Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutALUC_MAY_2001i AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION CORRESPONDENCE — April 19 — May 9•, 2001 Date Received/ Sent Incoming To Outgoing To From Subject 4/19/01 ALUC Stephen Irwin FAX//Article: Sonoma County ALUC/ develo ment issues 5/2/01 M. A. Meleka t Robert Hennigan Copy of letter sent to the Board of Supervisors re: Overriding Findings, Pheasant Landing Unit III Subdivision 5/9/01. M. A. Meleka .. ALUC Chair & Commission North Chico Specific Plan report To: "Butte County HLUC \ @ 530-538=77 From: Stephen Irwin (707)598-8478 r: • Via eFax.com Pg 1/ 2 04718-01 02:18 PM ti rt ' r i http://califohliaaviation.org ' RECEIV ED APR 1 9 2001 Wednesday, April 18, 2001 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION 2 airport land -Use officials ousted OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA �'�y� Board of Supervisors replace commissioners who sought tight limits on development` " By TOM CHORNEAU �� V1' THE SANTA ROSA (CA) PRESS DEMOCRAT I SONOMA COUNTY, CALIF. In a rare display .of political muscle, Sonoma 1 County supervisors Tuesday removed ,two members of a land -use advisory ' commission who sought to impose tight building restrictions around local airports. Lee Dysart, chairman of the county's Airport Land Use Commission, and commissioner Peggy Rohde were replaced on a�unanimous vote of the board. Supervisors appointed two new members, Windsor developer Michael Sass and Santa Rosa attorney William Mailliard. Supervisors said the move was necessary to head off costly litigation that already has been provoked by the commission's efforts to curb growth around airports, especially -the Charles M.. Schulz-Sonoma.County Airport, north of Santa Rosa. Dysart, a longtime Windsor activist and real-estate agent, said the board's action was politically motivated to satisfy airport development interests. "This is a case where the supervisors are allowing the bottomline to come before anything else, especially the safety of people living around the airport," he 'said. Not so, said Supervisor Paul Kelley, whose district includes the county airport. He said the airport commission led by Dysart had overstepped its authority and put county taxpayers at risk. "What this commission is looking at doing is imposing safety restrictions that exceed guidelines set by the state," Kelley said.., "If we were to allow them to do that, it could expose the county to lawsuits. ' Supervisor Mike Cale was even'more blunt. "To say that they are more concerned with safety than we are is malicious, he said. "These guys have been operating"in-complete autonomy of,the board, but they.have no authority to do so. The dispute between the board and the commission has been brewing for more than a year. At the center is a growth -management plan that would drastically cut the development allowed around airports countywide: While -there are many points of disagreement between the supervisors and the commission, County Counsel Steven/Woodside said the panel is largely an advisory body to the' supervisors. He said that while state law requires the panel to adopt a growth•management plan that governs development surrounding airports, the plan cannot supersede general Pagel of 2 " A , To: 'Butte County RLUC @ 530-538-77 From: Stephen Irwin (707)598-0478 Via eFax.com Pg 2/ 2 04-18-01 02:20 PM 1 http://califoiniaaviation.org • 1 plan provisions set by a city council or the county Board of �4 Supervisors. - s f Dysart said he believes,the commission's plan is binding on the county and cannot be changed by the supervisors.'He•conceded, however, that with two new members'joining the airport panel, there is a strong likelihood that the growth plan will be altered to satisfy the supervisors. , Airport Business Center,, operated by partners Larry Wassem and Richard Combs, owns'more than 400 acres around the Sonoma County Airport and has filed two lawsuits_ challenging the commission's plan to'limit ` growth. ' The businessmen.contend•that-the commission violated the state's open meeting laws when it passed the plan and that.it.adopted the plan without completing proper environmental studies. w "Dysart pointed out that the Board of Supervisors last year denied the commission's request for funds to prepare an environmental impact report. But both Kelley'and Cale defended the board's action. They pointed to the county counsel's opinion and argued that the commission has no real authority to impose growth controls around airports. While the supervisors hope -.the removal of Dysart and Rohde will resolve the issue, both Milliard and Sass said they'll come to the commission with an open mind about the land -use issue. Both said they have had no ; conversations with any of the supervisors about the dispute and have made no promises about how they will act once'on board. • "It is possible that I could find myself in support of the growth , plan," Sass said. "At this point I don't know enough about it one way a - or the other to express an opinion." .. t 1 { .. i t • Page 2 of 2 April 26, 2001 Butte County Board of Supervisors 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Re: Overriding Findings, Pheasant Landing Unit III Subdivision Dear Honorable Supervisors: ��o ► ►t,(tsc. ALU C, In the draft report of findings, your staff repeats a claim first made by the developer's attorney, George Kammerer, that ALUC's decision to ignore noise contours developed by Mike McClintock in the 1995 FAR Part 150 Study was "quite significant and appear(ed) extremely arbitrary' Mr. Kammerer seems to have little, if any, aviation expertise; which may be why he is unable to understand ALUC's actions.. On two separate occasions, motions were made to have ALUC adopt the 1995 FAR Part 150 Study. At the first meeting, the vote was 1-6 against. Even the commissioner who had seconded the motion, voted against adoption. The second time the motion was made, it died for lack of a second. ALUC did not merely "ignore" Mr. McClintock's study, but twice rejected it very decisively!' They had often discussed the significant errors in, and related to, this study and had serious. doubts about the author's competence and/or. integrity. The significant errors of fact in the 1995 FAR Part 150 Study and other documents being used to iustify an override of ALUC will result in great harm to the longterm interests of Butte County citizens, both those who live in the foothills as well as those who will live near the , airport. These flaws include, but are not limited to: (a) Inaccurate mapping of Federal Airspace. (14 CFR Part 77 Surfaces -Exhibit A) No qualified aviation consultant could fail to know the dimensions and locations of Federal Airspace around a public use airport.. Established by. the FAA, in no way are they subject to local reconfiguration. Yet, Mr. McClintock's map omits the instrument approach and transition surfaces that extend off the south end of the runway. This omission would make it appear that the impact of aircraft overflight on land use exists only to the north. ALUC questioned how anyone knowledgeable about the Federal airspace regulations could fail to map them completely and accurately. If the consultant was competent, then this omission was extremely careless. Especially troublesome was that planning staff and planning commissions unfamiliar with 14 CFR Part 77 and relying on this document would be unlikely to spot the omission of relevant data from the maps. (b) Missing Airtanker Departure Noise Footprint. (Exhibit B) As a succession of Chico City. Councils responded to complaints about the noise of the airtankers, a series of municipal directives gradually created.two separate departure paths to the south off the main runway. There is an undeniably distinct track on the map adopted by ALUC turning to the southeast depicted ori the 1978 noise map that follows the VFR (Visual Flight Rules) noise abatement departure procedure established for the airtankers. This track is also clearly identified on the map drawn by Capt. Iverson at the Chico Air Attack Base. Merlintnrk n .view gine PAar 1 of S nape MAY 2 2001 BUTTE COUNTY PUNNING DIVISION OROVI! LE, CALIFORNIA: r� Mr. McClintock attempted to explain the absence of that track on his maps by maintaining that certain noisy aircraft had been replaced by quieter craft that were no longer using CMA. The. aircraft identified in his letter to the Supervisors (November 25, 1998) were Boeing B 727-100s and DC -9s. But, these are commercial aircraft that have never been converted for use as airtankers. The only way Mr. McClintock's self -justifications could possible be true is if commercial airlines departing from Chico were willing to risk losing their FAA certificates (and pilots risk losing their licenses) by making dangerously steep turns at low altitude, flying planeloads of paying passengers toward rising terrain to the east and abandoning FAA mandated IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) departure tracks and following the. VFR path. Your staff, being unfamiliar with CFR enforcement, failed to understand that Mr. McClintock's assertion is absolute nonsense. ALUC Commissioners questioned why any knowledgeable aviation consultant would confuse a VFR special noise abatement flight track with the IFR flight tracks mandated for commercial operations. (c) Flawed Data Collection. (Exhibit C) Comparison of the "Field.Noise Monitoring" done by Mr. McClintock with CDF flight logs for the same dates show disturbing gaps in his data. Chico City Manager/Airport Manager Tom Lando repeatedly stated that it was the intention of the City to protect the continued presence of the.airtankers at CMA, yet it is ironic that Mr. McClintock produced data in which absolutely no airtankers are represented. Official CDF station logs for the dates monitored by Mr. McClintock show a great deal of tanker activity. On his first day of data collection, Mr. McClintock chose to record only 17 minutes of flight activity for the whole day. It seems unlikely that 17 minutes out of 24 hours constitutes a meaningful sample. Furthermore, his data logs show that he did not include the CDF departure that had occurred during those 17 minutes. As a matter of fact, both of the flights recorded by CDF during the time periods of Mr. McClintock's survey were omitted from his published data. • Copies of the CDF flight logs, Mr. Me Clintock's source data sheets and a chart comparing the data were submitted to be included as part of the public record for the Supervisors public hearing of December 1, 1998 and so, will be available to staff in those files. ALUC Commissioners questioned how a noise study that omitted the noisiest aircraft at CMA promoted the City's stated purpose of protecting the existence of the airtanker base. Even though Chico had paid more than $124,000. to Mr. McClintock in 1994-95 (City Finance records), they contracted for a new noise study only three years later to be used in developing the Master Plan, in part, because of this significant flaw in data collection. (d) Creation of a "solution" that did not address the "problem" as identified by the consultant himself (Exhibit D). While his map (fig III -1) shows noise contours extending out from the ends of the runway, Mr. McClintock's solution to reducing the impact of that flight activity resulted in a rectangle that extended only as far as the clear zone. He ignored the fact that the 60 CNEL contour extended beyond the restrictions he himself recommended. The Commission questioned why a consultant would advocate such a short, fat solution to what he had already documented as a long, skinny problem? (e) Lack of integrity, lying to a Federal Agency (Exhibit E). Repeated claims had been made in public hearings and at ALUC meetings. that the FAA had "approved" Mr. McClintock's Study. Several ALUC Commissioners questioned this assertion and inquiries were made to the FAA field office in Burlingame. An FAA representative stated that the agency gave approval based, in part, on the fact that it had been "adopted by ALUC", which, of course, had never happened. How did the FAA get this impression that ALUC had adopted the study? • MrtCainttudr review tine. Pave. 7 of 5 naves Nine months after Chico had adopted the study, Mr. McClintock produced a revised Chapter III . and sent it to the City Manager/Airport Manager to be mailed to the FAA. This revised Chapter III now states. that ALUC has adopted the study. It is particularly disturbing that this revised chapter was not presented at a noticed public hearing, only a few copies exist, and the most crucial one was in the FAA's files where it was unlikely to be seen by ALUC. The Butte County ALUC has been described as one of the most knowledgeable in California in regards to aviation expertise and airport land use planning. Commissioners and alternates have thousands of hours as PIC of every type of aircraft (helicopters, torpedo bombers, fire -bombers, crop dusters, 747's). They have run FBO's, managed airports, managed major aircraft maintenance facilities employing thousands, built aircraft, had their work displayed in "Air and Space", and flown under FAR Parts 91, 135, 137 and 121. The Commission's decision to reject the McClintock FAR Part 150 Noise Study was neither "arbitrary", nor "uninformed". The flaws of the McClintock study had been fully discussed at ALUC many times over the years since it's adoption by the Chico City Airport Commission in 1994, as well as during the October 21, 1998 ALUC meeting. The information in this letter has been included as part of the public record for the adoption of the 2000 CLUP and much of it was also presented at the Supervisor's public hearing of December 1998 about the Stephens project. Other inaccuracies in the staff report, probably more reflective of staff s unfamiliarity with aviation rather than any.wish to mislead the Supervisors or the public: • (f) Irrelevant discussion of aircraft predictions'. Several pages of the staff report are devoted to the perceived inaccuracy of the predictions. in the noise study used by ALUC. This is totally irrelevant for the discussion of airtankers as the estimates of future aircraft activity relate only to general aviation and commercial operations. There has been no attempt to predict future levels of airtanker operations by McClintock, by Brown-Buntin, or even by CDF. Fire -fighting operations can only be characterized as continuing in response to the number and severity of the fire season. Also, the tanker fleet has not changed much, many of the aircraft that are based at the airport now were the exact same aircraft based there when the 1978 study was done. (g) Reliance on the override adopted for the North Chico Specific Plan (Exhibit F) We have all learned a great deal since that override and I am grateful that your staff has opened that document for discussion. Steve Honeycutt was totally unqualified to make aviation related findings which is best displayed in his map purporting to show that the proposed school site in the village core was more than three miles from the airport! The ridiculousness of this measurement (following the down wind; cross and final approach tracks) can be understood if the tower orders an extended downwind. Measuring as Mr. Honeycutt measured, it is possible to move the school site entirely out of Butte County. This absurd claim (made in writing to Caltrans and the State Department of Education) entirely ignores the direct distance from the runway and the relationship of accident potential to the actual location. There are very harmful implications for the public welfare if the Supervisors adopt Mike McClintock's 1995 FAR 150 Noise Study, which will be a direction to the Department of Development Services to use it as a basis for planning around the airport, • 1) Use of small noise contours allows residences near the runways. (Exhibit G) is a graphic showing the enormous difference between a 55 dB noise contours that omits airtankers and one Mrrlintnrk rrvirw ring Paar I of i marc that includes them. It is easy to understand why developers prefer that the smallest possible contour be used for planning: It involves fewer restrictions on their projects. isBut that smallest contour can only be true if there are no airtankers operating out of CMA. The shaded portion of exhibit F shows the area that will be filled with people who will be severely affected by the operation of airtankers: For Butte County to plan around the airport as if the airtankers don't exist when so many people and their homes are vulnerable to fire and dependent on fast response times. is irresponsible. 2) Inaccurate depiction of airtanker operation as "single events" The developer's attorney attempts to claim that CDF-USFS operations are "single events". Which is untrue. Only 13 of California's 260 airports have fire -fighting bases: too small a number for the State ALUC Handbook to address. But that does not mean that the very. real effects of the largest, noisiest aircraft at CMA must be ignored by ALUC. One loud motorcycle passing your home is a "single event". Four -hundred -ninety-six (496) motorcycles roaring past: one every 5 minutes, 10 hours/day for 4..1/2. days in a row, (Sept 18- 22, 1994) is not! It is ridiculous to pretend that it is. Here (Exhibit G) is a 3 -page disclosure document about fire -fighting aircraft operations based on historical data from CDF files. Exhibit G. -Figure 4 lists the dates and number of operations for several representative campaign fires. 3) Airtankeis operations extend over most of the year (Exhibit H --Figure 1) shows the first and last day of fire season for a ten-year period from 1989 to 1999. Fire Season has historically lasted between 5-7 months. The earliest start date recorded at Chico was April 11, 1988 and the latest fire season has lasted to date was December 13, 1959. Airtanker pilot training flights occur in • the two months before fire season in the spring. Firefighting aircraft repairs most often occur at night with required engine testing and run -ups occurring very.late and in the early morning hours. This is because the aircraft will be required to fight fires during the day and the operators are subject to fines or costs of replacement aircraft if their airplanes are unable to report for duty. From the information on this timetable it is obvious that residences near the airport will be subject to uncomfortable amounts of airtanker sounds at any time for most of the year. 4) Urinredictability of fire season severity. (Exhibit H --Figure 2) shows that the severity of any single fire season is unpredictable and that even though an average can be calculated, only one yearin the ten that have been measured comes near that average. Exhibit G (Figure 3) shows the irregularity of daily operations during a single fire season. What is known is that there will funs in the foothills; that thousands are vulnerable, and that CDF will continue to respond to the best of their ability. 5) Airtanker Safety Exhibit H also contains information about airtanker safety, which is not addressed by the accident scatters done by the U.C. Berkeley,. Institute of Transportation Studies Accident Study. Their data involves legally maintained aircraft, currently certificated for operation in U.S. Airspace by the FAA from records on file with the Nation Transportation Safety Board.. Airtankers are a special category aircraft exempted from many of the FAA regulations because they, are doing a job considered to be of vital importance. ALUC hasnot lost sight of the fact that many of these aircraft are over 50 year bid. While the North American airtanker fleet is too small to generate any meaningful statistics about accident probabilities, there is an indication in the Airtanker Pilots Memorial List of where such accidents occur. Of • the 42 accidents resulting in fatalities where there is some description of location, 26% occurred on take -off or in the landing pattern on return to the airport. Verlintnrlr inview dnr Nap 4 of S naaPa • In spite of all of this noise and safety information, the County wants to allow development of residential close to the runway. The County is. setting up rows of dominos that will eventually fall. And the result will be that outraged or frightened homeowners demand that the CDF lease be canceled. It is a myth that people will not complain about airtankers because they are engaged in saving lives and property. Enloe Flight Care is a similarly virtuous. aircraft where fast direct transportation to a hospital can make the difference between life and death for the victim, yet. Chico citizens who live near the hospital demanded that the helicopter's permit limit the number of flights during a single month. This means that if you have a heart attack or serious accident at Bevy Creek requiring immediate treatment, but it is near the end of the month, it is problematical whether you will receive the fastest transportation to the hospital. Those hospital neighbors werewilling to risk someone else's life, rather than have their peace and quiet repeatedly disturbed. They travel to the hospital in an ambulance: the helicopter will never transport them. However, they live subjected to the noise of the helicopter moving all the other patients. Enloe is not the only hospital in the nation where this has occurred. In exactly the same way, homeowners near the airport will probably never be threatened by a' wild land fire, but will definitely be subjected to all the noise and overflight of CDF-USES operations. They will react to. intrusive noise the,same way The Supervisors also know that many of these. current (and future) County residents near the airportwill someday be annexed into- the City. After they have discovered what really happens at.the airport during a campaign fire, or after there has been an accident that frightens them, they will elect to the council whoever promises to cancel the CDF lease. County residents .living with the danger of wild land fire count on the Supervisors to defend their interests. The three Supervisors whose districts have foothill constituents (who can never vote in City elections), have a moral duty to protect the airport from concentrations .of noise and safety sensitive people. The best way to do that is to support the ALUC Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Thank you for your attention to this matter, Sincere , Bob Hennigan, Past Chairman . Butte County Land Use Commission PC: Mr. Bruce Alpert, Butte County Counsel Mr. Robert Grierson, Manager, Chico Municipal Airport Mr. Jay White, California Pilots Association Butte County ALUC • Mr. Larry Thelen, Attorney Mcrlintnrir review deu-. PROP.5 of 5 naoPc _ Two maps of the Federal Airspace around CMA. Map A is from the CMA Environs Plan done by Dixon Speas in 1978. The entire colored Wrtion (both yellow and orange) shows the actual area of the Federal Air Regulations Part.77 Airspace, indicating Approach, Transitional and Conical Surfaces.. The orange area is that part of the Federal Airspace omitted by Mr. McClintock in Map B which is labeled "FAR PART 77 SURFACES" from the P&D Aviation Noise Study. . . Map.A +' f 6 _ -+L p•.� .� ��' . AIRP01R ENVIiSONS PIAN APPIIOACH AND CLEAR ZONE PIAN uc-� AMPOPT 20-.1 COPACAL SURFACE Map B r HORIZONTAL. 3UR ACE ELEV..308' IASL CHICO MUNICIPt AIRPORT aJrSt From the footnote on his map we learn that Mr. McClintock does appear to know about, and understand,Transition and Approach surfaces. So, why did he chose to not depicted them in . Otheir' entirety? EXHIBIT A A graphic depicting, the difference between the basic Mcto maps created by the 1978 Dixon -Spens Noise Study and the 1992 Clintock-Becker Noise Study The shaded area on this map shows the difference in area between the basic data used �k`` for both Noise Studies r r Contour of 1978 Study adopted by ALUC Contour of 1992 Study adopted by BOS Arrows depict Airtanker VFR (Visual Flight Rules) departure to the south N L �.r Dots depict iFR (Instrument Flight Rules) track used by ',`- • commercial aircraft as required ' by FAA- Eaton Road 1 East Ave, question: how could quieter aircraft flying along the "dots" have the effect on the loise created -by the � flying along the "arrows" as claimed by Mr. _A tock? How is it possible that Chico's Consultant didn't know that the FAA ff MO ever allow a commercial pilot to make a dangerous low level turn on take -o A load of passengers toward rising terrain? EXHIBIT B by Mr. McClintock with official CIF �• �--- station logs for the same dates. THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY 11.04161•.-_�te-0clat . te•oa-9t f .v.m•..t� 45 St C2 O4 )15 ,27 )31 145 Ii, M ,.02 :.37 z10 2.10 221 2'Z4 z.:: 7:43 " 2:51 • -. 3.00 3.10 !3:12 - _.. ,.... '316 .._ .. .. 3:,6 b,•::�z,r.... 325 329 3:13 3:3G 341 •3:41 .5 G 1 j 144. • 1420 1426 � i 14:26 14:30 i 14:4] 14:44 14.51 1453 14•SS 14.56 ,4.56 15101 :5-11 15.10 a 29 15.1+ 1534 1515 =1 ' :5-4< 1546 :556 :5 56 .G 19 IG21 U22 r1.36 'G:40 G:x .G45 6.46 :6,54 ic.56 66 .:21 7.30 1.36 1:37 1.56 1:0: a 0z• . This graphic shows that fire fighting aircraft were not included in the .McClintock data, thus creating smaller noise contours than if the airtanker had been included and removing the State mandated requirements for sound attenuation and land use restrictions from properties around the airport, . especially to the south. Note: on first day of recording the consultant logged- only 17 minutes. If the consultant had been interested in measurement which included the airtankers, the CDF Station Logs shove no lack of airtanker activity. There were even two CDF aircraft operating. during the time Mr. McClintock purported to have been monitoring that did not get reported by nim. McClintock. `Becker Noise Shlay�(i9921 C:DF Flight Log for Oct. 17-20,1991 rC�1V1'ICI� d ule 111U1111n1'vd '4:11 l•116111. L ---------- ,•r• AA -210 =Air Attack hAn engine Cessna Tanker 14 = C54E " Tanker 25 = P3.A Tanker 64 = C130A Tanker 72 = S2I. Tanker 90 = S2i' Tanker 00 = P3A 07kq 1 1, %//!J i /tLil/ ' ;,.... � .?= . � � .. �..� � • is l ' ,. � r/i ..t 1. ,:... A CHICO MUNICIPAL .. ;.�L. AIRPORT AMOART RT NOSE 1 COb1PA71B1UTV 9 %'' ♦ �{ `.' .a AND . EWARDNS PIAN .' '� : �,• `r . . �'� SCALE .n t LEGEW . _ • r' �' _ _'' �,: � fit.. �r`" • .. - mer'"°-;'R:.ir;_-:--}:�:LI:•' ,�;� ; �.L.t_i_ ' r�oa� '� ` 'I w • •. .°t .:R •i.c.':'' — -'"� 'r � COWATSUffy PLAN `t � ` \ [}. ,•.' r .j •�. .i • J P&D Aviation r `fie -PPD- EXHIBIT D `"ty of 'Chico's FAR Part 150 Noise Study--ALUC Discussions uence of Correspondence and Documents as of August 19, 1998 1) December 21, 1994 CMA FAR PART 150 adopted by Chico. 2) February 10, 1995 CNIA FAR PART 150 published document. 3) Angust 9, 1995 letter to Toni Lando. from Mike NlcClintock stating concerns of Jim Cavalier or the FAA and reporting that lie had drafted a letter and revised Chapter III for the City to send to the FAA. Hand written on the letter.: "Pete, Please type letter, cc Bob K. Toni'.' 4) August 11, 1995 letter from Toni Lando to John Pfeifer, FAA : cover letter for revised Chapter III with enclosure (13 pages). On the top of page 8 it states "The City -of Chico and the Butte County ALUC have. adopted the Land Use Plan depicted in Exhibit III -I and the standards reflected in Table III -I as the Official Airport Land Use Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport." On the top of page 1. it.states: "Adopted by the City of Chico 12/21/94" 5) October 4, 1996 letter to Toni Lando from Herman Bliss, FAA, transmitting FAA Approval with enclosure of FAARecordof Approval which includes the statement that this study had been adopted by ALUC. X) Discussion at ALUC re whether or not ALUC staff should use Chico's Part 150 Noise Study in making their own findings.. Chico's representative said that Chico,s noise study. was FAA approved and consequently- was the current.noise study and had to be used. Other Commission members questioned the assertion that the study had been approved by the FAA. 6) December 1, 1997 letter from Toni Lando to ALUC Staff. Lucas "verifying FAA approval" with enclosure of document #5 above. 7) Jan 21, 1998 lvlinutes of ALUC Discussion of the FAR PART 150 Study and request that staff research the basis for the FAA statement that ALUC had adopted the study 8 February 11; 1998 letter to Berman Bliss, FAA from ALUC stating.that ALUC had never approved or adopted the Chico Part 150 noise study. 9) Febrt>jry 11, 1998 letter to Tom Lando from ALUC requesting that Chico no longer represent the Airport Noise Compatibility Program as an adopted or approved document of the ALUC. 10) July 2, 1998 letter to Bob Hennigan from. Bob Koch stating that "At no time, either in writing or of ally, did the City or its consultant represent to the FAA that ALUC had approved the program.". 11) August 18, 1998 letter to ALUC from Bob Koch correcting statements in item 10, and admitting that _"erroneous information was sent to the FAA •18,'1998letter to John Pfeifer, FAA from Bob Koch re- NOTICE OF CORRECTION- 12) August . el CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FAR PART 150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM. EXHIBIT E. • August 9, 1995 P& D Consu/tants, /nc. Planners / Engineers 400 S. El Camino Real Suite 500 San Mateo. CA 94402 FAX (415), 343-9446 . (415) 343-0108 AC W TWWV &Mom 6vvm Con W Mr. Thomas J. Lando g Manaer City o City of Chico 505 Wall Street Chico, CA 95927 RE: CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FAR PART 150 NCP Dear Mr. Lando: rr.—•` — w-: JGJ AUG 1 01995 s Burlingame Airports District As we discussed last week,- trlhe FAPart' 1 0 Noise m Cavalier of the F,Compatibility Program for Office contacted me concerning. Chico Municipal Airport. Mr. Cavalier's concern was that in adopting the NCP, the of Chico did not make it clear that it would implemed cated on his compatibility mg othe report identified in Chapter III of the report. This s was Pp�i sed to "the . wherein it said that "the City should" implement fic measures, as opposed City will,, implement. these measures. measures without a clear Mr. Cavalier said that the FAA could not approve any such methat such a commitment for implementation on. the part of the City. - I suggested commitment would probably not be a probleth m, bei to implement understanding when the.City approved the NCP it was noise compatibility measures. this and have revised Chapter III of To this end I have drafted a letter to the FAA stating , the NCP to more accurately reflect the City's intent in.adofeifer-a the Burlingame ADO as indi- the letter with the revised Chapter III to Mr.. John P sated. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, I • Mihael R. � cClintock Associate ce President Aviation Division CATS rlia-�L cm .+rci r3i -Crew L A P!! AaTech GL1er T =� ... _:. EXHIBIT E O -T1. • �t 10,600 LF MCMANUS ��. ELEM. 13,500 LF ; PARTRIDGE ELEM. 11,800 LF BIDWELL JUN. NIGH Exhibit shows the relationship of existing schools and the proposed elementary school to overflights and "distance. from runway along flight paths. Since, in the traffic pattern, altitude is proportional to distancefrom the runway alone the path of flioht, greater,, distance along flight path equals greater altitude above ground elevation: This criterium is more relevant to noise and perceived safety issues than direct distance to airport. 14,700 LF MARIGOLD ELEM. AYsw4r 14,100 LF PLEASANT VALLEY HIGH The proposed school is closer to the airport than existing . . public schools; but is located abeam the runway a greater distance along aircraft flight tracks. Figure F41 FLIGHT TRACKS ,. ,: w -;00 d� CHICO MUNICIPAL i 16,350 L .:. AIRPORT . PROPOSED , ELEMENTARY- �.-- SCHOOL - �t 10,600 LF MCMANUS ��. ELEM. 13,500 LF ; PARTRIDGE ELEM. 11,800 LF BIDWELL JUN. NIGH Exhibit shows the relationship of existing schools and the proposed elementary school to overflights and "distance. from runway along flight paths. Since, in the traffic pattern, altitude is proportional to distancefrom the runway alone the path of flioht, greater,, distance along flight path equals greater altitude above ground elevation: This criterium is more relevant to noise and perceived safety issues than direct distance to airport. 14,700 LF MARIGOLD ELEM. AYsw4r 14,100 LF PLEASANT VALLEY HIGH The proposed school is closer to the airport than existing . . public schools; but is located abeam the runway a greater distance along aircraft flight tracks. Figure F41 FLIGHT TRACKS Airtanker Noise & CDF-USFS Fire -fighting Activities . State of California. the.US Forest Service and the US Department of Transportation have invested millions of 141pars to provide a to fire -fighting support facility at CMA Aircraft flown from this base protect lives andproperty, not only in Butte County, but in Tehama, Glenn, Plumas, Col California's approximately 260 public use �' and � far away as Lake County. Only thirteen of P airports that have afire fighting air attack base. Only two of those thirteen have both fire fighting operations and a private company doing fire fighting aircraft maintenance. The CDF base was established in 1971, Aero Union began operations in Chico in 1964. This is' a map of the area covered by fire -fighting aircraft flown from Chico The closer you are to the center of this circle, the more timely the response if you are threatened by fire. Butte County has more than 60.000 people living in areas of extreme fire danger. Because the air attack base is located in Chico response to a fire in Paradise, Forest Ranch, Cohasset or the hills above Oroville is counted in minutes, and re -load and. return drops of retardant are also minutes apart, instead of hours. �,,• 1 Reddin94( _l g hie* ( i a ♦ok , , M� . �► noc(e Wnd fires are unpredictable and fire seasons differ .in intensity, from year-to-year as well as from day-to-day, so who have lived here for years may be surprised -by the. amount of aircraft activity required to fight a major campaign fire. Because Butte County airports exist in such quiet rural surroundings, these events are much more intrusive than they would be if they occurred at an urban. airport that was constantly busy. Fire fighting is seasonal, the aircraft are old and noisy, and campaign fires can produce long periods of constant, extremely loud operations. Repairs and maintenance are often done at night because the aircraft must be available during daylight hours to support the fire fighters. This means that -required. engine run -ups (at up to 100%power) often occur late at night or in the extremely quiet early morning hours when people are most disturbed by loud noises. Informational signs (a mitigation required by the North Chico Specific Plan 1994) installed aroundthe airport in March 2000 read: "Aircraft overflight zone. This area subject to normal airport related activity based on the overflight of aircraft to and from Chico Municipal Airport and aircraft operations at the airport." But this statement may actually be misleading because of the unique nature of fire fighting which is not normal. Equally misleading is the use of CNEL noise contours; which describe an average. An example of the conflict between "averages" and "reality" can be demonstrated by imagining a car with an enormous sound system driving by your house and causing your windows to rattle. Now imagine one of those cars driving by every four minutes,, I O.hours a day, for 4 days in a row. You would hot take it well if someone attempted'' to explain that you didn't have a noise problem because "on average", over the year, the sound was well below that which interfered with conversation. Prospective homebuyers must be realistic about their family member's tolerance for noise and understand clearly the nature of these operations before purchasing, so they are not taken by, surprise when they do occur. Having airport neighbors who understand the situation and are tolerant o1 j or even enthusiastic about, aircraft better serves the interests of the airport, as well as those vulnerable.forwildland fires and even the real estate* community. Everyone wants to. avoid the situation being confronted by unhappy homebuyers suing for non -disclosure or pressuring the Chico City Council to cancel the CDF Iease at the airport. EXHIBIT ' H is • The most accurate way to describe activity at an air attack base is to give factual descriptions of the history of the base at Chico. Data is from CDF flight logs—the official public records of operations maintained for accounting and legal purposes. Fire Season: (Fig -1) The general time frame of fire season is pre- dictable, generally starting mid-May in Northern California, as shown by this graphic of start and stop dates For 1989- 1999. Fire season has started as early as April 11 th and ended as late as Dec. 13th. Fire season generally lasts from 5-7 months. Fire Season Severity: (Fig. 2) May be measured by the amount of retardant used Gallons of retardant loaded into aircraft during the 1991-99 seasons. Note that even though an average can be calculated, only a single fire season -1983 - came near to being "average". 11 DATES of FIRE SEASON in BUTTE COUNTY --1989-1999 i 1.4WOW .. -- — --... ------------ — --19 8 — 1,346,384ga1 --► i- i 1994 — 1,021.086 gaL 000000 600.000 ....-- --- - -- --- — -- -- — -- - - -- — 19aB — 37,-810 ga I .00.000 — - - – - - - - Avg. 2W000. ----• •- �. .—_—.. --- gn ab In r !� r T r • eeeeeo�eemmmmmmmmmmmmemmmmmmmmm ©©© FNM T*7©©QO' ©� ©©©Q©©� ©QD©� IV7T-M ©©0• • ©Q •• ©Q©� ©©© Lam Q©� i 1.4WOW .. -- — --... ------------ — --19 8 — 1,346,384ga1 --► i- i 1994 — 1,021.086 gaL 000000 600.000 ....-- --- - -- --- — -- -- — -- - - -- — 19aB — 37,-810 ga I .00.000 — - - – - - - - Avg. 2W000. ----• •- �. .—_—.. --- gn ab In r !� r T r • • Daily Activity: (Fig. 3) This shows the variableness in even a very heavy fire season. This graphic gives the number of take -offs daily for the year 1994, there are many days when no airtanker flew at all. EXHIBIT H eeeeeo�eemmmmmmmmmmmmemmmmmmmmm Jun Jul eeeee■eee�eeeeeeeeee�e��eee■■ee eeeeeeee�eeme�em�emeeeem�emm��e S&P e�eeeeeeee■��ee�■mmmmm■e�eem�e� ot PNov • Daily Activity: (Fig. 3) This shows the variableness in even a very heavy fire season. This graphic gives the number of take -offs daily for the year 1994, there are many days when no airtanker flew at all. EXHIBIT H Campaign Fires: (Fig. 4) This graphic lists the dates and number of operations (take -offs or landings) of aircraft for several representative campaign fires where CMA was used as a reload base. Airtanker Safety . & CDF-USFS Fire -fighting Activities" A • The Airport Land Use -Commission has--'been.charged.by the State (under the California State Aeronautics Act—Public Utility..Code Sections.21670 et=seq.,J1970) with the task of promoting land use compatibility around airports...'. ":.to protect public-health,'•safety, and welfare' by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports,to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. 12' • The following aircraft are operated as part of.the fire fighting fleet: DC4s, DC6s, DC7s, P2Vs, C130s, PB4Y=2s, P -3s, S-2Fs and the occasional exotic from Canada. These are generally old and aging aircraft This list is relevant because Federal agencies" ' c6ittram with many different contractors, operating the different aircraft. The agencies support and co-operate with each other. Chico is a joint CDF-US Forest Service Base. The Bureau of Land Management has also operated out of CMA. Any of the aircraft in this list may be operating out of Chico as resources are drawn from the Western region to fight a local fire... While the fleet too small to generate any meaningful statistics about accident probabilities, there are over 120 pilot fatalities listed in the Aerial Fire-fighter's Memorial list maintained by the Air Tanker Pilots Association. Many accidents occurred over a fire where the flying is most dangerous, however, these older aircraft are not immune to engine failures, not are they exempt from near airport accidents. The causes.and- .locations of all the accidents are not listed, but of the 42 which give some indication over 25% (11 of the fatal accidents) were identified as occurring on take -off, landing or as the result of mid-air collisions in the traffic pattern at airports. The Memorial list does not cover "incidents". An' example is when an engine failure occurs and the pilot manages to avoid an accident. In these situations, pilots take two actions almost simultaneously: they dump all the retardant to lighten the'aircraft and the level the wings if they are in a turn which gives them longer to glide and perhaps be able to restart the engine or find a landing spot that offers better survivability for both the pilots and people on the ground .Retardant dumps: These. result in a concentrated quantity of fire retardant: A P-3 load weights over 13 1/2 tons and. when released is traveling at 250 feet/ second. Fire fighters. are given a. one-hour training course to teach them to protect themselves when they are near a drop target. ' EXHIBIT H # Minutes # of tanker between Hours of Year Date First Flight Last Flight operations flights operation 1990 7 -Jul 7:46.AM 8:04 PM 84 8:47 12:18 8 -Aug 2:17 PM 8:19 PM 38 9:32 6:02 7 -Aug 7:35 AM 7:28 PM 50 14:18 11:53 11 -Aug 8:46`AM ' 7:28 PM 30 21:24 10:42 12 Aug 8:46 AM 7:48 PM 63 10:30 11:02 13 -Aug. 9:04 AM. 6:35. PM 33 17:18 9:31 1992 12Aug 7:36 AM 5:49 PM 83 7:24 10:14 22Sep 2:48 PM 8:49 PM 42 8:38 6:01 23 -Sep 8:52 AM 157 PM 34 1230 7:05 24Sep 4:59 PM 5:32 PM 18 2:04 0:33 25 -Sep 12:22 PM 7:29 PM 58 7:37 7:07 1994 .30 -Jun 1:59 PM 8:50 PM 132 3:07 6:51 19Aug 11:18 AM 8:18 PM 67 8:04 9:00' 127Aug 1:48 PM 7:44 PM 42 8:29 5:58 28 Aug 10:24 AM 7:48 PM 63 8:57 9:24 18Sep 2:28 PM 7:31 PM 23 13:18 sm 19-W 8:40 AM 7:04 PM 142 4:24 1074 20-W 9:41 AM 7:45 PM 58 10:25 '10:04 21Sep 9:38 AM 7:19 PM 124. 4:41 9:40 22Sep 8:08 AM 8:54 PM 149 4:20 10:48 Airtanker Safety . & CDF-USFS Fire -fighting Activities" A • The Airport Land Use -Commission has--'been.charged.by the State (under the California State Aeronautics Act—Public Utility..Code Sections.21670 et=seq.,J1970) with the task of promoting land use compatibility around airports...'. ":.to protect public-health,'•safety, and welfare' by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports,to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. 12' • The following aircraft are operated as part of.the fire fighting fleet: DC4s, DC6s, DC7s, P2Vs, C130s, PB4Y=2s, P -3s, S-2Fs and the occasional exotic from Canada. These are generally old and aging aircraft This list is relevant because Federal agencies" ' c6ittram with many different contractors, operating the different aircraft. The agencies support and co-operate with each other. Chico is a joint CDF-US Forest Service Base. The Bureau of Land Management has also operated out of CMA. Any of the aircraft in this list may be operating out of Chico as resources are drawn from the Western region to fight a local fire... While the fleet too small to generate any meaningful statistics about accident probabilities, there are over 120 pilot fatalities listed in the Aerial Fire-fighter's Memorial list maintained by the Air Tanker Pilots Association. Many accidents occurred over a fire where the flying is most dangerous, however, these older aircraft are not immune to engine failures, not are they exempt from near airport accidents. The causes.and- .locations of all the accidents are not listed, but of the 42 which give some indication over 25% (11 of the fatal accidents) were identified as occurring on take -off, landing or as the result of mid-air collisions in the traffic pattern at airports. The Memorial list does not cover "incidents". An' example is when an engine failure occurs and the pilot manages to avoid an accident. In these situations, pilots take two actions almost simultaneously: they dump all the retardant to lighten the'aircraft and the level the wings if they are in a turn which gives them longer to glide and perhaps be able to restart the engine or find a landing spot that offers better survivability for both the pilots and people on the ground .Retardant dumps: These. result in a concentrated quantity of fire retardant: A P-3 load weights over 13 1/2 tons and. when released is traveling at 250 feet/ second. Fire fighters. are given a. one-hour training course to teach them to protect themselves when they are near a drop target. ' EXHIBIT H 6 +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION + u [1 I - i • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-6511 FAX (530) 538-7785 • f 1 t 1 TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission i FROM: M. A. Meleka, Principal Planner SUBJECT: North Chico Specific Plan Report DATE: May 9, 2001 { 1 . I E FOR: Airport Land Use Commission�Meeting of May 16, 2001 r 1 ; I have asked staff to look into the status of the North Chico Specific Plan mitigation measures regarding the Chico Municipal Ar irport. Attached is the staff report regarding this matter. ; r E KAP lann i ng\A LUCVA EETQJGS\2001\05-16W cspMcmo • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission i TO: M. A. Meleka FROM: Craig Sanders • SUBJECT: North Chico Specific Plan Report DATE: April 30, 2001 FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of May 16, 2001 As directed by the Commission, I have researched how well certain airport protection policies in the North Chico Specific Plan have been implemented. The selected airport -related policies of interest the Commission identified are: 1. Avigation easements shall be required for all lands within the plan. 2. Enhanced disclosure measures shallibe developed and implemented to alert prospective home buyers and rentaltenants as to the proximity of the Chico Municipal Airport, the existence of avigation easements, th'e existing and projected future overflight and noise levels as such related issues as are appropriate to fully inform such prospective home buyers or rental tenant. Enhanced disclosure, may be modeled on Butte County Code, Chapter 35, . `Protection of Agricultural Land. ' a i 3. The new Arterial Road and collector streets east of Garner Lane shall be designated with aviation -related names as set forth in Butte County Code Chapter 32. Since the adoption of the NCSP on March 28, 1995 the following parcel maps and subdivisions maps have been approved subject to the provisions of the NCSP. The following table shows which of the above policies were implemented as part of the development approval. Applicant APN Date Number Avigation Enhanced Aviation - approved of lots easement disclosure related street names Fedorko 047-250-147 08/07/96 2 Yes No No Troudy 047-250-178 -11/16/95 4 Yes Yes No } Baccaccio 047-280-002 06/29/95 2 No No No Hay 047-440-006 08/22/96 34 y Yes No No Liptrap 047-260-138 10/07/96 43 Yes Yes No 1 Schuster Various Various 51 Yes Yes No i 1 f i i