jack Kemmerly. ` r' 1 AIRPORT DISTRICT (Sections 22001-22979, Public Utilities Code) : Governing Body The governing body, which is established by law to administer operation of an airport district, is composed of a five -member board of directors. This board must be elected by voters within the proposed district or be appointed to their position by the incumbent airport district's board -of directors (22401 & 22406). Functions The specific powers that the board of directors may exercise are to provide and maintain public airports and landing places for aerial traffic. In addition to this specific power, the board of directors also may -hire employees, acquire property, levy and collect taxes; establish rules governing airportoperations, enter into contracts, etc.. These are general powers granted to the board of directors of all special districts. However, for a listing of these general powers, it is advisable to review Sections 22551 - 22557 of the Public Utilities Code. Formation The board(s) of supervisors of each county desiring to form or join in forming a district shall adopt a resolution initiating formation of a district. Each resolution shall contain (22151 - 22153): 1. Statement of intention to form a district; 2. District boundaries, 3. Name of district, 4. Time and place for hearing objections to the formation of the district or to its extent; and 5. Name of the newspaper in which the resolution shall be published. After the formation proceedings have been initiated, LAFCO must conduct a noticed public hearing. After hearing public testimony, the Commission .may either approve, modify, or deny the proposed formation.. If it is approved, the Commission also will adopt terns and conditions for the formation, and -establish a sphere of influence for. the -56- neW district. Then the I proposed formation is sent to the conducting authority where no further modifications may be made.,.. authority proceedings for the formation of the airport district my.be The conducting isors following the I hearings, or the boarad of ry terminated by the board of supefiled with it and call an election. supervisors ervisors may overrule any protests or objections to form the district (22201 -; 22204). If a majority of the qualified voters within the, proposed district votes approval of the district, the district shall be formed (22256).' Boundaries of'a proposed airport district may include the following territory: - Land. located in one or more counties, 2. Incorporated or unincorporated areas andlor portions of both.. Noncontiguous territory may not be included. (22006). Annexation After the district has been formed, the boundaries of the district may be altered and outlying incorporated or unincorporated, contiguous territory in the same or adjoining county annexed to the district (22006). Proceedings for annexation are initiated pursuant to Section . 56000, et seq. of the Government Code. Friday, February 01, 2uu22' ;;'34 A iay viinue b5�73oii`i i 5 = p.t7i` r i • . - Gw�i . 404— +•' �� t OR I '(}jam ' NWft1m IF I n swam" a YIYri�Mibull+ I - uk"a*Ogg= +• `•F�1Yil+�Dug" • 'C"'C"waowo+orwMwacIoiomurouaornmiuraoA" er �lrport Lind Pianning,ciuldance- ,USe zt : �i. Free . ., - Ask Jay A •• . "' ' Legal questions answered by airport land use attorney Jay C. White 'a hite california-air' L� � rr, p r_ts; c®moi ` . All communications confidential - P -Other Information- T } : ■ r Californi*'Aeronautics Act - Airport Land Use '- w r F : Law., r r "Thirty Five Questions'° ' r , _ . Video- Airport Land Use Plannin_ g Workshop a `www:california-airports.com 12/19/01 ALUC MEETING NOTES (Partial, relating to consideration of future changes to the ALUCP) Norm: Chico Municipal Airport, the background data. What do you guys want to do with all of this background information? There's a lot of it. We can go through it. We can accept it. We can make some minor editing. Bob G: I'd like to do a little minor editing on the front page but the rest of the material is something that will become dated very quickly. What I'd like to do is find a way to continually update it and every year release it at the end of our CLUP Update, or ongoing process; or we incorporate it as part of an attachment in the book with a reference to it. ... a final paragraph on page 4 -la, just say in Attachment A or in Attachment C, or whatever. I don't think we have them listed by number or whatever, just list them as an attachment. This information is pertinent but it needs to be updated. I was surprised to see that they went to Dec. 13, 1959 so that may be a challenge to get it updated at our December update. That would be my recommendation that we take our statistical data and we incorporate it as an attachment to continually update and also incorporate Exhibit 4H from the get -go with not much more. There are some individual line item changes that I'd like to make on the first page. What I would list as 4-1b, and 4-1c as an attachment back in here. (Meleka's voice barely audible.) I think more detail could be made on this because this is a critical issue on air attack, especially as people are starting to talk about Bidwell Ranch. I think it deserves its own discussion area in an attachment. But because the statistical data in here needs to be. continually updated to maintain its relevancy, let's not have it as part of the Plan. It isn't planning material; its supplemental information to support the planning decisions and recommendations. It should be in the back as an attachment. Bob Hennigan: It is in the back after Chapter 4, called background data. Bob Hennigan: We have a chapter called Background Data. (Bob G: Yes) Nothing precludes updating it every year or two with background data. That's where it is in a subsequent chapter called "Background Data." Bob G: I was thinking it was Chapter 3, yes, you are right. Never mind. That is the appropriate place for it. Disregarding that information, if I could just touch on some of the things that I, think should be addressed on page 4-1a. 2nd paragraph, last line where we have "land use plans call for an expansive new development west of the airport." Based on recent activity with the City Planning Commission, and some other discussions, they are now looking at expansive development east of the airport, too, so what I'd suggest is that we change it to expansive new development west and east of the airport. Undiscernable voices: ..:all sides? Bob G: I don't know the County's planning, but as far as what the City's talking— Meleka: Didn't we change that? I think we changed that. Norm: I would agree with Bob, east—north, they are already developed and I think Larry was talking about north along 99, but not so. close to the airport; whereas—(Bob Hennigan: He's got the sphere of influence going all. the way to the County line and running between hwy 99 and the foothills.) Right. (Bob G: That hasn't moved too far yet.) For now, going to the growth hearings, 12/19/01 ALUC MEETING NOTES (Partial, relating to consideration of future changes to the ALUCP) I'd say the east and west developments are the more appropriate ones. Next year we can add more. The south is already used up. Bob G The next one is third paragraph, about midway through it. The sentence starts with "The new Plan is expected to included proposed extension of both runways. A 1000 ft. northward edition and a doubling of the parallel runway to 60,000 feet in length." What I'd like it to say is "an 1800 foot northward edition, bringing it to a total of 8,500 and a doubling of the parallel runway to 6000 ft." (60,000 correct to 6,000). r-1 - Norm: That's good. Those were lines 35 & 36. Any other comments regarding Chico's background data? Bob Hennigan: (Hard to hear.) You'll note that the loss on figure two has been rewritten... Bob G: One thing, if clarification could be done, on figure 1, X=is that a week? Bob G: I just know that there is going to be a comment made by someone. Barbara Hennigan: (Barely audible.) . The X -s, is a way to show that the reality is that there could be airplane. activity for more than (half a year?) Meleka: Do we have data about these X -s? Barbara Hennigan: (Barely audible.) Norm: Yeah, it was in here. Bob G: The dates,•is that from CDF? Norm: Yeah, March 23`a letter=Bill Seger. Yes. Barbara's right. We could make a bar graph instead of the'X-s and put exact dates. I think what we'll do is get an editing committee together for this when we are to the point of our meeting where we can appoint .committees and then we'll meet and do that, and then bring it back, if that's ok with people. Because there's some editing, like on page 4-1c that has to be accomplished or it's not going to read right. Ok, the accident risk intensity maps. Does anyone have a problem with flip-flopping the approaches/departures? Lets' get that out of the way, I think it's more accurate. Ok. Anything left with Chico? Then let's go to Oroville. We have the intro. It needs some minor editing I think. Line 27, we could get rid of the "even", Brian: Its supposed to be events, isn't it? Norm: Could be. I think: That should be a period and then events should be capitalized. Stuff like that we need to go through and, we can do that minor editing, clean up the language and make it read better. Same thing with lines 40, 41, 42 where. it talks about the City of Oroville wants to do in their Resolution, I think we could shorten that and make it more precise, and still list their Resolution by number. Besides that, it works. 2 12/19/01 ALUC MEETING NOTES (Partial, relating to consideration of future changes to the ALUCP) Duane: Comments undiscernable. Line 41. Barbara: (Barely audible.)... Resolution adopted... Duane: ...extent that it includes... (difficult to discern comments). Norm: Duane, could you write something out that you'd like to see. (Duane: I'll go over it with you.) For that page, that would be useful for us if you could make sure that what they intended is in there correctly. We'll call that minor editing. Then accident risk intensity for Oroville flip- flopping approach and departure and I think that's fine. Duane: You have one item that's not (his voice trails off) ... (Norm: •It'.s the Part 77 map?) The approach surface and the runway ... 2000 feet to the north east of the airport runway ... look down, essentially the runway is sitting right across.. not actually... runway 119 is shown'... actually the runway is extended... (Runway crosses over Oro Dam Blvd. Not in right spot, shift NE; Runway 119, threshold; runway was extended toward bay; needs adjustments.) Norm: Can Ken go back and.correct this for us? •The map is inaccurate. We have the electronic file so we can, if we can have that on a paper copy, we can adjust the electronic file. Norm: I never noticed it. Let's correct that. Now that Duane's mentioning that, Duane had a correction he's mentioned several times in the past several months, Table 2A. Do we have that correction? Ok, just so we don't forget that correction as well. Anything else for Oroville? Ok that brings us to Ranchaero. Again, I'd like to do some editing on some of the sentence structure just to clean it up. Brian: Change "tiny" Ranchaero Airport to,"historic" Ranchaero Airport? Norm: Absolutely. Brian: Line 16, "fly -ins", we need to delete that. Norm: Club activities would suffice? (Brian: Yes.) Ok. Brian: Also on line 27 I think regarding the continuing conflict with that is presented, I think that is really not continuing any more because it is all built out. I don't know if that is. viable or not, recommend that the conflict was presented by construction of the subdivision. I don't know about that. The construction that is going on out there now is single homes, is it,5 acres for the Green Line? One house per five acres? (Nina: Well it depends.on... ) There are a lot of big new.houses going into the south but theyare not high density. Norm: I think that we can shorten 37-43. I understand what the authors are trying to get across but I think we need to say that "Pilots have the right to fly a safe pattern" and that's the way it is. We don't need 6 or 7 lines to say that." The authors disagree. 12/19/01 ALUC MEETING NOTES (Partial, relating to consideration of future changes to the ALUCP) Bob Hennigan: (Hard to discern ... Don't edit that down so much that an unsophisticated reader won't understand what you are saying. There are real estate agents telling people that pilots are required to ...and that's ok ...but its not ... (Norm: Right, it's a tight turn. I understand what you are trying to get across and I know there's been some complaints about people flying. I agree with it. It think we have to keep it more concise, but we can still accomplish that.) Norm: In Ranchaero's map, we all see that. That brings up to Appendix C, the overview. Again, I would change some of the wording so it still gets the point across but its stated a different way. Some of the tenses could be cleaned up. Using examples like the children cutting across their lawns, is that an example—do we need to have that? Is that something people want to read about? It's a good analogy but does it belong in Appendix C? Barbara Hennigan: (Difficult to discern.) (Explaining her reasoning)... so everyone can understand. I realize doesn't sound ... (Bob Hennigan-We had a disclosure document that ran several pages and the argument was made that the disclosure document should be edited down and this information included in the background data.) (Norm: I agree, we had to put it somewhere so we are putting it in here. I think in terms of the attorneys and judges, down the way, evaluating our plan and I want it to—we can't "dumb it down" so far, I understand we have to "dumb it down" a ways so people who want to look at it from a disclosure standpoint, understand what we are talking about.) , Norm: On page C -Lb., on line 23, is it the ALUC handbook or is it the Caltrans handbook? Caltrans. Ok again, with some minor editing, I could live with this. Do you guys have comments? On page C-2. I have a problem with the 1 in 10,000 versus the 1 in 10, statistically they're not the same. You could argue, I think what you are trying to say, is you can argue that you can a crash tomorrow or you could have a crash in 10,000 years, it would still be 1 in 10,000, but when you are talking 1 in 10,000 versus 1 in 10, or 1 in 50, or whatever, it is not the same statistically. Because over the long course of it, if you have 1 in 50 chance over 10,000 years, you are going to have like 200 accidents versus the 1 in 10,000 is really 1 in 10,000. You just can't predict when it is going to occur. That is your point. Bob Hennigan: That's exactly what we said here. The statistics that we have in the handbook say that there is approximately 1 in 10,000 chance that this house will be hit this year, or this lot will be hit this year. So for each house in the subdivision—(Norm-that's a thousand houses, is that's what is being left out? OK) If you have a 1000 houses in a subdivision, each one of them has a 1 in 10,000 chance, so there's a 1 in a 1000 chance that the subdivision will be hit this year. Norm: I think there's a better way of saying this. While the odds of any particular house being hit is very remote, the odds of a particular area being hit can be predicted from a statistical accident scatter map. Now—(Barbara, then Bob Hennigan: I was reacting to the fact that the developers have at several times shown up and said, "Why the odds are 10,000 to 1 ")---I understand but they will still pull this out because you know that's what they do. So they will pull out your sentence saying 1 in 10,000 years and they will still use that against you. Rather than confuse the issue and give them more numbers to work with, I think its better to say but the chances of an accident falling around the airport are, statistically, every year we have one; we had two this last year. I don't know if you want to try to baffle them with numbers when they are still going to pull out a single sentence on you and use it. What does everyone feel about that? Donald: We need to think about... adopt it subject to minor modifications. 4 12/19/01, ALUC MEETING NOTES(Partial, relating to consideration of future changes to the ALUCP) Norm: Ok, right; but not adopt it. (Donald: We've already got the vote on the ones we -want to change for sure so this would be part of the 2002 change.) I sure would like to get some of this in there next year because we are going to be fighting some battles next year and it would be nice if we had some ammo. Can we agree on adopting Chico's information and Ranchaero's and Oroville's? Then if we want to leave Appendix C and rewrite some of that, I'm ok with that. But the more ammo we have, the better. Then the disclosure documents, we already adopted so they can be put in the plan separately. No they are not in the Plan right now, the disclosure documents, but in this part of it, they would be listed. Is that correct?- (Comment undiscernable) I think it would be good, as background, to have the disclosure documents in the plan. (More undiscernable comments) I think Chico, Oroville, and Ranchaero— Bob Hennigan: There's an awful lot of stuff in C. You can just block all the stuff that's underlined between lines 21 and 27, and you can rewrite that for next year if you want. But let's not lose all of C. (Norm: I could go with that.) Norm: We are still going to edit it; there are type -os, run-on sentences, and dangling prepositions—we have to fix it. Duane: Then with the Oroville one, now that I've reviewed it. Event doesn't make sense either in line 27. It should -5-1, line 27=The word "even" should just be stricken and it makes more . sense. Event really doesn't fit in there either. (Norm: Will you rewrite that, Duane?) It would just be '- "The airport's historically moderate activity levels including Oroville airfare, and local experimental aircraft assn: activities together with extensive..." just take that whole word out— and in re -reading, I'm not too worried about line 41. Considering is just fine. I think you wanted to add the Resolution but I don't have that. (Donald: It's there on line 43, middle of line 43.) OK. That's good. Meleka: That's all the corrections, Duarte? ~ Duane: Shouldn't it be up on line 37..: the City Council Resolution? (Norm: That's exactly what I thought. You mention "resolution" and then you don't name it specifically.) I think that number should be up on line 37; then you don't really need it down. (Meleka: Just move it up?) Yeah. That whole reference number to the resolution .should be on line (37?) and then stricken from line 43. Norm: We're back to, what do you guys want to do with Appendix C? We can stay here and work on it. We can go have lunch and come back. We can move it to next year. We can have another meeting before the end of the year. How badly do you want this?- Meleka would like specific language. Meleka: So far, we have Chapters 2, 4, and 5, you agree on them, with minor adjustments. Nina: Discussions to delete lines 21-27'or leave them for now and, perhaps, change them? Page C-1 a. Norm: We didn't decide that. 5 12/19/01 ALUC MEETING NOTES (Partial, relating to consideration of future changes to the ALUCP) r' Nina: I heard Bob suggest we could delete it all but I don't know if we decided—(Norm: I think he was talking about deleting the 10;000/1,000 which is on page C-2, 22-27.) Norm: I think that Barbara's point is that if we are using nonaviation examples, like the children nutting across lawns, I can agree with that. I would tend to re -write numbers 10-12•and I have some wording for that. I would re -write on page C -la on lines 10-12, I would write, "Information regarding these compatibility concepts can be found in this document and should be disclosed to potential homebuyers around airports." It's shorter and it doesn't assume that someone's not going to disclose, it just tells them they have to. Donald: Is that a change? Norm: If you guys want, I could rewrite that. I would rewrite 31 on the same page. Instead of the principal tool for assessing, I'd say the principal Cessna tool for aircraft noise impacts is CNEL contours. It's really a style difference in writing. I write a lot. I would tend to minorly tweak it. Nina: You're really not changing the intent. (Norm: No, I'm not.) Norm: I don't want to change the intent: I just want to restructure it a little bit differently. Barbara: (Hardly discernable.) Norm: If everyone's comfortable, we can tweak it and we can get a subcommittee together that wants to tweak this, I'm willing to participate and we can, and Barbara we can get together and tweak it, but not change it. How staff feels about that, I don't know. Meleka: Since he also deals with concepts, I would rather have this done through a committee or something and be done in a timely manner so we don't rush things because there are also sources that we may need to incorporate here. Let us not rush these kinds of things and get into problems later on. Donald: Could not discern. Meleka: I prefer to come up with exact wording and then go with it. Bob Hennigan: Let me suggest—you've completed several sections—vote on those several sections and what we've discussed on previous occasions is that during the year, the commission may adopt a motion of intent directing the staff that it is our intent to include a certain change when the update occurs. So that the committee could meet and several weeks from now see if it is acceptable to everyone. Then you'd vote on a motion of intent which would not change the CLUP at that moment but would be a direction to the staff that when the CLUP is updated in December, (Norm: Its already done.) that this is to be included in'that update. (Barbara: Questions of content or questions of ...) Norm: I agree with what's being accomplished. I just—part of it is just the style of the document and how it comes across. I think sometimes you can soften a word and it still has the same C7 12/19/01 ALUC MEETING NOTES (Partial, relating to consideration of future changes to the ALUCP) meaning, but it will be read better and that's my point. But I do think we're trying to bite off an awful big bite right here. Bob Harp: (Hardly audible) Which would you rather have, would you rather have it adopted or if its not in the style you like, or would you rather, have it not adopted—(Norm: I would rather have it not adopted, and not be ripped apart when I go up to speak in front of a group because it just gives them too much—they'll start pulling a sentence out here and they'll use it against you. I've fought that battle too many times and that's what they do. I would rather not have it, and make it really tight and then go to it, and they can't pick it apart. I would like to include the disclosure document, though, as part of the background in the.CLUP so if someone has this, they also have all of our disclosure documents so that they can review them. Right now they are not in here. Meleka: Which area do you want to put it in? Norm: ' I don't know where we should put it, but I want each of the ones in there for each of the airports that we developed disclosure documents. Where should it belong? Where does it go? Nina: It says Appendix K in here. Norm: Do you agree or disagree with that, whatever people want to do? I value what the Disclosure Document Committee went through this last year and it belongs in the CLUP so that it can be referred to. Ok. Do we have a motion regarding Chico, Ranchaero, and Oroville, and the Disclosure Documents and the change that the .2 acres? We need a motion and a second, to adopt those and put them in. J Meleka: And including the Disclosure Document in Appendix K? (Norm: Yeah.) Some more undiscernable conversation. Norm: I don't think so for now. I We could also use the information if we need to pull it out for something and I like Bob's idea of doing a motion of intent early next year and not—we're always a little bit behind—we had enough time to do most of it but not all of it. If'we do it early next year, then it will be ready for next year's update. There's nothing that says as we get closer to the County and Cities adopting our Plan that we couldn't decide to do an update right then. We don't have to wait until December and if it is in our benefit and the airports' benefit and the public's benefit to go ahead in June and update this, we can do it. We just use it up for the year. Nina: Are you willing to make that motion as you stated. I couldn't reword, rethink it. Norm: I'll make a motion. This will be my only motion as the Chair,. I make the motion that we adopt with minor editing the background data amendments for Chico Municipal, for Oroville Municipal, and for Ranchaero, and we*include the Real Estate Disclosure Documents that were adopted earlier this year as part'of Appendix K and also we correct the FAA Part 77 horizontal surface map for Oroville and also correct Table 2-A, there's a figure there that is incorrect. It's like .2 units per acre or something like that. (someone's voice) .25, Ok we correct that with the changes discussed today. Nina – 2"d. Further discussion—None. All ayes. Moved. 7 12/19/01 ALUC MEETING NOTES (Partial, relating to consideration of future changes to the r ALUCP) Norm: Next year we will look at Appendix C and get a Committee together and go.through that and make it perfect and then adopt a motion of intent with the intent that it will be part of the next CLUP Amendment. Ok does that end Item 2? Open to Public: Is there any comments for Item 2? None, public hearing closed. Committee Appointments: Norm: Do you need people to help edit? I'll volunteer to be on that. Would anyone else like to be on the editing committee? (For Appendix C?) No, the other parts. We have Bob Hennigan and that's fine with me if Bob and I work on it. I think we can do that with Meleka. (Brian: I'll help you out next year with Appendix C.) Ok, good. We'll remember that. JAMeeting Notes\121901 Committe Notes.doc 8 12/19/01 ALUC MEETING NOTES (Partial, relating to consideration of future changes to the ALUCP) Norm: Chico Municipal Airport, the background data. What do you guys want to do with all of this background information? There's a lot of it. We can go through it. We can accept it. We can make some minor editing. I Bob G: I'd like to do a little minor editing on the front page but the rest of the material is something that will become dated very quickly. What I'd like to do is find a way to continually update it and every year release it at the end of our CLUP Update, or ongoing process; or we incorporate it as part of an attachment in the book with a reference to it. ... a final paragraph on page 4-1a, just say in Attachment A or in Attachment C, or whatever. I don't think we have them listed by number or whatever, just list them as an attachment. This information is pertinent but it needs to be updated. I was surprised to see that they went to Dec. 13, 1959 so that may be a challenge to get it updated at our December update. That would be my recommendation that we take our'statistical data and we incorporate it as an attachment to continually update and also incorporate Exhibit 4H from the get -go with not much more. There are some individual line item changes that I'd like to make on the first page. What I would list as 4-1b, and 4-1c as an attachment back in here. (Meleka's voice barely audible.) I think more detail could be made on this because this is a critical issue on air attack, especially as people are starting to talk about Bidwell Ranch. I think it deserves its own discussion area in an attachment. But because the statistical data in here needs to be continually updated to maintain its relevancy, let's not have it as part of the Plan. It isn't planning material; its supplemental information to support the planning decisions and recommendations. It should be in the back as an attachment. Bob Hennigan: It is in the back after Chapter 4, called background data. Bob Hennigan: We have a chapter called Background Data. (Bob G: Yes) Nothing precludes updating it every year or two with background data. That's where it is in a subsequent chapter called "Background Data." Bob G: I was thinking it was Chapter 3, yes, you are right. Never mind. That is the appropriate place for it. Disregarding that information, if I could just touch on some of the things that I think should be addressed on page 4-1a. 2"d paragraph, last line where we have "land use plans call for an expansive new development west of the airport." Based on recent activity with the City Planning Commission, and some other discussions, they are now looking at expansive development east of the airport, too, so what I'd suggest is that we change it to expansive new development west and east of the airport. Undiscernable voices: ...all sides? Bob G: I don't.know the County's planning, but as far as what the City's talking— Meleka: Didn't we change that? I think we changed that. Norm: I would agree with Bob, east—north, they are already developed and I think Larry was talking about north along 99, but not so close to the airport; whereas=(Bob.Hennigan: He's got the sphere of influence going all the way to the County line and running between hwy 99 and the foothills.) Right. (Bob G: That hasn't moved too far yet.) For now, going to the growth hearings, 12/19/01 ALUC MEETING NOTES (Partial, relating to consideration of future changes to the ALUCP) I'd say the east and west developments are the more appropriate ones. Next year we can add more. The south is already used up. Bob G: The next one is third paragraph, about midway through it. The sentence starts with "The new Plan is expected to included proposed extension of both runways. A 1000 ft. northward edition and a doubling of the parallel runway to 60,000 feet in length." What I'd, like it to say is "an 1800 foot northward edition, bringing it to a total of 8,500 and a doubling of the parallel runway to 6000 ft." (60,000 correct to 6,000). Norm:, That's good. Those were lines 35 & 36. Any other comments regarding Chico's background data? Bob Hennigan: (Hard to hear.) You'll note that the loss on figure two has been rewritten... Bob G: One thing, if clarification could be done, on figure 1, X=is that a week? Bob G: I just know that there is going to be a comment made by someone. Barbara Hennigan: (Barely audible.) The X -s, is a way to show that the reality is that there could be airplane activity for more than (half a year?) Meleka: Do we have data about these X -s? Barbara Hennigan: (Barely audible.) Norm: Yeah, it was in here. Bob G: The dates, is thaf,from CDF? Norm: Yeah, March 23`a letter—Bill Seger. Yes. Barbara's right. We could make a bar graph instead of the X -s and put exact dates. I think what we'll do is get an editing committee together for this when we are to the point of our meeting where we can appoint committees and then we'll meet and do that, and then bring it back, if that's ok with people. Because there's some editing, like on page 4-1c that has to be accomplished or it's not going to read right. Ok, the accident risk intensity maps. Does anyone have a problem with flip-flopping the approaches/departures? Lets' get that out of the way, I think it's more accurate. Ok. Anything left with Chico? Then let's go to Oroville. We have the intro. It needs some minor editing I think. Line 27, we could get rid of the "even", Brian: Its supposed to be events, isn't it? Norm: Could be. I think. That should be a period and then events should be capitalized. Stuff like that we need to go through and we can do that minor editing, clean up the language and make it read better. Same thing with lines 40, 41, 42 where it talks about the City of Oroville wants to do in their Resolution, I think we could shorten that and make it more precise, and still list their Resolution by number. Besides that, it works. 2 12/19/01 ALUC MEETING NOTES (Partial, relating to consideration of future changes to the ALUCP) Duane: Comments undiscernable: Line 41. Barbara: (Barely audible.)... Resolution adopted... Duane: ...extent that it includes... (difficult to discern comments). Norm: Duane, could you write something out that you'd like to see. (Duane: I'll go over it with you.) For that page, that would be useful -for us if you could make sure that what they intended is in there correctly. We'll call that minor editing. Then accident risk intensity for Oroville flip- flopping approach and departure and I think that's fine. Duane:. You have one item that's not (his voice trails off). ,.. (Norm: It's the Part 77 map?) The approach surface and the runway ... 2000 feet to the north east of the airport runway ... look down, essentially the runway is:sitting right across ... not actually... runway 119 is shown... actually the runway is extended... (Runway crosses over Oro Dam Blvd. Not insight spot,_ shift NE; Runway 119, threshold; runway was- extended toward bay; needs adjustments.) Norm: Can Ken go back and correct this for us? The map is inaccurate. We have the electronic file so we can, if we can have that on a paper copy, we can adjust the electronic file. Norm: I never noticed it. Let's correct that. Now that Duane's mentioning that, Duane had a correction he's mentioned several times in the past several months, Table 2A. Do we have that correction? Ok, just so we -don't forget that correction as well. Anything else for Oroville? Ok that brings us to Ranchaero. Again, I'd like to do some. editing on some of the sentence structure just to clean it up. Brian: Change "tiny" Ranchaero Airport to "historic" Ranchaero Airport?. Norm: Absolutely. Brian: Line 16, "fly -ins", we need to delete that. 11 Norm: Club activities would suffice? (Brian: Yes.) Ok. Brian: Also on line 27 I think regarding the continuing conflict with that is presented, I think that is really not continuing any more because it is all built out. I don't know if that is viable or not, recommend that the conflict was presented by construction of the subdivision. I don't know, about that. The construction that is going on out there now 'is single homes, is it 5 acres for the Green Line? One house"per five acres? (Nina: Well it depends on...) There are a lot of big new houses* . going into the south but they are not high density. Norm: I think that we can :shorten 37-43. I understand what the authors are trying to get across but I think we need to say that "Pilots have the right to fly a safe pattern" and that's the way it is. We don't need 6 or 7 lines to say that." The authors disagree. 3 12/19/01 ALUC MEETING NOTES (Partial, relating to consideration -of future changes to the ALUCP) Bob Hennigan: (Hard to discern ... Don't edit that down so much that an unsophisticated reader won't understand what you are saying. There are real estate agents telling people that pilots are required to ...and that's ok ...but its not ... (Norm: Right, it's a tight turn. I understand what you are trying to get across and I know there's been some complaints about people flying. I agree with it. It think we have to keep it more concise, but we can still accomplish that.) Norm: In Ranchaero's map, we all see that. That brings up to Appendix C, the overview. Again, I would change some of the wording so it still gets the point across but its stated a different way. Some of the tenses could be cleaned up. Using examples like the children cutting across their lawns, is that an example—do we need to have that? Is that something people want to read about? It's a good analogy but does it belong in Appendix C? Barbara Hennigan: (Difficult to discern.) (Explaining her reasoning)... so everyone can understand. I realize doesn't sound ... (Bob Hennigan-We had a disclosure document that ran several pages and the argument was made that the disclosure document should be edited down and this information included in the background data.) (Norm: I agree, we had to put it somewhere so we are putting it in here. I think in terms of the attorneys and judges, down the way, evaluating our plan and I want it to—we can't "dumb it down" so far, I understand we have to "dumb it down" a ways so people who want to look at it from a disclosure standpoint, understand what we are talking about.) Norm: On page C -Lb., on line 23, is it the ALUC handbook or is it the Caltrans handbook? Caltrans. Ok again, with some minor editing, I could live with this. Do you guys have comments? On page C-2. I have a problem with the 1 in 10,000 versus the 1 in 10, statistically they're not the same. You could argue, I think what you are trying to say, is you can argue that you can a crash tomorrow or you could have a crash in 10,000 years, it would still be 1 in 10,000, but when you are talking 1 in 10,000 versus 1 in 10, or 1 in 50, or whatever, it is not the same statistically. Because over the long course of it, if you have 1 in 50 chance over 10,000 years, you are going to have like 200 accidents versus the 1 in 10,000 is really 1 in 10,000. You just can't predict when it is going to occur. That is your point. Bob Hennigan: That's exactly what we said here. The statistics that we have in the handbook say that there is approximately 1 in 10,000 chance that this house will be hit this year, or this lot will be hit this year. So for each house in the subdivision—(Norm-that's a thousand houses, is that's what is being left out? OK) If you have a 1000 houses in a subdivision, each one of them has a 1 in 10,000 chance, so there's a 1 in a 1000 chance that the subdivision will be hit this year. Norm: I think there's a better way of saying this. While the odds of any particular house being hit is very remote, the odds of a particular area being hit can be predicted from a statistical accident scatter map. Now—(Barbara, then Bob Hennigan: I was reacting to the fact that the developers have at several times shown up and said, "Why the odds are 10,000 to 1 ")—I understand but they will still pull this out because you know that's what they do. So they will pull out your sentence saying 1 in 10,000 years and they will still use that against you. Rather than confuse the issue and give them more numbers to work with, I think its better to say but the chances of an accident falling around the airport are, statistically, every year we have one; we had two this last year. I don't know if you want to try to baffle them with numbers when they are still going to pull out a single sentence on you and use it. What does everyone feel about that? Donald: We need to think about... adopt it subject to minor modifications. 4 12/19/01 ALUC MEETING NOTES (Partial, relating to consideration of future changes to the ALUCP) . Norm: Ok, right; but not adopt it. (Donald: We've already got the vote on the ones we want to change for sure so this would be part of the 2002 change.) I sure would like to get some of this in there next year because we are going to be fighting some battles next year and it would be nice if we had some ammo. Can we agree on adopting Chico'. s information and Ranchaero's and Oroville's? Then if we want to leave Appendix C and rewrite some of that, I'm ok with that. But the more ammo we have, the better. Then the disclosure documents, we already adopted so they can be put in the plan separately. No they are not in the Plan right now, the disclosure documents, but in this part of it, they would be listed. Is that correct?, (Comment undiscernable). I think it would be good, as background, to have the disclosure documents in the plan. (More undiscernable comments) I think Chico, Oroville, and kanchaero— Bob Hennigan: There's an awful lot of stuff in C. You can just block all the stuff that's underlined between lines 21 and 27, and you can rewrite that for next year if you want. But let's not lose all of C. (Norm: I could go with that.) Norm: We are still going to edit it; there -are type -os, run-on sentences, and dangling prepositions—we have to fix it. Duane: Then with the Oroville one, now that I've reviewed it. Event doesn't make sense either in line 27. It should -5-1, line 27—The word "even" should just be stricken and it makes more sense. Event really doesn't fit in there either. (Norm: Will you rewrite that, Duane?) It would just be , "The airport's historically moderate activity levels including Oroville airfare, and local experimental aircraft assn. activities together with extensive..." just take that whole word out— and in re -reading; I'm not too worried about line 41. Considering is just fine. I think you wanted to add the Resolution but I don't have that. (Donald: It's there on line 43, middle of line 43.) OK. That's good. Meleka: That's all the corrections, Duane? Duane:' Shouldn't it be up on line 37... the City Council Resolution? (Norm: That's exactly what I thought. You mention "resolution" and then you don't name it specifically.) I think that number should be up on line 37; then you don't really need it down. (Meleka: Just move it up?) Yeah. That whole reference number to the resolution should be on line (37?) and then stricken from line 43. Norm: We're back to, what do you guys want to do with Appendix C? We can stay here and work on it. We can go have lunch and come back. We can move it to next year. We can have another meeting before the end of the year. How badly do you want this? Meleka would like specific language. Meleka: So far, we have Chapters 2, 4, and 5, you agree. on them, with minor adjustments. Nina: Discussions to delete lines 21-27 or leave them for now and, perhaps, change them? Page Gla. Norm: We didn't decide that. 12/19/01 ALUC MEETING NOTES (Partial, relating to consideration of future changes to the ALUCP) Nina: I heard Bob suggest we could delete it all but I don't know if we decided—(Norm: I think he was talking about deleting the 10,000/1,000 which, is on page C-2, 22-27.) Norm: I think that Barbara's point is that if we are using nonaviation examples, like the children cutting across lawns, I can agree with that. I would tend to re -write numbers 10-12 and I have some wording for that. I would re -write on page C -la on lines 10-12, I would write, "Information regarding these compatibility concepts can be found in this document and should be disclosed to potential homebuyers around airports." It's shorter and it doesn't assume that someone's not going to disclose, it just tells them they have to. Donald: Is that a change? Norm: If you guys want, I could rewrite that. I would rewrite 31 on the same page. Instead of the principal tool for assessing, I'd say the principal Cessna tool for aircraft noise impacts is CNEL contours. It's really a style difference in writing. I write a lot. I would tend to minorly tweak it. Nina: You're really not changing the intent. (Norm: No, I'm not.) Norm: I don't want to change the intent. I just want to restructure it a little bit differently: Barbara: (Hardly discernable.) Norm: If everyone's comfortable, we can tweak it and we can get a subcommittee together that wants to tweak this, I'm willing to participate and we can, and Barbara we can get together and tweak it, but not change it. How staff feels about that, I don't know. Meleka: Since he also deals with concepts, I would rather have this done through a committee or something and be done in a timely manner so we don't rush things because there are also sources that we may need to incorporate here. Let us not rush these kinds of things and get into problems later on. Donald: Could not discern. Meleka: I prefer to come up with exact wording and then go with it. Bob Hennigan: Let me suggest—you've completed several sections—vote on those several sections and what we've discussed on previous occasions is that during the year, the commission may adopt a motion of intent directing the staff that it is our intent to- include a certain change when the update occurs. So that the committee could meet and several weeks from now see if it is acceptable to everyone. Then you'd vote on a motion of intent which would not change the CLUP at that moment but would be a direction to the staff that when the CLUP is updated in December, (Norm: Its already done.) that this is to be included in that update. (Barbara: Questions of content or questions of ...) ' Norm: I agree with what's being accomplished. I just—part of it is just the style of the document and how it comes across. I think sometimes you can soften a word and it still has the same G1 12/19/01 ALUC MEETING NOTES (Partial, relating to consideration of future changes to the ALUCP) meaning, but it will be read better and that's my point. But I do think we're trying to bite off an awful big bite right here. Bob Harp: (Hardly audible) Which would you rather have, would you rather have it adopted or if its not in the style you like, or would you rather have it not adopted—(Norm: I would rather have it not adopted, and not be ripped apart when I go up to speak in front of a group because it just gives them too much—they'll start pulling a sentence out here and they'll use it against you.. I've fought that battle too many times and that's what they do. I would rather not have it, and make it really tight and then go to it, and they can't pick it apart. I would like to include the disclosure document, though, as part of the background in the CLUP so if someone has this, they also have all of our disclosure documents so that they can review them. Right now they are not in here. Meleka: Which area do you want to put it in? Norm: I don't know where we should put it, but I want each of the ones in there for each of the airports that we developed disclosure documents. Where should it belong? Where does it go? Nina: It says Appendix K in here. Norm: Do you agree or disagree with that, whatever people want to do? I value what the Disclosure Document Committee went through this last year and it belongs in the CLUP so that it can be referred to. Ok. Do we have a motion regarding Chico, Ranchaero, and Oroville, and the Disclosure Documents and the change that the .2 acres? We need a motion and a second, to adopt those and put them in. - Meleka: And including the Disclosure Document in Appendix K? (Norm: Yeah.) Some more undiscernable,conversation. Norm: I don't think so for now. We could also use the information if we need to pull it out for something and I like Bob's idea of doing a motion of intent early next year and not—we're always a little bit behind—we had enough time to do most of it but not all of it. If we do it early next year, then it will be ready for next year's update. There's nothing that says as we get closer to the County and Cities adopting our Plan that we couldn't decide to do an update right then. We don't have to wait until December and if it is in our benefit and the airports' benefit and the public's benefit to go ahead in June and update this, we can do it. We just use it up for the year. Nina: Are you willing to make that motion as you stated. I couldn't reword, rethink it. Norm: I'll make a motion. This will be my only motion as the Chair. I make the motion that we adopt with minor editing,the background data amendments for Chico Municipal, for Oroville Municipal, and for Ranchaero, and we include the Real Estate Disclosure Documents that were adopted earlier this year as part of Appendix K and also we correct the FAA Part 77 horizontal surface map for Oroville and also correct Table 2-A, there's a figure there that is incorrect. It's like .2 units per acre or something like that. (someone's voice) .25, Ok we correct that with the changes discussed today. Nina – 2"d. Further discussion—None. All ayes. Moved. , 7 12/19/01 ALUC MEETING NOTES (Partial, relating to consideration of future changes to the ALUCP) Norm: Next year we will look at Appendix C and get a Committee together and go through that and make it perfect and then adopt a motion of intent with the intent that it will be part of the next CLUP Amendment. Ok does that end Item 2? Open to Public: Is there any comments for Item 2? None, public hearing closed. Committee Appointments: Norm: Do you need people to help edit? I'll volunteer to be on that. Would anyone else like to be on the editing committee? (For Appendix C?) No,-the other parts. We have Bob Hennigan and that's fine with me if Bob and I work on it. I think we can do that with Meleka. (Brian: I'll help you out next year with Appendix C.) Ok, good. We'll remember that. J:\Meeting Notes\121901 Committe Notes.doc s 8 12/19/01 ALUC MEETING NOTES (Partial, relating to consideration of future changes to the ALUCP) Norm: Chico Municipal Airport, the background data. What do you guys want to do with all of this background information? There's a lot of it. We can go through it. We can accept it. We can make some minor editing. Bob G: I'd like to do a little minor editing on the front page but the rest of the material is something that will become dated very quickly. What I'd like to do is find a way to continually update it and every year release it at the end of our CLUP Update, or ongoing process; or we incorporate it as part of an attachment in the book with a reference to it. ... a final paragraph on page 4-1a, just say in Attachment A or in Attachment C, or whatever. I don't think we have them listed by number or whatever, just list them as an attachment. This information is pertinent but it needs to be updated. I was surprised to see that they went to Dec. 13, 1959 so that may be a challenge to get it updated at our December update. That would be my recommendation that we take our statistical data and we incorporate it as an attachment to continually update and also incorporate Exhibit 4:H from the get -go with not much more. There are some individual line item changes that I'd like to make on the first page. What I would list as 4-1b, and 4 -lc as an attachment back in here. (Meleka's voice barely audible.) I think more detail could be made on this because this is a critical issue on air attack, especially as people are starting to talk about Bidwell Ranch. I think it deserves its own discussion area in an attachment. But because the statistical data in here needs to be continually updated to maintain its relevancy, let's not have it as part of the Plan. It isn't planning material; its supplemental information to support the planning decisions and recommendations. It should be in the back as an attachment. Bob Hennigan: It is in the back after Chapter 4, called background data. Bob Hennigan: We have a chapter called Background Data. (Bob G: Yes) Nothing precludes updating it every year or two with background data. That's where it is in a subsequent chapter called "Background Data." Bob G: I was thinking it was Chapter 3, yes, you are right. Never mind. That is the appropriate place for it. Disregarding that information, if I could just touch on some of the things that I think should be addressed on page 4-1a. 2"d paragraph, last line where we have "land use plans call for an expansive new development west of the airport." Based on recent activity with the City Planning Commission, and some other discussions, they are now looking at expansive development east of the airport, too, so what I'd suggest is that we change it to expansive new development west and east of the airport. Undiscernable voices: ...all sides? Bob G: I don't know the County's planning, but as far as what the City's talking— Meleka: Didn't we change that? I think we changed that. Norm: I would agree with Bob, east—north, they are already developed and I think Larry was talking about north along 99, but not so close to the airport; whereas—(Bob Hennigan: He's got the sphere of influence going all the way to the County line and running between hwy 99 and the foothills.) Right. (Bob G: That hasn't moved too far yet.) For now, going to the growth hearings, 12/19/01 ALUC MEETING NOTES (Partial, relating to consideration of future changes to the ALUCP) I'd say the east and west developments are the more appropriate ones. Next year we can add more. The south is already used up. Bob G: The next one is third paragraph, about midway through it. The sentence starts with "The new Plan is expected to included proposed extension of both runways. A 1000 ft. northward edition and a doubling of the parallel runway to 60,000 feet in length." What I'd like it to say is "an 1800 foot northward edition, bringing it to a total of 8,500 and a doubling of the parallel runway to 6000 ft." (60,000 correct to 6,000). Norm: That's good. Those were lines 35 & 36. Any other comments regarding Chico's background data? Bob Hennigan: (Hard to hear.) You'll note that the loss on figure two has been rewritten... Bob G: One thing, if clarification could be done, on figure 1, X=is that a week? Bob G: I just know that there is going to be a comment made by someone. Barbara Hennigan: (Barely audible.) .The X -s, is a way to show that the reality is that there could be airplane activity for more than (half a year?) Meleka: Do we have data about these X -s? Barbara Hennigan: (Barely audible.) Norm: Yeah, it was in here. Bob G: The dates, is that from CDF? Norm: Yeah, March 23`d letter—Bill Seger. Yes. Barbara's right. We could make a bar graph instead of the X -s and put exact dates.I think what we'll do is get an editing committee together for this when we are to the point of our meeting where we can appoint committees and then we'll meet and do that, and then bring it back, if that's ok with people. Because there's some editing, like on page 4-1c that has to be accomplished or it's not going to read right. Ok, the accident risk intensity maps. Does anyone have a problem with flip-flopping the approaches/departures? Lets' get that out of the way, I think it's more accurate. Ok. Anything left with Chico? Then let's go to Oroville. We have the intro. It needs some minor editing I think. Line 27, we could get rid of the "even", Brian: Its supposed to be events, isn't it? Norm: Could be. I think. That should be a period and then events should be capitalized. Stuff like that we need to go through and we can do that minor editing, clean up the language and make it read better. Same thing with lines 40, 41, 42 where it talks about the City of Oroville wants to do in their Resolution, I think we could shorten that and make it more precise, and still list their Resolution by number. Besides that, it works. FA 12/19/01 ALUC MEETING NOTES (Partial, relating to consideration of future changes to the ALUCP) Duane: Comments undiscernable. Line 41. Barbara: (Barely audible.)... Resolution adopted... Duane: :..extent that it includes... (difficult to discern comments). Norm: Duane, could you write something out that you'd like to see. (Duane: I'll go over it with you.) For that page, that would be useful for us if you could make sure that what they intended is in there correctly. We'll call that minor editing. Then accident risk intensity for Oroville flip-, flopping approach and departure and I think that's fine. Duane: You have one item that's not (his voice trails off) ... (Norm: It's the Part 77 map?) The approach surface and the runway ... 2000 feet to the north east of the airport runway ... look down, essentially the runway is sitting right across ... not actually... runway 119 is shown... actually the runway is extended... (Runway crosses over Oro Dam Blvd. Not in right spot, shift NE; Runway 119, threshold; runway was extended toward bay; needs adjustments.) Norm: Can Ken go back and correct this for us? The map is inaccurate. We have the electronic file so we can, if we can have that on a paper copy, we can adjust the electronic file. Norm: I never noticed it. Let's correct that. Now that Duane's mentioning that, Duane had a correction he's mentioned several times in the past several months, Table 2A. Do we have that correction? Ok, just so we don't forget that correction as well: Anything else for Oroville? Ok that brings us to Ranchaero. Again, I'd like to do some editing on some of the sentence structure just to clean it up. Brian: Change "tiny" Ranchaero Airport to "historic" Ranchaero Airport? Norm: Absolutely. Brian: Line 16, "fly -ins", we need to delete that. Norm: Club activities would suffice? (Brian: Yes.) Ok. Brian: Also on line 27 I think regarding the continuing conflict with that is presented, I think that is really not continuing any more because it is all built out. I don't know if that is viable or not, . recommend that the conflict was presented by construction of the subdivision. I don't know about that. The construction that is going on out there now is single homes, is it 5 acres for the Green Line? One house per five acres? (Nina: Well it depends on...) There are a lot of big new houses going into the south but they are not high density. Norm: I think that we can shorten 37-43. I understand what the authors are trying to get across but I think we need to say that "Pilots have the right to fly a safe pattern" and that's the way it is. We. don't need 6 or 7 lines to say that." The authors disagree. 12/19/01 ALUC MEETING NOTES (Partial, relating to consideration of future changes to the ALUCP) Bob Hennigan: (Hard to discern ... Don't edit that down so much that an unsophisticated reader won't understand what you are saying. There are real estate agents telling people that pilots are required to ... and that's ok ...but its not... (Norm: Right, it's a tight turn. I understand what you are trying to get across and I know there's been some complaints about'people flying. I agree with it. It think we have to keep it more concise, but we can still accomplish that.) Norm: In Ranchaero's map, we all see that. That brings up to Appendix C, the overview. Again, I would change some of the wording so it still gets the point across but its stated a different way. Some of the tenses could be cleaned up. Using examples like the children cutting across their lawns, is that an example—do we need to have that? Is that something people want to read about? It's a good analogy but does it belong in Appendix C? Barbara Hennigan: (Difficult to discern.) (Explaining her reasoning)... so everyone can understand. I realize doesn't sound ... (Bob Hennigan-We had a disclosure document that ran several pages and the argument was made that the disclosure document should be edited down and this information included in the background data.) (Norm: I agree, we had to put it somewhere so we are putting it in here. I think in terms of the attorneys and judges, down the way, evaluating our plan and I want it to—we can't "dumb it down" so far, I understand we have to "dumb it down" a ways so people who want to look at it from a disclosure standpoint, understand what we are talking about.) Norm: On page C -Lb., on line 23, is it the ALUC handbook or is it the Caltrans handbook? Caltrans. Ok again, with some minor editing, I could live with this. Do you guys have comments? On page C-2. I have a problem with the 1 in 10,000 versus the 1 in 10, statistically they're not the same. You could argue, I think what you are trying to say, is you can argue that you can a crash tomorrow or you could have a crash in 10,000 years, it would still be 1 in 10,000, but when you are talking 1 in 10,000 versus 1 in 10, or 1 in 50, or whatever, it is not the same statistically. Because over the long course of it, if you have 1 in 50 chance over 10,000 years, you are going to have like 200 accidents versus the 1 in 10,000 is really 1 in 10,000. You just can't predict when it is going to occur. That is your point. Bob Hennigan: That's exactly what we said here. The statistics that we have in the handbook say that there is approximately 1 in 10,000 chance that this house will be hit this year, or this lot will be hit this year. So for each house in the subdivision—(Norm-that's a thousand houses, is that's what is being left out? OK) If you have a 1000 houses in a subdivision, each one of them has a 1 in 10,000 chance, so there's a 1 in a 1000 chance that the subdivision will be hit this year. Norm: I think there's a better way of saying this. While the odds of any particular house being hit is very remote, the odds of a particular area being hit can be predicted from a statistical accident scatter map. Now—(Barbara, then Bob Hennigan: I was reacting to the fact that the developers have at several times shown up and said, "Why the odds are 10,000 to 1")—1 understand but they will still pull this out because you know that's what they do. So they will pull out your sentence saying 1 in 10,000 years and they will still use that against you. Rather than confuse the issue and give them more numbers to work with, I think its better to say but the chances of an accident falling around the airport are, statistically, every year we have one; we had two this last year. I don't know if you want to try to baffle them with numbers when they are still going to pull out a single sentence on you and use it. What does everyone feel about that? Donald: We need to think about... adopt it subject to minor modifications. 4 12/19/01 ALUC MEETING NOTES (Partial, relating to consideration of future changes to the ALUCP) Norm: Ok, right; but not adopt it. (Donald: We've already got the vote on the ones we want to change for sure so this would be part of the 2002 change.) I sure would like to get some of this in there next year because we are going to be fighting some battles next year and it would be nice if, we had some ammo. Can we agree on adopting Chico's information and Ranchaero's and Oroville's? Then if we want to leave Appendix C and rewrite some of that, I'm ok with that. But the more ammo we have, the better. Then the disclosure documents, we already adopted so they can be put in the plan separately. No they are not in the Plan right now, the disclosure documents, but in this part of it, they would be listed. Is that correct? (Comment undiscernable) I think it would be good, as background, to have the disclosure documents in the plan. (More undiscemable comments) I think Chico, Oroville, and Ranchaero— Bob Hennigan: There's an awful lot of stuff in C. You can just block all the stuff that's underlined between lines 21 and 27, and you can rewrite that for next year if you want. But let's not lose all of C. (Norm:. I could go with that.) Norm: We are still going to edit it; there are type -os, run-on sentences, and dangling prepositions—we have to fix it. Duane: Then with the Oroville one, now that I've reviewed it. Event doesn't make sense either in line 27. It should -5-1, line 27—The word "even" should just be stricken and it makes more sense. Event really doesn't fit in there either. (Norm: Will you rewrite that, Duane?) It would just be . "The airport's historically moderate activity levels including Oroville airfare, and local experimental aircraft assn. activities together with extensive..." just take that whole word out— and in re -reading, I'm not too worried about line 41. Considering is just fine. I think you wanted to add the Resolution but I don't have that. (Donald: It's there on line 43, middle of line 43.) OK. That's good. Meleka: That's all the corrections, Duane? Duane: Shouldn't it be up on line 37... the City Council Resolution? (Norm: That's exactly what I thought. You mention "resolution" and then you don't name it specifically.) I think that number should be up on line 37; then you don't really need it down. (Meleka: Just move it up?) Yeah. That whole reference number to the resolution should be on line (37?) and then stricken from line 43. Norm: We're back to, what do you guys want to do with Appendix C? We can stay here and work on it. We can go have lunch and come back. We can move it to next year! We can have another meeting before the end of the year. How badly do you want this? Meleka would like specific language. Meleka: So far, we have Chapters 2, 4, and 5, you agree on them, with minor adjustments. Nina: Discussions to delete lines 21-27 or leave them for now and, perhaps, change them? Page C-1 a. Norm: We didn't decide that. 5 12/19/01 ALUC MEETING NOTES (Partial, relating to consideration of future changes to the ALUCP) Nina: I heard Bob suggest we could delete it all but I don't know if we decided—(Norm: I think he was talking about deleting the 10,000/1,000 which is on page C-2, 22-27.) Norm: I think that Barbara's point is that if we are using nonaviation examples, like the children cutting across lawns, I can agree with that. I would tend to re -write numbers 10-12 and I have some wording for that. I would re -write on page C -la on lines 10-12, I would write, "Information regarding these compatibility concepts can be found in this document and should be disclosed to potential homebuyers around airports." It's shorter and it doesn't assume that someone's not going to disclose, it just tells them they have to. Donald: Is that a change? Norm: If you guys want, I could rewrite that. I would rewrite 31 on ,the same page. Instead of the principal tool for assessing, I'd say the principal Cessna tool for aircraft noise impacts is CNEL contours. It's really a style difference in writing. I write a lot. I would tend to minorly tweak it. ' Nina: You're really not changing the intent. (Norm: No, I'm not.) Norm: I don't want to change the intent. I just want to restructure it a little bit differently. Barbara: (Hardly discernable.) 11 Norm: If everyone's comfortable, we can tweak it and,we can get a subcommittee together that wants to tweak this, I'm willing to participate and we can, and Barbara we can get together and tweak it, but not change it. How staff feels about that, I don't know. Meleka: Since he also deals with concepts, I would rather have this done through a committee or something and be done in a -timely manner so we don't rush things because there are also sources that we may need to incorporate here. Let us not rush these kinds of things and get into problems later on. Donald: Could not discern. Meleka: I prefer to come up with exact wording and then go with it. Bob Hennigan: Let me suggest—you've completed several sections—vote on those several sections and what we've discussed on previous occasions is that during the year, the commission may adopt a motion of intent directing the staff that it is our intent to include a certain change when the update occurs. So that the committee could meet and several weeks from now see if it is acceptable to everyone. Then you'd vote on a motion of intent which would not change the CLUP at that moment but would be a direction to the staff that when the CLUP is updated in December, (Norm: Its already done.) that this is to be included in that update. (Barbara: Questions of content or questions of ...) Norm: I agree with what's being accomplished. I just—part of it is just the style of the document and how it comes across. I think sometimes you can soften a word and it still has the same G 12/19/01 ALUC MEETING NOTES (Partial, relating to consideration of future changes to the ALUCP) meaning, but it will be read better and that's my point. But I do think we're trying to bite off an awful big bite right here. , Bob Harp: (Hardly audible) Which would you rather have, would you rather have it adopted or if its not in the style you like, or would you rather have it not adopted—(Norm: I would rather have it not adopted, and not be ripped apart when I go up to speak in front of a group because it just gives them too much—they'll start pulling a sentence out here and they'll use it against you. I've fought that battle too many times and that's what they do. I would rather not have it, and make it really tight and then go to it, and they can't pick it apart. I would like to include the disclosure document, though, as part of the background in the CLUP so if someone has this, they also have all of our disclosure documents so that they can review them. Right now they are not in here. Meleka: Which area do you want to put it in? Norm: I don't know where we should put it, but I want each of the ones in there for each of the airports that we developed disclosure documents. Where should it belong? Where does it go? Nina: It says Appendix K in here. Norm: Do you agree or disagree with that, whatever people want to do? I value what the Disclosure Document Committee went through this last year and it belongs in the CLUP so that it can be referred to. Ok. Do we have a motion regarding Chico, Ranchaero, and Oroville, and the Disclosure Documents and the change that the .2 acres? We need a motion and a second, to adopt those and put them in. Meleka: And including the Disclosure Document in Appendix K? (Norm: Yeah.) Some more undiscernable conversation. Norm: I don't think so for now. We could also use the information if we need to pull it out for something and I like Bob's idea of doing a motion of intent early next year and not—we're always a little bit behind—we had enough time to do most of it but not all of it. If"we do it early next year, then it will be ready for next year's update. There's nothing that says as we get closer to the County and Cities adopting our Plan that we couldn't decide to do an update right then. We don't have to wait until December and if it is in our benefit and the airports' benefit and the public's benefit to go ahead in June and update this, we can do it. We just use it up for the year. Nina: Are you willing to make that motion as you stated. I couldn't reword, rethink it. Norm: I'll make a motion. This will be my only motion as the Chair. I make the motion that we adopt with minor editing the background data amendments for Chico Municipal, for Oroville Municipal, and for Ranchaero, and we include the Real Estate Disclosure Documents that were adopted earlier this year as part of Appendix K and also we correct the FAA Part 77 horizontal surface map for Oroville and also correct Table 2-A, there's a figure there that is incorrect. It's like .2 units per acre or something like that. (someone's voice) .25, Ok we correct that with the changes discussed today. Nina _'2 nd . Further discussion—None. All ayes: Moved. 7 12/19/01 ALUC MEETING NOTES (Partial, relating to consideration of future changes to the ALUCP) Norm: Next year we will look at Appendix C and get a Committee together and go through that and make it.perfect and then adopt a motion of intent with the intent that it will be part of the next CLUP Amendment. Ok does that end Item 2? Open to Public: Is there any comments for Item 2? None,'public hearing closed. Committee Appointments: Norm: Do you need people to help edit? I'll. volunteer to be on that. Would anyone else like'to be on the editing committee? (For Appendix C?) No, the other parts. We have Bob Hennigan and that's fine with me' if Bob and I work on it. I think we can do that with Meleka. (Brian: I'll help you out next year with Appendix C.) 'Ok, good. We'll remember that. JAMeeting Notes\121901 Committe Notes.doc s 8 1