Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutALUC_FEBRUARY_2001I 6 4 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSIION CORRESPONDENCE - January 9 — February 12, 2001 Date Incoming Outgoing From Subject received /sent 1/16/01 Thomas J. Lando Chico City Manager M. A. Meleka As requested copies of CLUP Adoption document (Motion), Addendum, and Comment Matrix (from Dec. 20 meeting). 1/16/01 ALUC Dianne Harmacek In support of CLUP 2000. 1/23/01 Nicole Humphreys Craig Sanders CLUP map & matrix (densities) as requested. NorthStar Engineering 20 Declaration Dr. Chico, CA 95973 1/24/01 Jim Bearquiver, Pres. M. A. Meleka Response after review of Draft Environmental VISIONS Enterprises, Inc. Assessment prepared /Enterprise Rancheria 968 Maraglia St. Redding, CA 96002 U. S. Dept. of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs 1824 Tribute Rd., Ste J Sacramento, CA 95815 U. S. Dept of Hsg. & Urban Development Office of Native Amer. Programs, Sw Region 400 N 5" St., Ste 1650 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Co. Planning NVPA (North In support of CLUP 2000. r5/OButte Commission Valley Pilots Assn) ALUC Bernice Mandville Opposing C-1 zone for Garner Lane, Chico 1/25/01 M. A. Meleka City of Chico City of Chico Airport Commission Mtg. Notice AirportCommission 1/30/61 Tom Parilo & ALUC Ozell Callahan Opposing C-1 zone for Garner Lane, Chico 2/6/01 M. A. Meleka Robert D. Harp Submission of map defining Mr. Pete Giampaoli's parcel for Dec. 20, 2000 minutes 2/6/01 M. A. Meleka Robert D. Harp Letter appointing Mr. Henry Roberson as his Alternate on the Commission 2/8/01 ALUC Kim Seidler Faxed letter Re: Joint meeting of ALUC & Chico City Council 2/20/01 2/12/01 M. A. Meleka Kim Seidler Letter confirming Joint Mtg/Chico City Council and ALUC 2/20/01 a�a to t ALU0 Mem (,�nci ud C- I de-, -P' r 4'-Ae'or 0 E RECEIVE JAN 1 6 `2001 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION crz CROVILLE, CALIFORNIA January 11, 2001L SAN 16 401 Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive BUTTE COUNTY Oroville, CA 95969-3397 AIRPORT.LAND USE COMMISSION Dear Members; I would like to add my support to the proposed expansion of the C.DY. Facility at the Chico Airport. The added: area will provide the Air Tankers with the - necessary space as well as a ready supply of emergency water if needed. The last few years fires in the northern state have clearly demonstrated how immensely important itis to maintain the C.D.F. at the Chico Airport. ` As the northern state ' continues to grow in population more and more rural areas are developed, expanding the fire danger each year.* At the same time development of business and homes are closing in on the airport. This is the time to establish. Chico as THE firefighting airbase in the • northern California area. . Thank you for your time and consideration. Dianne Harmacek .6079 Myamber Ct. Magalia, CA 95954 cc: Butte. County Board of Supervisors 7County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95969-3397 Chico City Council City of Chico P.O. Box3420 Chico, CA 95927 • •,: • • . _ Tage 1 of 1 Sanders, Craig f From: Nicole Humphreys [nhumphre@dcs=chico.corn] { ` Sent: Monday, January 22 20013:25 PM f j To:, csanders@buttecoupty.net k ' Subject: New Air Space Plan 'r •} F a ' Good Afternoon Craig,. was wondering if you would send our officea draft/final copy of the new air space plan"for r ` Chico/Butte County. We have been hearing so much about it but only have what was written up in the.ERto'. + Y tell us anything real about the concept. We have a few subdivisions that are in planning stages in the area -and are concemed about the densities. ; . � Thank you, . . ^ r ` �: : ` ' -. -. •- - t,j 4. Nicole x Nicole II'Laiiphrevs. P'I'i' 3 T F NorthScar Engineering 20 Declaration Drive Chico. CA 95973. (503) 893-1600 Est.21.6 ' ' ' �•.Y r" f •Fax (5' 0) 893 -2113 ` . , 4 . 4 ,uhung) rre' dcs-clrico:cont - 1 . .. - •k a +, 1 _ �, A.W � i '{.�'; Is - ' r•. r �. . r � it . • { r ' • ' .'/!V�l..'^-� l �'1��i �. as .. , { C r' r_ -1/22/01* : v IW, Countywide Polkles / Chapter 2 • maxlmmn iDemmm / Ipte=Nu Urea Additional Criteria loctionsRmwedw Otlror (people/ao= .dZone Open Prohibited Uses � Other Development (du/ac)�6 Am? Land' Conditions m° Boh A Runway Protection 0 10 Not Not All ► All stiuciiires except aero- ► Avigation easement dedica- Zone Appll- Appll- Remain- nautical facilities with Io- tion and cable cable ` Ing cation set by FAA criteria within Building ► Assemblages of people Restriction Line ► Objects exceeding FAR Part 77 height limits ► Aboveground bulk storage of hazardous materials ► Hazards'to pcL.ht9 81 ApproactVDepartum sO.1 25 50 Not 30% ► Children's schools, t0 day ► Locate struchires maxi - Zone (rrrti>imun Appy -care centers, libraries .: mum dist ne Dorn ex- xand and parcel size cable . • Hospitals, nursing homes tended runway centeft ' Sideline Zone 2:10.0 ► Highly noise -sensitive ► Minimum NLR of 25 dB In acres) uses (e.g. outdoor the- residences and buildings aters) with noise -sensitive uses 12 ► Aboveground bulk storage ► Airspace review required . of hazardous materials" for objects >35 feet tan 13 ► Hazards to flight" ► Avigation easement dedica- ton 82 Wended. s0.2 50 100 130 20% ► Children's schools; 0 day ► Minimum NLR of 20 dB in ApproactdDepartum (average care centers, libraries residences (including mo - Zone parcel size ► Hospitals, nursing homes bile homes) and buildings 25.0 acres) ► Highly noise -sensitive with noise -sensitive uses 12 uses (e.g. outdoor the- ► Airspace review required aters) for objects >70 feet tall ► Hazards to flight' ► Deed notice required C Traffic Pattern (1) 0.2 100 300 390 10% ► Children's schools,10 day ► Deed notice required (mirage care centers, libraries ► Airspace review required parcel size ► Hospitals, nursing homes for objects >100 feet tall 25.0 acres) ► Hazards to flight' or (2) 24.0 (average parcel size . s02 acres) D Other No No No Hazards to flight9 ► Airspace review required Airport Environs Limit Limit Req't for objects > 100 feet tall ' Height Review Same as Underlying Not Same as Underlying ► Airspace review required Compatibility Zone Appli- Compatibility Zone for objects >35 feet tall '2 .Overlay cable ► Avigationeasement dedica-' tion required " Table 2A • Primary Compatibility Criteria Butte County Alrport Land Use Compatibility Plan 2-14 • • Countywide Policies / Chapter 2 NOTES: 1 Residential development should not contain more than the indicated number of dwelling units (both primary and secondary) per gross acre. With clustering, some parcels may be much smaller than others as long as the maximum overall density criterion is not exceeded. Clustering of units is encouraged in Compatibility Zones 82 and C — see Policy 4.2.6 for limitations. 2 Usage calculations shall include all people who may be on the property (e.g., employees, customers/visitors, etc.) both indoors and outside. These criteria are intended as general planning guidelines to aid in determining the acceptability of proposed land uses. Additional guidance is provided by Appendix C. 3 Open land requirements are intended to be applied with respect to an entire zone. Community general plarts and/or implementing policies shall indicate how and where the requirements will be met. Application of open land require- ments to individual development proposals is at the discretion of the local jurisdiction and is dependent upon the size of the development (some Individual parcels may be too small to accommodate the minimum -size open area requirement) and whether the requirements can be made solely on public property. See supporting compatibility policies on safety (Policy 4.2.5) for definition of open land. 4 The uses fisted here are ones which are explicitly prohibited regardless of whether they meet the intensity criteria. In addition to these explicitly prohibited uses, other uses will normally not be permitted in the respective compatibility zones because they do not meet the usage intensity criteria. 5 Airport proximity and the potential for aircraft overflights should be disclosed as part of all real estate transactions In-' volving property within any of the airport influence area zones. Easement dedication and deed notice requirements. apply only to new development. 6 The total number of people permitted on a project site at any time, except rare special events, must not exceed the indicated usage intensity times the gross acreage of the site. Rare special events are ones (such as an air show at an airport) for which a facility is not designed and normally not used and for which extra safety precautions can be taken as appropriate. 7 Clustering of nonresidential development is permitted except in Zone A. However, no single acre of a project site shall exceed the indicated number of people per acre. See Policy 4.2.6 for details. 8, An intensity bonus may be allowed in Zones 82 and C it the building design Includes features intended to reduce risks to occupants in the event of an aircraft collision with the building. -See Policy 4.2.7 for details. 9 Hazards to flight include physical. (e.g., tall objects), visual, and electronic forms of interference with the safety of aircraft operations. Land use development. which may cause the. attraction of birds to increase is also prohibited. See the supporting compatibility policies on airspace protection (Policies 4.3.2 and 4.3.6) for details. - 10 For the purposes of these criteria, children's schools include through grade 12. 11 Storage of aviation fuel and other aviation -related flammable materials on an airport is exempted from this criterion. Storage of up to 2,000 gallons of nonaviation flammable materials is also exempted. 12 NLA = Noise Level Reduction; the outside -to -inside sound level attenuation which the structure provides. See the supporting compatibility policy on interior noise (Policy 4.1.5) for details. 13 Objects up to 35 feet in. height are permitted; however, the Federal Aviation Administration may require marking and lighting of certain objects. See supporting compatibility policy on height restrictions (Policy 4.3.2) for details. 14 Two options are presented for residential densities in Compatibility Zone C. Option (1) requires an average parcel size of at least 5.0 gross acres. Option (2) requires a density of at least 4.0 dwelling units per acre (an average parcel size no greater than 0.2 gross acres). In locations where only one of these options is considered acceptable, the compatibility maps in Chapter 3 show either a C(1 j or a C(2) symbol. In locations where either option is allowed, the map is marked with just the letter C. In the latter locations, the choice between the two options is at the discretion of the local land use jurisdiction. All other criteria for Zone C apply to both the C(1) and C(2) designations. This two -option criterion is based upon a determination that the intrusiveness of aircraft noise is the most significant compatibility factor in Zone C; safety is only a minor concern The concept is that noise concerns can be minimized either by limiting the number of dwellings in the affected area or by allowing high densities which tend to have comparatively high ambient noise levels. [Corrected 9126] . Source: Shutt Moen Associates (September 2000) Table 2A, Continued 2-15 ®09L5 easel • 09:5 aoj ataidlw-ai asn slagel ssaippV @A u3AV :12I Mr. Jim Bearquiver, President VISIONS Enterprises, Inc. �p 968 Maraglia St. . Redding, CA 96002 U. S. Dept. of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs 1824 Tribute Rd., Suite J Sacramento, CA 95815 U. S. Dept of Housing& Urban DevelAent. Office of Native American Programs, Southwestern Region 400 North 5`h Street, Suite 1650 Phoenix, AZ 85004 G v,., sae -314S paaj gloows Eltt6 COUIZt L A N D O F N A T U R A L W E A L T H A N D BEAUTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-33.97 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 January 24, 2001 Jim Bearquiver, CEO Visions (evoo-sehe) Enterprises Inc. 968 Maraglia Street Redding, CA 96002 Dear Mr. Bearquiver: On .behalf of the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission, I have reviewed the Draft Environmental Assessment prepared for the Enterprise Rancheria. The following comments pertain solely to the compatibility of the project with the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the Oroville Airport. �Z00 The proposed development by the Enterprise Rancheria is located within four different Compatibility Zones; these are A, B-1, B-2, and C (refer to attached map). Each of these zones has limitations on • residential densities and development intensities based on noise, safety, overflight, and proximity to airport facilities (refer to attached table). In referring to the table, you can see that no dwellings are allowed in Zone A. Zone B-1 limits residential density to one dwelling unit per 10 acres. Zone B-2 limits residential density to one dwelling unit per 5 acres. Zone C has a two-tiered density requirement of either one dwelling unit per 5 acres or > 4 dwelling units per acre. The proposed parcel layout in the draft environmental document is not compatible with any of the mentioned compatibility zones. In conclusion, the project cannot be found consistent with the ALUCP as proposed unless the local jurisdiction (Butte County) adopts override findings. To develop the subject project site with 43 dwelling units and maintain compatibility with the ALUCP, only one development scenario would work. This scenario could be achieved by clustering all proposed units within Zone C; the density must also be at least 4 dwelling units per acre. Thank you for the opportunity to review your project. Feel free to call me, or staff, should you need any additional information or have questions. You can reach meat (530)342-4300 or staff at 538- 6571. Sincerely yours, Norm Rosene, • ALUC Chairman cc: Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department Of Interior Office of Native American Programs, Southern Region, HUD r: January 18, 2001 Butte Co. Planning Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Commissioners, North aIle-- PilotsAsseiarin _— D JAN 2 20TO. B x 685 9592 BUTTE COU"' OM�ISSIOt1 AIRPORT LAND USE C The membership of the North Valley Pilots Association would like to commend the efforts of the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission on the recent adoption of the professionally developed Comprehensive Land -Use Plan (2000 CLUP). We recognize the extreme importance of the CLUP in protecting the future of Butte County airports, especially Chico Municipal Airport (CMA) and Oroville Airport. From an economic standpoint, CMA represents an irreplaceable, multimillion -dollar investment. It generates over 250 flight line jobs, 60,000 passenger annually, and over 3 million pounds of cargo per year. All of these jobs, commerce, and opportunities are at stake. Is the City of Chico willing to risk all these economic benefits made possible by the existence of CMA, in order to underwrite the profits for a few selected real estate developers? As airport users, we have seen how quickly an anti -airport neighborhood group can get restrictions, curfews and closures imposed on a facility. (eg. Santa Rosa, Monterey, Natomas, Hayward, Hawthorne, Fremont, San Jose, Torrance, etc.). Incompatible residential development simply should not be permitted near Chico Airport. The City of Chico has accepted $9,970,148.00 in FAA Grant money since 1982, and with receipt of each annual grant, the City has entered into binding Grant Assurance Agreements. The Grant Assurance Agreement basically states that the City will adhere to State guidelines for noise and safety requirements (the CLUP) or the City will have to pay back those funds and forfeit future airport grant funds. Furthermore, Page 8, Section 21 of the FAA Airport Assurance Clause states... "Compatible Land Use. It (the City) will take appropriate action to the extent reasonable, including adoption of zoning laws, to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations, including landing and taking off of aircraft." We are urging you to recognize not only the importance of the 2000 CLUP, but also the commitment the City has made to the FAA. We are asking you to amend the General Plan to incorporate the specifics of the 2000 CLUP in its entirety. It is time to make the right decision, and secure the economic future of Butte County and the region. Respectfully, �0' Rick Thompson, 345-7400 President, North Valley Pilots Association MF CEIVED BUTTE COUNT( PLANNING DI) OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA Page 1. of 1 Bernice Mandville . FM [�•., CE . 01 V E, nn From: Bernice Mandville <meeshiem@flash.net>•JAN 2 9 Ol lJPP i : To: Bemice'Mandville <meeshiem@flash.net> Sent: Wednesday, January 24; 2001 3:19 PM Subject: Regards to Rezoning BUTTE COUNTY s ` AIRPORT LAND USE COP-'MIS:ION Airport Land Use Planning Commission J Dear Sirs.. In regards to the airport rezoningsplan, we feel it is completely unfair: ` r We have lived on `Garner, Lane almost 50 - yrs. (47)and,have never, ' been bothered.by^airport `noise:Gsrner Lane is not in -'the holding . pattern of aircraft.• Our property has always -been -zoned; _1 house per acre. -WetJeel.that f we are being, discriminated against if it is.r'ezoned to 1,house per 5 acres. We havebeen farming this 50 acr=es in walnuts -and almonds for the ' past 25 years. It has now;. becoming impossible to.farm this small. r acreage; because of the 'rising costs 'of . Management, chemicals, fertilizers', and now the uncertainty of the- water's ituation 'and. power costs. Our only hope for the future into subdivide'our property into • a 1 acre lots and join all the existing homes on Garner Lane. We. are asking for your help in solving this problem::; Sincerely♦ yours; George, Bernice Mandville and Lee Fox (bro) ; 4. , 1 i �le Bernice MandviIle ' 13899 Gamer-Ln.Chico, CA- 95973-9284 *' • '� P PSI cr u Q � rL 25 inn 200 7 e -=''- . _ . _ ..jet(rrrirl!r!�tt!��rrr�r�t�s�Trrr��r!��Ir!�ce"iTrrrlr!arllra g RECEIVED e JAN .2 4 2001 COPIES OF THIS AGENDA PREPARED. 11-18-01 AVAILABLE FROM: BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION City Manager's Office OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA PO 1-24-01 411 Main Street Chico, California aI :5:'00 P.M. Telephone: (530) 895-4803 n �J i �Ot,� AGENDA BUTsslo AIp 10 T FA CITY OF CHICO AIRPORT COMMISSION Chico Municipal Center - - 421 Main Street - - City Council Chamber REGULAR MEETING -- TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 2001 -- 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. For each item not appearing on the posted agenda upon which the Commission wishes to take action, other than merely acknowledging receipt of correspondence or other information, it must make one of the following determinations: (1) .Determine by a two-thirds vote or by a. unanimous vote if less than two-thirds of the Board/Commission is present, that the need for action came to the attention of the City subsequent to the agenda being posted. • (2) 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. ROLL CALLAND INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMMISSIONER, MICHAEL MORAN. 2. ELECTION OF 2001 CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR AND DISCUSSION OF COMMITTEES. . The Commission will elect a Chair and Vice Chair for the 2001 calendar year. In addition,'the Commission may take this opportunity to discuss the various committees and the Commissioners on each. A list of the current committees has been provided to the Commission. 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 the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda for separate discussion prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt the Consent Agenda. If any items are removed from the Consent Agenda, the items will be considered at the beginning of the Regular Agenda. 3.1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- 11-28-00 The Commission has been provided with copies of minutes for its meeting held on 11-28-00. 3.2 RESOLUTION NO. 1-01: RESOLUTION OF AIRPORT COMMISSION OF CITY OF CHICO • EXPRESSING ITS APPRECIATION TO WENDY COGGINS FOR HER SERVICE AS AIRPORT COMMISSIONER FROM JUNE 1997 THROUGH DECEMBER 2000 Wendy Coggins' term as Airport Commissioner expired January 2001. The Commission has been provided with copies of Resolution No. 1-01: 3.3 DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF LETTER TO THE BOARD OF- SUPERVISORS REGARDING • AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING At its meeting on November 28; 2000 the Commission unanimously- approved a motion to send a letter to the Butte County Board of Supervisors indicating the Commission's desire to expand the runway to the north .of the Airport. A copy of a proposed letter to the Board of Supervisors has been distributed to the Commission for their review. 3.4 DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF DRAFT PROTOCOL WITH CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY At its meeting on November 28, 2000, Chair Lucas requested that this matter be placed on the . Airport Commission agenda as soon as an approved draft of the agreement is available. A copy of the agreement has been distributed to the Commission with the current agenda. 4. HEARINGS. None. 5. REGULAR AGENDA. 5.1. AIRPORT MANAGER UPDATES: The Airport Manager will provide the Commission with updates on the following topics. a.. Airport Land Use Commission meetings of December 20, 2000 and January 17, 2001. b. Update regarding the status of the Air Market Survey. • c. Update on CMA parking lot expansion. 6. 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 Appearing on Posted Agenda". 7. ADJOURNMENT: The Commission will adjourn to Tuesday, February 27; 2001 in the Conference Room of the Airport Terminal Building, • Distribution: Butte County Dev. Svcs, Tom Parilo Butte County Supervisor Dolan Commission - 5* Butte County Supervisor Houx News Media - 9 CDF Air Attack Base CM/AM/AA-Airport - 3" Chico'Chamber of Commerce, CEO City Clerk and. Council - 8 Fortress -Independence, Karl Hall City Attorney -'l* Hardesty & Sons, .Donald H. Brashears , ACA Barker/ACA Rock - 2 Herfi Aircraft, Retta Herfi DPW/ADPW-E/ADPW-O&M - 3* League of Wmn Voters, Catherine Monceau CDb/PI.Dir./CDA - 3* Mach 1, Paul-Farsai MA -ED Merit Medi -Trans; Inc.,, Stan Gungl Chief of Police - 1 Mooney Farms, Mary Mooney Finance Director - 1 North Valley Pilots Association Fire Chief/Station #3 - 2 Pacific Flight Services . . Airport FieldSupervisor Paradise Town Manager, Chuck Rough Public Review Binder- 1* Schooler Flying.Co., Harold Schooler Post Storre, Bob (BIA) ;File Team Chico, Bob Linscheid Extra - 6 Traffic Control Tower, Karl Klemm Transfer Flow, Inc.., Bill & Jeanne Gaines . A/C Industrial, Nick Buck Valley Contractors Exchange, Inc. Aero Union Corp., Vic Alvistur Allan, Ella Aris; Olympus Properties, Inc. •Anagnos, Beachfront Deli, Pam Wilson Bi -Tech Software, Kristi Bennett Brady's Moving and Storage;'Jeff Day Butte County Admin., John Blacklock s.' Page 1 of .1 : . %AJ • _ Bernice Mandville From: Bemice Mandville <meeshiem@flash.net> To: Bernice Mandville <meeshiem@flaih.net>• JAN 3.0 2001; sent: Wednesday, January 24; 2001.3:19 PM Subject: . Regards to Rezoning- r ~ +' - BUTTE,COUNTY U Planning} I. Airport Land Use • Commission AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION, _y Dear Sirs, 1. • ,, f, ; In" regards to'.the'airport-rezonin'g plan, .we feel itis completely unfair. . r• . •- We have lived on Garneria. rie almost 50yrs:(47)and-have never f been. bothered by airport noise.GarnerLane is-not in the holding .• I pattern, of aircraft. • - . _ Our property has always been zoned; 1 'house per°acre. •We-feel�that we are being discriminated _against if it is rezoned to .1 house. per 5 acres.:.. • T ,a. We have been farming ths'50 acres in walnuts and almonds for the r ; past 25 years: ;It has now becoming irripossible•to farm this small _ •k acreage, because,of the- risinq, costs of .' • . . r- -„ ° " w Management,chemicals',fertilizers,?nd -now the,uncert6inty:of the water situation and power costs. ` Our only hope for the -future. is to, subdivide_ our property into ' 1; acre lots and Joiri all the existing homes on Garner Lane. 'We are asking'for your help in solving this problem. • ° - h '-Sincerely,yours, 'George, Bernice 'Mandville and ,Lee Fox (bro) . 1 • ♦* M F , r _ '±A � a '~ Y ... ' , •i .�.x F x pit _ _. r gob, January 29, 2001 Norm Rosene, Chairman ALUC 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Mr. Rosen: u D EC,EOWE JAN 3 0 2001 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION This letter. will confirm our telephone, conversation on January. 24, 2001 regarding the Overflight Plan for Chico Municipal Airport. I do, not believe that the Cl zone for Garner Lane is appropriate. Butte County . zoned Garner Lane as one acre home sites a number of years ago. Approximately 70% of the property in this area has been put to, this .use. The Cl zone that the ALUC.. has proposed- will severely impact_ the future uses of my property, significantly decreasing its value. This decrease in value will cause me extreme financial hardship.. This property, is my, retirement fund. is I have lived on Garner Lane for 53 years. When the property in front of me was developed almost 35 years ago,..my husband and..I made the decision to hold on to our property in anticipation of future growth. That growth has occurred. More and more homes are built along.Garner Lane every year. . The proposed Cl zone does not conform to the -Butte County General Plan for Gamer Lane and needs to be reconsidered.. Property owners. must not be discriminated .against for the benefit of business and private. interests at the airport. I understand that the airport is an essential part of Chico's economy. I do not object to the airport. I object to the ALUC and Butte County adopting an Overflight Plan that infiinges, not-only.upon the -future use. of. my_property,.fiut. on the security of my future. Sincerely, Ozell Callahan 13728 Gamer Lane Chico, .CA_.9597.3 .. • cc: Assemblyman Sam Anestad • P Assembly District 196 Memorial Way Chico, CA 95926 Supervisor Mary Anne Houx 196 Memorial Way Chico, CA 95926 Supervisor Jane Dolan PO Box 3700 Chico, .CA . 95.926.... • • • 0 fu LAND ,quite Co OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY z s4 `�� PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 January 31', 2001 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 Tom Hays, Senior Planner Community Development Department/Planning ' City of Chico 411 Main Street P. O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 Subject:. City of Chico Analysis of Growth Areas Dear Mr. Hays: Thank you for allowing the County to comment on your endeavor to accommodate Chico's future growth. Yesterday, the Planning Division received your letter requesting the County to comment . on the referenced study by February 2, 2001. The County requests a time extension as indicated below. Attached to your letter was a map. depicting the proposed Expansion Areas. Since no further information and analysis were available, staff needs more time to be able to provide appropriate comments. For this purpose, it would be beneficial for the City and County staff to meet and discuss factors and issues pertaining to the subject study prior to making these comments. Based on the - breadth and depth of the issues involved, as well as the outcome of such a meeting(s), .County staff would be able to identify an appropriate and realistic time extension to be requested. I will call you this week to arrange for a meeting as soon as possible. Thank you again for this opportunity to comment on the Expansion Study Areas and we look forward to meeting with you and staff. Sincerely M. A. eleka Princip I Planner " E 1350 East Lassen Avenue, Suite 2 'Chico, California 95973-7858 530895-1512 February 1, 2001 M.A. Meleka BUTTE CO. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 25 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95966 RE: 2000 CLUP Dear Mr. Meleka: uvLt�n� 6 2001 U FAX 530 895-0844 ATTORNEYS.AT LAW ' After reviewing the minutes from the December, 2000 meeting of the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission, Peter Giampaoli believed that the illustration, on page 10 of the minutes did not`clearly define where the -Me meets the•end of East Lassen Avenue: Enclosed'please find a map prepared by Mr. Giampaoli's engineer and submitted by Mr. Giampaoli to clear up this issue. After your review and consideration, If you have any questions I suggest that you contact Mr. Giampaoli at 891-4757. Very truly yours, ROBERT D. HARP Enclosure RDH:lck cc: Peter G. Giampaoli R V. MARSHALL JOHN L. BURGHARDT ERNEST S. MIESKE ROBERT D. HARP Corporation.. _ . Law Corporation Law Corporation N CN 25 9s x� N 80 \ ry NI 0°>, o° ate. 4 61 �R. 83 + 79 / / 82 8178 s- \ / - - - - ----- - --� ► 141' - - 139' -N �- . \• _ F— _ AY // N / : ' 29 s' 73' E ABA DONED / / / 1 �1 //o o' 98' + 00 / 77 7 30 18 cl 610, 22 �� N o _ ° 76 35' 56' 43' �� N 47 N �� 1 R A M + Ro 12 7 0. E yi + 0 020— 9 �1 o. C"!/ �`' / �' .2 °c o �o .96 14 74 N 73 pp 9 46' 2' 66 O N ^ / u! a o ° 43 �' o0 0 6 �° ° 7Z / 34 Io / 8 -o O 2 _ o 72 A) 42 / tee, 0 10 0. 6o N ti 35 12 �� N o 71 6 + / 44 � J o_ �� 6 070 6p , ` g X69 60 161 } ,� rn 6 � _ OR ST M WATER / O / �;, 11 g5 °o. R �A ME T / C,v / 1 57 aP3' �' 60 0 / • $ T / �+ / 112' 2 crus / 777°°°"' /. rn 40 ro `n 45 cs' Q �° 60 2 4 38 I 11 b6 3� V 61 / 0 37 � / �� 62 �c LU 9' �9 10 46 4 90' 61 �' 39 ° .,.E co \i S 932 1 — �-- — r I. 54' 6 3 4. 5 6co 1 / 100'. as' 110' 1 I 1 58'D cv -, _. ,! 5 131, I 65 65' p 6� ,, 1 7 15 54 0 ,o ss' s 64' s2' 6 61' 54'��,� 5 �. 6 1 l / J so' �ol 2 a 51 0 0 1 0_ e I LO 1 E 58' N 50 0 49 47 0 2 PVC 8 �09 19 s 781.75 6565'' 65' .' „ . I--. 6 W I ER 65 66'69' 69 69' cam,'. 14 F HIL P !I I E N . n UNIT 0. P C SE x + B I_ _ PH E N E TO i- w + _ Css ss_SEWER_ S VIC`t 19 16 ✓�_ t N 14 13 1 .JI 12 ' (r I 36 ��- FOOT I ARK %P W a .UNI ti 9 ~37�� FOOTHILL PARK FOOTHILL PARK�,� UNIT N0. 7 �U� UNIT N0. 7 �c.�� PHASE 4 PHASE 3 �, o :L.38 16'10" t R957 00,1 ,639 21 ; r nq-i& 7- 0 • ILI D EC EOVE FEB6 2001 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION i f � • 1 ,e � ram =' • • r cal f;% ~I� <l�h i Y .! .y � �'y �l��ji2•�� •t •ter ;ti: (•; �. �a i P✓ "i � �,, ka C t } } i f � • 1 ,e � ram =' • • 710 cal f;% i f � • 1 ,e � ram =' • • E C E 0 W E - FEB 6 2001 MARS L, B GHARDT, , LLP AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION j 1350 East Lassen Avenue, Suite 2 Chico, California 95973-7858 530 895-1512 FAX 530 895-0844. ATTORNEYS AT LAW + February 1, 2001 cewivt,r s slot CrIA (Err�taf� M.A. Meleka�- BUTTE CO. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 25 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95966 RE: Appointment of Alternate Commissioner Dear Mr. Meleka: This letter is to follow up and confirm my conversation with Susan in your office regarding my appointment of Henry Roberson as my alternate commissioner on the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission. Mr. Roberson's address is c/o Air Carriage, P'.O. Box 3099, Chico, California 95927, Phone No. (530) 898-8616. If you have any questions or need any further information, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, t ROBERT D. HARP RDH:Ick cc: Henry Roberson . t ER V. MARSHALL JOHN L. BURGHARDT ERNEST S. MIESKE ROBERT D. HARP '11..w Corporation Law Corporation Law Corporation 02/08/2001 THU 12:26 FAX 530 895 4726 CITY OF CHICO-BUILDING r' ji • CITYorCHICO int. ie>z COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEN'r PLANNING 411 Main Street Y.O. Box 3420 Chico. CA 95927 (530) 095-4851 FAX (630) 896-4120 ATSS 459-4851 Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 7 County. Center Drive Oroville, California 95965 February 8, 2000 Re: 2000 Airport Land -Use Compatibility Plan . Dear Commissioners: 0002/003 FEB 8 2001 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION City Manager Tom Lando has asked me 3o request a joint meeting of the Airport Land. Use Commission and the City Council on Tuesday, February 20, at 7:30pm. The purpose: of the meeting is to provide an opportunity for the Council to ask questions and discuss directly with the ALUC aspects of the 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan that affect the City. Your desire,. expressed publicly and often, to work closely with .affected jurisdictions in this process has been noted and, is very much appreciated.. There are still a few significant issues that remain unresolved, 'and while I recognize that a mutually satisfactory resolution of each may not be possible, this meeting will at least afford ALUC and the Council a chance to explore each other's views and enhance an overall :understanding of the compelling issues that each face. The Council's major remaining concerns about the Compatibility Plan are the following, as expressed in the letter to you from Tom Lando dated November 15, 2000: 1. The C1 compatibility zoning of property north of Eaton Road. 2. The B2 compatibility zoning of a large portion of Bidwell Ranch. 3. The extension of 132 compatibility zoning to a ,boundary 500 feet south of Sycamore Creek, rather than along the creek itself.' The City is also still concerned about the adequacy of the negative declaration adopted for the Compatibility Plan. Discussion of each of these topics can be expected, as well as any others that may be raised by the ALUC. I do hope that you and your staff will be able to attend and participate in this meeting. Because•of the limited time remaining before February 20, please let me know as soon as possible. � c1 Moac Pr m Wvydod Peer "GT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Via, M� days DEPARTMENT PLANNING �Nl' /411 Main Street CHICO p.0. Box 3420 Chico. CA 95927 (530) 895-4851 FAX (530) 895-4726 ATSS 459-4851 February 8, 2001 Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965 Re: 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Dear Commissioners: VE FEB 12 2001 AIRPORrSUTTE coJJ LANA USE COMMIS S ION FEB 1'2 2001 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION OROVUE, CALIFORNIA City Manager Tom Lando has askedame to request a joint meeting of the Airport Land Use Commission and the .City Council on Tuesday, February 20, at 7:30pm. The purpose of the meeting isto provide an opportunity' for'the Council .to ask questions and discuss directly with the ALUC aspects of the 2000 Airport•�Land Use Compatibility -Plan that affect • the City: ­''Your desire; 'expressed publicly •and often, to work closely with`6ffected jurisdictions in this process has been noted and is very much appreciated. There are still a. few significant issues that remain unresolved, and while I recognize that a mutually satisfactory resolution of each may not be possible, this meeting will at least afford ALUC and the Council a chance Jo explore each other's views and enhance an overall understanding of the compelling issues. that each face. The Council's major remaining concerns about the Compatibility Plan are the following, as expressed in the letter to you from Tom Lando dated November 15, 2000: 1. The C1 compatibility zoning of property north of Eaton Road. 2. The B2 compatibility zoning of a large portion of Bidwell Ranch. 3. The extension of B2 compatibility zoning to a boundary 500 feet south of Sycamore Creek, rather than along the creek itself. The City.is also still concerned about the adequacy of the negative declaration adopted for the Compatibility Plan. Discussion of each 'of these topics can be expected, as well as any others that" may be raised by'the ALUC.` •I'do hope that you and your,staff will be able to*attend'and participate in this meeting. Because of the limited time remaining before February'20,"please let me • know as soon as possible: g�� Made From Recycled Paper b Letter to Airport Land Use Commission February 8, 2001 Page.2 I would be pleased to assist you in making any arrangements you find necessary for this meeting. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Respectfully, •, Kim Seidler -''Planning Director cc: City Council CM, ACM, CA, ACA, AM, CDD , • r y� LU C Z U e 21, 2001 A.L.U.C. L BTTE COUNT" Dear Mr. Chairman and A.L.U.C. Board Membe AIRPORT_ I am here today to�protest the A.L.U.C. over -flight plan for the Chico Municipal . Airport - specifically the plan for Garner Lane area. The Board of Supervisors zoned this area as one acre, residential years ago and a majority (over 70%) of Garner Lane has been developed as such. It would be discriminatory and unfair to the remaining property owners to deny them the. same right Garner is not in the flight plan of the commercial, borate bomber planes, "touch and go" flights, or the Chico Air Show. It is not fair to penalize the few undeveloped properties along Garner Lane for other airport business or private small planes. To restrict Garner Lane to the west of the airport with a C-1 zoning when the • A.L.U.C. assigned a large acreage just to the east of the airporta C zone just does not make sense! I am requesting that you amend the over -flight plan to return the Garner Lane strip back to a£ zone. Thanks for your correcting this matter. ..Sincerely, . lac Ozell Callahan 13728 Garner Lane Chico, CA 95973 cc: Butte County Board of Supervisors January 29, 2001 Norm Rosene, Chairman ALUC 7 County Center Drive - Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Mr. Rosen: This letter will confirm our telephone conversation on January. 24, 2001 regarding the Overflight Plan for Chico Municipal Airport. I do_not believe that the. C1: zone for Garner Lane is appropriate. . Butte County. zoned , Garner Lane as one acre home sites a number of years ago. Approximately 70% of theproperty in this area has been put to this use. The C1 zone that the ALUC has proposed will severely impact. the future uses of 'my property; significantly decreasing its value..'This decrease in value will cause me extreme financial hardship. This property is my retirement fund. • I have lived on Garner Lane for 53 years. - When: the property in front of me was developed almost 35years ago,..my husband and..I made the decision to hold on to our property in anticipation of future growth..: That . growth has ' occurred. More and more homes are built along. Garner Lane every year. The proposed C1 zone does not conform to the Butte County General Plan for Garner Lane and needs to be reconsidered. Property owners must not be discriminated against for the benefit of business and private interests at the airport. I understand that the airport is an essential part of Chico's -economy. I do not object to the airport. I object to the ALUC and Butte County adopting an, Overflight Plan that infringes, not.only.upon the future use of my..property,..but. on the security of my future. Sincerely, Ozell Callahan 13728 Garner Lane Chico, .CA. 9597x.. i - Page 1 of 2 D EC COVE Bemice Mandville 7 1 001 From: Bernice Mandville <meeshiem@netzero.net> BUTTE COUNTY To: Bernice L.Mandville <meeshiem@netzero.net> [AIRPORT LAAOUSE COMMISSION Sent: Friday, February 16,2001 4:12 PM---- Subject: Airport Land Planning CommissioneS� AIRPORT LAND PLANNING COMMISSIONS Z Ae-0 C_ VL Sirs.... by I am married to a man that has spent his whole life Sleeping, Dreaming, Breathing, nothing but Airplanes and flying. Not long after we were married he bought a 2 place T Craft airplane which he flew for a long time. At 18, 1 was instructed to. keep my hands on the controls, my foot on the brake, while he stood outside, turning the propeller by hand. This was the only way to start the engine. When he moved the shocks in front of the wheels I was frightened that it might take off with me in it. We flew in this all over the valley. We took several trips to Montana in it. We went pretty fast if we had a tail wind but if we had a head wind I swear the cars went faster. Later, when we flew in a 172 Cessna [thought I had died and gone to heaven. We kept our plane at the Chico Airport for years. Our son Bruce, followed in his fathers footsteps. His career has always been flying. He was an Instructor in Chico and taught many Chicoans to fly. He is now a corporate pilot for a large company. Flying around Chico , George says he never used Garner Lane in his flight pattern. He used: Hicks Lane as his down wind leg. Larger planes go around Garner lane. The only planes we see overhead is Crop dusters. We have lived on Garner Lane nearly 50 years, which we farm with my brother, Lee Fox. It is planted in walnuts and almonds. We hired a manager to take care of the orchards. We pay all the water bills. We are afraid the P G &E bills will make it impossible to keep farming. We have together almost 50 acres. Not many years ago we were assessed 146.00 per acre. This was added to our County taxes. This was a plan that stated that our property was zoned 1 house per acre. We feel it should stay this way. Garner Lane is now almost solid houses. In time we want to be able • to sub -divide our land into 1 house per acre lots. It is zoned this way now and we want to be sure that it stays this way. L/ 1 // V 1