Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSA PROJECT NO 96-277 FOOTHILL PARK EAST AND BIDWELL RANCEDecember 3, 1996 AIRCRAFT PILOTS OF THE BAY AREA, Inc. Mr. John C. Freytag, Director Charles M. Salter°Associates, Inc. 130 Sutter Street, San Francisco, CA 94104 41 Dear Mr. Frey,.tag: Jon Rodgers -Legislative Chairman P. 0. Box 2147 Alameda, CA 94501 510-523-3465 RE: CSA PROJECT NO: 96-2777FOOTHILL.PARK EAST AND BIDWELL RANCE AIRCRAFT,.OPERATION-IMPACTa.'AND CONFLICTS STUDY -CITY 'OF CHICO I enjoyed our tefdb-hone conversation the other day_, and as you requested,.am attaching a copy of Federal Regulation 16, as it appeared in the FEDERAL REGISTER, Wednesday, July 3, 1946. According to -our records, the City of Chico'is contractually bound to the terms and conditions of this document, and should provide you a copy of their transfer document. *Sections 8316.3 "Declaration of Policy", and 8316.0 "Restrictions on use and 1 disposition", Part (a)'(3), are of utmost importance, concerning land use issues on or off airport property. *We urge you to -amend your profect report, to reflect Chico's responsibility_to airport users' -now and in the future to: "prevent any use of land either within or outside the boundries of the airport, including the construction, erection, alteration, or growth, or.'-�any`rstructure or object thereon-,. which use would be a hazard :to the landing, taking off ,,.or maneuvering of ft aircraat the air port;'orotherwise-limit its usefulness as an airport (Emphasis Supplied) ,. . , I am also attaching a copy of comments submitted to various agencies ins-s,6homa.County, regarding'a similar project. These should be��s'e'1'f-exp'hanatory, =ands -by copy �to the City of Chico, we respectfully e*tequest that they accept •them as our commentay<on the project at' hand.' Thank you for your time, and if you have any questions or comments, :please don't•hiSsitate to -.call or write. e y Tr urs,, on Roda s Attach (2) cc Cliff Sellers, Planning Director -City of Chico Plan Butte County, ALUC Planning Division 0 E C 0 196 Oroeille, Callfomias FOL.VME II NUMBEI( 129 Washington, Wednesday, 'July 3, 1916 The President E.YECUTIVE ORDE& 9744B REGULATIONS GOVIY.NLDIC TIM FOB?usztNo OF CLOM:INC IN YJND OR PAY)dEVT OF C�.SH ALLOWANCW Ix Llav TxIRIO7 TO ENLISTED PERSONNLI. OF 7HE NAVY, THE COAST GDAaD, THZ NAVAL REakVI,-AHD T$I COAST GUARD R.ESERVL By virtue of and pursuant W the authority vested in me by section 10 of the Pay Readlustment Act of June 16, 1942 (56 Stat. 359, 363), I hereby prescribe the follow - Ing regulations governing the ILrnishing of clothing in kind, or payment of cash allowances In lieu thereof, to enlisted personnel of the Navy, the Coast Guard, the Naval Reserve, and the Coast Guard Reserve. Section A. Clothing in Kind or Cash Allowances in Lieu Thereol. Enlisted men on active duty shall be entitled to clothing In kind or payment of cash allowances in lieu thereof as follows: I. Eollsted men of lbe Naey and Coast Ouart! upon Arst cnrlsunent or upon racnil:• inrnt mbwqucat to c1li ratloo of three mmiths from dale of WE ducbaryc; and enlisted men of the Naval and Coast LJuard'Rcxrvu (including Fire t Jirservc), and retired enlisted men, upon Ant relwrting for active duty or u�oo pser ). active dut)•a subsoquaot to etpiradon of tbrce Wooths from date of last 11 to t here u am: (a) Chief petty oRloer.1 000lc•. steward.,, members of Navy, Nat-ul Academy, or Caut Ouard Acs, Bands (band members)........... IN Enlisted man In other mtioxs...._...._ .... ........" :. Enllkd mch (cxoept band members) oioa advancement In rattox to ebicf ( t*ly omcer, cook, or steward: (a)huh cquent to b days from date of enllsimrat or rcrorttng for active duty..... (bl W itbla 30 days from date of calistmcet nr reporting Int nclive duty..-_-,-_,--- (. Enlisted corm asalxnrd to duty ere band members (except those bolding able. petty officer rating upon Ant aeslxnmcnt):, (a) JViLbISubsse3,0 to W days from data of rnlislmr.Dl or reporting for Activo dory.--.. (lQ 11'I[hla b0 days from date of aaliatmeat at rc)sorling for activa duty............ 4. Alemben rat the Insular Force: (a) Ilertuired 10 wear blur cIolWng........................ (b) Not required to rest blue C101.111 :4 ..................................... a. \[ember' of the Samoan Native Ooard and Band ..................... e. Ealistcel men undergoing training loading to a cnmmisdon only u (ullous; (a) Aviation rndetr. An Josue of clothing in kind not to eiceed In value..._-...... (b) Those underyolny otbu Lralning: AD Imue of elothlug In kind Dot to exocotl Invalga....... In addition, a tem .-•---...-7i;r ..............* .......... porarp lseue of Oovorttmcut otrned elolWng not to exoced (moot value._........, 1. 'rem ............................................... tP°rdo mamhm of the confit Ouard Raeerva on nter ....... 'c? c re duty. pan time or lgtermlttent S. Enlisted men held u priaoncra•at•larye at sborest1Uaas, a temporalour of Oovern• mentour wocd elotbtag proaad R.m at:tborisatloa of tlse CbJof of oval Pexaonnel, not to uoeed Su taloa- _ 9• EnWtcd leen of the Neral Rexene (1DattlTe) when Wascbed W or astodalod with org•rl.� e( tbe•Orpaked err Valaoloer Rawrt, during Lay ono loan (4) year period of enlistment: W Ch'of petry -Moers, eoota Dad rtavraidr, and other eaWLad men upon advance. )Digi to iliac. ntlaSX, "'00% 000ke or stewwdso an adramamut W cob( cook Oe ste'"M a cub allov.oee a.ot to rzooed........... _ (Upon Mporttnx toe active du allowance other lhag tralnlax dui). • turthrr t,..b subaeat100 jl� t• lLe �SG.«�s bw...an Lb-.C-11alu bvta WygLk unbar W barsof, fwd the ►nsoaae payable bereLa,,vW bmu44 �+ (0ontlnuod on p. 7893) . Clothing I mQl rnnned allowarxu Aliowancr (Sic ice. C) taxi. m a2n. ra 119. 95 17. NJ 2'r', m I&0. US M. W 16d. os A. W Same u sulwrrttuns.11 and A 2. )iMien to saCsectlons A I and A2. M• 00 4. (x) 160.00 .............. • so. w ............. lk 00 .. Inlliled only to en lasso M clothing In kind not es• oyotllux ilia amnunl of tha spplkaLlc altowanem pnscrlbcd In subsectiou A1. 10.00 �............. 1W 0o I......._.... C0�•fE.N'rS THE FRESMENT EJ:ECUTIVE OPDERS: �n115LCd PCr'SOrnccl 0( arrl:CCi forces: Clothing allowances --_-_-_- Quarters and subsistence al- lowances___-__------_-_ 1111LITARY ORDER: Philippines, organized military forces released frorn ser': - 16e In U. S. armed forces --- REGULATIONS AND NOTICES AGP.:CULTURL DEPARTMENT: Dairy products: Cheddar cheese (WFO 15-20) _ Skim milk, dried (WFO 54-5) -------- ---- - - Fats and oils: Cottonseed, crude, peanut, soybean and corn oil: de- llvcry to refineries (WFO 29, Partial sus-pcosion) . - Quotas: packaging (WFO 42, Arn. 26)___----- Flue-cured tobacco, national marketing quota 1947-48. _ _ Referendum notice _..________ ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN: Vesting orders, etc.: Balk, Lulsc %Vilhc)m!nc_____ Copyrights of certain foreign nat!onals. Germany_____ Costs and exvcnses lr.c6r: cd in certaln court IicL:ol:s: CaLfornia (2 documenLs) __ New Jerscy_______________ New '!ori--- - --- -- Elsholz. Marle Luise_________ Geck, hiath:lde_____________ Klostermann, ?tmniie-------- Ludcc?..c, Marie Magda)enu 1par a ------------------- Mchlhop. Hcint:icll_________ Neffgen., Gretchen —______.__ P)etzsch. Werner------__---- R-aPP, Charles____________ Ruttkay, Zoltan ------------- Clyn SER%ICI ConmuaslON: FederN employees' pay regula- tions, revislon of part_____ Temporary rcgiilatlonz, cxcrrp- tloru from cla3SI1f cation___ 7?Pl Page 7391 7394 7394 7400 7'^') 7400 7400 7399 1435 7451 7450 7448, 7451 7445 7346 745'_ 7450 7448 7453 7453 7454 7454 7450 7448 7394 7399 AERAL REGISTER, Wednesday, 1u1Y3, 1946 PART 8316—SQRPLtls AIRPORT PROPERTY ( Reg. 181 Surplus Property Administration Reg- ulatlon 10, November 16, 1945, as amend- ed through April 23, 1946, entitled "Sur- plus Airport Property" (10 F.R. 14204, 14628, 14868; 11 P.R. 2803, 4184, 4585), is hereby revised and amended as herein act forth as War Assets Adminlstratlon Regulation 18. Order 1, February 14, 1046 (11 F.R. 1743) and Revised Order 2, re6. 2 (11 F.R. 6125, 6237, 8545).. Match 13, 1940 (11 F.R. 2933) under this part shall remain in full force and effect. Soc. 8316.1 Definitions. 8316.2 Scope. 8318.3 Declaration of policy. 8318.4 Surplus airport dlaposal committee. 8316.5 Declarations. 8916.0 Communications after notice of transmittal. 8316.7 Wlthdrawala. 8318.8 'Permissive use by other Government agency. 8316.9 Disposal of leasehold interests and Improvements by owning 6genele3. 8310.10 Restrictions on use and dt6position. 8310.11 Functions of tho Civil Aeronautics Administration. 8318.12 -Classification of property by Ad- ministrator. 8910.13 Disposal as airport property subject to reservations, restrictions, and conditions. 8316.14 Caro and handling. 8318.15 Priorities. 8310.18 Permits to operate or u::. 8316.17 Va)uatlon. 8318.18 Prices. 8318.10 Submission to Attorney General. 8318.20 Form of transfer. 8310.21 Conditions In Instrument of trans- fer. 8316.22 Records and reports. 8910.2.3 Ro"atlons by agericlea io be re- ported to the Administrator. 8918.24 E=ceptlons. AVTH0RITTr 11 8310.1 to 8316.14, Inclusive, Issued under the Surplus Property Act of 1944 (68 Stat. 706; 50 U. 8.'C. App. Sup. 1611), Pub. Law 181, 79th Cong...lat ses3. (59 Stat. 633), E.O. 9889 (11 F.R. 1266), and Pub. Law 375, 79th Cong, 2d seas. 1 8316.1 D6/lnitions—(a) Terms de- fined in act. Terms not defined In para- graph (b) of this section which are de- fined In the Surplus Property Act of 1944 shall In this part have the meaning given to them In the act. (b) Other terms. (1) "Airport prop- erty" means property used for or In con- nection with an airport. (2) "Airport" means any area of land or water and the improvements thereon primarily used for or in connection with the landing and take -off or navigation of aircraft, and any area of land deter- mined by the Administrator to be suit- able and -necessary for the expansion of an existing "landing area" or "building area." The term may include "landing area," "building area." "airport facili- ties" and "non -aviation fa,:llitles," as determined• by the Administrator. (3) "Airport facilities" means any buildings, structures, improvements, and operational equipment, other than non - aviation facilities, which are used and necessary, for or In connection with the operation and maintenance of an air- port. (4) "Building area" means any land, other than a linding area, used or neces- sary for or In connection with the opera- tion or maintenance of an airport, (5) "landing area" means any land, or combinatlon of water and land, to- gether with improvements thereon and necessary operational equipment used in connection therewith, which Is used for landing, take -offs, and parking..gf air- craft. The term Includes, but Is not lim- ped to, runways, strips, taxiways, and parking aprons. 427 (6) "Non-avlatlon facillLics" means any biilldings, structures, Improvements, and equipment located In a building area and used In connection with but not required for the eMclent operation and maintenance of the landing area or the airport facilities. (7) "State or local government" means any State,.terrltory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any pol'1' al subdivision or instru- mentality thereof. (8) "Surplus airport property" means any airport property which has been de- termined to be surplus to the further needs and responsibilities of the owning agency In accordance with the act. § 8316.2 Scope. This part applies to surplus airport property located within the 'continental United States, Its terri- tories and possessions. § 831613 Declaration o/ policy. It is hereby declared that the national Inter- est requires the disposal of surplus air- port property In such a manner and upon such terms and conditions as will encour- age and foster the development of civil aviation and provide and preserve for civil aviation and national defense pur- poses a strong, efficient, and properly maintained nationwide system of public airports, and will Insure competition and will not result in monopoly. It Is fur- ther declared that In making such dis- posals of surplus airport property the benefits which the public and Clic Nation will derive Lherefrom must be the- prin- clpal consideration and the financial re- turn to the Government a secondary con- sideratlou. Airports which are surplus to the needs of owning agencies may be essential to the common defense of the Nation or valuable In the maintenance of an adequate and cconoml,:al natlonal transportation system. In such cases and in accordance with the rules estab- lished herein such airports may be dis- posed of to State or local governments for considerations other than cash. Where airports are not desired as such by Government agencies or State or local governments, they shall be classified as airports or otherwise according to their best Use and any disposition hereunder shall be for a monetary consideration. . 18316.4 Surplus airport disposal committee. (a) Pursuant to arrange-, ments made with other interested Gov- ernment ngencles, there Is hereby estab- lished a Surplus Airport Disposal Com- mittee which shall function as an ad- visory roi.imittec to the War Assets Ad- minlstrglar . and shall consist of floc member., one to be designated by the Secretary of War, one by the S!cretary of the Navy, one by the Admlrslstrator of the Civil Aeronautics Administration, one by the disposal agency, and one by the War Assets Administrator, who shall serve as Chairman of the Committee. (b) It shall Lc the duty of the Sur- plus Alrport Disposal Committee to ad- vise the War Assets Administrator as t0 the manner In which and the conditions upon which the disposal agency should be authorized to dispose of particular Rlrp:irt properties, and as to all other matters upon which advice may be requested by the Administrator. FEWAL REGISTER, Wedncsda', Jut'y*946 8310.5 7cc!c-al lons. (a) Declara- tions Gf surplus airport property, lnclud- lag lcaschold Interests under ]cases or similar r!Chts of occupant)' not cancelled by the owning agency pursuant to § 8316.9 hereof; shall be flied with the War Assets Administrator as provided L•h Part 8301.' The Administrator will transmit two copies of the declaration to the appro- priate disposal agency. with directions, and will notify the owning agency thereof. (b) The owning agcn*cy may give to the Surplus Airport Disposal Commit- tee a pre -declaration notice accompa- nled by a tentative statement of the con- dlLlons, reservations; and restrictions which It may request, pursuant, to the Provisions of § 8316.10 hereof, to be im- posed on tike disposal. of the airport pr open; 4 8316.6 COMMun'.CationJ alter npticc of trarumittal. After the owning agency receives notice of transmittal to a dis- posal agency of a declaration of surplus airport property, communlca0ons of the owning agency with respect to such air- port property shall be addressed Lo the disposal agency, except where communl- cation With the AdnTlnlstrator is re- quired hercundcr. § 8316.7 Withdratrats.-.1! the ow*Ling r.gency wishes to withdraw surplus air- port property before It has received no- tice of the transmittal of the declaration to the disposal agency, it may do so by filing Form TVAA-1005' (formerly SPB- 5) with the. Administrator._ Aster the o-.vning agency has recelJed notice of such trnnsnl Ltal, It may withdraw such property by filing the form with the dis- posal agency. Such withdrawals may be made only with etc consent of the Ad- ministrator -If the prop:rty has.not been assigned to a disposal agency or with the consent of the disposal agency' there- after, except as hereinafter provided. § 8316. 8 Pcrrr-tss!tve usc by othcr Gov- ernment agency, When a Government agency utilizing Government-owned real Property for or In connecticn with an air- port, undc' some form of arrangement with the Government agency nri- mary Jur-'sdiction over the property, no longer needs the property for airport, pur Poses, such real property and uny Interest therein shall be returned to the agency having primary jurisdiction In accord- ance with the arrangement made be- tween such agencies. Where, however, the property has been substantially im- proved while heing so utilized• the agency utilizing the property shall make a re- port of the facts to the Administrator for his determination as to the disposl- tlon of the Improvements; and such re port shall be treated as a declaration of surplus as to sLch Improvements. 4 8316.9 Disposal of leasehold interests and improvem.cnts by owning a0encies. (a) With the' approval of the Admlais- trator, an owning agency may dispose of airport prope:-ty in the manner provldel In this mctlon without declaring It aur - plus; Provided, That such property is held ' BPA Rog. 1 (10 FR. }4004; 11 F.R. 9001, 8035, 6399) ' Rcg. 1 Order 9 (11 FR. 0774). . only under lease or other similar right of occupancy which is for the duration of the war or the National emergency and six (6) months thereafter, or is for an unexpired period of'n:^^ than twelve .(12) months and has no renewal or pur- chase privilege. (b) Any such leasehold Interest or sim- Dar right of occupancy shall be termi- nated or cancelled by the owning agency and any • Government-owned improve- ment.9 disposed of by any one qr more of the following methods: (1) By transfer to the lessor or owner of the premises In full or partial satls- factlon of any obligation to restore the premises, provided the lessor or owner shall pay for any excess value. (2) By disposition in accordance with contractual commitments. (3) By sale Intact. (4) By transfer to another Govern- ment agency intact. (5) By.disposal of all readily severable property to accordance with any' other applicable regulations of the Admin- istrator. (6) By demolition contract let only on competitive bids whereby title Lo ma- terial not readily severable passes to the dClnolltl0n conLrnctor. (7) By dernolition of property not readily sed;erable . and disposal of sur_ plus used building and. construction ma- terfals by competitive bidding and of other resu.1ting.materials- to accordance with any other applicable regulations of the Administrator. Any competitive bid- ding shall be conducted under rules and regulations prescribed by the owning agencies containing provisions, among others, requiring lots to be offered in such reasonable quantities as to permit all bidders, small as well as large, to compete on equal terms, requiring wide public no- tice'concerning such sales and time In- tenals tetwcen notice and sale adequate to give all Interested purchasers a talc opportunity to buy, and reserving the right to reject all bids. (8) By abandonment 1f the, owning agency has no obligation .to remove such Improvemeut� and It finds in writing LhaL such property is without commercial value or' that the esLlmated cost of Its care, handling. removal, and disposition would exceed the estimated proceeds of sale. ,(C-) DL-POsals ,of improh:ements by owning agencies hereunder shall be made at prices that are fair 'and reasonable under all the circumstances taking into account the limited sale value of the property 1n ,place and its special value, 11 any, to the purchaser. In all arses, prior to disposal a written estimate shall be made of both the value of the Improve- ments for use In place and their salvage value. Trio disposal sgencles for indus- trial and marine nal property shall, upon request, furnish adyloe and aaslitance to the owning agencles lu the establishment of fair and rtasonable' pnces hereunder. (d) Where an airport oonaists of prop- erty A portion of which is owned by the Government end the balance of which it property tinder lease to the Government, such lease shall not be cancelled by the owning agency, but the leasehold 1n - serest as well its t1)c Government-ot,r.ed .property &hail be declared surplus. § 8316.10 Rcstrictiora on use and dis- Position• When an owning agency de- clares airport property surplus, such owning agency, the Clvll Aeronautics Ad ministration, or the Surplus Airport Dis. . posal Committee may submit to the Ad minlstrator a request that -the disposal be made subject to any or all of the fol- lowing reservations, restrictions, and conditions: (a) Use b0 the translcrcc.- (1)• That the airport shrill be used for public air- port purposes on reasonable tcrns and without unjust diZC iminat:on and with- out grant or exercise of any exc)usil-e right for. use of the airport within the meaning of section 301 of the Civil Acro. nautics Act of 1938.' (2) That the entire Innding arca and all Improvements, facllltics, and equip- ment of the airport shall be maintalncd at all ti-mcs In good and serviceable con- diLion to assure its efficient operation. (3) That insofar as Ls wlthlr its power: . and reasonably possible the trmnsierce -shall prevent any use of land either with- in or outside the boundaries of the eir- Port_ including the construction, ercc- tion, alteration, or growth• or.any struc- ture or other object thereon, which use would be a hazard to the landing, taking off. or maneuvering of aircraft at the airport, or otherwise limit its usefulness as an airport. (4) That the building areas and non - aviatlon facilltics shall, be used, altered, modified, or 1mprpvcd only in a manner which does not Interfere with the cM- clent operation rif the landing arca and of the airport facilities. (b) Usc b;l the Government. (l) That the Goverrunent shall at all times• have the right to use the o3rport In com- mon with oLhcrs: Provided, hostel;cr, That such use .may be limited az may be determined at any time by the Civil Aeronautics AdminlstratJon or, the suc- cessor Government agency to be neces- sary to prevent Imerference with use by other authorizes; aircraft, so long as such limitation docs not restrict Go•:ernme.^.t use to less than twenty-five (25) per centum of capacity of the airport. ' Gov- ernment use or the al. port to this ex- tent shall be without charge of any na- ture other than payment for damage caused by Government aircraft. (2) That -during the existence of any emergency declared by the President or the Congress, the Government shall !;ave the right without charge except as in- dicated below to the full, unrestricted Possesslon,.control. and use of the land- ing area, building areas, and airport fa- cllJtes or any part thereof, Including any additions or improvements,thercto made subsequent to the declaration of the airport • properly. surplus: 'Pro- vided, holvever, '1 -hat the-vuvernment shall be responsible during the period of auto use for the entire cost of maintain Ing all such areas, facilities;, and fm-, provements, or the portons..used, and:. shall pay a fair rental for the use of. any . In4tallatlons or atructur^-s which have been added thereto without Federal aid. 1 52 Stat. 073: 49 U. S. C. A. 401. FAW-RAL REGISTER, Wcdnesdau, 1t110 1946 1 8316.11 Functions of the Civil Acro- nr.utics Administration. In the disposal of surpit:.9 nlrport property under this part• the disposal agency may avail Itself of the strikes 'of representatives of the Ci,,,] Aeronautics Administratlor' in all negotiations for the disposal of the prop= erty and shall consult with and obtain the recommendations of the' Civil Aero- nautics Administration as to all decisions p�,rtalning to civil aviation.: In addition tine Civil Aeronautics Adminlstratlon shall furnish such technical assistance as Lhe War Assets Administrator or the dis- posal agency, may request and the Civil Aeronautics Administration Is in a posl- tlon to provide. 1 8316.12 Classification of property by Administrator. (a) Upon receipt of a declaratlon of surplus a!rport property, the Administrator shall consider any re- quests for reservations, restrictions and conditions submitter) by the' owning agency, the War Department, the Navy Department, the Civil Aeronautics Ad- rninistration, or the Surplus Airport Dis- posal Committee, and shall deLerl:1ine the future uses for which the property is best adapted, how the property can best be disposed of to meet the objcctives of th act, and whether any or all of the re- questcd reservatlons, restrictions and conditions, or any other reservations, re- sLrtclions and conditions. -should be im- posed. (6) If the Administrator classifies the property for disposal as airport prop- crty, lig shall be disposed of pursuant to the provisions of this part; If the Ad- ministrator classifies it for disposition otherwise than as airport property and the owning agency does not withdraw it as hereinafter provided. It shall be as- slgned to the appropriate disposal agency and disposed of pursuant to the provi- sions of other applicable regulations of the Adminlstrator. Where. a landing area is used in connection %;,!,h an in- duslrial Installatlon,' the Administrator shall determine whether to classify such landing arca and its airport facilities as airport properties for dl.;posal pursuant to the provisions of this part, or whether to classify the landing area otherwise a ,d assign It for disposal by the appro- priate disposal agency. 1 8316.13 Disposal as airport property sublcCt to reservations, restrictions, and conditions. dh If the Administrator classifies the property for disposal as air- port property, there shall be Imposed on such disposal a condition that there shall be no exclusive right for the use of any landing area or air navigation facilities upon which Federal funds have been'ex- pended; and there also shall be lmposed any or all of the reservations, restrlc= Lions. end conditions requested.pursuant to the provisions of .1 8316.10 hereof and approved by the Administrator, and any reservations, restrictions, and conditions determined, by the :AdminlsMator; 'and the disposal• agency' shall' Immediately Undertake- to-ao-dispose°of, it' as *airport property. Notice of avallabllity shall -be' given to Government agencies listed' in. Exhibit A attached. hereto; and' to -the' State and political subdivisions -and any municipality In which It Is situated and to all municipalities in the vicinity thereof; and to the general public. (b) In the event (1) the Administrator 'does not, classify the. property for dls- posal as airport property when so re- quested, or (2) does not approve any or all of the requested reservations, restric- tions, and conditions, or (3) the disposal agency finds that It is unable to dispose of the property- with the reservations, restrictions; and conditions Imposed un- der 18316.10 or as an airport, the owning agency shall be notified, and the owning agency may, if It desires, withdraw such airport property from surplus on making reimbursement for the cost of care and handling, or recommend the elimination or modification of such reservations, re- strictions, and conditions, or the disposal of the property otherwise than as an airport. In cases arising under subpara- graph"(3) above, the disposal agency shall also notify the Administrator. (c) Where the owning agency has withdrawn the airport property from surplus pursunnt to the provisions of paragraph (b), and later re -declares such property surplus, with or withouL requesting conditions for Its disposition, the Administrator shall deternninc the terms and conditions upon which It shall be disposed of and the proper classlflca- Lion to be given and shall assign It to the appropriate disposal agency for dls- posnl. (d) The disposal agency shall widely publicize the airport property, giving -In- formation adequate t, inform interested or prospective transferees as to the gen- eral nature of the property, and any reservations, restrictions, or conditions that have been imposed as to Its future use. Such publicity shall be by public advertising, and may Include press re- leases, direct circularization to potential transferees, and, personal interviews. The disposal agency shall upon request supply to bona fide PrOspccLIvc trans- ferees all available Information. The disposal agency shall establish proce- dures so that all prospective transferees showing due diligence will be given full and complete opportunity to bid. (c) All priority holders and any ol.her persons Interested In purchasing the mr- port property shall submit their propos- als Ln writing, setting forth the details of their offers and their willingness to abide by the terms, conditions, and restrictions upon which the property Is.oficrcd. 18316.14 Care and handling. (a) Period for assumption; repairs; renewals of leases—(1) After classification of the property for disposal as airport'prop- erty pursuant to 'the provisions of 1 8316.12, the property shall be assigned to the appropriate regional omce. The disposal agency shall assume responsi- bility for care and handling after the expiration of alxty (60) days from the date of filing with the War Assets Ad- ministration a declaration of surplus acceptable to it, or within such addl- tlonal .timo as may be granted .by the Administrator. Pending the assumption of care • and . handlL,g by the disposal agency, the owning agency shall continue to be responsible therefor. .The disposal agency shall have access to the Property and the records of the ow:.i:•g agency with respect t!:ercto. (2) The a::cncy t!:c':, ci.ar);ed Lh the responsibility for care rind handling shall make or cause to be made repairs necessary for the protection and main- tenance of the property. I; shall give careful consideration to what Improve- ments or charges may be necessary for the completln; , converting, or rehabill-' tating of the property In order best to at- tain the applicable obJec'ives of the act, and may make co:nmitmc:.'; and cs- pcnditures within lis bud„r.tary nilot- ment for such purpcsr.s to c^rr.'such im- provements or changes; 11rer1icd. how- ever, That no ccm:ntt:ne:.ts for more than $10.000 of :u;y Such budgetary al- lotment shall be made by such agency for any such chances and lmprot*cmenLs in connection wtt.h any one airport wltheut prior approval o. the Ad:rin!serator 1n writing. (3) The age:icy Lhen charged with the responsibility for care tied handling of surplus airport prcperty s:,a!I subrr.it, to the AdmirlcirnLG.' f2- cor sIderaLio!1 and d!rCCLIOn the rcne.,ri: of )cases er the exercise of o;`tln:•,s rata!;::;: to F.;__ Plus airport propr-ty, w:L)] the recom- mendations of such r.gcncy. (b) Translrr of (:tic- mcnls. ctc. Upon request of the disposal agency, the owning agency Shall immc- diately supply the disposal arcncy n!Lh the originals or true copies of all infor- mation and docurnents pUtti!ning to the airport property which art: In Lhe pos- session of the owning ager,,. and copses of which have not been fi!r:d with the declnration. i nese shnl'. .nc'.udc a;)- pralsal reports• nbstrncLc e; 'tile, masa, surveys, Lax receip's. deeds, n:r:,.davits of title, copies of ;udgme.n.ts, deelarauors of taking in condemnation proceedings. and all other title ,^..aper relating to the property. AI: s,ic`: papers and docu- mcnLs W1110 11 51!11 be :.ceded by the owning agency shall be retuned to It as soon as the needs of the dlsposal agency have been saLLaaed. Tt.c disposal agency may trtinsfcr to the FurCnnScr of nlr- port proper;)'. as pa -t of Lhr, disposal (ra.n.caCL!ar it r'. }' fi!. _: ilii cf .._ or til,? guarantee whlc.lt ...:::cs to ,.._ proper'.1., being transferred and which is no longer needed either by the owning or by the disposal agency. 1 8316.15 Priorities—The cntiticd. (a) Government ngcncics shoii be ticcorded first priority and State and local govern- ments, Including any mun!clpallty In which the property Is located and till murdcroalltles In the vicinity thereof, second prlorlLy to acquire surplus alr- port propertles. If Lhe airport Is offered for disposition subject to any or all of the conditions conLa:ned !n 18316.10, till priorlLim shall be exercised subject to such conditions. (b) Time and method of crcrcise. The time for exercise of pr!orlt!e$ by Govern- ment agencies or SLaLC or local govcrn- menLs shall be a period or thirty (30) days after the daLo of notices of availa- blllty given to them respectively, which notices may rut: corc•.i-rcntly; or st:c" additional period as the dls;r)Snl r.ccn_Y or the AdminlSt-aLor may alletiv W"C:: FEDERPL-REGISTER, Wednesday; ;July 3, 17016 ".ccessary or approprlaLe to complete Proposals made, and is order to faclll- p:tte disposition of the property: Provid- ed, however, That if a Government agency or a State or local government has expressed In writing a desLc to ac- quire an airport property for Immediate use, the ti :;e for exercising priorities may be llrr:::ed to not less thn:: ten f10) days, and nOL!CC of avaJlability given pursuant to the provlsiozs of ; 8316.13 (a) and (d) shall so provide. Within such period the priority holder shall In- dicate his intention Lo exercise the pri- criLy by making an offer or by subinit- Ling to the disposal agency a written ap- pilcatlon requesting that the' airport property be held for disposal to it. Such offer or application shall state the terms on which the applicant Is willing to ac= quare the property, or state that a trans- fer without relmburscment or transfer of funds is authorized bylaw, and shall contain all pertinent facts pertaining to the applicFm,.'s nccd for the property. If the upp:icant requires tissue to acqulre funds or to Obtain authority to Lake the property. it shall so shite and lndJcaLe the length of time needed for that pur- pose. Upon receipt of an offer or an appllcaLion, with such a statement, the disposal agency shall review the appll- cation, determine what time, if any, shall be allowed the applicant to conclude the acquisition of tl:e property, and advise the applicant of such deLerh:InaUon. All priorities shall expire If not exerclscd within the priority period and such ad- ditional time as the disposal agency may allow. (c) Determination bets.,)ccr( claimants having carne priorffy. Whenever two or more Government agencies or two or more State or local governments, respec- tively, shall during the priority period make acceptable offers for the samo property, the. matter shall be determined on the basis of the relative needs of the clalmsr.ts and the public interest to be served. if the matter cannot be deter- mined by ngrecrnent between the claim- ants, disposal of such property shall not be made until the disposal agency sharl have reporLed the matter In writing to the Administrator, setting forth its rec- ommendations and all the facts, includ- ing the balls of the respective claims, to- gether with any statements. In writing that the claimants, or any of them, may wish to file with the Administrator. The Adminlstrator will review the matter and report his determination W the disposal agency. The Ax'ministrator's .determl- ,,atlon s: al: be _ tai for all purPoscs. 4 8318.18 Pcrm.its to •operefe or use. (a) Pending the disposition of surplus airport property by sale or lease, the owning agency. prior to the date ac- countabillty Ss assurned by the disposal agency, and the disposal agency there- after, may (1) grant a revocable permit to malntedn and operate the ' landing arca and airport facilities included within any surplus airportproperty as a public airport to a Government agency Or State or local government evincing an interest in acquiring the property with or without cash payment and on ouch terms as the accountable agency deems disposal agency shall dlsposc of al' port proper, or ,(2) grant a revocable pmcrmit property to any State or local govern - for the la:nding arca and airport facW- ment without a cash payment In coo. tics to be used for the landing, take -off, slderaUon of the accepLance by such servicing, and operatlon'of duly. licensed State or local government of all r eserva- alrcrafL. tions; restrictlon.s, and condltlons !m (b) Permits or licenses to operate the posed by the Adminlstr. aLor. The dls property under the provisions of sub- posal agency shall make such transfers' paragraph (1) of to use the 1ac111Ucs of airport property to Government agen- under the provisions of subparagraph cies without rclmburscm,.cnt or tr ansfcr (2) shall be subject to the approval of the of funds whenever a transfer on such Administrator and to compliance by the terms by the owning agency by which licensees with all laws, 'ordinances,. or such property wm declared surplus other applicable rc¢ulatlon& would be authorized by lair to be made (c) Pending the disposal of an air- to the agency desiring such property. port property, the agency then charged (c) Sale of an airport property as an with the accountability of such property airport to .any purchaser. other than a may grant a revoCable lease or permit buyer entitled to a priority shall be at a for the use of the land or buildings not price approximating the estimate of fair within the landing area or for the use of value as established by the disposal any building other than airport facilities: agency and shall be made at the highest Provided. That such lease or permit will price obtainable, except t'.:at the ap;:1i• not interfere with any use of the airport cable objectives of the act may be taken for airport purposes and will not inter- into consideration In re;ecLing e.^:ers re-- fere with, delay, or retard the disposal of gardless of L`:cir ameun.s or In selecting the airport property as an nlrport. u buyer from anon; c:,tom ! b!ddc-s. Sacs under the pnra;:-z;.1: S::':1ii s' fc- a monetary consldcrstuo.. 4 8318.17 Valuation. (a) No appraisal need.bc made where transfer to it Gov- ernment. agency without reimbursement ¢ 8318.19 Subrr.iss(or; to Attor-cv G=^ or transfer of funds or disposal to a State cral. Whenever -any disposal agency or local government without a cash pay- shall begin negotiations for the disposl- ment Is contemplated. IS It Is deter- tion to private interests of an alrpoM mined that the.property will not be so property which cost the Government $I. - transferred or disposed of, the disposal 000.000 or more. t:ic (,:rposal ag^ .-.: 51Ie11 agency shall establish its estimate of the promptly notify the Attomcy Genesi of fair value of the property.' the proposed dlsposlLlon and the proba- (b) The estimate of fair value shall b)e toms or, condltlons thereof. and o; represent the maximum price which a the extent and nature of the facilit!CS well-informed buyer, acting intelllgent.ly Installed or provided thereon. and voiumartly, would be warranted 1n 1 8318.20 Form oJ-Srcr:S/cr. D,:eds or paying If he were acquiring -the property instruments of transfer shall be in the for long-term investment for con- form approved by the Attorney General. tinucd use In the light :thea obligations Transfers of title shall be by quit-clalin to be assumed by the buyer. deed where the airport property Is trans• (c) IS at any time prior to the sale of ferred without a cash paymxnL. If !n an airport property conditions affecting other cases the disposal agent; ::ads Lha: Its value change, the disposal agency a warranty decd is necessary to obtain a shall modify its estimate accordingly. reasonable price for the property or to (d) For the purpose of• establishing render the title marketable, suit`: form of Its estimate of fair value of the prop- deed may be usc(i wj:crc recoTmended arty, the disposal agency may utilize the and approved by Lhe Attorney Gen.erai as services of Its own staff, the staff of an- provided In Lhe act. other Federal agency or, where deemed necessary, independent appraisers• and shall maintain an adequate written rec- ord to support its estimate. Each such appraisal record or report shall contain the appraiser'a certlflcate that be has no Interest, direct or indirect, In the prop- erty or its. sale. In cases where owning agencies submit appraisal reports which contain adequate and reliable Informa- tion, the disposal agency may'L_4e sucil information in establishing Its estimate of Lhe fair value of the property. y 8318.18 Prices. (a) The disposal agency shall determine the price at w;hlch a disposal of an airport property shall be made. (b) Sale of an airport property as an airport to a buyer entitled to a priority shall beat a price which is substantially the same as .the estimate o1 fair value, caccpt•that (1) a transfer to another Government agency without reimburse- ment or transfer.ol funds may be made where authorized by law, or (2) upon the authorization of the Administrator the 118318.21 Jratruuie :a cJ :ransJcr. (a) Conditio,:s. Any decd, lease, or other instrument cxecuLcd to transfer alrport property pursuant to any dis- posal made under this part, containing reservations, restrictions, or conditions, shall contain provisions In effect: (1) That upon s breacb of any of the reservations, restrictions, or conditions by the immediate or any sub6equcnc transferee, the title, right of possession, or other right transferred shall at L"e option of the Government revert Lo the Government upon demund: and (2Y That any such airport property may be successively transferred only with the approval of the Civil Aeronau- tics' Adminlstration or the successor Government agency and with the proviso that any such transferee assu-^les all the obligations imposed by the disposal agency In the disposal to the original purchaser. (b) Flsslonable mclertals reserved. Any lands disposed of under this part FEWAL REGISTER,' Wedne8day, July 09.16 .,all be subject to a reservation of fissionable .ni•terlaIs as . provided In 1 8305.12 (f) (5) ' of Part 8305. 18316.22 Records and reports. Own- ing and disposal agencies ahall prepare and maintain such records as will show full compliance' with .the provislons of this part as to each disposal transaction, The Information in such records shall be available at all reasonable times for pub- lic Inspection. Reports shall be prepared and filed with the War Assets Adminls- trator In such manner as may be speci- fied by order Issued under this part sub- ject to the approval of the Bureau of the Budget pursuant to the Federal Reports Act of 1942. 1 8316.23 Regulatiom-9 agencies to be reported to the Administrator. Each owning agency and each disposal agency shall Lle with the Administrator copies of all regulations, orders, and Instruc- tions of general applicability which they may issue In furtherfnce of the provi- sions, or any of them, of this part. :8316._4 Exceptions. Exceptions to Rny portion of the procedure herein may be made by directlon of the Administra- tor where such exception would not be In violation of the act. This revislon of lhls.par, shall become clrcctive June 26, 1946. E. B. GREGORY, Administrator, JuNE 26, 1936. EzxtB:T A Government agencies to be given notice of l:npendinc d1spo6al by mall: Departn en.1, o! State. Department of the Treasury. Department of k'dr. Department of Justice. -Po6t Office Department. Department of the Nary. Department of the Interior. Department of Agriculture. Department of Commerce. U. S. Maritime Commission. Office of Scientific Research and Develop- ment. The ' mall Rddresa of these agencies la tt'Rshington 25, D. C. - IF. R. Doc. 46-11871; Filed, July 2, 1940; 11:55 a, m.] (SPA Reg. 20, Amdt. 21 PAA, 8320 -SURPLUS MARIN[ INDUSTRIAL RLAL PROPERTY Surplus Property Administration Reg - Illation. 20, December 22, 1945; .entitled "Surplus Marine Industrial Real Prop- erty", as amended through March 23, 1946 (11 F.R. 182, 661, 3302), is hereby further amended in the following re- spects: 1. Sectlot 8320.7 is . amended by de- leting from the fourth and fifth lines the words "and the Maritime Commission". 2. Section' 8320.8 `(a) -.Is amended by deleting from .the seventh and eighth lines the words "and the Maritime Com- mission". 3. Section 8320.9 (a) 13'deleted. ' SPA Reg, a (11 P.R. 2844, 3301, 4098). No. 129--d 4. Section 8320.9 (b) (1) Is redesig- nated (a) (1) and shall read as follows: (a) Care and handling, (1) After classification of the property for dis- posal as marine industrial real property pursuant to the provisions of J8320.8, the property shall be -assigned to the appropriate regional omce of War As- sets Administration, which shall be deemed to be the assignment to the dis- posal igency, and notice thereof shall be given to the owning agency: and the disposal agency shall promptly under- take to work out with the owning agency mutually satisfactory arrange- ments for the disposal agency's assump- tion of the care and handling of, and accountability for,'the property covered by the declaration. Such assumption shall be effected within ninety (90) days after the assignment to the regional office, or withih such additional time as may be granted by the Administrator, except in those cases where the surplus marine Industrial real properly Is in- cluded In a declaration covering an air- port, in which event assumption shall be in accordance with 18316.14 (a) (1).' Any taxes or rentals becoming due on the property after the date of such ns- sttrnption shall be paid by the disposal agency. The owning agency shall place the property In normal standby condi- tion to insure Its reasonable preserva- tion and safety. 5. Paragraph (c) of 1 8320.9 Is re- designated paragrnph (b). 6. Section 8320.15 (a) is amended to to read as follows: (a) Priorities. Government agencies shall be nccorded nrst priority to nc- quirc surplus marine industrial real property hereunder for their use. Re- construction Finance Corporation, as successor to Smaller War - Plants Cor- poration, shall have a second priority to acquire any. such surplus property for resale to such purchasers as it deter- mines to be small business as provid6d In section 18 (e) of the Surplus Proporty Act of 1944. Such purchases. shall be made by the • Reconstruction Finance Corporation in Its own name, and pay- -, ment therefor shall be made by the Cor- poration. Each purchase order by .the Corporation for resale purposes shall be based upon a written finding, that the resale Is required to preserve and strengthen the competitive position of an individual small business, or will as- sist the Corporation in the discharge of the duties and responslbill ties imposed upon it as successor to Smaller War Plants Corporation. .State or local gov- ernments shall be accorded third prl- orlty, and nonprofit institutions fourth priority hereunder. This amendment shall -become effec- tive June 29, 1946. E. B. GREcoaY, Administrator Jvxt 29, 1946. 11P, & Doc. 4 0-1 1 8118; Filed, July 2, 1946; - 11:66 A. M.) IrReg. 18, issued June 28, 1940. 7131 Chapter XXL'-Gencral Land Office, De- partment of the Interior (Surplus Prop. erty) (CL-cuinr 16181 PART 9000 -DISPOSAL OF SURPLus REAL PROPERTY Secs. 0000.01 Purporsc: controlling Ru:horlty In dlsposnl proceedings. 9000.02 Dcnnmon.5. 0000.03 AI•nllnblilt of informat!cn for pros. pceuec purchnscrs. 0000.04 Terms of snlc: subdivision of prof. CCta for dirp•"6ni. 0000.05 Stntemcnts of desire to purch.isc. 0000.10 Protection of pricrlty rights. 9000.11 Non-n6slgnnblllty of priority rights: cxcrc!sc by a);cnt only u:':dcr Ilm- Itcd cond!tlons. 9000.20 PrcparRtlon of o.^.crs. gc^.cral. 0000.21 Filing o.^.crs. gencrnl. 0000.30 O'Ters by Fcdcral. 5tal.c• c.. !oca! gov- crni^.c:; a. 9099.40 O.`Te s by :orr^c:' owncrs: c!^.pcslts to secure per!orinnnce: C^ars by for- mer owner cotenants. 0000.50 O'Tcrs based on priorl:v (.,: veteran, or of ;hn snr ::::C or :!'.!:r::'Cn of a 9009.57 Ot:.., c:......... cf n:....Fcd prl- Or!;;! !;;•Iden r.'r cr•-: :.: 1':".'.:, ::. 9000.60 O!'crs t) owner-open;+t.1- F. .;000.65 O:lcrs I)y :icnpro.^.t 9000.70 Offcrs b. .to::pr!orl:. !;..:!•.._. 9000.86 Selection by lot. 0000.88 Acceptance. 0000.90 Exnminaticn of title: set t!ement per!cd. 9000.93 Final paymcnt. 11000.95 Dcllvcry c: conl'ccnncc. 0000.06 Title papers: Incldcrl;a: expenses. 0000.97 Forfeiture o: dcposl; in cnsc of de- fnul:. n�-nou:*v: ..•;}9.91 ..: 6:p::.-. ,..:aa!Uc. asucd un::cr 1!..0 ,: StRt. 785. 50 U.S.C` _ ^.;:p. 6cc' 6eq.l. ns Rmcn6ed Scp;4S cmbcr 18. IP(Public Law 181. 79th Ccng.• 1st Sess.). SpA Regulntlo:l 1 (32 CFR Part 830!) and SPA RcvlsM Rc;u- lntion 5 (32 CFR Part 0305). ¢ 9000.01 Purpose: coft'TO::;710 alf- thority ill disposalprocccdiligs. All pro- ceedings With respect to surplus real property to be disposed of by the General Land Office of the Department of the In- terior under the Surplits PrOPC.-Ly Act of October s. 1944 (58 Stat. 765. 50 USC App. sec. 1611 et SCC..'. its %:nc:ldcd. shall be governed by that uct and by the regu- lations Issued thereunder by the War As- sets Administrator, or other authority exercising the regulatory function under section 9 (a) of that Pct. The purpose Of t1Us part, which shall also govern such proceedings, is to implement the regula- tions of the War Assets Administrator as to details not covered therein. i 9000.02 Definitions. Except as in- dicated otherwise by the context,. the following definitions apply throughout this part: (a) The term "Commissio`)cr" means the Commh,51oner of the General Land Ofllce, Deuarimerit of the interior. Washington 25, D. C. (b) The term "notice of sale" means the notice described In 32 CFR 8305.12 (c) (2) (SPA Revised Regulation 5), or other public notice of surplus real prop- erty available for disposal. (C) The term "project representative" means the o®cer or employee named as •• AIRCRAFT PILOTS OF THE BAY AREA, Inc. 18136 Rdamer Road, Castro Valley, CA 94546 Tel./FAX: (510) 538-1514 %ruay �o�zAcC��1' January 27, 1996 76/17 - Board of Supervisors -Sonoma County 76 7- s2 7-// (� B Airport Land Use Commission -Sonoma County Mayor and City Council, City of Santa Rosa Mayor and City Council, City of Windsor Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission Ladies and gentlemen: This letter is to express our comments concerning a proposed school and 600 -home subdivision in Windsor, which may interfere with normal and legal aircraft operations at Sonoma County Airport. Additionally, citizens who may opt to live in the proposed subdivision may by their individual definition, experience sounds from aircraft operating normally and legally .at the airport. Before proceeding to specks, by way of background, Aircraft Pilots of 'the Bay Area, Inc. (APBA) is a nonprofit California corporation formed in 1941. One of our primary purposes as stated in our charter is "To promote, protect, and represent the aeronautical interests of the members." All of our members use Sonoma County Airport, and some are tenants there. We share a concern for the public interest, to preserve and protect the public system of aviation and airports in the U.S., which is the finest in the world. We are involved in land use and noise issues over. the entire country, and at the invitation of David Andrews, Airport Manager. at Sonoma County Airport; I addressed these issues at the C.A.A.EJUniversity of California short course in airport management, in 1993. Moving to the matters at hand, we generally do not oppose residential or other construction around public use airports, as long as the use complies with the California Airport Land Use Law. Many people actually enjoy living close to an airport. However, the proponents of such construction must recognize that Sonoma County is obligated by Federal contract to "Prevent any use of land, either within or, outside the boundaries of the airport, including the construction, erection, alteration, or growth, of any structure or object thereon, which use would be a hazard to the landing, taking off, or maneuvering of aircraft at the airport, or otherwise limit its usefulness as an airport." (emphasis added) This Federal condition was agreed to by Sonoma County, when the latter was granted the privilege to operate the airport for the public benefit following World War II. It means that if an outside entity, in this case Windsor, engages in poor land use planning, the airport and its users are to be held harmless, and recourse would be against Windsor. Page 2. As the attachments show, when proponents engage in questionable land use schemes, problems invariably develop. Pressure, usually in the form of noise complaints, builds up against the airport. In some cases, as you can see, real estate interests, politicians, and even the airport operator will directly solicit noise complaints (Exhibits E-1 through E -S). The data is then compiled and used to harass and intimidate pilots and users of the airport into accepting blame for the "noise problem," and as Supervisor Carpenter stated, "Working out issues in the spirit of compromise and with some degree of discussion and commonality."- i.e., noise abatement and restrictions unilaterally applied against aviation. However, Mr. Carpenter and those who share his views tend to forget that aviation has been compromised extraordinarily in matters of land use, often with no say whatsoever, to permit questionable building of homes near an airport. We are not necessarily against residential development and we are sensitive to people who may develop a problem with noise after settling in - but only with regard to the incidence of fraud. As far as we are concerned, aviation has "given" more than enough. To again quote Mr. Carpenter we expect "no more or less than the law allows." (Exhibit B) It should be noted that San Francisco International Airport successfully sued to prevent construction of a housing project more than three miles from the end their runways 28. This demonstrates that SFO authorities have a clear understanding of their obligation to protect the integrity of their airport by taking necessary steps to insure appropriate land use policy and responsibility. In conclusion, at present we can only continue to try to influence responsible land use policy and protect the users' legal right of access to the airport. We have found that these goals are best accomplished when the airport operator insures compliance with full and complete real estate disclosure, as an extension of appropriate land use policy. We urge you to recommend and commence in partnership with the appropriate real estate associations; a full disclosure advisory as put into effect at the South Lake Tahoe Airport (Exhibit F). Additionally, a copy of a disclosure form is attached, along with a supplemental disclosure instituted by the Alameda Board of Realtors (Exhibit G). Thank you for your kind consideration of this matter. e truly s, n Rod ers Legislative Chairman Attachments - Exhibits A through G Cc: David Andrews -Sonoma County Airport California Pilots Association Steve Hart - The Press Democrat Sonoma County Association of Realtors Cynthia Rich -FAA Associate Administrator for Airports Dick Dyer-CALTRANS Aeronautics Program TICE PRESS DEMOCRAT, FIII0/1Y, JANUARY 1 2, 1906 Windsor'school Qlan gets a boost Ruling paves way for City expansion IIyS ENIF,IIAR'r Staff Writer Plans for a high school and 600 new homes on a vineyard near Windsor got a boos( Thursday when a key land -use panel decided to case a policy against urban expansion into farmlands. The ruling could pave the way for Windsor to add several hun. dred acres of vineyards to its lore of influence," an. arca Writ city boundaries'lhat's ear- ed for development. The Sonoma County Local Agen- cy Formation Commission, which rules on city boundary issues, said (lie vineyards are next to the city limits and (Heir future is in jeopar. dy because of encroaching urban development. The vineyard owners already have applied to lake (hem out of lllc slate's agricultural preserve program, which cuts properly (ax- es for farmers who'aErce to keep (heir lands in agriculture. The biggest vineyard is owned by Klein Family Vintners, the Parent company of Rodney Strong and Windsor Vineyards. Windsor's school district wants to buy part of the Klein acreage for the town's first high school campus, and Klein has proposed building homes on the rest. The Town Council wants to include (lie 160 acres of chardonnay grapes in its growth sphere, which must be approved by LAFCO. Windsor became a city in 1992 and is working on a 20 -year growth plan. The Klein development has come under fire from aviation authorities and others who say it's too close to Sonoma County Air- port and will face noise and safely problems. Mayor Allan Rawland said Thursday (hal development of (lie Windsor Road properly will help revitalize Windsor's wcslside busi- PAISS OEUOCAAT GRAMC ness district, which has delerioral- ed in recent years and is slated for redevelopment. As part of the deal. Klein has proposed develop- ing a corporate headquarters in downtown Windsor. LAFCO members said Thursday Illey Have a policy against city See IVindsor, hack&ge Windsor Condinued fi•oul 1 age /f! expansion into farmlands protect-! , ed under the agricultural preserve _program. Windsor's situation is '�- different, LAFCO member H.C. , "Hack" Boyett said, because the vineyards are being removed from the program. He said LAFCO should allow cities to develop farms that aren't renewing their agriculture pre- serve contracts, but he and other LAFCO members said they won't allow the farmlands to be annexed and developed until their con- tracts with the state expire. In the case of the Klein vine- yard, the contract won't expire for -four years, Rawland said. The members directed LAFCO staff to make changes to the current policy. h - _m W "Zzrr.a • COUNTY OF SONOMA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 575 ADMINISTRATION DR., RM. 100A SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA 95403 (707) 527.2241 September 12, 1994 Aircraft Pilots of the Bay Area, Inc. 18136 Reamer Road Castro Valley,. CA 94546. Attn: John Rogers, Legislative Chairman My.Dear Mr. Rogers, ERNEST L. CARPENTER SUPERVISOR FIFTH DISTRICT Your correspondence comes to me without prior knowledge or detail of any incident involving the Sonoma County Airport, The IASCO Corporation, or the Aircraft Pilots of the Bay Area. However, I find your first approach to a member of the 'Board of Supervisors both unwise and insulting. I take note that' this may make no difference to you. However, should this issue come before the Sonoma County Board of - Supervisors I would expect that you would get no more or• no less than the law allows. Stated another way, I am used to working out issues in the spirit of compromise and with some degree of discussion and commonality. Your correspondence would seem to indicate that you are not capable of either. I am left wondering how -you became a legislative chairman. Sincerely, ERNIE CARPENTER Fifth District Supervisor EC:ga:7116 cc: David Andrews, Airport Manager President, Aircraft Pilots of the Bay Area EXHIBIT B P.O. BOX 7707, WICHITA, KANSAS 67277.7707 SECOND QUARTER' 1992 ,. •+ • NOISE ABAiEMENT�. , . • - r$ ' RULI NG During th r inquires have past several months, man been addressed to y et con a J corning Lear- s • the aircraft ment restrictions noise abate- pending enforcement aper December 31, 199 9: t' Particular con ' `. , • r ; et 20 cern was shoivn.b sh Y Lear-' 1 Series ; •,`= ' operators au the en- y groes only meet Sta a y� noise t level re- r quirements, not the Stat as required b $e 3 noise levels the Airport Noise and Capacity Act o gress on November 5 01990 sed by Con- {"A hnal ruling was issued the "Federal Re iste by the FAA to r/Vol. M1 56, No.' 186, September 25, 199 k 1/'Rulesiand t 'i• - do Re •.t ns" edition. Ciasicall gula- ' noise level re Y, the Stagy 3 uire a ,,..civil subsonic urbojepairelanelcero tificeted ... p �a t �. 4' �r i. a Since •L atr no5'000 pounds.'' y etsredha •. pounds, the statute - eigh -75,000 - t ' the es notapply . m. to z' ' Those of you w c - whether or uo were wondering R; not y will be - .Your Learjets; to' fly particularlyable ; .. • ter 1999 "may now .20'Series,- af_ rest . Will continue to easy. Learjets into the o ny to the' United States 'k next c ury' ,r• F EXHIBIT- - "; , UNIVCT) SI TY OF CALIFORNIA EXTENSION r BERKELEY DAVIS IRVINE LOS ANGELES RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO i y a SANTA BARBARA SANTA'CRUZ' eD. INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION STUDIES EXTENSION PROGRAMS RICHMOND FIELD STATION 1301 SOUTH 46TH STREET, BLDG. 452 RICHMOND. CALIFORNIA 94804 BUS: (510) 231.9590 FAX: (510) 231.9589 February 12, 1993 V Jon. Rodgers Director CRAMP P.O. Box 2147 Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Mr. Rodgers: Thank you for participating in the Institute of Transportation Studies Extension Programs - California Association of Airport Executives 33rd Airport- Management Short Course in Monterey, January 6-8, 1993. Your presentation in the session on Maintenance and Operations; Noise from General Aviation was a valuable contribution to the success of the short course. My staff and I appreciate your sharing your experience at this year's program. We look forward to an opportunity to work.with you again in the future. Sincerely yours, Anna K. Bennett, Director ITS Extension Programs { EXHIBIT D • OF c'��Fo�N`� ' DON PERATA SUPERVISOR, THIRD DISTRICT Dear Resident: • BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 3, 1989 Effective May 22,.1989 the Oakland Airport will curfew all flights from the North Field (Runways 27 and 33) from 10 p.m, to 6 a.m. as the major part of a six month test to evaluate the permanent closure of these runways to night flights. The curfew is the result of -negotiations between Port President Doug Higgins and Airport Operations Manager -Chuck Foster, Congressman Pete Stark, representatives of Alameda homeowner associations and myself which occurred subsequent to a public meeting I held on March 14. Congressman Stark was especially helpful in effecting the final agreement. In addition to closing the.North-Field runways, the Airport will closely monitor all departing flights on a 24-hour basis to impose -stricter sanctions on -those pilots overflying Alameda in violation of established noise abatement regulations. This monitoring procedure will precede the installation by January, 1990 of,a sophisticated noise tracking system which will allow computer documentation of, errant flights. I am confident that 'if -the details of the agreement are met, all Alameda residents should.experience a noticeable decrease in small aircraft noise, especially at night. It is my intention to closely monitor the curfew enforcement and noise abatement sanctions during the next s'ix months. You can aid in. this effort by keeping your own record of any flights in violation of the curfew or the noise abatement procedure. There is a log on the reverse side for your use. Thank you for your help in this matter. Your active support will make a permanent curfew possible. If you have any questions, please call Claudia Albano, my assistant, at 568-7721. Sincerely, DON, RATA P.S. In addition to keepingl�your "flight ht 10", the Airport complaint hot line" 577-4194,you may also call EXHIBIT 1221 OAK STREET • SUITE 'S36 9 OAKLAND. CALIF(1RNI4 06911). �,� 7-1 ion. KI NLI.GHBOIL I'm 'l iia Flynn, with Prudential Florida Realty DTD YOU KNOW.... YOUR HOME MAY BE 'WORTH NOTHING!M! NOW that 1 have your attention, lct me tell you WHYI!( 374 If the Pompano Airpark is allowed to make the exLsting airport into a JETPORT ac proposed. we the re 0dents of Pompano Reach will not only have the daily 'MUCH AND G41-:S" flying overhead every fow MIX)Uter, but. the e_xt emcly nDtcv Sc►ta %,All u,.m, fnllr%w. TW1; Ls SURE to }unc�u+.t, tt we, the residents, dou't band together and JUST SAY Not ... No to the "toucb and goes".-no to the jew...no to the psolx�zed jet hangars being btult in the park. NCIIN)tNOIKTI.I NOlNClINCIINCILUO NO!.NDINOINOINIOINO!NOINOINOIN0! NOW? Every time a plane or small jet flies over you hare, call immediately to log your complaint with MARK at 786-4135. CALL EACH AND EM DAY, WEEKDAYS AND WEMENDS. leave word if the answering ra.a-L, is on. Our rornplalnts are being heard and counted. niakirig a dent 1.0 this terrible problem that plagues our neighborhood Call our ComniiiAd"er, Lima Lou Olson, 78&4623 and let her know how you feel about the proposed Jetport and the poise. She i9 worklag hard for all of us on this matter but she nods to hear from each and every one of you todeyl 3 Come to the City C ruin sLnn meetings the FIRST Tuesday of each tn.ontb at 7:30 p-m_ in tiie CawmA&sioners' Clamber; at City HAM SPEAK (AUT ON 3�% THIS ISSUFJ Call in far an update o>a this, or on any Real Estate nstads flint you. or someoa.e you 1aww, may have. You can reach me- anytime at 946.8776, or at my Pru deudal Florida Real Fstate office ar 9445-8700.. 1 an, truly your NF1GRB0R1jG0A SPECLUISr in Real-&w., ar well or. OUR neighborhood IEt's wc*Y together to keep our neighborhood livable and sellable for tho FU'I Uka3 EXHIBIT E-2 An Alternate Solution to Calling 998-0707 One of our Santa Clara residents has deve"d an alternative way of registering his complaints to the Airport. Through - an agreement drawn up by Gary L. Stowell, Senior Airport Noise'S ecialist, each and every flight operating to/from San Jose International Airport this CARP member files a complaint against month. ort that flew over his area of residence during the.. We are printing a copy of his agreement with the Airport. If you are interested in doing this, call the head of the Airport Noise Monitoring Center, Larry Galindo at 277-4111. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF AGREEMENT TO PROPOSAL OF THE LETTER DATED 4ANUARV_1_1 BETWEEN THE SAN JOSE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AIRCRAFT NOISE MONITORING CENTER AND - Y This acknowledges that the San Jose International Airport's Aircraft Noise Monitoring Center will' include the following statement in -each Monthly Noise Report. The statement will read as follows: A citizen of the City of Santa Clara hereby files complaint over each and every flight operating to/from San Jose International Airport that flew over his.area of residence during the month this report, addresses. EXHIBIT E-3 Dated - Santa Clara, CA 95 Call 998-0707 - Airport No.i*se Complaint Line YES! -I want to right Airport Pollution Name: t Address: Phone: Here is my annual support of $35.00 AM Here 1s my pledge for the tight: I can help with my time: IN P•0 Box 26142, San Jose, CA 95159 (408) 297-9753 TA Please help us clean-up our mailing list. If you would like your name removed C A from our list - please leave a message on our machine. Thank you. A P CITIZENS AGAINST AIRPORT PnT.T.rTTTnX1 t rFF Input Requested on Perform- ance-BasedNoise Ordinance Oise.Com.ptaint Line, Community input in the form of noise 8 4 complaints and througb public meeaogs will coououe to be an important part of the coaversion from a "publisbed" to a performance-based noise ordinance. 8 6. The complaint data will be submitted to i the Ciry Council as pan of the recom- meadaboo to establish new perform- ante -based decibel levels for aircraft usiog the airpon. The airport requests that you,conunue to�'"..� utilize the noise complaint line as one method of conveying Yi 8 Your input to the .� airport oo wNcb aircraft disrupt your y. quality of life. Please pass the noise' complaint number oo toour neighbors'. y 0 NEIGHBORLY FLYER HxD HAYWARD AIR TERMINAL 20301 SKYI ,EST DRIVE HAYWARD, CA 94541 EXHIBIT E-4 BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE. PAID HAYWARp,CA ' PERMIT NO. 3349 M" r r r r r.rr rr*r r r r r r r r r —m—Mm— rrrr—DO DO YOU HAVE A SPECIAL CONCERN ' THAT YOU WOULD LIKE US TO ? ADDRESS. / Please- mail back to:�,� CLASS ' P.O. Box 4020 / Alameda, CA 94501' • / Helicopter overflights North. F' geld problems • ; Runwa � 2 11 take -offs Y 9/ Other ' / -------------- rrr.rra rsorarr.�rrrrrvrrrr�rrrrrrrr ' • • .. '' - .. rrrrrrrr�i KEEP TAHOE BLUE August' 3, 1994 League to Save Lake Tahoe '989 Tahce Keys Boulevard, Suite 6 South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 (916)541-5388 .00henA. Bnndenburger, President Dennis Crabb 3010husAndrews. Jr., Treasurer City Attorney ubuecr a Green, Setary 1052 Tata Lane ice itaiN.Hun�,gton South Lake Tahoe, California 96159-6324 snarslCounsel: RE: Airport N «cise Complaints qht Steele :ecutiye Director. Dear Dennis,. x,4110 Nason •)srdat0lreRon:' tolohusAndrews,Jr.• I recently received a copy of a notice the South Lake Tahoe Airport eonon A. prancenourser• sent to an individual who had made an M83 . W. eruner.:r.• illiamC. C.Callander airport noise complaint. The notice contains language that may be misleading to mos F. mes F, Cnhs. Jr. recipients, and may defeat our joint interest in obtaining accurate rtaMuuiv," Ennis mes W. Gallaway data about airport noise by discouraging such complaints. :hard N. Goldman (bar&Green• , The notice .reads as follows: aet Gray Naves' n Hildinger tziN.Huntington' Iliam A. Marken* "The City .is legally required .to and does disclose t0 all• axles Clary McLeod. Jr, prospective purchasers or renters of. amasMertens• '"" C. Miller residential real property near the Airport, the ahama.Moocy tohanieM000rs number and t ype of all noise complaints receivpd from that residence. You ales Hall Pave i1lioLPolakoll,Mo should consult an attorney or r'�.1 estate professional with nos LPorter. Jr. trKyH•Ronald, regard. to your .legal obligation to disclose before attempting to sell t"h'" M. R°a' ristine P. Roaance, mowhich or lease real property -from complaints have been made." niamimJOssoh Solomon n, Scot, %: TW.,. an R. van camp _ This language may lead ' neighbors of the airport to believe :I'tam W. Wilson that by registering noise complaints, they may adversely affect the vis rley H. Allen flay H. Allen value of their real property, and incur legal obligations that they would utsdns.6ogan not ,otherwise have. This is not the cas e. An °$.Gates Nle w.Hs owner of property must disclose relevant facts about the *Con Hooper Johns eYouo property, including the impacts of airport noise, regardless of whether 'yman1.Lur,d°utst Chase complaints have been made. . The relevant factor �is the amount of 'rtY in C. Nickel ' noise, not the number of complaints. Iam V.Rogzn s 8. $hollhtlnammer Woks Walker, Jr, We would suggest that the -language at issue be modified to read as follows "The ne (on W. Wall 0. Jr. City is legally required to and does maintain records of noise ••^'bixerEaocut;.oCommt1Ce. complaints concerning the airport. Such records are public documents available upon request to any person.,, EXHIBIT i • Thank you fa= your consideration;. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerel , Rochelle Nason Executive Director League to Save Lake Tahoe cc: Susan Schoiley -Ken Williams .0d:Crab We have received your noise call of ------------------ The aircraft was a The data -..has not yet been retrieved. desire the decibel level, If you Line, 541-4082, a week fr please call the noise fro'M your o rigin a1 c all. . PIease use the Airport on your newt trip! . ThQC:l 's 1¢521l r:5ul�d to a:d d:es d's:!asa to sr:ch'a purc:-U;($ a ranters of residentizl real �;-�ry neu o As -c rt Lia number and ty�a o1 a:1;;,a.,a rlirts ri.�iv;d �c,� t.5al res!derce, Ycu s: -c ;!� consw't i1. at!orriay or real estaro F�viess:fs! w2h regard to rccr legal olrCqziicns to 1,1-12U or baso real DIY •`� whirl rr-tl;lts }Uvo Caen =do, Sincerely,, 'port Director Ste,•u L1. 'mak.irsg a posiriie di rence now" October 3, 1994 Our million it Rochelle Nason Executive'Director Working League to Save Lake Tahoe 989 Tahoe'Keys B1vd.Suite 6 ,oge,ber,o South- Lake Tahoe, Ca. 96150 create the best ju,u re Re: Airport Noise Comolai_nts for our Dear Rochelle: ComM,.ni,yThank you for your recent letter on this subject. The language which you refer was obtained b n Dick Fr to following a series of local -instances of "spiking,,. her airport Spiking is where one or'more persons who own/rent the airport no profile flood the ai Property within over a short rPort.with noise complaints P even though the aircraft involved are 'operating within the allowed noise profiles. They then call -the press and which reports the surge of complaints as being the fault of the airport' -s failure to enforce the rules. Those who ichoose to engage in such behavior must understand th t has a consequence. Once commercial service commences I expect the behavior to reoccur.with a degree of -frequency which is s-mPlY unacceptable. We will certainly be happx'to work with you is'interested to craft language which meets the bjectivesnd anyoneeofwho - i :sur ung that legitimate r_oise .c^.?' correctly responded to while se sare promptly and chose to abuse the system, creating fluences for those who Given the change in airport administration this is not a at this point, unless it has a significance which I at I would suggest that it be placed on the agenda for am airport meeting and confer meeting to see if anyone has .any ideas. If there are any questions, please give me a call J. Dennis Crabb City Attorney AAAA,:~ASCO CrA�'Y0�' 01� REALTOS REAITO.R0 � %OCAL-11SCLOS1Slippy - to T1� REA1, FSTAT.E -MANS�� DIS C : LOSS STATEMI, NT FOR PROPER z0CA?'�D 1'N :�H'�' G7?'Y OF ALAMEDA, CALIFOR-NIA 1Z. kI9CXAFT YO1SF. Alameda problem end may Is adJacetit to the. Oakland Interna tional Alrport which may cons titute a Airport, city ofel�paamede,� anduHerbor,Ba 'A'1976 Sottiement Aproement between (nterested the Airport. For. 1• gaY:Islo Assoeiotes tna parties inel�lnnoise (748.4544.)• arm ire information 9 Y llralt roma Homeowncrs� rl9hts fn lltiQationg tht, uyets ahouid contact the Oakland Airport (577.4276); All/nada City. Attorney expansion of irpor S'S' (865'5586), (� eoolfCfon„of•Haneouner Acsoe(et(ons formed to monitor the airport), . for proposev t.�.,..,.::}:.:..,rte{i�•f�:w:.:�;el; ay use of this report the Sellers are hot ielieved'of any other obligation as prescribed under the SELLERS DISCLOSURE. OBLIGATION.ts' OTHER DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.=-�,*;�'u:j Nom.::., v...... �-... ...,`�wMrr •� .. i ” ... Nvhcrc the Scllcr knows of facts materially affecting rite value oidesirability of tha pioperry.which are known or accessible only :o him and also !mows that such facts a , not known to, or within the research of the diligent attention and observation of the Buyer. Jw seller is undcr a dury to disclose them to the buyer." Iingseh v. Savage; 213 Cal. App 2d 729::'':: If "Concealment may constimtc actionable fraud where seller know's'of facts which may matcrially:affect deshbiliry of property and seller !mows such facts are unknown to buyer." Koch'v, William's;,193 Cal: App: 2d 537,541:x' . _ .. :: �,. ..,.:rl i..:1w�C:lrl .. ..�r��,:1..•a;. ;•��:x.•{�jy;,`!ii: :�Lt.;.; W "Deceit may arise from merely nondisclosure.." Musci v; L;ctautich;248 CaL'App.2d 68;72. L ` Failure of the sella to fulfill such duty of diisclosure constitute; actual fraud: (CiviljCodc Sccaon 1572(3) ). ' ": _:'•..: � :>.���!..?_L:i i.ti,.l,.J..` 1. •; `t't•.: �.. f;,..`t.: ��'�..,:.....,: V California Civil Code :• 1709. Dcccit - Damm •i•i.... wIU ; ^' •.•;t{:; .:;.: , ;.: ; • li gcs 'One who willfully deceives anothcr�with intent to indtiee him to alter his position i �...._. to his iayury or risk is liablc.for any damages which ;lie may suffer:1710: Demcnts'of actioriabl0 Fraud?► dcocit, within the meaning . of this last sccdon , is either. 1. The suggestion ,as a fact, of that which Vzi6 'trttc , by one'who'doci not believe it to be true. 2) The asscrtioti ,as fact , of that which is not true by one who EmYl' reasonable gzotuld for believing it W be trip. 3) The suppression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose 14 or v'h' give infoiiriatioi of otheir facts which arc likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact: or 4) A promise , made. withoµu any intcnUcq of performtng V1. " the maker of a fraudulent misreprcscn=n (Scllcr) is::ubj ct to liability.'.to another whose acts in justifiable reliance upon it if the misrepresentation, although not made dirutiy W tha tither (Bti er);`tuid that if will innuaicc his "conduct:..'(parenthetical material added]. Restatement (2b) orTorts'533: N"N. "The scllcr may have an affirmative. dti .to disclose cixtain 3lgrilficant facts regarding the condition of his property. It is not tough for the sella to say, riothiing because he is not asked',:;California Rcal EstateTransaetior's,"12.2 p:463 (Cal. C.E.B. 1967). v " A Buyer who has bscn defrauded by the sella has tl}e choice of either. (A) Using the seller's &ia as a defense when and if :he buyer iehues to follow:;a6ough with his'obligation under the contract: of (B) Using the seller's fraud'as a basis for an affirmative -lief in the form of an action} for damage or recession of tht;,eontraet t+';' -' ` : 'X. Exculpatory Clastics: "Itis better for thc.icUq to\\disclos. •..Jhi specific condidon than to aucinpt to cxculpatc himself against ars ,... nondisclosure. In genas!, the exculpatory (e.g: "as is"•) clatuc provides'lit6','If any; protection." California Real Es:ate Sales Transaction p.483 (Cal. C.E.B. 1967) ' EXHIBIT Mc above is a general statement of the seller disclosure obligations. Other'diselosurt may be required) MISS PA A WIGGIHS R ' 2 10 LAKEVIEW DR LFC--",a SANTA ROSA CA 95405 MADD .. l 7 � � CSC-` C .. III) It IIII II It 11111111 IIIf111II 1111111 111111 IIIIIIII II IIII II tW 01 Y Of r�9 oQ PAT WIGGINS COUNCILMEMBER , C/!�L/v �'-ti� Gam--•- �.. �L �G �C-�Le�G2.��y.-tom Editor. The Press Democrat 427 Mendocino Ave. Santa Rosa, CA 95405 Dear Editor, Airports can be both a boon and a burden to the" residents they serve. We in Sonoma County will benefit from a fully functional and safe airport, an airport that provides normal aircraft operations. A school 'and subdivision are proposed very near our County Airport. Such development will ultimately burden normal aircraft operations.` Then, like many urban airports, the normal (most safe) operations will be sacrificed in favor of mitigated operations (maneuvers to limit noise or avoid hazards). We need to plan for all of Sonoma County. We shouldn't limit the usefulness of our airport. It is, after all, an existing resource. Pat Wiggins, Sana�/Z�O sCity Council 2410 Lakeview Drive , Santa Rosa, CA 95405 C h a r t es 'M S a l t e r A s s o cRi ci t e s I n c FOOTHILL PARK EAST AND BIDWELL RANCH AIRCRAFT OPERATION EWPACT , AND CONFLICTS STUDY CSA Project No: 96-277 Prepared for-, Clif Sellers, Planning Director City of Chico Community Development Department P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 Prepared by; John C. Freytag, PE Director 15 November 1996 130 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94104 Tel: 415 397 0442 Fax: 415 397 0454 Cha.rIes L3 ' •may- s - r Consultants in Acoustics & AudioNisual System Design 130 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94104 Tel: 415 397 0442 Fax: 415 397 0454 Charles M Salter. PE Anthony P Nash, PE David R Schwind. FAES Eva Duesler John C Freytag. PE Alan T Rosen Thomas A Schindler, PE Harold S Goldberg, PE Rachel V Murray. PE Kenneth W Graven. PE Timothy M Der Thomas J Corbett Claudia Kraehe Eric L Broadhurst, PE Michael D Toy. PE Karen E Decker, PE Philip N Sanders Marion G Miles Suzanne Cowden Alison M De Jung Cristina L Miyar Niko Wenner Gena Coker ' Marva D Noordzee Julie A Malork M Salter Assoc i s 't a ,s I n c 15 November 1996 Clif Sellers, Planning Director City of Chico Community Development Department P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 via fax (916) 8954726 Subject: Foothill Park East Aircraft Operation Impact and Conflicts Study CSA Project No. 96-277 Dear Clif: This letter presents my report on the aircraft operation impact and land use compatibility conflict study for the Foothill Park East project. This study only addresses noise and safety issues with respect to relevant standards; it does not address any jurisdictional issues among any agencies. FINDINGS: • Laden fire -fighting aircraft departures from Chico Municipal Airport (Chico Muni or the Airport) have a low crash hazard potential and negligible noise impacts on the proposed development sites. • However, considerable adverse community reaction may be expected from residents and neighbors if high density land uses (over six units/acre) are established directly under a fire -fighting aircraft departure route. • A combination of a formalized aircraft departure route for laden fire -fighting aircraft and land use restrictions for property beneath the departure flight paths creates the solution that allows the continuation of fire -fighting aircraft operations at Chico Muni and development of Foothill Park East. • A formalized aircraft departure route and land use restrictions are required to comply with County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) policy and CALTRANS recommendations regarding safety to persons on the ground. CH Sellers 0.,• 24 October 1996 Page 2 Study Obiecdves This study was contracted by the City of Chico to determine the compatibility between the proposed development of Foothill Park East and departure of laden fire -fighting aircraft from Chico Muni. The study assessed the crash hazard potential and noise impacts from laden fire -fighting aircraft departure operations on proposed communities beneath the departure flight tracks. If land use incompatibilities were found to exist, the study then identified appropriate mitigation measures. The specific objectives of the study are: • Identify aircraft operations which would adversely impact planned development, and formulate mitigation measures. • Provide for land use compatibility for the Foothill Park East development by identifying appropriate noise and safety criteria for laden fire -fighting aircraft departures. • Protect the fire -fighting aircraft operations from encroachment which would jeopardize their future at Chico Muni. • Allow for the highest and best use of the Foothill Park East property without compromising noise and safety standards. Description of the Foothill Park East Development 9,10 A mixed-use residential development is planned for the Foothill Park East area approximately two miles east of the Airport. The location of this proposed development relative to the Airport are depicted in Figure 1, "Local Area Map." Foothill Park East will,, be divided into 135 single-family residential parcels of between 4,000 and 10,000 square feet each. An additional 10 parcels have been reserved for future phased development. Figure 2 shows the proposed development layout plan. Chico Muni is located several miles north of town. It is comprised of two parallel runways oriented northwest/southeast (RW13L/31R and •RW13R/31L). The longest runway (RW13L/31R) is 6,700 feet long, capable of handling executive jet aviation, mid-size airline traffic, and the United Express flights which are the only current commercial air service to Chico. Slightly more than half of the Airport operations utilize RW's.13L/R, landing and departing to the southeast. Currently, Chico Muni has approximately 10,000 commercial flights annually, and about 60,000 executive and general aviation operations, for a total of about 70,000 flights. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) predicts that this total will increase by about 20,000 to 90,000 operations annually by the year 2010. The Airport is equipped with a VOR/DME radio navigation device which allows for Airport operation under instrument flight regulations (IFR) conditions during periods of low visibility. In 1995, the Airport completed a noise compatibility program under Federal Air Regulations (FAR) Part 150 which sets forth a long-term compatibility plan between the Airport and surrounding community.2S This plan forecasts between 173,000 and 190,000 annual operations by the year 2010, approximately twice the 90,000 annual operation figure forecast by the FAA. v I ropes a'' .' ° rR4 /,• 34)� \\ .1 I `/ i %' ..j^�..00.i!a.Ts' .. �r�1i=' �� '�' `•.( (`' _ - ~9� ,•m �/ ."I .apo ,� '` ,. ;.` , / �, .� _.%' � _ �. ` j-:;✓ a/ /�- .>%� ;':/'.;.i' ",'..'j � "giro:.` � ;; •. " it .. �--'' ((�i ,r � : �� �� , a°` I %�% io �= �� � 7 �' ': am 254 ( \. #4 ao \ AL\ �.;� - � <;�� -=mem 2a _ \a ' a., � �.__ �- ,° J'� o/_ ;�--_ /( � __�—C_ __•�����\�.,: f�_�"•'^ _ — _ --�� �!iJ. �i MUNICIP\ A 'POR - , °_�<;, •i ,o r'1"/„0 % / ---i-- \' i _ •.,r 34 -00 BM 201 203 G I' I. -_ amore;"',•10 o ti \ = _ : 1 r \ \ BD - �. .. BIDWELL i •° �` j / 1 •. 1_ , i _ _' ' �• ` I1.. r ����/// RANCH I \\ i p' 220-1 FOOTHILL 0 PARK I "\j rol \\9L •.\\ °• J l�_. /� . EAST l �.�., _ '✓/�.��aa rse /a O will 1 9 l y �Go, nu �. •• 4 .� Iie:... I N - s � � `its I p `a •/ J F� % %yI ROPO - /. r\ • 2 �' � W' •EA9 .. ..• � .. g�.��--__ __ °a/ 1��,� +lel .. r6A• P '•may � �, ` � ..4 Q � .. nvEl'IraiwH hu`If.Ja l�/�� � •• U I �����—.-,—M' '.' �+ �,. 1 /�O In�i ", Gp —4 �/...: �__ ''I-.�� P V�£§�� NiArell ll� �'',TrxV j pJE. ••'•; I�.t�'%Y�''H_OOM[��O�N ? ':.( ••,./ �j �• i �� v •ar Bs a � ¢ I 6+j .-�" •� i ao i) IY� '• ,_ -' • �1:'�. IC •� __y.i 'CIIIC� W ¢ I --' Lind �'' •P�G;�� p / I d\, :/► • ... _ .:� P� PARK. ! / l 'i:' P'6 •• I • o \ ' �. .205 22 s� �• oJ1y/i Figure 1 - Local Area Map ........ B . l.11 ,` •203 vatstgvt Aau PAR R�A ------------------ -`-`�''� AA rei140. L• " . AN PA!j% N gip. NO• ' ------------ WON ROAD •� Al. .� .PAR• A�� I •\ .te-l7-. < ��i-7i3� zsy r ' ae( I.P. N. 1 t-0eAP. NO. O.P. � NO.LP. NO. _Oe_pP. NOo O. -a9A.P. e:'AP. NO.I.P.. NO. e 6-06 SO te-54-0: Figure 2 - Lavout Plan Clif Sellers 24 October 1996 Page 3 Description of Fire-rwhtinp Aircraft Operations Two fire -fighting operations exist at Chico Muni: 1. Aero Union Corporation which both refurbishes and reconfigures aircraft for fire- fighting operations, and also operates some of these aircraft under contract to the private and public sectors. 16 2. The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection which operates aircraft for fire fighting in the area. 19 Surplus military aircraft are used for fire -fighting operations. Aero Union currently operates a fleet of five turbo -prop P-3 aircraft, four piston engine P-2 aircraft, and two piston engine DC -4 aircraft for aerial delivery of fire retardant. Additionally, several general aviation aircraft are used to support these operations. The Department of Forestry currently operates a single piston engine P-2 aircraft. During the fire season, between June 1 and October 15, the fire -fighting aircraft are forward deployed to airports near a fire site. - They only,return to Chico Muni when a particular fire has been controlled. Although this operational mode results in a historical annual average of less than one departure per day over the study area, flights are concentrated during the summer fire season averaging five flights every three days (i.e., 1.66 flights/day). Additionally, fire demands may prompt numerous departures/arrivals over a short time frame and periods of sustained operations if the fire is near Chico. Fire -fighting aircraft operations are atypical in that aircraft are at or near their maximum gross weights when they are loaded with fire retardant. They necessarily fly during the hottest months of the year when high air temperatures adversely affect aircraft performance, particularly climb capability. Consequently, on departure from Chico Muni these aircraft climb very slowly and they remain at relatively low altitudes for several miles from the Airport as they gradually gain altitude.. Airborne fire -fighting is an unusual and specialized aircraft operation which requires pilots with both unique skills and extensive experience. Both operators have flawless safety records, and most of their pilots have experience commensurate with commercial airline counterparts. Laden aircraft, such as the twin engine P-2, are difficult to control and fly in the event of an engine failure. Part of the procedure in the event of engine failure is for the pilot to immediately reduce the gross weight of the aircraft by releasing all of the fire retardant (load relief). By losing almost a third of the gross weight (i.e., the weight of the fire retardant) of the aircraft within one second, the performance capability of the aircraft is immediately and dramatically improved, allowing it to proceed to a safe landing. Indeed, Aero Union Corporation's 15 years of operations includes only one engine failure. The load relief procedure worked perfectly, allowing the aircraft to proceed to a safe landing on one engine. This load relief is an important safety measure available only to these aircraft. Clif Sellers • 24.October 1996 Page 4 Over the past 15 years, Aero Union Corporation has seen increasing restrictions placed upon its operations at Chico Muni as residential land use has increased in the areas . surrounding the Airport. Departure procedures no longer allow laden fire -fighting aircraft to depart straight out or to the right when departing from Chico Muni using RW 13L. The current departure route for laden aircraft departing RW 13L calls for a gradual left -turn turn immediately after take -off to intersect the northwest end of the Sycamore Creek Diversion Channel (the Diversion Channel) approximately two miles southeast of the south end of the Airport. All laden fire -fighting aircraft have informally adopted this procedure. Since these operations occur only during daytime and in good visibility, pilots do not require navigation aids for this departure route. Since there is no current residential development in the immediate area, pilots have no need to fly to a particular fix (i.e., a specific location over the ground), .and therefore currently intersect the Diversion Channel wherever convenient. As Aero Union plans to operate the P-2 aircraft until the year 2010 and the P-3 aircraft until 2016, the departure procedure will be used past the time of residential occupancy at Foothill Park East. The older military aircraft used for fire fighting operations are powered by two or four large reciprocating radial engines. At the low flight levels and high power settings, these aircraft produce maximum A -weighted noise levels over 90 dB to locations. on the ground directly below. However, the high speed of these aircraft limit the flyover noise level duration to a few seconds, and the low average annual volume of operations results in negligible noise exposure impact in terms of the average annual Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) measure used for noise compatibility planning throughout California (less than 50 CNEL). Nonetheless, an average of five such events every three days during the fire season may be very alarming to persons directly under the flight path. Evaluation Criteria Noise exposure and crash hazard potential were the two land use compatibility issues evaluated in this study. The noise exposure criteria is defined in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Butte County,' while the crash hazard potential guidelines are set forth in the CALTRANS Airport Handbook.4 Noise Criteria No long-range noise exposure contours have been developed for Chico Muni even though CALTRANS recommends that contours for the 10 -year future be used for noise and hazard compatibility planning. The most recent contours were developed in 1990 for a FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study, which presented existing (1990 baseline contours) and future (1995) contours. Clif Sellers • • 24 October 1996 Page 5 Although no 10 -year future contours have yet been developed for Chico Muni, I estimated the year 2005 noise exposure contours using the 1978 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) as a basis. These older CLUP contours include commercial jet service to Chico Muni by older, noisy Stage 2 commercial airliners. I have assumed an operational scenario for the year 2005 that would replicate this commercial jet operation in volume of operations, runway use, flight tracks, and percentage of day/evening/nighttime use. However, I substituted the older aircraft with newer and quieter Stage 3 aircraft with similar passenger load capabilities, operating at the same volume. The B727 and DC -9 operations assumed for the 1978 CLUP have been replaced with B737-400 operations. This is a reasonable substitution because the Stage 2 B727 and DC -9 aircraft must be retired before the year 2000 in accordance with the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990, and because commercial considerations encourage use of newer, more fuel-efficient aircraft. Figure 3 shows my predicted 2005 noise exposure contours based upon the 1978 CLUP contours substituted with the newer B737-400 aircraft. The operational scenario for 2005 also includes the same 386 aircraft departures per year by low-flying, laden fire -fighting aircraft. These aircraft will operate only during the daytime hours in support of either forest fire fighting activities, or pilot proficiency training. Each laden fire -fighting aircraft flyover event may be expected to interrupt normal speech conversation directly under the flight path for up to ten seconds. Sleep disturbance is not anticipated since there will be no night-time operations by laden fire -fighting aircraft. Figure 3, "Future Noise Contours," shows my predicted 2005 noise exposure contours based upon the 1978 CLUP contours adjusted to reflect substitution of the newer B737-400 aircraft and inclusion of fire -fighting aircraft. These contours indicate that the Foothill Park East project is beyond the 60 CNEL contour, and is, therefore fully compatible with the County CLUP noise criteria. This low noise exposure impact does not require noise mitigation, either by alteration of aircraft operations, nor by noise insulation of any structures. Safety Criteria The crash hazard potential issue is more difficult to meaningfully quantify. The probability of an aircraft striking a building is extremely remote. Indeed, the chances of being hit by lightning are over 25 times greater than of being struck by a falling aircraft. For an eight- year period survey (1982-1989), the annual average collision rate nationwide was only 8.1 and 9.9 per year for residences and other buildings, respectively. Arithmetically, therefore, the probability of an aircraft striking any building in the Chico area can be computed by dividing the total number of annual air operations by the number of operations at Chico Muni, and multiplying by the 8.1 per year. This results in a probability of an aircraft striking a residence in Foothill Park East at one in more than 10,000 years.. pD 17 ja.,��'/�,i- BM 294 I '.i. (�;.. �� /J ' l /. ./ •�..I .i' �,. � -a �•.•� /�'/�`-i��\.:.. /,./ r%�'�/ ::���/_�" �� /��" N lower �11X40_ \_ -' - (: �` ` � \. �/— 1, e' � /," �. , X•.' //11. \� / CNEL 55 MUNI AL\\ AI ORT�w �� � 200 �i� �J/� �. . `) l _ _-� / f 1' ) r / • _ 1(;rr- ! � ".i / - % �� 00 rk ° R � , \. r :.A rON 1e0 ROAD -- -- � BIDWELL- ? . • � BDY •; � .- ����•�� / � �:\ RANCH • j' .: �• '• 220- I ___ \ - � _' � � \I .�\Go� \\- e`. 3 FOOTHILL ' t . '� 1 \ / QS \ 2'•• I \ \"''-. _ I EAST 00 UP/N WZFoolOr�tl a �' raN 3 O o r`: - 1 Col ours 00 �•'�. �y ray... . r � ' - = - - _ _ _- _ ... -� W ` %B7 ► ^/sear • �2 . Z ; .. . EA9 vEl'Ir•aw Vull�..la 1�� �' U I _ - 1 •'1 ell A• •� V ` ~ Nidwrll [ (l� •11 h V.F'�r�Q j pJE•' • i w o OAK O?.••� / r I y 6%'/ J <�." b Jr BJ [A \ Q' V • I 6�.•••- •.t I a //Q' '(!. - , . A •�•'', •Z L. V O `\ EP MariR'Jrl tirh I —•'1� .Gtr .' __ •• , ..... W Q ._ Linin f', • •p �'`` :CHICO U; _ ------- I.?S� • t° • �,� ♦r' � � /�.,,_%i. � • ... M1t�' / PARK, �/ ),....` .,, ;+/. •, PJ _� - - i 205- I Figure 3 -Future Noise Contours i • �• �/. „ Ld B\ X203 �_ it D�,��� /l'FR : I /o� / •,`nr / Clif Sellers' - 0 24 October 1996 Page 6 0 While CALTRANS does not recommend this type of analysis, it is possible to better , quantify the probability of a fire -fighting aircraft striking a residence in Foothill Park East by incorporating additional crash hazard data such as: proximity to the airport, aircraft.age, pilot experience, aircraft maintenance history, visibility/conditions, and time of day. The . general conclusions of such additional analysis are that fire -fighting operations are safer than most other type of aircraft operation. Not withstanding the low altitudeJaden nature of the fire -fighting operation, it is substantially safer than average because of the extremely well-qualified two -pilot crews, outstanding professional maintenance of the aircraft, use of very reliable 18 -cylinder radial engines, and the day -time, fair weather nature of the operation. Fire -retardant is routinely released at 150 feet over fires and ground-based fire -fighting personnel without injury or damage. The retardant is not toxic and will not stain if items are washed soon after contact. AfitiQation Notwithstanding the extremely low numerical probability of any aircraft striking a residence in the Chico community, it is realistic to expect that local residents will be concerned about any substantial volume of laden fire -fighting aircraft overflying schools and areas of high density residential development. The extremely unfortunate history of on -the -ground aircraft crash fatalities in the Sacramento Valley region mandates that additional consideration be given to the crash hazard issue. Therefore, a twofold crash hazard mitigation program is appropriate: • . Establish a local departure route for laden fire -fighting aircraft to avoid the high density land use areas. • Restrict high-density land use development beneath the fire -fighting aircraft departure. flight tracks. Three alternative aircraft departure routes were investigated for laden fire -fighting aircraft departing RW13L. The first route considered was Chico Muni's established noise abatement departure for RW 13L.6 This calls for aircraft to turn left on a westerly heading of 080°. While this is effective in prohibiting overflights over the Chico community to the south, it is not sufficiently precise to avoid overflight over Foothill Park East, southeast of the Airport. This is because aircraft may exercise considerable discretion in commencing their left-hand turn, and in the radius of the turn which they make. Either extending the take -off upwind and/or banking gradually would bring aircraft directly over these proposed development areas. Therefore, the noise abatement procedure would require fire -fighting aircraft to make an immediate 50° left hand turn at a bank angle of more than 30° in order to pass north of the proposed development areas. The fire -fighting organizations at Chico Muni agree that laden fire -fighting aircraft may not always turn quickly and sharply to avoid Clif Sellers 0 0 24 October 1996 Page 7 overflying these areas.' Further, this departure route would bring the aircraft into rising terrain which they believe to be unsafe. Therefore, this procedure was rejected. The second alternative sought to overcome the steep bank by allowing for a more gradual circling left-hand departure for laden fire -fighting aircraft. Again, the Chico Muni firefighters rejected this option because it would also bring the aircraft close over the rising terrain east of the Airport.' Also, it would require additional time in reaching critical fire destinations and would expend extra fuel. Therefore, this alternative was also rejected. The third alternative is continued use of the departure route over the Sycamore Creek Diversion Channel. This procedure, shown in Figure 4, allows for gradual left turn left after take -off followed by a right-hand turn to fly directly over the Diversion Channel. Since this procedure is made in good weather, pilots are able to maintain visual reference over the Diversion Channel. However, pilots currently have no means (nor reason) to intersect the Diversion Channel at its northwest end, and may now cross over the future Foothill Park East development to intersect the Diversion Channel. It is important that pilots intercept the Diversion Channel on its northwest end, to avoid overflight of either the two potential development areas. For this reason, the following voluntary departure procedure is necessary. CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT LADEN FIRE -FIGHTING AIRCRAFT DEPARTURE PROCEDURE RWY 13 Sycamore Creek fix: 1.6 DME from CIC R-110. Turn left 500' MSL to Sycamore Creek. Fly Diversion Channel, 128°. The second element of the Noise and Safety Mitigation Program is land use restriction on the Bidwell Ranch and Foothill Park East developments. Areas within 500 feet of the Sycamore Creek Diversion Channel, over which the laden fire -fighting aircraft are to fly, must be kept to low-density development in accordance with the recommendations of the Caltrans Handbook. The Handbook includes an overview of "Established Safety Compatibility Guidelines." These guidelines suggest that safety be addressed by project design and reservation of open space without altering aircraft departure routes. The Division of Aeronautics Guidelines list five distinct safety zones along with recommended criteria for each zone. Two of the listed safety zones, "traffic patterns/overflight zone" and "extended runway centerline," are relevant to issues of laden fire -fighting aircraft overflight of the study area. The guidelines state that the "Traffic Patterns/Overflight Zone" is generally defined by the FAR Part 77 Horizontal Surface. This surface for Chico Muni extends up to, but not into, the development areas of the Bidwell Ranch and Foothill Park East projects. Based on this criterion, the projects are outside the defined zone. While some controversy exists about this boundary, it is consistent with the recommendations for consideration of safety hazards found in the Handbook. 400 34 31 35 _ —- 1- - = 4, - �' llYYe t' ��" ,A1 Vv t ._ If a.° 1 I. % i( • /�. ion 1 �/1 '-. _ . + �♦ , "�'''. /- 2 MM 20 �- LU I tlZamar�. 10 ,eog°<o ` "1• - \ — i� BIDWELL •� i ' •� `�` - - - ='C : = RANCH ' azo-' FOOTHILL PARK EAST \`\ ` i O 11 I•� moa w uvrH Vf ' ir'il n vnnlo,�agr Gol Dorsa W 3 . 1'::... •'B%. F. r ••„ r _ - i,, Ips ` /..,\� ......... p - W ' / :I �' '' V � I•... � � i • I NOPD <— .ji: � o I ® U ,h\ 5_� ) srh 1I• al 7• ' r I �.Y .°4 5� �o .. ii <a 'pI;�{J/,' ♦� V - 2 - y.•=.. .EAS .. avC ';_ __ � O u � .�: � rl ;'• I u°,h�'/ � ' _- 1 . Y%aa.' ",.1JIEee • , _ J (' / • _ > .. 1'I.nann II yy '� • - / I .i / °C_'• I H00.(O °.K j Pj I 6��� b •.Ir Bs a R 1 . /� a' �� / - ' 2 � `l :O � f P Mnli Gr.lil .�.h I �/ ..16 Ge t _ ° •�' • I •'•; ' A•'�. •• :'"°.Ja • • • ::-� • • 77 __ �ry'j PARK Figure 4 - Sycamore Creek Diversion Channel Departure Route Clif Sellers • 24 October 1996 Page 8 The other relevant safety zone is the "Extended Runway Centerline" and although the term Centerline refers to a straight line from the runway, the concept of an extended runway corridor may be applied to existing departure corridor for laden fire -fighting aircraft. This 1,000 foot -wide flight corridor overflies the open space preserve where no new development will be allowed. As illustrated by the FAR Part 150 surfaces map, 10,000 feet from the runway left (the horizontal surface) extends up to but not into the Foothill Park East and Bidwell Ranch development areas. This flight corridor may be considered equivalent to an extended approach/departure corridor. The Sycamore Creek departure route recommended by Chico Muni firefighters uses an existing departure flight path north of Sycamore Creek to make a turn to a heading of 128° about 10,000 feet from the end of RW 13L, traveling between the Foothill Park and Bidwell Ranch projects over the Sycamore Creek Diversion Channel. The open space between the projects provides an extension of the departure corridor, and even though the corridor narrows at the turning point, it opens up to additional open space toward the southeast. The Diversion Channel also provides a visual reference for the departure route without the need to rely on instrument headings. Because the noise from the aerial tanker overflights has been determined to be less than significant, it can be defensively stated that this departure route would not expose residents to significant noise impacts as well. Figure 5 depicts the FAR Part 150 surfaces map showing the existing and proposed open spaces and the existing departure flight path, meeting the recommendations of the Caltrans' Handbook. Both projects are beyond 1,000 feet from the runway threshold and outside the 1,000 feet wide (open space) flight corridor. These factors place the projects in the area identified by the Caltrans' Handbook as "Other Air Traffic Overflight Areas," with a 10% to 15% open space recommendation from the Handbook. The Handbook standard for density in other air traffic overflight areas is 4 to 6 units per acre. The Foothill East project proposes an overall density of 3.5 units per acre which is below the 4 to 6 units per acre Handbook standard. The Foothill Park East project includes 18% usable open space and also exceeds the 10% to 15% standard. Conclusion This completes my analysis of the noise and safety issues associated with fire -fighting operations from Chico Municipal Airport. I believe that the conclusions presented herein are reasonable for both the flight operations and the land use development operations. The current fire -fighting operation plan calls for retirement of P-2 aircraft within 13 years and retirement of the P-3 turbine -powered operations within 20 years. Future economic considerations may dictate that turbine -powered P-3 or other aircraft operations be phased in more rapidly than expected, resulting in steeper climb profiles, flying higher over the area, and a generally diminished noise and crash hazard potential environment from the current fire -fighting operations. Since this cannot be guaranteed, this analysis was necessarily based on the worst case development scenario. Therefore, I believe that the proposed land use development restriction may indeed be temporary while aerial fire -fighting aircraft availability stabilizes. If, as I foresee, climb profiles and attendant crash hazard potential ' _ J I\ \\ / X11 ,1j` ' \,. I :%'1: � � / I •1�•I,,', __ `� , `\\ \� Ile �',/ �' \`l„1,�/��./ •I� `I �.. �\\�. � �.,'- � �\�' oo -� \;� � \ � � ... .. ,\ ;`�� eti \ •1 \ � FSI !�I� � e III. �l � a/ i S��\ �\�` `� � �l .. -�... _ -\l ,'�. . - �� ti � V� • • � � ��l � �\�, •1 / 1 I ��� r i \ti ��`\\ \. rn � cif", o x• J f \ _ .� l �� r .,---,\/��r �• � w = — � : ="fib' '• � `�"\. CFJ ri ly 57 a = Qold- 26 VSOdItl . : : ro , 1� • - c`.i ...:....: _ ��, i �;\ '`%( �s �� • - ... �. \:� - •_ 1. _ .. �' a ILI acf lo ss � � t•J ^l ! tlG , :. . . • ^ SSOH' Y r` �.. '. � / _may' �. � �,f •\. 1 ..�` 'I ay h 'f o • �� �'• �. 5 � ,: 1' � .a ,: ,f\,..•`' '$" 4 �I P Ne ,�•.1�� j" .X'11`1 �} `;, �a�`^ =. \.. .a•.o.•� Clif Sellers 24 October 1996 Page 9 and noise considerations diminish, this situation may allow for expanded use of the recommended restricted area for fire-fighting aircraft departure corridor. This completes my report of the noise and crash hazard impact issues associated with Chico, Municipal Airport. Please do not hesitate to contact me for questions or clarification. Very truly yours, CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC. John C. Freytag, P.E. Director JCF/esd FOOTHILL y a fi 0 • REFERENCES 1. Aero Union Corporation, Tom Lynch, Chief Pilot, letter to John C. Freytag, Nov. 5, 1996. 2. Anderson & Rolls, Civil Engineers, "Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Bidwell Ranch," .June 1, 1994. 3. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission, memo to City of Chico, Planning Commission, City Council, 15 May 1996. 4. CALTRANS Division of Aeronautics, "Airport Land Use Planning Handbook," December 1993. 5. Christa-Maria Ingle, CALTRANS Division of Aeronautics, letter to Fred Gerst, Chairman, Butte County ALUC, May 23, 1996. 6. City of Chico, "Chico Municipal Airport Traffic Pattern," Revised August 1985. 7. City of Chico and County of Butte, "Airport Environs Plan, Chico Municipal Airport," August 1978. 8. Clif Sellers, Chico Planning Director, letter to Jack Freytag, August 13, 1996. 9. CSW Planning Associates, "Foothill Park East Draft Environmental Impact Report," March 1996. 10. CSW Planning Associates, "Foothill Park East Draft Environmental Impact Report, Technical Appendix," February 1996. 11. Dick Tiller, Air Attack Officer, State of California, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, letter to Clif Sellers, May 27, 1996. 12. Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 36-39, "Estimated Airplane Noise Levels in A -Weighted Decibels," 4/2/96. 13. Fred Gerst, Butte County Airport Land Use Commission, letter to City of Chico, Planning Commission, City Council, May 28 1996. 14. Fred Gerst, Butte County Airport Land Use Commission, letter to City of Chico, Planning . Commission, City Council, June 20, 1996. 15. John C. Freytag letter to Clif Sellers, Chico Planning Director, proposal, 16 August 1996. 16. John C. Freytag meeting with Charles P. Isele, Executive Vice President, Aero Union Corporation, 27 August 1996. References cont. 1• • 17. John C. Freytag meeting with Clif Sellers, Chico Planning Director, 27 August 1996. 18. John C. Freytag meeting with Stephen Lucas, Butte County Planner, 22 August 1996. 19. John C. Freytag telecon with Dick Tiller, Air Attack Officer, Department of Forestry and .Fire Protection, 5 September 1996. 20. John C. Freytag telecon with John A. Caicchiolo, Partner, MK Group, 28 August 1996. 21. Jones and Stokes Associates, "Draft Environmental Impact Report for the BidwellRanch Specific Plan," October 1994. 22. Jones and Stokes Associates, "Final Environmental Impact Report for the Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan," February 1996. 23. Marlin Beckwith, Aeronautics Program Manager, CALTRANS Division of Aeronautics, 30 August 1996 letter to Thomas J. Lando, Chico City Manager. Subjects of the letter: Foothill Park East DEIR and Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan DEIR/FEIR. 24. Marlin Beckwith, Aeronautics Program Manager, CALTRANS Division of Aeronautics, 30 August 1996 letter to Thomas J. Lands, Chico City Manager Subjects of letter: 1978 Chico . Municipal Airport (CMA) Airport Environs Plan and 1978 CMA Master Plan, 25. 'P & D Consultants, Inc., "Chico Municipal Airport, FAR Part .150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program and Environs Plan," February 10, 1995. 26. R. Dixon Speas Associates, "Airport Environs Plan, Chico Municipal Airport," City of Chico, County of Butte, August 1978. 27. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Chico Air Attack Base, -John C. Freytag telecons with John Hawkins, Division Chief, and Paul McAfee, Captain, 12 and 13 November 1996. 28. Wade Associates, "Draft Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan," June 1, 1994. Charles M S a I t e r 4 7 i 15 November 1996 :onsultants Subject: Bidwell Ranch Aircraft Operation Impact and Conflicts Study n Acoustics CSA Project No. 96-277 f Audio/Visual Dear Clif: System Design Cllf Sellers, Planning Director via fax (916) 895-4726 )avid R Schwind, FAES _va Duesler City of Chico i30 Sutter Street Community Development Department San Francisco with respect to relevant standards; it does not address any jurisdictional issues among any :alifornia 94104 P.O. Box 3420 rel: 415 397 0442 Chico, CA 95927 =ax: 415 397 0454 Subject: Bidwell Ranch Aircraft Operation Impact and Conflicts Study CSA Project No. 96-277 ;harles M Salter, PE Dear Clif: lnthony P Nash, PE )avid R Schwind, FAES _va Duesler This letter presents my report on the aircraft operation impact and land use compatibility !ohn C Freytag, PE conflict study for the Bidwell Ranch project. This study only addresses noise and safety issues %Ian T Rosen with respect to relevant standards; it does not address any jurisdictional issues among any 'homes A Schindler, PE agencies. larold S Goldberg, PErnTT�-t�T lachel V Murray. PE (,Q MMINGS: :enneth W Graven, PE "imothy M Der • Laden fire -fighting aircraft departures from Chico Municipal Airport (Chico Muni or the -homes J Corbett Airport) have a low crash hazard potential and negligible noise impacts on the proposed ;laudia Kraehe development sites. :ric L Broadhurst, PE Aichael D Toy, PE • However, considerable adverse community reaction may be expected from residents and :area E Decker. PE neighbors if high density land uses (over six units/acre) are established directly under a 'hilip N Sanders fire -fighting aircraft departure route. - Aarion'G Miles ;uzanne Cowden •. A combination of a formalized aircraft departure route for laden fire -fighting aircraft and Dison M De Jung land use restrictions for property beneath the departure flight paths creates the solution .ristina L Miyar that allows the continuation of fire -fighting aircraft operations at Chico Muni and diko Wenner development of Bidwell Ranch. - Sena Coker Aarva D Noordzee • A formalized aircraft departure route and land use restrictions are required to comply with fulie A Malork County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) policy and CALTRANS recommendations regarding safety to persons on the ground. Clif Sellers 0 • 24 October 1996 Page 2 Study Obiectives . This study was contracted by the City of Chico to determine the compatibility between the proposed development of Bidwell Ranch and departure of laden fire -fighting aircraft from Chico Muni. The study assessed the crash hazard potential and noise impacts from ,from fire- fighting aircraft departure operations on proposed communities beneath the departure flight tracks. If land use incompatibilities were found to exist, the study then identified appropriate mitigation measures. The specific objectives of the study are: • Identify aircraft operations which would adversely impact planned development, and formulate mitigation measures. • • Provide for land use compatibility for the Bidwell Ranch development by identifying appropriate noise and safety criteria for laden fire -fighting aircraft departures. • Protect the fire -fighting aircraft operations from encroachment which would jeopardize their future at Chico Muni. • Allow for the highest and best use of the Bidwell Ranch property without compromising noise and safety standards. Description of the Bidwell Ranch Development 2,22 A mixed-use residential development is planned for the Bidwell Ranch area approximately two miles east of the Airport. The location of this proposed development relative to the Airport are depicted.in Figure 1, "Local.Area Map." Even though a specific plan has been developed, the Bidwell Ranch development is less well defined. It will be comprised of residential, an elementary school site, commercial, and 200 acres of open space (including a large area, Meadowfoam Preserve, on the west end of the site) that will buffer it from adjacent properties. Figure 2 shows the proposed development layout plan. Chico Muni is located several miles north of town. It is comprised of two parallel runways oriented northwest/southeast (RW13L/31R and RW13R/31L). The longest runway . (RW 13L/31R) is 6,700 feet long, capable of handling executive jet aviation, mid-size airline traffic, and the United Express flights which are the only current commercial air service to Chico. Slightly more than half of the Airport operations utilize RW's 13L/R, landing and departing to the southeast. Currently, Chico Muni has approximately 10,000 commercial flights annually, and about 60,000 executive and general aviation operations, for a total of about 70;000 flights. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) predicts that this total will increase by about 20,000 to 90,000 operations annually by the year 2010: The Airport is equipped with a VOR/DME radio navigation device which allows for Airport operation under instrument flight regulations (IFR) conditions during periods of low visibility. In 1995, the Airport completed a noise compatibility program under Federal Air Regulations (FAR) Part 150 which sets forth a long-term compatibility plan between the Airport and surrounding community.' This plan forecasts between 173,000 and 190,000 annual operations by the year 2010, approximately twice the 90,000 annual operation figure forecast by the FAA. -41 BM i54I �i 1' \�' `L- -rte /� �J �/� J �_ i J j� �=. J,�!I ',• j r f-������(,laL,��i ����t�., �•�\ TowerJ M ao \\ -SBM 24_.fir M UNICIPAI•, AIR ORS moo,\' �. � �\ � � '� / ,%Qf� � \• �;-: �i�> - \ O �. � .^��1� __ _ -�..� J')' JA ij 177 ___ _________BM 203 /a 1p.J `' \/ \'- '� ( I •� ��� - (� J 1` S log" � � � I •, ('..�• �' � 'rte % rf % O � / --.- - fa — EA ION BIDWELLi `"�=• ) l \ \ •::= RANCHO ,•. �••�•\\�! � 1 > l I\ � -ori\ _ •c+o \ •m`: Y _ p, I FOOTHILL \ '`'�� : I i° Go-°-����'� ,q• PARK EAST 12 AV .,,. • UPIN... 1 „ p Foo1D0 a // reg" is 3 _ O u r1., \ �=_ �i ,'ry Gol nurse i �/_-y:�✓j/� 00 . It ROA• W;. .EAS iB7 P ..ie . . I•,,•anen' valL".Ia 1rJ� •¢ `� u I _ ... l .�.`�% s : /. - J/' -- / , .!_ - �' � ` /' . HiA wall 11 �• I U II(��P�E/•• I �'� •._ H � OAK ' Oj,• � I . nr � �_ (/�- -����J _- i ` ` b .IrisV ¢ ¢ spa/,•' . . - '� I H //�' `�• �_ _� . Z L .y • \ F � M 1rh � j Y ( • 1 ` tr ptl� I / ... �C - . - .- / .. I �yy TT/.lCv _ fs 18/ •� --\•� Oo :CllD W ¢ r •• �/\ Li.nrio !�'• P VAHN /' ).....' •s., is / •� �; Figure 1 - Local Area Map 205 un... i BID :p�o�j.��rzr' � ..�. • ca • I _ Q '�e --•�- . A 0 nv3N' L\I. o J� Aq I / 0 nv3N' L\I. o J� Aq Clif Sellers • 24 October 1996 Page 3 Descrintion of Fire -fighting Aircraft Operations Two fire -fighting operations exist at Chico Muni` 1. Aero Union Corporation which both refurbishes and reconfigures aircraft for fire -fighting operations, and also operates some of these aircraft under contract to the private and public sectors.16 2. 'The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection which operates aircraft for fire fighting in . the area. 19 Surplus military aircraft are used for fire -fighting operations. Aero Union currently operates a fleet of five turbo -prop P-3 aircraft, four piston engine P-2 aircraft, and two piston_ engine DC -4 aircraft for aerial delivery of fire retardant. Additionally, several general aviation aircraft are used to support these operations. The Department of Forestry currently operates . a single piston engine P-2 aircraft. During the fire season, between June 1 and October 15, the fire -fighting aircraft are forward deployed to airports near a fire site. They only return to Chico Muni when a particular fire has been controlled. Although this operational mode results in a historical annual average of less than one departure per day over the study area, flights are concentrated during the summer fire season averaging five flights every three days (i.e., 1.66 flights/day). , Additionally, fire demands may prompt numerous departures/arrivals over a short time frame and periods of sustained operations if the fire is near Chico. Fire -fighting aircraft operations are atypical in that aircraft are at or near their maximum gross weights when they are loaded with fire retardant. They necessarily fly during -the hottest months of the year when high air temperatures adversely affect aircraft performance, particularly climb capability. Consequently, on departure from Chico Muni -these aircraft .climb very slowly and they remain at relatively low altitudes for several miles from the Airport as they gradually gain altitude. Airborne fire -fighting is an unusual and specialized aircraft operation which requires pilots with both unique skills and extensive experience. Both operators have flawless safety records, and most of their pilots have experience commensurate with commercial airline counterparts. Laden aircraft, such as the twin engine P-2, are difficult to control and fly in the event of an engine failure. Part of the procedure in the event of engine failure is for the pilot to immediately reduce the gross weight of the aircraft by releasing all of the fire retardant (load relief). By losing almost a third of the gross weight (i.e., the weight of the fire retardant) of the aircraft within one second, the performance capability of the aircraft is immediately and dramatically improved, allowing it to proceed to a safe landing. Indeed, Aero Union Corporation's 15 years of operations includes only one engine failure. The load relief procedure worked perfectly, allowing the aircraft to proceed to a safe landing on one engine. This load relief is an important safety measure available only to these aircraft. Clif Sellers 24 October 1996 Page 4 11 Over the past 15 years, Aero Union Corporation has seen increasing restrictions placed upon its operations at Chico Muni as residential land use has increased in the areas surrounding the Airport. Departure procedures no longer allow laden fire -fighting aircraft to depart straight out or to the right when departing from Chico Muni using RW 13L. The current departure route for laden aircraft departing RW 13L calls for a gradual left -turn turn immediately after take -off to intersect the northwest end of the Sycamore Creek Diversion Channel (the Diversion Channel) approximately two miles southeast of the south end of the Airport. All laden fire -fighting aircraft have informally adopted this procedure. Since these operations occur only during daytime and in good visibility, pilots do not require navigation aids for this departure route. Since there is no current residential development in the immediate area, pilots have no need.to fly to a particular fix (i.e., a specific location over the ground), and therefore currently intersect the Diversion Channel wherever convenient. As Aero Union plans to operate the P-2 aircraft until the year 2010 and the P7.3 aircraft until 2016, the departure, procedure will be used past the time of residential occupancy at Bidwell Ranch. The older military aircraft used for fire fighting operations are powered by two or four large reciprocating radial engines. At the low flight levels and high power settings, these aircraft produce maximum A -weighted noise levels over 90 dB to locations on the ground directly below. However, the high speed of these aircraft limit the flyover noise level duration to a few seconds, and the low average annual volume of operations results in negligible noise - - exposure impact in terms of the average annual Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) measure used for noise compatibility planning throughout California (less than 50 CNEL). Nonetheless, an average of five such events every three days during the fire season may be very alarming to persons directly under the flight path. Evaluation Criteria Noise exposure and crash hazard potential were the two land use compatibility issues evaluated in this study. The noise exposure criteria is defined in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Butte County,' while the crash hazard potential guidelines are set forth in the CALTRANS Airport Handbook.4 Noise Criteria No long-range noise exposure contours have been developed for Chico Muni even though CALTRANS recommends that contours for the 10 -year future be used for noise and .hazard compatibility planning. The most recent contours were developed in 1990 for a FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study, whichpresented existing (1990 baseline contours) and future (1995) contours. Clif Sellers • • 24 October 1996 Page 5 Although no 10 -year future contours have yet been developed for Chico Muni, I estimated the year 2005 noise exposure contours using the 1978 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) as a basis. These older CLUP contours include commercial jet service to Chico Muni by older, noisy Stage 2 commercial airliners. I have assumed an operational scenario for the year 2005 that would replicate this commercial jet operation in volume of operations, runway use, flight tracks, and percentage of day/evening/nighttime use. However, I substituted the older aircraft with newer and quieter Stage 3 aircraft with similar passenger load capabilities, operating at the same volume. The B727 and DC -9. operations assumed for the 1978 CLUP have been replaced with B737400 operations. This is a reasonable substitution because the Stage 2 B727 and DC -9 aircraft must be retired before the year 2000 in accordance with the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990, and because commercial considerations encourage use of newer, more fuel-efficient aircraft. Figure 3 shows my predicted 2005 noise exposure contours based upon the 1978 CLUP contours substituted with the newer B737-400 aircraft. The operational scenario for 2005 also includes the same 386 aircraft departures per year by low-flying, laden fire -fighting aircraft. These aircraft will operate only during the daytime hours in support of either forest fire fighting activities, or pilot proficiency training. Each laden fire -fighting aircraft flyover event may be expected to interrupt normal speech conversation directly under the flight path for up to ten seconds. Sleep disturbance is not anticipated since there will be no night-time operations by laden fire -fighting aircraft. Figure 3, "Future Noise Contours," shows my predicted 2005 noise exposure contours based upon the 1978 CLUP contours adjusted to reflect substitution of the newer B737-400 aircraft and inclusion of fire -fighting aircraft. These contours indicate that the Bidwell Ranch project is beyond the 60 CNEL contour, and is, therefore fully compatible with the County CLUP noise criteria. This low noise exposure impact does not require noise mitigation, either by alteration of aircraft operations, nor by noise insulation of any structures. Safety Criteria The crash hazard potential issue is more difficult to meaningfully quantify. The probability of an aircraft striking a building is extremely remote. Indeed, the chances of being hit by lightning are over 25 times greater than of being struck by a falling aircraft. For an eight-year period survey (1982-1989), the annual average collision rate nationwide was only 8.1 and 9.9 per year for residences and other buildings, respectively. Arithmetically, therefore, the probability of an aircraft striking any building in the Chico area can be computed by dividing the total number of annual air operations by the number of operations at Chico Muni, and multiplying by the 8.1 per year. This results in a probability of an aircraft striking a residence in Bidwell Ranch at one in more than 10,000 years. While CALTRANS does not recommend this type of analysis, it is possible to better quantify the probability of a fire -fighting aircraft striking a residence in Bidwell Ranch by incorporating additional crash hazard data such as: proximity to the airport, aircraft age, pilot experience, aircraft maintenance history, visibility/conditions, and time of day. The general conclusions of such additional analysis are that fire -fighting operations are safer than most other type of aircraft operation. Not withstanding the low altitude, laden nature of the fire- fighting operation, it is substantially safer than average because of the extremely well-qualified • M .i °`//_ `\•�I i ;%�-/ /� :)� •%�� -------" �-%�r / � � 7-%/ .ice '�. i%' ��i' .{� e .'/'\�>'Ji •l 1 i //I,'. x�fit X5 lal ': '`�/ = ----- 1(� .r•// -�/ �_ �� `.��y f �J :-.1; J /%�Y'�! am i5A H X,`O dower b a0�� 1 —1 \1� /� 1 `� 1� •Y '- �; \. ,.���-�r \ •,- ,'Y .;, �1/ )�`\l`'�: /'N�/ /!/ % CNEL _ l T1s MUNI A L\\ � I � R\ 2a^ \\ � � lJ ��1 /yc f //uc�—� r� 1Y/ �... \ �� '� ��\ � i�, � .fJ j/% •':\r � /'�I .` r/ l ! -J�-' ,� 'c_,.��' '.� S% I _ _ :a\\�!�! ' /i.' .?�' � �. 4 _ ._ ru .moi" _ _—>���I. a,��ti�.� � � _ ; ,� ��� `j //r })• � �_: 20 o ''a ; \ ,\ \ •,j ' i,,•` `'� �r�l l — m ct -10 I I >s> _- - q _ pA ep ROAO ._ BIDWELL i \ _•—?a — '�— RANCH FOOTHILL PARK aq. .. i EAST329 ` .9 • ` / 2 UPI/v VE._ w / I rl Fool olid e / - re6" Col nurse"_Y'� `, R' ,( '• , ,y //N ROAD % PJ oMaMa _ ��•• ,' ` ` \�.� ¢ •/ J� I - \\�J 11 •" - loB��a�_�`'�—/. asa ie3 P r+�'eQ. • . .. rl.,w v.`'..,.� li/.° Ss u I -1 .` I(/.!/•�° )/ .�; (• �• � •� �E.•_. I E OAK •a0 � .: •'�•`,�.\ �� / �__� .2 L V .O I �\ F�Merie�Jrl l.�h I �p ••?` .Ger � - < .. .'�� .q I •' �.' i 18 / i / W _., oo q Ij) Lindn ,� p i` PARK / �. '�i X6/•_0 205 ,A•r/�:" Figure 3 Future Noise Contours .203 �a i • �,�/yF'iF ' Clif Sellers • 24 October 1996 Page 6 0 two -pilot crews, outstanding professional maintenance of the aircraft, use of very'reliable 18-' cylinder radial engines, and the day -time, fair weather nature of the operation. Fire -retardant is routinely released at 150 feet over fires and ground-based fire -fighting personnel without injury or damage. The retardant is not toxic and will not stain if items are washed soon after contact. Afttieation Notwithstanding the extremely low numerical probability of any aircraft striking a residence in the Chico community, it is realistic to expect that local residents will be concerned about any substantial volume of laden fire -fighting aircraft overflying schools and areas of high density residential development. The extremely unfortunate history of on -the -ground aircraft crash fatalities in the Sacramento Valley region mandates that additional consideration be given to the crash hazard issue. Therefore, a twofold crash hazard mitigation program is appropriate: • Establish a local departure route for laden fire -fighting aircraft to avoid the high density land use areas. • Restrict high-density land use development beneath the fire -fighting aircraft departure flight tracks. Three. alternative aircraft departure routes were investigated for laden fire -fighting aircraft departing RW 13L. The first route considered was Chico Muni's established noise abatement departure for RW13L.6 This calls for aircraft to turn left on a westerly heading of 080°. While this is effective in prohibiting overflights over the Chico community to the south, it is not sufficiently precise to avoid overflight over the Bidwell Ranch and Foothill Park East properties, southeast of the Airport. This is because aircraft may exercise considerable discretion in commencing their left-hand turn, and in the radius of the turn which they make. Either extending the take -off upwind and/or banking gradually would bring aircraft directly over these proposed development areas. Therefore, the noise abatement procedure would require fire -fighting aircraft to make an immediate 50° left hand turn at a bank angle of more than 30° in order to pass north of the proposed development areas. The fire -fighting organizations at Chico Muni agree that laden fire -fighting aircraft may not always turn quickly and sharply to avoid overflying these areas.' Further, this departure route would bring the aircraft into rising terrain which they believe to be unsafe. Therefore, this procedure was rejected. The second alternative sought to overcome the steep'bank by allowing for a more gradual circling left-hand departure for laden fire -fighting aircraft. Again, the Chico Muni firefighters rejected this option because it would also bring the aircraft close over the rising terrain east of the Airport.' Also, it would require additional time in reaching critical fire destinations and . would expend extra fuel. Therefore, this alternative was also rejected. Clif Sellers • 24 October 1996 Page 7 The third alternative is continued use of the departure route over the Sycamore Creek Diversion Channel. This procedure, shown in Figure 4, allows for gradual left turn left after take -off followed by a right-hand turn to fly directly over the Diversion Channel. Since this procedure is made in good weather, pilots are able to maintain visual reference over the Diversion Channel. However, pilots currently have no means (nor reason) to intersect the Diversion Channel at its northwest end, and may now cross over the future Bidwell Ranch development to intersect the Diversion Channel. Itis important that pilots intercept the Diversion Channel on its northwest end, to avoid overflight of either the two potential development areas. For this reason, the following voluntary departure procedure is necessary. CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT LADEN FIRE -FIGHTING AIRCRAFT DEPARTURE PROCEDURE RWY 13 Sycamore Creek fix: 1.6 DME from CIC R-110. Turn left 500' MSL to Sycamore Creek. Fly Diversion Channel, 128°. The second element of the Noise and Safety Mitigation Program is land use restriction on the Bidwell Ranch and Foothill Park East developments. Areas within 500 feet of the Sycamore Creek Diversion Channel, over which the laden fire -fighting aircraft are to fly, must be kept to low-density development in accordance with the recommendations of the Caltrans Handbook. The Handbook includes an overview of "Established Safety Compatibility Guidelines." These guidelines suggest that safety be addressed by project design and reservation of open space without altering aircraft departure routes. The Division of Aeronautics Guidelines list five distinct safety zones along with recommended criteria for each zone. Two of the listed safety zones, "traffic patterns/overflight zone" and "extended runway centerline," are relevant to issues of laden fire -fighting aircraft overflight of the study area. The.; guidelines state that the "Traffic Patterns/Overflight Zone" is generally defined by the FAR Part 77 Horizontal Surface. This surface for Chico Muni extends up to, but. not into, the development areas of the Bidwell Ranch and Foothill Park East projects. Based on this criterion, the projects are outside the defined zone. While some controversy exists about this boundary, it is consistent with the recommendations for consideration of safety hazards found in the Handbook. The other relevant safety zone is the "Extended Runway Centerline" and although the term Centerline refers to a straight line from the runway, the concept of an extended runway corridor may be applied to existing departure corridor for laden fire -fighting aircraft. This 1,000 foot -wide flight corridor overflies the open space preserve where no new development will be allowed. As illustrated by the FAR Part 150 surfaces map, 10,000 feet from the runway left (the horizontal surface) extends up to but not into the Foothill Park East and Bidwell Ranch development area. This flight corridor may be considered equivalent to an extended approach/departure corridor. 00 34 31 - JJ IPS.. =F. _:,. 't ,i ..ice v0 z /\TA 300 I \/' T' - _ ,'\ 11 i,`I '�% /, !i :♦ �� �'.'. 201 703 _ / °�� � G \ � � <� I _ -_ � � _�_%:L __ 'r,:'. .•ri /��% jj (/. ��� �" ' 708; •J �, i C10 0 71 9 e° AOAo— - _ — BIDWELL / —c�"a�( BDY --.. 11 9 RANCH . \ 1 � ... � . � �. ._ .-� � (S\GO �•.\� ..tet . ° �` � -�. 220, / •Lim • •C`C '\ /��� / �':''•- " i. FOOTHILL r :�" „� Clif Sellers 0 24 October 1996 Page 8 The Sycamore Creek departure route recommended by Chico Muni firefighters uses an existing departure flight path north of Sycamore Creek to make a turn to a heading of 128° about 10,000 feet from the end of RW 13L, traveling between the Foothill Park East and Bidwell Ranch projects over the Sycamore Creek Diversion Channel. The open space between the projects provides an extension of the departure corridor, and even though the corridor narrows at the turning point, it opens up to additional open space toward the southeast. The Diversion Channel also provides a visual reference for the departure route without the need to rely on instrument headings. Because the noise from the aerial tanker overflights has been determined to be less than significant, it can be defensively stated that this departure route would not expose residents to significant noise impacts as well. Figure 5 depicts the FAR Part 150 surfaces map showing the existing and proposed open spaces and the existing departure flight path, meeting the recommendations of the Caltrans' Handbook. Both projects are beyond 1,000 feet from the runway threshold and outside the 1,000 feet wide (open space) flight corridor. These factors place the projects in the area identified by the Caltrans' Handbook as "Other Air Traffic Overflight Areas," with a 10% to 15% open space recommendation from the Handbook. The Handbook standard for density in other air traffic overflight areas is 4 to 6 units per acre. The Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan proposes an overall density of 2 units per acre within the entire 750 acre site and 5.6 units per acre as a cluster development on 268 acres of the site. The density in the Bidwell Ranch development is close to the maximum 3.5 units per acre recommended density; however, the Handbook states that higher densities may be appropriate if the uses are clustered and substantial open spaces provided. The Bidwell Ranch project designates 60% or 450 acres of the total 750 acre site as open space. This 60% open space provision far exceeds the 10% to 15% usable open space provision recommended by the Handbook for "other air traffic overflight areas." Conclusion This completes my analysis of the noise and safety issues associated with fire -fighting operations from Chico Municipal Airport. I believe that the conclusions presented herein are reasonable for both the flight operations and the land use development operations. The current fire -fighting operation plan calls for retirement of P-2 aircraft within 13 years and retirement of the P-3 turbine -powered operations within 20 years. Future economic considerations may dictate that turbine -powered P-3 or other aircraft operations be phased in more rapidly than expected, resulting in steeper climb profiles, flying higher over the area, and a generally diminished noise and crash hazard potential environment from the current fire- fighting operations. Since this cannot be guaranteed, this analysis was necessarily based on the worst case development scenario. Therefore, I believe that the proposed land use development restriction may indeed be temporary while aerial fire -fighting aircraft availability stabilizes. If, as I foresee, climb profiles and attendant crash hazard potential and noise considerations diminish, this situation may allow for expanded use of the recommended restricted area for fire -fighting aircraft departure corridor. 77 �' Q• VV-_ ♦ 35-/\. 7` . +� ' �,% /.� •iii :!� j,C - _ '�� L^ ��\ �•, L.i �d � is . .1 h.�r`'%� �— `���- � , - � J: • oJJ �, - � � bo° �! - -1 �'' / � '�/!�,'' UJ NN ww 226 \, ..\� ,�\ `V�'� �,. `P/;�%1�t •��\fir%/^\_.%� �o, .�/�i. '-�.;�pp 1�• ���'.r\\. )J)� OF CHICO SPMER .OF INFLUENCE - .49 �� C R I ' 9 ,r, ��.._•�- �—,�--'- WELL �• - — ,•.. �C� -y....,:.I; NCH \ BIDWELL OOTHILL I I -�1 ( ; ` ,, e /,��;_ � _ �- •1 ��_ \�, �e\�� ':�' __ '9 �ql(+•��INn PARK i •l j '•�"z.• /=.. ...��J�� ,/1'1���,%' , EAST I , i.,• - / \ - !� �`,-'' ' \ - r,•.Y:: 0 _..' \.. 'Do :^ o •�.'" [�iArP •`� ' r�`'t''i •\~:F�!° Lir __ i� f \_ \ n - ^ -- `, I i A '.� �/% Gol nurwe se le j : \".� _\`�? �..n". ,9' - p L' - `7 �•• l • as0 .'? I - � ''S aD _ 6-'t'c.,`j ..• i , • , .y..... ' W ` V h ROAD .. \�, i b �j �.�x� �,--..-.�- :; ., xn 1 —•.�• zz - . _ "--_ ('�- _- - -._ asa W I a� j i%� 1,% -' . -1 I I . W"• EAS -av • cO OOk •° ,\ �•'� V � ? I,� n 1,_.,,11 '�• � .. .1 /! Ilillwrll - f U i PJC•%. 1� �.• IIC OnK 2• ',�r"y' / _'i/ j -I' ���. J. �m 2 •arHti -- 11 la rtli o-�= o , ;p//,J I ; Fi ure 5 - FAR Part 150 Surfaces and Corridor ♦,� :^ •t+/\ ... PARK , /� '��• F�6� 205 `� �� � 1,:1..: _ � B;1✓O'L �V, -�ro _ - vIL �, p 'ul')r- �y �X � �\ - • ` � '� �'C.� ra - /} rp Clif Sellers 24 October 1996 Page 9 This completes my report of the noise and crash hazard impact issues associated with Chico Municipal Airport. Please do not hesitate to contact me for questions or clarification. Very truly yours, CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC. John C. Freytag, P.E. Director ICF/esd BIDV&U t REFERENCES 1. Aero Union Corporation, Tom Lynch, Chief Pilot, letter to John C. Freytag, Nov. 5, 1996. 2. Anderson & Rolls, Civil Engineers, "Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Bidwell Ranch," June 1, 1994. 3. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission, memo to City of Chico, Planning Commission, City Council, 15 May 1996. 4. CALTRANS Division of Aeronautics, "Airport Land Use Planning Handbook," December 1993. 5. Christa-Maria Ingle, CALTRANS Division of Aeronautics, letter to Fred Gerst, Chairman, Butte County ALUC, May 23, 1996. 6. City of Chico, "Chico Municipal Airport.Traffic Pattern," Revised August 1985. 7. City of Chico and County of Butte, "Airport Environs Plan, Chico Municipal Airport," August 1978. 8. Clif Sellers, Chico Planning Director,. letter to Jack Freytag, August 13, 1996. 9. CSW Planning Associates, "Foothill Park East Draft Environmental Impact Report," March 1996. 10. CSW Planning Associates, "Foothill Park East Draft Environmental Impact Report, Technical Appendix," February 1996. 11. Dick Tiller, Air Attack Officer, State of California, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, letter to Clif Sellers, May 27, 1996. 12. Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 36-39, "Estimated Airplane Noise Levels in A -Weighted Decibels," 4/2/96. 13. Fred Gerst, Butte County Airport Land Use Commission, letter to City of Chico, Planning Commission, City Council, May 28 1996. 14. Fred Gerst, Butte County Airport Land Use Commission, letter to City of Chico, Planning Commission, City Council, June 20, 1996. 15. John C. Freytag letter to Clif Sellers, Chico Planning Director, proposal, 16 August 1996. IN ri References cont. 16. John C. Freytag meeting with Charles P. Isele, Executive Vice President, Aero Union Corporation, 27 August 1996. 17. John C. Freytag meeting with Clif Sellers, Chico Planning Director, 27 August 1996. 18. John C. Freytag meeting with Stephen Lucas, Butte County Planner, 22 August 1996. 19. John C. Freytag telecon with Dick Tiller, Air Attack Officer, Department of Forestry, and Fire Protection, 5 September 1996. 10. John C. Freytag telecon with John A. Caicchiolo, Partner, MK Group, 28 August 1996. 21. Jones and Stokes Associates, "Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan," October 1994. 22. Jones and Stokes Associates, "Final Environmental Impact Report for the Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan," February 1996. 23. Marlin Beckwith, Aeronautics Program Manager, CALTRANS Division of Aeronautics, 30 August 1996 letter to Thomas J. Lando, Chico City Manager: Subjects of the letter: Foothill Park East DEIR and Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan DEHUYEIR. 24. Marlin Beckwith, Aeronautics Program Manager, CALTRANS Division of Aeronautics, 30 August 1996 letter to Thomas J. Lands, Chico City Manager- Subjects of letter: 1978 Chico Municipal Airport (CMA) Airport Environs Plan and 1978 CMA Master Plan, 25. P & D Consultants, Inc., "Chico Municipal Airport, FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program and Environs Plan," February 10, 1995. 26. R. Dixon Speas Associates, "Airport Environs Plan, Chico Municipal Airport," City of Chico, County of Butte, August 1978. 27. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Chico Air Attack Base, John C. 1 Freytag telecons with John Hawkins, Division Chief, and Paul McAfee, Captain, 12 and 13 November 1996. 28. Wade Associates, "Draft Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan," June 1, 1994. • R U . ,�1 .clfttViJlt . Planning Division Orovifle, Calit COMM UNITY'D _LOPMENT" DEPARTMENT PLANNING vwg 411 Main Street CITYorCHICO P.O. Box 3420 INC. 1872 Chico. CA 95927 (916) 895-4851 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING . FAX (91'6) 895-4726 ATSS 459-4851 BIDWELL RANCH FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN TENTATIVE VESTING SUBDMSION MAP, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, SUPPLEMENTAL STUDY AND AIRCRAFT OPERATION CONFLICT REPORT 4e, The City of Chico Planning Commission will -conduct a public hearing on Monday, December 9, 1996, at 7:00. . p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 421 Main Street, Chico, to consider the following::, w{t 1. ;1 Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report; 2. Proposed Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan; 3. Bidwell Ranch Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map; 4. Development Agreement; 5. Supplemental Traffic Analysis; and 6. Aircraft Operation Impact and Conflicts Study. Copies of the documents related to this project are available for public review at Merialn Library, California State University, Chico; Butte County Library, Chico Branch, East 1 st and Sherman Avenues; and the City of Chico Planning Division Office. Any person may appear and be heard at the public hearing and is encouraged to submit written comments on the above -noted projects. Written comments should be submitted to the City of Chico Planning Division, 411 Main Street, Second Floor, or mailed to P. O. Box 3420, Chico, CA 95927, and must be received prior to 5:00 p.m. on the date of the hearing. Further information may be.obtained from the City of Chico Planning Division, 411 Main Street, Second Floor, Chico, CA 95928, telephone (916) 895-4851.. In accordance with Government Code Section 65009, if any person(s) challenges the aetioh of the Planning Commission in court, said,person(s) may be limited to raising only those issues that were raised at the.public' hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. TOM HAYES, on beha f ofi 4( •�' 1` tr4:t� KEN MILAM, Planning:Director ►� , ,, i jIs cc: CM/CAICDD/CITY CLERK/APC4/E-R/COUNTY CLERK/SIERRA CLUBBEC/MERZ/ DIST. LIST/PLANNING COMMISSION/CITYCOUNCIL Publish: Enterprise Record: November 29,1996,x' X Planning Division QEC 0 2 1996 wrQvi lie, Galifomsa g� Made From Recycled Paper 0 • C -i c;-ry O�- P() CHICO c 39.70C H I C 0 1-11C Q 0 no "73420 U S P 0 S A G'L:: NOV27' CHICO CA 95927 9' 32 T��l C- Ez�, 7'-':iF%lE Y rl r ---fl"XITY 7A LIMING DEPT OUT I C I U I COUNTY ICENRER DR, lDRGV ILLE j CV '95965 December 2, 1996 Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 FW -E Re: Foothill Park East and Bidwell Ranch Aircraft Operation Impact and Conflicts Study. Dear Commissioners: I must express my concerns with both the manner in which ALUC staff has handled review of the above referenced document and the content of the staff report dated November 20, 1996. Despite numerous requests directly to the Commission and ALUC staff, the City Planning Division had no knowledge that this meeting had been scheduled until yesterday morning, when . a copy of the agenda and report was provided by Commissioner Koch. Copies of the report and agenda were not provided to the City Planning Division, the proponent of the projects addressed or the consultant responsible for study preparation. As a result, the consultant was unable to schedule attendance at this meeting and City staff has had an unreasonably short time to review the report and attempt to provide thorough responses. After the City faxed a copy of the ALUC staff report to the consultant, Jack Freytag, of Charles M. Salter Associates, he did have the opportunity to review the report and provide initial responses. A copy of the consultant response is attached. It is my opinion that the staff report badly misrepresents the content and conclusions of the study. Further, the ALUC staff report continues to assert ALUC jurisdiction over projects in the Chico Municipal Airport despite the clear statutory language limiting ALUC's role as a responsible agency subsequent to adoption of a General Plan, with appropriate findings, by the City. These statutes have been provided to ALUC and its staff on several occasions and state that further ALUC findings are not required for projects consistent with the adopted City General Plan. However, to reflect the City's prior commitment, projects in the airport vicinity will continue to be forwarded for ALUC review, comment and recommendation. ALUC comments will be considered during City review and deliberation of such projects, but overriding findings will not be included should the City choose to approve a project despite ALUC recommendations to the contrary. To respond to major misrepresentations of the ALUC staff report, the Commission is requested to consider the Impact and Conflicts Study itself, the responses prepared by the consultant and g�& Made From Recycled Paper COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 411 Main Street F.O. Box 3420 C CITYoINC rCHICO Chico, CA 95927 . (916) 895-4845 FAX (916) 895-4726 ATSS 459-4893 December 2, 1996 Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 FW -E Re: Foothill Park East and Bidwell Ranch Aircraft Operation Impact and Conflicts Study. Dear Commissioners: I must express my concerns with both the manner in which ALUC staff has handled review of the above referenced document and the content of the staff report dated November 20, 1996. Despite numerous requests directly to the Commission and ALUC staff, the City Planning Division had no knowledge that this meeting had been scheduled until yesterday morning, when . a copy of the agenda and report was provided by Commissioner Koch. Copies of the report and agenda were not provided to the City Planning Division, the proponent of the projects addressed or the consultant responsible for study preparation. As a result, the consultant was unable to schedule attendance at this meeting and City staff has had an unreasonably short time to review the report and attempt to provide thorough responses. After the City faxed a copy of the ALUC staff report to the consultant, Jack Freytag, of Charles M. Salter Associates, he did have the opportunity to review the report and provide initial responses. A copy of the consultant response is attached. It is my opinion that the staff report badly misrepresents the content and conclusions of the study. Further, the ALUC staff report continues to assert ALUC jurisdiction over projects in the Chico Municipal Airport despite the clear statutory language limiting ALUC's role as a responsible agency subsequent to adoption of a General Plan, with appropriate findings, by the City. These statutes have been provided to ALUC and its staff on several occasions and state that further ALUC findings are not required for projects consistent with the adopted City General Plan. However, to reflect the City's prior commitment, projects in the airport vicinity will continue to be forwarded for ALUC review, comment and recommendation. ALUC comments will be considered during City review and deliberation of such projects, but overriding findings will not be included should the City choose to approve a project despite ALUC recommendations to the contrary. To respond to major misrepresentations of the ALUC staff report, the Commission is requested to consider the Impact and Conflicts Study itself, the responses prepared by the consultant and g�& Made From Recycled Paper 7 the following: 1. The conclusion of the study relating to the results of the release of fire retardant were based on consultation with CDF and Aero Union. 2. The ALUC staff questions why the study does not address the other "70,000 non - fire related flights" (noting that the actual number of 1995 operations at the Chico Municipal Airport was closer to 60,000). Consistent with prior ALUC and staff discussion of these projects, ,in the absence of the specific departure route utilized by fire fighting aircraft, the two projects addressed by this study would have little, if any, impact or conflict with aircraft. operations. The majority of the flights from the Chico Municipal Airport follow standard departure routes which do not place aircraft in the vicinity of the two projects. 3. The comments on noise are inappropriate. First, ALUC staff comments fail to recognize that approximately 60% of the fire fighting aircraft departures (or 225±) are to the south, necessitating use of the alternate departure route overflying the vicinity of the projects. Second, there is no precedent for adding noise exposure on multiple single events to come up with a "total" noise exposure. Single event, short term exposure to multiple high noise levels is significantly different than prolonged exposure to such noise levels. Further, it is invalid to compare single event noise to weighted noise averages as was done in the ALUC report. Finally, there is no standard for single event noise levels in the CalTrans or other airport planning programs, such programs establish standards on the basis of weighted noise averages. 4. The report identifies an incompatibility between firefighting aircraft operations not all aircraft operations in the airport environs as implied in the ALUC staff report. There is a significant difference in conflict with 225± flights (approximate annual fire fighting aircraft operations to the south) and 70,000 (61,000± actual) total aircraft operations. In conclusion, the study objectively analyzed potential conflicts and impacts resulting from aircraft operations in the vicinity of the proposed Bidwell Ranch and Foothill Park East projects utilizing standards from the CalTrans handbook. Even with departure routes modified to reflect . actual practice, rather than handbook specifications, the study concludes that the projects comply with all handbook standards. The study goes a step further to subjectively identify potential conflicts, and recommends the formalization of the departure route and limits on density to minimize conflicts. The City welcomes appropriate comments on the impacts and conflicts study, but the ALUC staff report does not serve that purpose. CADK\LETRSWP\IMPCTCON.AIR 2 Sincerely, " CLIF ELLERS Community Development Assistant CS:dk Attachment xc: CM CDD Bill Brouhard, Bidwell Ranch Jack Freytag, Charles M. Salter Associates Stacey Jolliffe, Sr. Planner FR: Bidwell Ranch/Foothill Park East CAMLETRSW UMPCTCOMAIR Planning Division. DEC 0 4 1996 Orovillea California . 3 7'—:,NOV 26:1996 3:24PM CHARLES M SALTER ASSOC INC °,,•. t, M Salter A s s o c i r NO. 574 '•'•P.2i4' , -consultants ...26.-November'1996 In Acousdm & nudioNisuell SyatoM Design Clif Sellers, Planning Director via fax (916) 995-4726 130 suner street San Frandsco City of Chico Califomla 04104 Community Development Department Tat_ 415 397 0442 Fax: 415 397 0454 P.O.. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 Subject: Foothill Park East and Bidwell Ranch Aircraft Operation Impact and Conflict Study -- Response to Butte County ALUC Comments Charles M sopor, PE CSA Project No. 96-277 Anthony P.Nash, PE DaM R Schwind Dear Clif: Eva Dumar' John C Freyt3a, Pr-- I [Alan This letter responds to review comments made by the Butte County Airport Land Use AWT Raw Thoma, A Schlnddor Commission regarding our recently completed aircraft operation impact and conflict study for the proposed Foothill Park East and Bidwell Ranch developments southeast of Chico Harald s Goldberg, PE Rocha V Murray, Municipal Airport. Unfortunately, these comments were not forthcoming until a few hours PE Chrlstophor ago, and I understand that I must respond this afternoon prior to a Butte County ALUC J Struck Tlmodhy M Dar meeting tomorrow morning. Therefore, my comments must be brief and somewhat rhomae J Corbart unpolished, due to other work commitments today. Following are my specific comments on Kenneth W Graysn the Butte County ALUC letter from Stephen Lucas of 20 November. Ctaudla Wrestle . Eno r. eroaahurct, PE Regarding the Accidents issue of Finding #1, the ALUC letter implies a hazard to persons Mlohocl o Tey, PE and property on the ground from release of fire retardant, stating "Discussions with.CDF Kafhonno M I" personnel indicated that such releases during actual fire -fighting scenarios have flattened fire Karen F Decker, PE ..trueks.on impact." This is in direct conflict with my discussions with Aero Union and the PhIllp N Sanders CDF. PIease advise the source of this flattened fire truck story.. Motion G MR= Cynthia J FlewaGing -Since the aircraft climb performance limits departures to as low as 500 feet over the James Schaefer residences, and mitigation provides foraiminimum of 500 feet laterally from the flight track, Suzarm Cowden the slant distance from the aircraft to any point on'the ground is over 700 feet. This should Haman K Lee allow for considerably more dispersion of fire retardant released from aircraft than that Allson M De Jarrp . received by fire -fighting personnel and equipment on the ground directly below a 150 -foot retardant release. %NOVs26.1996 3:24PM CHARLES M SALTER ASSOC INC NO.574 P.3i4 Clif Sellers 26 November 1996 Page 2 The ALUC letter questions why non -fire related flights are not addressed in the Study. These flights use established airport departure procedures which are not over the proposed Bidwell Ranch and Foothill Park developments. This Study only addresses_ laden fire- fighting aircraft which are unable to use these established routes. The Finding 41 noise comments are completely incorrect, The 386 flights per season utilize both runways; only 58 percent of these (224 departures annually) would use RW13L, thereby bringing -them anywhere near the proposed developments. The computation of noise exposure duration annually is also incorrect. Because of the relatively low aircraft level (a minimum of 500 feet) and high speed (160 kts), aircraft may only be heard for up to 10 seconds on the ground during quiet periods outdoors. As an aircraft approaches, it may first be noticed when noise levels reach 40 dB to 50 dB, rising to a maximum instantaneous peak of 90 dB from their closest approach to the ground location, and then diminish as they continue over the Diversion Channel. This total audible period, from initial 40 dB through 90 dB and down to 40 dB again, may last for as long as 10 seconds, Thus, the conclusion should be that 40 dB may be exceeded by 64.3 minutes annually, far less than the noise exposure produced by typical neighborhood events such as traffic or children playing. The Study did not seek to investigate the relocation of fire -fighting services, as recommended by the ALUC letter. The goal of the Study is land use compatibility with the established fire -fighting operation. Finding #2 simply states the need to avoid high density land uses directly beneath fire -fighting aircraft departures, I do not see " ... the failure of this Study to address the realistic possibility that the residents of these projects will generate complaints that may force the alteration of flight paths/departures or the relocation of fire -fighting services,". I believe that the ALUC has missed the entire point of this Study, and that the ALUC letter author has not read it carefully nor understands the fundamental principles of land use restrictions and aircraft departure procedures for land use compatibility. It is recognized that some degree of complaint may arise from any airport operations. The ALUC letter Finding #3 criticizes the Study for not pursuing fiuther increased restrictions on fire -fighting aircraft operations or relocation of the fire -fighting operation '-elsewhere. This issue has already been addressed in my previous comments, and the ALUC comments are redundant. ALUC comments to Finding #4 state, "If land use restrictions are the desired solution, it is clear that the area . , . is not compatible with the proposal for a formalized departure route along the Sycamore Creek Diversion Channel." The ALUC comments fail to recognize that this Study has identified a mitigation of the potential land use incompatibility by land use and aircraft departure controls. The Study has not failed to recognize potential incompatibilities, but rather has mitigated them in accordance with recommendations from the Caltrans Handbook. ,,. u• MV.t26.1996 3:25PM CHARLES M SALTER ASSOC INC NO.574 P.4i4 Clif Sellers 26 November 1996 Page 3 The school site is beyond the potential conflict boundaries for aircraft departures as . identified in the Caltrans handbook. Generally, the Butte County ALUC comments are disappointing. They fundamentally lack any acknowledgment of the conflict mitigation, unfairly misconstrue various details for incorrect conclusions, and offer no positive input to the potential conflict. Further,.the comments seek to expand the scope of the Study into unrelated areas. such as non -fire related flights from the airport and potential relocation of the fire -fighting services based at the airport. It is unclear from this letter what action the County ALUC wishes from the Planning Department or what recommendations they offer for mitigating the potential conflict, Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions or for clarifications. Very truly yours, CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC. John Freytag, P.E. Director J'C:P/esd N026JCF Steve Lucas, Associate Planner Butte County ALUC 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Re: Foothill Park East and Bidwell Ranch Aircraft Operation Impact and Conflicts Study Enclosed for your review is a copy of the above -referenced study addressing two proposed projects near the Chico Municipal Airport. The study consists of two separate reports,' one for the proposed Bidwell Ranch project and the second for the Foothill Park East Subdivision. The reports are .presented together to reflect the relationship of the two contiguous projects to the departure route used by fire fighting aircraft. However, the .separate reports address the individual characteristics of the projects and potential impacts from noise and overflight, as well as safety concerns, based on the projects proximity to the airport and departure routes. The reports were prepared based on the recommendations and considerations set forth in the Cal Trans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and consultation with heavy aircraft operators at the Chico Municipal Airport. The Foothill Park East Report -will be incorporated into the environmental documents for that project to satisfy the requirements of .the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Bidwell Ranch Report will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council as. supplemental information for consideration during project review. The Planning Commission has scheduled a public hearing for December 9, 1996, to review the report for Bidwell Ranch, as well as to consider a recommendation to the Chico City Council for action on the project approval. The December 9, 1996;, meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 421 MainStreet, Chico, California. The agenda materials for this meeting will be distributed to the Planning Commission on Wednesday, December 4,1996. Any written comments should, be submitted prior to. that time to ensure adequate time for Commission review in advance of the meeting. a�� Made From Recycled Paper . ` COMMUNITY DEIWOPMENT • DEPARTMENT PLANNING , 411 Main Street CITYorCHICO P.O. Box 3420 INC. 1872 Chico. CA 95927 (916) 895-4851 November 20, 1996 FAX (916) 895-4726_ , ATSS 459-4851, Steve Lucas, Associate Planner Butte County ALUC 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Re: Foothill Park East and Bidwell Ranch Aircraft Operation Impact and Conflicts Study Enclosed for your review is a copy of the above -referenced study addressing two proposed projects near the Chico Municipal Airport. The study consists of two separate reports,' one for the proposed Bidwell Ranch project and the second for the Foothill Park East Subdivision. The reports are .presented together to reflect the relationship of the two contiguous projects to the departure route used by fire fighting aircraft. However, the .separate reports address the individual characteristics of the projects and potential impacts from noise and overflight, as well as safety concerns, based on the projects proximity to the airport and departure routes. The reports were prepared based on the recommendations and considerations set forth in the Cal Trans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and consultation with heavy aircraft operators at the Chico Municipal Airport. The Foothill Park East Report -will be incorporated into the environmental documents for that project to satisfy the requirements of .the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Bidwell Ranch Report will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council as. supplemental information for consideration during project review. The Planning Commission has scheduled a public hearing for December 9, 1996, to review the report for Bidwell Ranch, as well as to consider a recommendation to the Chico City Council for action on the project approval. The December 9, 1996;, meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 421 MainStreet, Chico, California. The agenda materials for this meeting will be distributed to the Planning Commission on Wednesday, December 4,1996. Any written comments should, be submitted prior to. that time to ensure adequate time for Commission review in advance of the meeting. a�� Made From Recycled Paper . No time schedule has been established for the Foothill Park East, project, but you are encouraged to submit comments as soon as possible to ensure appropriate consideration. Please feel free to contact the Community Development Department or Planning Division if you require any additional information or. assistance regarding this matter. - Sincerely, NCLIFLLERS Community Development Assistant jls cc w/out enclosure but with mailing list: „ _ City Manager Community Development Director Sr. Planner Jolliffe Risk Manager Koch Administrative Analyst Serl Bill Brouhard, Bidwell Ranch Dan Drake, Drake Homes Jack Freytag, Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. Planning Division' NOV 2 5 1996 Oroville, Calitomia CITY OF. C-HICO MEMORANDUM CITYorCHICO INC.1872 TO: . " PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: November 15,.1996 FROM: ! COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FILE: BIDWELL RANCH ASSISTANT FEIR SUBJECT: BIDWELL RANCH PROJECT - AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS CONFLICT STUDY ' n. The above -referenced topic was originally scheduled and noticed for discussion at the _ .Planning Commission meeting on, Monday, November 18, 1996. However, the report ,was not received and distributed to interested parties,.in. advance of the meeting for review and comment. Therefore, it is requested that the Commission not discuss this study at. the November 18, 1996 meeting, but rather focus the meeting on. the . Supplemental Traffic Analysis and continue consideration of this report to a subsequent .hearing, providing an opportunity for,the Commission and interested parties to review the report and prepare appropriate comments. jls cc:. CM CDD City Council Bill Brouhard, Project Manager Jack Freytag, Charles M. Salter Associates Vince Phelan Steve ,Lucas, ALUC Bob Hennigan Capt. Paul McAfee, CDF Planning Division. ..Nov. 9 1996 Oroviileo California Malin Beckwith, Program Manager CalTrans Aeronautics Program M.S. #40 P.O. Box 942873 Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 Re: Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and Master Plan; Foothill Park East and -Bidwell -Ranch --Specific Plan Environmental Impact Reports. Dear Mr. Beckwith: ' This letter is in response to your two letters dated August 30, 1996, regarding the above referenced subjects: First let me say that the City'of Chico is extremely proud and protective of the Chico Municipal Airport (CMA). We have an active Airport Commission that provides policy direction for the operation of the Airport, and we expend a significant amount of staff time in the administration of the Airport. The City has an on-going program of promotion and development of both the aviation facilities and the industrial park. We are always looking for ways to improve the expand these facilities in order to provide the residents and businesses of the Chico area with the best of both facilities. However, we are also very aware of the need to protect the Airport from encroachment by incompatible uses which would inhibit or restrict aviation operations. An example of this is extensive land use planning attention that the area around the Airport has been.given in the last three years. The City recently completed the preparation and adoption of a. new General Plan which includes this area, and the County of Butte previously spent over hvo years developing a specific plan for the area immediately to the west of the Airport (resulting in the North Chico Specific Plan).. Both of these planning processes included extensive public review and comment, including review by the County Board of Supervisors, the City Council and Planning Commission, the Airport Commission and the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). In these h,vo processes, particular attention was paid to the protection of the Airport from incompatible land uses. /Cti/ /zt/� &-'6 F. �i OFFICE OF THE. • CITY ,MANAGER 41 1 Main Street P.O. Box 3420 CITYorCHICO Chico. CA 95927 INC. 187Z ' (916) 895-4800 FAX (916) 895-4825 ATSS 459.4800 L-AGR-16-3-6/Chrono September 11, 1996 Malin Beckwith, Program Manager CalTrans Aeronautics Program M.S. #40 P.O. Box 942873 Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 Re: Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and Master Plan; Foothill Park East and -Bidwell -Ranch --Specific Plan Environmental Impact Reports. Dear Mr. Beckwith: ' This letter is in response to your two letters dated August 30, 1996, regarding the above referenced subjects: First let me say that the City'of Chico is extremely proud and protective of the Chico Municipal Airport (CMA). We have an active Airport Commission that provides policy direction for the operation of the Airport, and we expend a significant amount of staff time in the administration of the Airport. The City has an on-going program of promotion and development of both the aviation facilities and the industrial park. We are always looking for ways to improve the expand these facilities in order to provide the residents and businesses of the Chico area with the best of both facilities. However, we are also very aware of the need to protect the Airport from encroachment by incompatible uses which would inhibit or restrict aviation operations. An example of this is extensive land use planning attention that the area around the Airport has been.given in the last three years. The City recently completed the preparation and adoption of a. new General Plan which includes this area, and the County of Butte previously spent over hvo years developing a specific plan for the area immediately to the west of the Airport (resulting in the North Chico Specific Plan).. Both of these planning processes included extensive public review and comment, including review by the County Board of Supervisors, the City Council and Planning Commission, the Airport Commission and the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). In these h,vo processes, particular attention was paid to the protection of the Airport from incompatible land uses. /Cti/ /zt/� &-'6 • Marlin Beckwith CalTrans Aeronautics Program September.11, 1996 Page 2 Also, in order to protect the approach zones to the Airport, the City has previously .spent a significant amount of FAA and local money to acquire clear zones off of each end of the main runway for a distance of about one mile. We have also spent money on the development of a new FAR Part 150 noise compatibility and environs plan which restricts residential development around the Airport. Finally, for years, the City has been requiring avigation easements as a condition for development approvals and other entitlements. The implication of your two letters is that the City of Chico does not care what happens around its airport and is acting irresponsibly in the review process for the two referenced property developments is patently absurd and could not be further from the truth. While I do not disagree that the Aeronautics Program has the authority to comment on these two developments, and generally have no problems with the concerns being addressed. in your letters, I object strongly to the tone of your letters, and to whom they were distributed. _Further, your staff has done you a disservice by not first reviewing these specific concerns with City planning and administrative staff in order to obtain a complete understanding of these matters. I am particularly offended by your second letter in which it is obvious you.have received only one side of the story. You have -apparently responded directly to comments from selected individuals without obtaining a full picture or even researching *your files. Based on my previous correspondence with your staff, we assumed that you would have had them meet with City staff to discuss this matter prior to submitting your comments. With regard to the Aeronautics Program not being directly coritacted for Y comments regarding these hvo development projects, I would point out that the City has reasonable background to assume that there was no need for special notice to your office. First, that is what the State Clearinghouse is for, and it is your staffs responsibility to monitor projects of interest to your office. It is clear that they failed to do so. Further, the City has previously, in 1986, received a letter from the (then) Division of Aeronautics indicating no problems with a previous proposal for a development on the Bidwell Ranch site (Rancho Arroyo Specific Plan) which had three times the number of residential units as the current Bidwell Ranch proposal, plus an elementary and junior high school! Also in 1986, another letter from the Division of Aeronautics indicating no objection to five school sites that were proposed to be located within • Marlin Beckwith CalTrans Aeronautics Program September 11, 1996 Page 3 C� two miles of the Airport boundary, including five within the vicinity of the .Bidwell Ranch and Foothill Park East developments! For your reference, I have attached copies of these letters: Also in this regard, when the General Plan and North Chico Specific Plans were being prepared and reviewed, to our knowledge no comments were made by the Aeronautics Program staff despite the submittal to the State Clearinghouse of all required environmental documents, the draft and final General Plans, and other specific portions of the General Plan. Since the Bidwell Ranch and Foothill Park East developments are consistent .with the General Plan, special submittal of a request for comments to the Aeronautics Program.was not indicated. As you noted in your letters, the City is in the process of securing additional. studies regarding the impact on these developments by aircraft overflight and noise. This is another indication of the high. level of planning and development review the projects in this community receive. However, since the Bidwell Ranch project is outside of the two mile limit, the City is not intending to circulate the additional study to your office for comment. Further, however, the Foothill Park East study supplement will be circulated to you. Regarding your comments concerning the return flights of loaded California Department of Forestry (CDF) air tankers does not make sense and highlights -the lack of research that went into the letter. These tankers would not fly over the Bidwell Ranch project -area on the way back to the Airport, they instead would come in on the most direct route, as appropriate for conditions. (Mr. Gerst,-'as a member of ALUC, knows better than to state otherwise). Further, in conversations with the CDF, their concerns have been met with the proposed designation of a non -development corridor through.and adjacent to the Bidwell Ranch development. They have also advised that, in any event, they do not consistently fly over Bidwell Ranch anyway, even though this is the established noise abatement route. In closing, let me say that I do agree with you that no one affected by the operations of the Chico Municipal Airport.should be disregarded in any decision- making process relating to these two developments. I believe that I have s Marlin Beckwith CalTrans Aeronautics Program September 11, 1996 Page 4 -demonstrated to you that this community bends over backwards to ensure that all ..concerns are raised and addressed. The City Council, the Airport Commission and the City staff provide extensive and competent review, comment and decision-making in projects such as these, focusing on the health of the Airport and safety of the community. For your office and staff to imply or indicate, otherwise is not only incorrect, it is irresponsible. If you wish to discuss these matters further with me, please call me. Sincerely,------ THOMAS incerely,/THOMAS J. LANDO City Manager cc: City Council Fred Gerst, Chair, ALUC City Planning Commission Airport Commission L -AGR -16-9-2-3 (copies w/o'attachments) COMMUNITY DE LOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING 411 Main Street CITYo►CHICO P.O. Box 3420 INC. 187Z Chico, CA 95927 (916) 895-4851 FAX (916) 895-4726 ATSS 459-4851 Mike McClintock P and D Technologies 400 S. EI Camino Real, Ste. 500 San Mateo, California .94402 June 19,1996 RE: Aircraft Operation Impact and Conflicts . Dear Mike: F As we recently discussed, the City is currently considering two land ' use development proposals for properties located to the southeast of the Chico Municipal Airport. During recent public reviews of these projects, potential hazards from aircraft, particularly air tanker, overflight were identified as a concern that had not been addressed, as -well as other potential conflicts between urban development and airport operation. The Butte County ALUC has considered these projects and expressed similar concerns. Briefly the two projects are described as follows: Bidwell Ranch,- A 750 acre site north of the Wildwood Avenue and east of the Sycamore Creek Diversion Channel proposed for 1500 residential'units, a small commercial area, a neighborhood park, an elementary school and open space. Development will be concentrated on 305 acres with the remaining 445 acres of the site retained in open space. This site is outside the CMA Environs Plan area. Foothill Park East - A 173.83 acre site south of Sycamore Creek and west of the diversion channel. This site is proposed for.development of up.to 125 residential units, a five acre neighborhood park, and 11 larger 'parcels for future subdivision into single family residential lots. The northerly 31 acres is reserved as permanent open space as is the contiguous 200 acres north of Sycamore Creek. (It should be noted that the Foothill Park and Bidwell Ranch open spaces are contiguous.) This project is within the `airport environs plan area. Enclosed are several documents further describing the projects and their location in relation to the airport.. If additional information is necessary to evaluate these projects, my office can provide that information on request. Made From Recycled Paper June 19, 1996 Page 2 of 2 It is requested that you submit a letter proposal for this provision of consultant services for the analysis of issues related to aircraft operations. The primary issues, identified to date, are: 1. Exposure of persons residing in the project area to safety hazards from aircraft overflight and operations, including those associated with air tankers. 2. Exposure of persons to noise impacts from aircraft overflight and operations. 3. Constraint of safe aircraft operation by urban development. 4. Identification of measures to reduce any conflicts identified during the analysis. The analysis should include utilization of the CalTrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and consultation with CalTrans Aeronautics Program, California Division of Forestry and Fire Protection Air Attack Base, Medocino National Forest and other major airport operators. Your proposal should anticipate the submittal of 10 copies of administrative draft documents and 50 copies of final documents. You should also anticipate attendance at a minimum of five public hearings (one on the general topic, and two on each of the specific projects). Your proposal should also address the alternatives of preparing a, separate analysis for each of the projects and a combined analysis. As consideration of these projects is currently pending before the Planning Commission, it is essential -that this analysis be concluded as soon as possible. Please feel free to contact my office if you require any additional information or assistance regarding this matter. I look forward to receipt of your proposal and working with you to complete the analysis. Sincerel CLIF, ELLERS Plan ing Director kk cc: Bill Brouhard Vince Phelan Betty Volker s, Butte County ALUC i' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ; DEPARTMENT PLANNING 41 1 Main Street ' CITYorCHICO P.O. Box 3420 A~ Chico, CA 95927 T (916) 895-4851 - - • ' FAX (916) 895-4726._ ATSS 459-4851 ` # June 3 , _1996. Steve Lucas; Associate.Planner Y, Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ' 7 County Center Drive t Oroville, CA:'95965 y r Re: Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan and EIR Dear,Mr. Lucas: Thank .you for providing the report'setting forth -the Butte County . Airport Land Use Commission ' (ALUC) findings regarding- the-Bidweil ' Ranch project and environmental impact, report. However, ; after-; :. reviewing,., the. ALUC' .findings that are detailed :in Exhibits' of that report, -I believe tlie-stated._thefindings greatly, overstates [tho' a actually adopted b As .I recall,;_ ALUC-actio 7consisted''' of"the following: , 1. No •find'ing ,regarding consistencybecause the Bidwell Rariclisite his outside, the'" C2ii o ;Municipal'Airport . Environs 'Planstudy- area, env n thougYi tYie cYiair - argued that the site was within the environs plan because.it was beneath one of the` "air zones:" - ----�--'ter . ...� - • , ..+r. �---"��'--'_'�'�'iz--^' _'�'r�'c 2. A finding . that ahe environmental: ,impact report did not ' adequately address_po- __41=x;safety__hazards , asso_c ate.- `tYi`aircraft'�o flight;'.particul'arlyrair-tankers Also, as we recently discussed, the northwesterl p tion ofthe - + . ,project" -s tej (to be retained as permanent open space) is'f beneath` - the—airport's horizontal'surface and approximately half. of ~the development area is beneath the conicalsurface.'The remainder -of the project site is ,outside of any airport related; air zoning designation. r Please review the transc_rip for the May :15',' 1996; ALUC meeting to - -� - - e — ensure that the record accurately reflects�.ALUC action and findings.• Any correct ionsf`to the record and%or, report should b forwarded to my off 166 so that they _can be provided to the Planning r Commission.and City Council as they -further consider thisrproject' Planning Division -° -JUN 5 1996 Made From Recycled Paper " ♦. a s.- , t Steve Lucas,-Associate Planner. - Page 2 a - - June 3, ,.1996 s -', Finally, the Planning-Coinmissi.o"n'7-c—on sde- d1. this project and` the �ALUC `report• atthe meeting of�"May29199b: At.that time,. the M directed that an analysisg"be prepared-j'to, address potential fas' ety - hazards _ �— _ �- _jassociated"wrth �aircraft� overflight. and other airport " - confl'i ts. A, c prof tha't-analys-is-`will be provided to bthLUC r and the Cal Trans`iDvisioi ofd Aeronautics for review. and comment: ' .,Feel free -to.- contact my office if you require any 'additional - .information=regarding this.matter., Your assistance-is appreciated.'• } Sincer'ely, CLIF SELLERS ' + Planning. Director j l s " cc: CM • '; " CDD - RM Koch Christa-Maria Engle, Cal _Trans,Division of Aeronautics --Bill Brouhard•Bidwell Ranch Project Manager Brenda Crotts,-ALUC.. -� i Planning Division ' •,. I `,-• •' . ' ' . JUN , t• •.{ Vf -a - Oroviiid,.Caw��.��• _ A �..Y CITYorCHICO INC. 1871 :COMMUNITY DEVOOPi\1ENT .DEPARTMENT PLANNING 41 1Main Street P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 (916) 895-4851 FAX (916) 895-4726 ATSS 459-4851 June 3, 1996 Steve Lucas, Associate Planner Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center -Drive Oroville„ CA 95965 Re: Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan and EIR Dear Mr.Lucas:• a Afrrar-+ ('eww, 0 RECEIVED JUN 0419% CITY MANAGER C!r' -•� Thank you for providing the 'report setting forth the Butte County Airport Land Use: Commission (ALUC) findings regarding the Bidwell Ranch project -'and environmental impact report. However, after reviewing the ALUC findings that are detailed in Exhibit'"A'r of that report, I'believe the ..stated the findings greatly overstates those actually adopted by ALUC. As I recall, ALUC action consisted of the following: e 1. No finding regarding consistency because the Bidwell Ranch site is outside the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan study area, even though the chair argued that the site was within the environs plan because it was beneath one of the "air zones." 2. A finding that the environmental impact report did not adequately address potential safety hazards associate with aircraft overflight, particularly air tankers. . Also, as we recently discussed, the northwesterly portion of the 'project site (to be retained as permanent open space) is beneath the airports horizontal surface and approximately half of the development area is beneath the conical surface. The remainder of the project site is outside of any airport related air zoning designation. Please review the transcripts for the May 15, 1996, ALUC meeting to ensure that the record accurately reflects ALUC action and findings. Any corrections ,to the record and/or report should be forwarded to my office so that they .can be provided to the .Planning Commission and City Council as they further consider this project._ ane AOENDA MR :� cs*e nark CU oeek__L_AC4 CA__ACA_ councu Fw Y/ DIFm tu,___Prr "i&_C00_ZQS0 OOP PO FC FO_ ACTech cttw TF - Arade From Recycled Paper /` Steve Lucas, Associate Planner Page 2 June 3,, 1996 Finally, the Planning Commission considered this project and the ALUC report at' the meeting of-May 29, 1996. At that time .they directed that an analysis be prepared to address potential safety hazards associated with aircraft overflight and, other -airport conflicts. A copy of that analysis will be provided-to both ALUC and the Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics for, .review,and comment. Feel free to contact my office, if 'you require any additional information regarding this matter. Your. assistance is appreciated. Sincerely,; NCLIFSELLERS Planning Director jls cc: CM, CDD. RM Koch, Christa-Maria. Engle, Cal-Trans-,Division'of Aeronautics Bill.Brouhard,'Bidwell.Ranch Project Manager Brenda Crotts, ALUC j CITY OF CH*IC'O MEMORANDUM CITYaCHICO Q.1872 - TO: -Risk Manager DATE: June 3, 1996 FROM: Planning Director AFILE: Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan SUBJECT: May 15, 1996.ALUC Meeting - Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan Attached is a. copy of a document prepared by ALUC staff reporting the ALUC action,"of.. May 15, 1.996, relating to the Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan and environmental impact report. In reviewing the report, I do not recall that ALUC made the extensive findings set forth in Exhibit "A" of the report. These findings appear to' reflect the position offered by ALUC staff and the chair, but not those adopted by Commission's motion. As I recall, the Commission adopted the following: 1. No finding regarding consistency because the Bidwell Ranch site is outside the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan study area, even though the. chair. argued - that the site was within the environs plan because it was beneath one of the "air zones." 2. 'A finding that the environmental impact report did not adequately address potential safety hazards associate with. aircraft overflight, particularly air tankers.. Please review the ALUC report and determine if it accurately reflects the Comr-hission's action. If it does not, would you please follow up with ALUC staff to ensure that the . record accurately reflects the Commission's action. Thanks for your assistance. jls cc: Brenda Crotts wlattechment `�-1BU'7 T E SCO UNT4 .Aa[Rl OR -1i7 LAND 1W COMMISSION � TO: City of Chico, Planning Commission, City Council FROM: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission DATE: 15 May 1996 SUBJECT: Lh u r13 u u LS L MAY 2 8 19% CITY OF CHICO PLANNING DIVISION Butte County Airport Land Use Commission consistency findings and Draft Environmental Impact Report comments for the proposed Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan project located in northeast Chico. SUMMARY: The Butte County Airport Land.Use Commission conducted a public meeting on May 15, 1996 to discuss and determine the potential airport related impacts of the proposed Bidwell Ranch project in norheast Chico. The Commission reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the project and reviewed the project for consistency with the currently adopted Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP). The Commission also heard much discussion concerning the impacts to the California Department of Forestry (CDF) and Fire Protection Air Attack Base located at the Chico Municipal Airport (CMA). The Commission unanimously found the project DEIR to be inadequate with respect to airport related impacts and found the project not to be within. the study area of the CMAEP as defined by the Compatible Land Use Zones. The Commission was also concemed that the California Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Program was not solicited for comments and strongly recommended that the City of Chico contact Caltrans for a formal determination. AUTHORITY The authority of the ALUC is derived from the statutes set forth in Chapter 4, Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 21670) of the State Aeronautics Act (Division 9, Part 1 of the California Public Utilities Code). The California state legislature's purpose for creating the ALUC is stated in Section 21670(a) which states; 1. It is in the public interest to provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems; and 2. It is the purpose of this article to protect the health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public use airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. To meet these goals the ALUC was given the powers and duties outlined in Section 21674 to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of existing airports and to coordinate planning at the state, regional, and local levels so as to provide for the orderly -development of air transportation, while at the same time protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. The ALUC has many tools to utilize for the implementation of these powers and duties when reviewing projects in the vicinity of airports which include the individual airport comprehensive land use plans (CLUP), the general plan of the local jurisdiction, and the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (ALUPH) developed by the Caltrans Aeronautics Program. CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ENVIRONS PLAN (CMAEP) The comprehensive land use plan developed for the Chico Municipal Airport is designed to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general for a -period of twenty years. The CMAEP was adopted in 1978 and due to the rapid growth of the northeast Chico area, especially those areas located southeast of airport, the plan is now in need 'of a comprehensive update to ensure the future viability of the airport. The ALUC has determined that the proposed project is not within the identified "Study Area" of the CMAEP as defined by the Compatible Land Use Zones and for this reason a consistency finding with respect to the Compatible Land Use Zone designations cannot be made. However, the CMAEP .does indicate that the Bidwell Ranch site is within the Horizontal Surface or what is commonly referred to as the "Overflight Zone". The CMAEP when created in 1978, did not foresee that the land this project occupies would be converted to high density residential uses, and as such, the CMEAP made assumptions based on existing land use patterns that designated • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 2ie Bidwell Ranch site to be in agricultural use. The Commission deiermined that a ough the project area was not within the Compatible Land Use Zone Study Agof the CMAEP, the Plan does discuss sa mpacts associated with the overflight of aircraft and that the Bidwell Ranch sire is in the flight corridor of the airport and wilFbe exposed to safety hazards and noise exposure levels beyond the accepted 55 CNEL contour. CALTRANS AERONAUTICS PROGRAM AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK (ALUPH) Safety issues and acceptable risk standards are discussed in Chapter 9 of the ALUPH and residential density issues are evaluated. The operable issue one of acceptable risk. Caltrans understands that "the need for developable land around urban area airports typically is such that avoidance of. only the most risky forms of development - those in the most accident prone locations or ones which greatly increase the potential severity - may be more affordable. The problem with accepting this concept, of course, is that an aircraft accident in a developed area hardly ever results in pressure to eliminate the conflicting land use, rather the pressure inevitably is to restrict or close the airport." The ALUPH indicates that residential development in Traffic Pattern Zones (the equivalent to the Overflight Zone) is acceptable from a safety perspective if it planned for less than 4-6 units per acre and units are clustered to allow for more open space in the event of an emergency landing scenario. The ALUPH recommends that developments in the Traffic Pattern Zone provide 10% to 15% usable open space. Usable open space is defined as an area sufficient in size to allow an emergency landing of an aircraft as to limit the extent of injuries to aircraft occupants and to persons on the ground. Applying this standard to CDF fire tankers, usable open space would equate to an area large enough for these large planes to land in an emergency, or 10% to 15% contiguous open area. The Bidwell Ranch project could accommodate the safety and noise concerns presented by low flying CDF aircraft by allowing an open space corridor approximately 300 feet wide and 8000 feet in length along the western boundary corresponding to the approximate location of the Sycamore Creek Diversion Channel. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) The DEIR prepared for the project is substantially inadequate with respect to addressing airport related impacts. The fundamental issues to be addressed are the lack of ALUC notification, the failure to include airport safety issues as required by CEQA, and the lack of a reasonable cumulative impact analysis as it pertains to airport issues. As discussed in the DEIR on page 2, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared that listed those areas of possible environmental impact. Airport related safety or noise issues are not found on that list anywhere. Furthermore, the DEIR indicates that a Initial Study/NOP was circulated to local agencies, however, ALUC was not sent a NOP requesting comments, thus no mention of airport safety issues were addressed. The CEQA guidelines require in Public Resources Code Section 21096 that when an EIR is prepared for a project in proximity to an airport or within the boundaries of a comprehensive airport land use plan, the lead agency for the project must utilize the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook to assist in its analysis of airport related safety hazards and noise problems. The DEIR for Foothill Park East has no mention of the Caltrans Handbook, no mention of airport related safety hazards, and no mention of the considerable noise impacts generated by the oversight of CDF fire tankers. The DEIR also fails to discuss the potential of traffic impacts to Cohasset Road, the primary access to the airport. This issue is further compounded by a lack of cumulative impact analysis that identifies how cumulative development in the northeast Chico area may impact future airport operations. CALTRANS AERONAUTICS PROGRAM The Commission is concerned that the City of Chico had not contacted the Caltrans Aeronautics Program for comments on the proposed project. Caltrans is the sole state agency responsible for the planned orderly growth of airports and considered to be the "expert" in the analysis of potential airport related impacts. The Commission has received a letter from Caltrans indicating that they have "grave concerns" regarding the adequacy of the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan; the placement of school sites underneath heavy aircraft patterns; the impacts of overflight of CDF tankers on residential development; the adequacy of the FAR Part 150 study as it relates to CDF flight patterns and noise generation; the absence of appropriate consideration of airport impacts in the EIR; and the ALUC finding that the project is not within the "study area" requiring a consistency finding. Caltrans is continuing its analysis of the project and will submit formal comments to the City. A copy of the Caltrans letter has been provided to the City for inclusion into the record. This summary is in support of the following findings attached as Exhibit A. Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • . j EXHIBIT A BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FINDINGS FOR FOOTHILL PARK EAST The following findings have been made by the ALUC and are for the consideration of the City of Chico (local agency) when making a decision on this project. If the City decides to not follow the direction of the ALUC and allow a project to be approved, the City may override the ALUC decision with a 2/3 vote of the City Council if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent -with the State Aeronautics Act as stated in Section 21670. As detailed in the ALUPH, overriding findings cannot be adopted merely as matters of opinion, but instead, must be supported by substantial evidence. Section 1: CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ENVIRONS PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS A. Find that the Bidwell Ranch project isnot within the study area of the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan as defined by the Compatible Land Use Zones and as such a consistency finding cannot be made; and B. Find that the Bidwell Ranch project is within the overflight corridor of heavy aircraft departures and specifically the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection aerial fire tankers; and C. Find that the project is inconsistent with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Section 8,�; Land Use Recommendations which establishes the principle to protect the health and welfare of the community wliere there is a clear and supportable requirement. The ALUC has established at public hearing on May 15, 1996 that there is a clear and supportable foundation for noise and safety impacts related to the overflight of low flying California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection aerial tankers. Section 2: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS A. Find that the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project is inadequate in that it does not fully address the potential impacts of the project in the following items: The DEIR fails to comply with Public Resources Code Section 21096 which requires that when an EIR is prepared for a project in proximity to an airport or within the boundaries of a comprehensive airport land use plan, the lead agency for the project must utilize the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook to assist in its analysis of airport related safety hazards and noise problems; and 2. The DEIR fails to discuss the potential noise and safety impacts related to the overflight of the project site by aircraft and specifically, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection aerial fire tankers which are operating at a height of 300 to 500 feet above the project site, are carrying heavy loads of fire retardant, and exceed acceptable residential i noise levels. 3. The DEIR fails td -provide an adequate Cumulative Impact Analysis with respect to traffic and safety impacts as they relate to the operation of the Chico Municipal Airport and the impacts to traffic circulation on Cohasset Road which is the primary access to the airport; and 4. The DEIR in Chapter 10, indicates that approximately 49 acres are subject to noise levels of 55-60 dB CNEL, with 136 residential units housing approximately 407 people being affected. However, the DEIR indicates on page 10-17 that there will be no exposure of residential areas or schools to excessive aircraft noise and that the 55dB CNEL noise contour is located northeast of the plan area. This appears to be a direct contradiction. 5. The statement that there will be no exposure of residential areas or schools to excessive aircraft noise resulting in no mitigations is not substantially supported by the facts. There is no discussion of how the Caltrans Handbook information was utilized in this process and no discussion of the extreme noise levels that are generated by low flying California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection aerial tankers. • Butte County - Airport Land Use Commission • Section 3. GENERAL_ FINDINGS • A. The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission finds that: 1. The signing of avigation easements as a means to protect airport operations is not reasonable mitigation for noise or safety impacts. The impacts of noise on project residents will not simply vanish by the signing of avigation easements. The residents will be exposed to hgher than average levels of noise, especially single event noise levels from low flying CDF aircraft tfiatwill fly directly overhead of residential areas. Avigation easements are not an absolute assurance that airport operations will not be impacted. Easements have been successfully challenged in a court and resulted in the obstruction of airport operations. The only manner to ensure airport viability is to not place large con,centr people in the overflight zones. ; ations of 2. The project as designed does not indicate the provision of 10% to 15% of usable open space for emergency landings as recommended by the Caftrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Usable open space'for California Department - of Forestry and Fire, Protecton aerial tankers is unknown at this time and the project documents do not address this concern; and 3. That a Notice of Preparation of environmental documents was not submitted to ALUC for review and comm to the environmental documents being prepared. ent prior Approve Subm.itt Vie' '� ,� • Fred Ger t, Chair an, Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Kla1uc\bidwe11Jdg ; i • Butte County •"Airport Land Use Commission • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPO AERONAUTICS PROGRAM M.S, 940 1130 K STREET - 4TH FLOOR P.O. BOX 942873 SACRAMENTO, CA 94273.0001 (918) 322-3090 Too (918) 8544014 FAX (918) 327.9083 Fred Gerst, Chairman Butte County ALUC 7 County`Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Mr. Gerst: ATION May 23, 1996 In response, to your inquiries and request for information regarding the . Bidwell Ranch and Foothill Park East sites, we have begun an analysis of the proceedings and the actions contemplated for these developments.. We will be' sending-oux specific comments in a subsequent letter in the near future. Based upon our preliminary information, we feel that it is important to,place within the public record that we have grave concerns regarding: The adequacy of the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport (CMA) Airport Environs Plan; The absence of clearly defined planning boundaries as required in statute; The potential for school sites underneath heavy aircraft overflights; California Department of Forestry (CDF) tanker overflight impacts on residential development; The adequacy of the FAR Part 150 study as it relates to the CDF flight patterns; the absence of appropriate consideration of airport impacts in the Environmental Impact Report; The finding that the Bidwell Ranch Project is not in the "study area" for appropriate action by the ALUC. We will complete our analysis of these and any other related concerns and forward our comments to you at -a later date. Sincerely, C STA- A ENGLE Aviation Planner Aeronautics Program cc: Chico City Council c/o Thomas J. Lando City of Chico P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 Chico Airport Commission P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 1 1 A:): is 4, 1995 M ; . Taoxa a j. Lando CommtInity services Director Con:aunity servi-ces Deportmeat City of Chico P. O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 Dear Mr. Lando: clucu Muni. A/P School Sites (Butte Co. ) i,: response to your letter of request, dated ilarch 16, 19SJ, sui:raitted herein is clarification of the Department o:` ':3iY3CO�ta:iGn, .Divisiori of Aeronautica' position rcia}irtc, to the proposes church SdCilit1 at the intersection of Ceres and Lassen r%venues, southeast of Crisco tlua c pa A rport, and t� yoro�.oaecl scrLool site 46, 3ocated southeast of the future intersection of :local and Lassen Avenues. Dercrtmant recormen4s against land uses which invclve c*ncentrationz of people, such as churches, Schoolsut,c'. 'riyi:a denzity Aou sins witi7 :esPect to arena eirozed tt. ui :ciilft C:ii3� uazarc:s an", noise xapact by overflights of ,cw fryir.-.1 a_cerr::t. :it �si�ter:►ber 1956, the State Departiaant of E:.ucaticn MQ ",a a Ar;uast of this Deur=sant to evaluate ..uate asid make recti *1! at:cn to z IIIitar witbin twc nlles and soutlraact of the five potential school s airport. in our. recomaZendation to the state Departuent of Education we did not object to any of the five sltes,j however, it •vas pointers out that site tifigd as a bardec line' t n.Zr4 nn t~ to potential safety hazard and noise impacts froo circ raft operations. Therefore, --Undicat.. that si was the .Eac�� 3��cras:le site, of the iv sites, re? atirlg to a; rc_eEt int,acts. "` A:, for ue prop:*sed chu, .h site, it appears to be appru :imately 1/2.saile couthwoct of cchao'_ site 46, s,A .. school :t cite to the a:rrort aze: trio fright rattern. Since the Echoo' ;;ite location war.► c:.rr:,:::erred- r, ,mai , r�hun ev�'_uatcd two ana one a? f years rile c;1 o!'et lc ` un o` cs-d church is defi;�itel� •�► "'ca all__e cancentrIItlonS -) r?' Woul:? be sub ected V:Cn, pa:i2,? on infoc:�tion, ,u aver;..: 13oL:,e an caFer a^acts. constructinga chucch at that site. ve rec:ac.;c:n c, aga-nst._...--- 1 ��,i' _ 'I� ,.,LI d'!;1•...EZ �f1I. 9h -FI -.'_SII ,C �Y A:): is 4, 1995 M ; . Taoxa a j. Lando CommtInity services Director Con:aunity servi-ces Deportmeat City of Chico P. O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 Dear Mr. Lando: clucu Muni. A/P School Sites (Butte Co. ) i,: response to your letter of request, dated ilarch 16, 19SJ, sui:raitted herein is clarification of the Department o:` ':3iY3CO�ta:iGn, .Divisiori of Aeronautica' position rcia}irtc, to the proposes church SdCilit1 at the intersection of Ceres and Lassen r%venues, southeast of Crisco tlua c pa A rport, and t� yoro�.oaecl scrLool site 46, 3ocated southeast of the future intersection of :local and Lassen Avenues. Dercrtmant recormen4s against land uses which invclve c*ncentrationz of people, such as churches, Schoolsut,c'. 'riyi:a denzity Aou sins witi7 :esPect to arena eirozed tt. ui :ciilft C:ii3� uazarc:s an", noise xapact by overflights of ,cw fryir.-.1 a_cerr::t. :it �si�ter:►ber 1956, the State Departiaant of E:.ucaticn MQ ",a a Ar;uast of this Deur=sant to evaluate ..uate asid make recti *1! at:cn to z IIIitar witbin twc nlles and soutlraact of the five potential school s airport. in our. recomaZendation to the state Departuent of Education we did not object to any of the five sltes,j however, it •vas pointers out that site tifigd as a bardec line' t n.Zr4 nn t~ to potential safety hazard and noise impacts froo circ raft operations. Therefore, --Undicat.. that si was the .Eac�� 3��cras:le site, of the iv sites, re? atirlg to a; rc_eEt int,acts. "` A:, for ue prop:*sed chu, .h site, it appears to be appru :imately 1/2.saile couthwoct of cchao'_ site 46, s,A .. school :t cite to the a:rrort aze: trio fright rattern. Since the Echoo' ;;ite location war.► c:.rr:,:::erred- r, ,mai , r�hun ev�'_uatcd two ana one a? f years rile c;1 o!'et lc ` un o` cs-d church is defi;�itel� •�► "'ca all__e cancentrIItlonS -) r?' Woul:? be sub ected V:Cn, pa:i2,? on infoc:�tion, ,u aver;..: 13oL:,e an caFer a^acts. constructinga chucch at that site. ve rec:ac.;c:n c, aga-nst._...--- 1 ��,i' _ 'I� ,.,LI d'!;1•...EZ �f1I. 9h -FI -.'_SII w Mt. T::omas J.. Lando Page 2 " A?ril 4. 1989 For clarification purposes, should a school, shopping center, high-density housing, church or any other developaient which causes concentrations• of people be considered at. or near the prgyosed church facility' site, this Department would clearly object -to-the development based on people being subjected to adverse safety and noise impacts. Sincerely, JACK D. REuHENLY, Chief Division of Aeronautics `. ii. R. RiEsen, Chief.- Office of Airports cci Fred Davis Dave Hironimus Robert s11.1liams Planning D•ir. bcc: Dick,.Rogars - Dist. 3 CES: U9 d y6ia %fir 916 'ON :' J ► 1G , e1 �a�if,; I.„id ti`6 311b 96-6I-::�iI CITYd CHICO wc. ie1! TO: FROM: 0 CITY OF CHICO MEMORANDUM Planning Commission (Mtg. 11118/96) DATE: November 18, 1996 Community Development Assistaric::!� FILE: Bidwell Ranch FEIR SUBJECT: Aircraft Operations Impact and Conflicts Study Attached is the Aircraft Operations Impact and Conflicts Study prepared for the Bidwell Ranch and Foothill Park East projects. The study actually contains two separate reports, one for each of the projects. The reports are presented together because the projects are contiguous and influence aircraft departure routes, particularly for fire fighting planes. However, due to the distance and direction from the airport each of the project sites is affected differently by aircraft noise, safety and overflight. After review based on the CalTrans manual and consultation with the primary operators of aircraft overflying the sites, it is concluded that the proposed developments are consistent with recommendations of the manual for safety and noise. It is also recognized that the approximately 200 annual overflights during the spring and. summer by fire fighting aircraft will likely result in adverse reactions from persons in the proximity of the flight paths. Therefore, density restrictions and formalized departure routes are further recommended to minimize conflicts between aircraft operations and urban use of the sites. This study will be distributed to interested persons, businesses and agencies for review, comment and recommendations prior to consideration by the Planning Commission. cc /attachment: City County (9) City Manager Community Development Director Chico Municipal Airport Commission (5). Sr. Planner Jolliffe (3) RM Koch Admin Analyst Serl Bill Brouhard, Bidwell Ranch Dan Drake, Drake Homes Jack Freytag, Charles M. Sulter Associates, Inc. (w/o attachment). i'a = , a i JII .. '� I I ...:1 i I I€^ ii�id = ?fl.l. 'ah, -F (A I,i { Post -It' To lz Co. CAI Dept. 9 �:l ONM, Z7 - I memo 76711 gotpages ► ,(4 From �, ��t •� +� Co. \ BA�... W C Phone N Fax #S-3 �R ho LP R — Low Oanc.A R� I Me®rr 1 � P�. %Doan soots tIJM � 1 4 I ©Facto _ Ly ® o (ReYaenno peye�oornenf) goo, F¢ fLL '1� 0 0 :.� BUFFER ' • / � �' ' � MOR �..i 'O) M COMM PARK ,\ BfOWELL PARKI 1 � BUFFER � t Pat Bic—aaa■ 2-11 BIDWE 1994 ,. ® ■ PARKS & OPEN -SPACE DEVELOPMENT AREA Environmental Impact Report for Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan: Issue: Failure to address potential impacts to Chico Municipal Airport as a result of buildout. of __.. the Bidwell Ranch project. These issues include: _ Noise: Portions of the Bidwell Ranch project located in the Overflight Zone. CDF fire fighting planes will be approximately 300 feet over the project area after takeoffs. Safety: Potentially, after buildout, complaints from residents to CDF overflight noise could compel decision -makers to require turning ratios of CDF planes that they could not meet ... thereby encouraging CDF to move their planes and facilities to Redding. A direct result of this would be to increase response time to fires in Butte County from approximately 15 minutes to 45 minutes. Traffic: The lack of analysis of the following traffic. characteristics resulting from Bidwell Ranch as they impact Cohasset Road: Traffic Volumes, directional flow percentages, Average Daily Trip Ends, and Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Cohasset Road provides the only access to the Chico Municipal Airport. North of Eaton Road, Cohasset Road narrows to two lanes. Cumulative Impact Analysis: The Cumulative Impact Analysis section of the EIR, as required by CEQA, is essentially nonexistent. The document merely references the Draft EIR of the Chico General Plan. It fails to comply with CEQA requirements which call for a cumulative analysis of identified potential impacts of this project, known projects in the area, projects with submitted applications or applications pending, or where there is general knowledge of potential projects that will be submitted. CEQA does not require or expect "speculation" as a part of the cumulative analysis. The twist here, in this instance, is this document relies on speculative figures, i.e., the General Plan allows for approximately 6500 gross units in its planning area that have yet to be built. The planning area encompasses all of Chico, both within its City boundaries and in its Sphere of Influence. What the Cumulative Impact Analysis of the Bidwell Ranch EIR does not do is address adjacent (Foothill Park East TSM - 547 residential units) or any other potential projects in the northeast area of Chico. What the Cumulative Impacts resulting from development in this part of Chico upon the Chico Municipal Airport willbe ... is not provided. STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATON AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, Govemcr DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AERONAUTICS PROGRAM M.S. #40 1 K STREET - 4TH FLOOR P .OX 942873 SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001 �'1ann1�9 Division (916)322-3090 TDO (916) 654-4014 FAX (916) 327-9093 Mr. Thomas J. Lando Manager, City of Chico P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 Dear*Mr. Lando: August 30, 1996 SEP - 4 1996 %olovi le, Califomia 1978 Chico Municipal Airport (CM Airport Environs Plari 1978 Chico Municipal Airport (CMA) Master Plan entitled: Chico lduni il2al AirpQrt & Industrial Park Develo.,pment Plan Letter 2 of 2 ( The purpose of this letter is to focus on the Airport Land'Use Commission's (ALUC's) - 1978 CMA Environs Plan and what is essential to bring it into conformance with the law. Our response is based upon the understanding that the 1978 CMA Environs Plan is the adopted airport CLUP for CMA. Accordingly, this letter will address issues raised by the Butte County ALUC Chairman, Mr. Fred Gerst. The State Aeronautics Act in the Public, Utilities Code (PUC), and more specifically Article 3.5 relating to the ALUC, outlines the statutory requirements of the ALUC, its responsibilities and that of the cities and the county in the development of an airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for each of its airports open for the benefit of the general public. The statutes,also outline general requirements for the implementation of the airport CLUPs. ' In conjunction with those requirements, the Aeronautics Program has published the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (hereafter referred to as the "Handbook") to assist local jurisdictions in the implementation of the law. Current statute requires that the Handbook be used.in the preparation or amendment of the airport CLUPs and that it be used as a resource document in the preparation of environmental impact documents relative to noise and safety impacts associated with the airport. PUC Section 21675(a) requires that "...The commission plan shall include and shall be based on a long-range master plan or an airport layout plan, as determined by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation, that reflects the anticipated growth of the . l airport during at least the next twenty years..." The CMA Environs Plan contains forecasts which are extrapolated to the year 1998. Many of its forecasts pertain to elements which no longer exist, such as DC -9 and B-727 air carrier activity. The most current CMA Master Plan is dated November 28, 1978. It also reflects activity which no longer exists at the airport and, • Mr. Thomas J. Lando August 30, 1996 Page 2 • conversely, does not contain information relating to the current status of the airport, its facilities or its operations. As the adopted Master Plan for CMA, the City of Chico has thus operated at variance with its own master plan for many years. This places an impossible predicament on the ALUC. Is it to base its CN1A Environs Plan merely on an Airport Layout Plan, on an out-of-date airport master plan, or is it to treat each project separately pending the adoption of a proper plan? This is a matter which may not finally be resolved except through litigation. The airport land use planning law was instituted in 1968 for the counties which had airports with commercial air service. In 1982 the law was expanded to include the counties with airport(s) open for the benefit of the general public. In the case City of Coachella v. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, 210 Cal.App.3d 1277- (1989), Fourth District Court of Appeal, the Thermal Airport Land Use Plan (i.e., the CLUP) was invalidated because it failed to conform to statutory requirements. Among other things, it did not have a long-range master plan and did not reflect at least twenty years of anticipated airport growth. When the court stated that the requirement that the comprehensive land use plan contain a "long-range master plan," it meant that the "...long-range master plan must be an identifiable something which is incorporated into the land use plan." We feel that the CMA Environs Plan should accurately reflect these required elements, and in so doing, should be guided by the criteria in the Handbook as is required by PUC Section 21674.7. An area of great confusion exists with respect to what is referred in the CMA Environs Plan as the "study area." Initially, it is referred to as the »ats, eucats ana outs t,ommuruLy Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contours ...since noise is usually the primary concern..." (Page 6-1 of the CMA Environs Plan). However, in another section of the plan, it identifies the noise contours as "planning boundaries" relative to a survey conducted and states that "...An important recommendation reached as a result of the questionnaire survey deals with the issue of using contour lines as planning boundaries. The results of the survey clearly indicated that noise exposure contour lines should not be used as the only source for making final land use planning decisions..." (Page 4-28 of the CMA Environs Plan). Later sections refer to Compatible Land Use Zones (CLUZ) in the airport study area "for land use zoning recommendations." The CLUZ areas themselves, as indicated on the maps, extend slightly beyond the noise contour lines. The study area confusion is again exacerbated by some of the maps showing land uses identified outside the noise contours and the compatible land use zones. Regardless of how this jurisdictional area has been defined in the past, we see the need to bring it into conformance with the law. The purpose of an airport CLUP is to clearly specify airport compatible uses of land inside the established planning boundaries. It must also outline policies and any specific planning criteria for CLUP preparation and subsequent land use decisions made by the ALUC. PUC Section 21675(c) requires that ALUCs establish planning area boundaries ...after [a public] hearing and consultation with the involved agencies." As stated in the Handbook (page 3-16), in accordance with [PUC] Section 21675.1(b), "...it is not unusual for an ALUC to establish an airport planning or project referral boundary. prior to the adoption of compatibility plan for an airport. Typically, this planning area boundary is based upon the airport's (Federal Aviation Regulation [FAR]) Part 77 airspace surfaces for the two -miles from -the airport- NIr. Thomas J. Lando August 30, 1996 Page 3 property line criterion indicated in the statutes. .4 reassessment of this boundary should be done as part of the preparation of a compatibility plan. Once the areas of concern for noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight have been identified, the combination of these areas serves to define the planning. area boundary." We strongly urge the ALUC to amend its plan to reflect these requirements. Given that, the planning boundary would include anyoverflight and safety impacts of the airtanker operations. As such, both projects would be subject to ALUC review. We understand that the Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan has been excluded from ALUC review. In the minutes of the May 15, 1996 Butte County ALUC meeting, Alternate Commissioner Koch states "...that the Environs Plan might be out-of-date, since it is 18 years old, and might be a good reason for a finding of Over-riding Consideration." Subsequent to that statement, the minutes note from Commissioner Franklin the statements that "...the CDF [California Department of Forestry] issue is moot. There is not consistency with the 1978 plan. anyway. The City will over -rule, and the project will be built."' It is apparent from the Commissioner's remarks that conclusions are being drawn which are unsupported by the facts, as is required in the law. The ALUC's review of the Foothill Park East project was appropriate. In the case of the Foothill Park East project, the ALUC has made a determination of inconsistency with its current CMA Environs Plan. During the May 31, 1996 meeting between Caltrans Aeronautics Program staff and Mr. Bob Koch with the City of Chico, the Aeronautics staff was informed that the City Council will probably override the ALUC's determination of inconsistency for this project "and worry about being sued later ... that they will find 'something' on which to base the findings." We wish to place within the record that the requirements for findings are specific. Findings.cannot be bare conclusions and they must also be based upon substantial evidence from the record. The Handbook outlines the requirements for adequate findings: • That a public hearing (except for an action prior to the adoption of a compatibility plan) is conducted. • That the action proposed is consistent with the purposes stated in PUC Section 21670 (a)(1) and (2). Collectively, all the purposes from the statute must be addressed.. • That the action taken is by a two-thirds votes of the agency's governing body. • That the findings are substantive, based upon evidence from the"record. • That the findings "...bridge the analytical gap between raw data and ultimate decision." Further, the findings should document the following (refer to the Handbook, pages 5-15 to 5-17): (A) How the local agency has considered any adopted long-range development plans that may exist for the airport. (B) How the local agency intends to plan for development of the airport over the next 20 years. - I \1 0- , - - • Mr. Thomas J. Lando August 30, 1996 Page 4 (C) If a master plan identifies a need for additional undeveloped land for expansion or approach protection, how local land use planning and zoning actions would foster the airport's fulfillment of that need. (D) Any inconsistencies between noise element policies and noise compatibility criteria in the ALUC compatibility plan and attempt to resolve why the differences exist. (E) How noise element policies will assure conformance with the state noise airport standards. (F) Any measures to be incorporated into local development to mitigate existing and foreseeable airport noise problems. (G) Any inconsistencies between the proposed land use action and safety compatibility criteria in he ALUC compatibility plan. (H) The measure taken to assure that risks --both to people and property on the ground and to the occupants of the aircraft-- associated with the land use proposal are held to a minimum. (I) How the proposed land use action falls within a level of acceptable risk considered to be a community norm. (J) How, if existing noise and safety hazards are not excessive, the actions taken by the local agency will "prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems" to be consistent with the purpose of the statute. (K) If the existing exposure is excessive, how its action in overriding an ALUC determination of inconsistency nonetheless minimizes additional exposure to those noise and safety concerns that have been identified. (L) The extent to which land uses in the area in question are already incompatible with airport operations, and how an action to.override would not create a new incompatible use, or would not expose additional persons or property to noise and safety hazards associated with existing compatible uses. In the 1992 case of the California Aviation Council (now the California Pilots Association) v. City of Ceres, the California Court of Appeal, 5th District, reversed a decision made by the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. The City of Ceres had approved a large residential development near to and beneath the approach path to the Modesto. Airport. The county's ALUC reviewed the project and found it to be inconsistent with its airport CLUP. After a public hearing in which the pilots testified against the project, the City of Ceres voted to override the ALUC and approve the project. At the trial, it was proven that the City ignored - safety and noise considerations to persons living under the overflying aircraft. When overruling the ALUC, the City did not receive any evidence and did not make specific findings, as required by State law, that there would be no safety and noise problems created and that the action taken supports the purposes of PUC Section 21670. The judge ruled in favor of the City of Ceres. The three-judge Appellate Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case back to the Superior Court with directions requiring the City of Ceres to base its findings on substantial evidence from the record. The City of Chico should consider these facts before issuing override decisions. A final issue to consider is that the CMA Environs Plan does not show the flight tracks presently in use by the California Department of Forestry (CDF). Education Code Section 39005 Mr. Thomas J. Lando August 30, 1996 Page 5 requires the Aeronautics Program to conduct an investigation and make recommendations regarding school site placement within two miles of an airport. If the Program recommends against the school site, it is almost certain that the school district applying will not receive funding through the Department of Education.. Prior school site evaluations conducted by Aeronautics staff have come under attack because the CDF flight tracks were not adequately considered. Our policy requires that our evaluation give considerable weight to the policies in the airport CLUP. This again emphasizes the need for an update of both the CMA Master Plan and the CMA Environs Plan which will include the current CDF flight tracks and sound policies, for the placement of future school sites. At a minimum, those policies should require an ALUC evaluation if there are significant overflights of any proposed school sites as well as all proposed school sites within the planning boundary. We feel that this should be accomplished prior to any new development. We have noted the apparent political sensitivity associated.with these projects. We also recognize that a city can find itself in the sometimes difficult situation of being both the owner/operator of a public -use airport and the agency responsible for promoting growth and revenue from within the city's borders.. However, this situation constitutes no reason for the city's airport and the people who will be affected by its operations to be disregarded in any . decision-making process. Sincerely, MARLIN BECKWITH, Program Manager Aeronautics Program cc: Chico City Council c/o Thomas J. Lando Fred Gerst, Chairman rl Butte County ALUC City of Chico Planning Commission Chico Airport Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATON AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON. Govemcr DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AERONAUTICS PROGRAM M.S. #40 1 ( STREET - 4TH FLOOR P.t_ dOX 942873 SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001 (916) 322-3090 TDO (916) 6544014 FAX (916) 327-9093 SEP - 4 1;J .., Urowub, �autom�a August 30, 1996 W. Thomas 1 -Lando Manager, City of Chico - P.O. Box 3420. Chico, CA 95927 Dear Mr. Lando: Bidw • a Final Enmironmentall=act Report Letter I of 2 The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Aeronautics Program, is responding to your letter dated June 28,1996 to Christa-Maria Engle. We are submitting two letters to place in the public record; one will focus on the Environmental Impact Reviews (EIRs). associated with the Foothill Park East Project and the Bidwell Ranch Specific Planand the other will focus on the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport (CMA) Environs Plan. These letters will also serve as a response to a request for information from Mr. Fred Gerst, Chairman of the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) in a letter dated May 21, 1996 to Christa-Maria Engle. While you are no doubt familiar with these documents, our intent is to pull them together for discussion purposes so that the larger range of potential airport impacts are highlighted and understood by all concerned. It is our understanding that the CMA is owned and operated by the City of Chico with the ;City Manager's office also acting as the Airport Manager for CMA: We also understand that the City of Chico, Community Services Department, Planning Division, is the lead agency for the EIRs associated with these two projects. The Caltrans Aeronautics Program reviews the environmental documents for projects near an airport either as a responsible agency or an interested party with technical expertise under Section 21666(e) of the Public Utilities Code (PUC). Asa responsible agency, we typically receive copies of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), the Negative Declaration, or the draft/final EIRs for review and comment through the. State Clearinghouse -process. As an interested party, • LN[r. Thomas J. Lando Au,yust 30, 1996 Page 2 • our review usually depends upon the lead agency sending us a copy for comment. In this case, we are only an interested party because the projects referenced do not impact the airport permit. In the minutes of the May 15, 1996 Butte County ALUC meeting, Alternate Commissioner Koch who represents the City of Chico, states "...that maybe Caltrans lack of comment was an oversight, and someone could call them and ask them for comments." However, the City of Chico, as the CMA owner/operator and the lead agency for the referenced projects, did not specifically prevail upon this office for a review of any of the associated environmental documents during the designated comment period or at any time thereafter. Based upon our review of the Butte County ALUC meeting minutes and upon conversations with the staff to the ALUC, we note that the ALUC was also not provided an opportunity to review the NOPs or the draft EIR for the Bidwell Ranch project within the official comment period. We believe that an airport -owning agency would want to receive the maximum input regarding any potential aviation -related impacts. Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21096 requires that the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning_ Handbook (hereafter referred to as the "Handbook") be utilized in the an of airport -related safety hazards and noise problems in the preparation of an EIR when the project is situated within the airport's planning boundaries or within two nautical miles of a public airport in the absence of an adopted plan. If the 1978 Civ1A Environs Plan is the adopted airport comprehensive land use plan (CLUP), our calculations indicate that all of the Foothill Project is clearly included within the areas mapped. Most all of the Bidwell Ranch project is also located on the CLUP maps when drawn to scale. For example, the drawing No. CIC -10 entitled "Proposed Land Use Plan", identifies what would be the Bidwell Ranch area as number "4" or "low density residential." It is clearly indicated to be land that is subject to planning relative to the airport environs. Were the two nautical miles from the airport's boundary applied to both projects, all of the Foothill Park East project and most all of the Bidwell Ranch project are located within that sphere. Thus, we strongly disagree with the position taken by some members of the ALUC and others that the Bidwell Ranch is outside any referral area for ALUC review and comment, and subsequently is not subject to an ALUC review of the environmental documents. We will address the subject of the referral area in more detail in letter #2 regarding CLUP issues and the 1978 CMA Environs Plan. Further, we are very concerned about the action taken by the ALUC to revise the findings submitted by the ALUC to the City of Chico, the City Planning Commission and the City Council in the May 15, 1996 consistency findings relating to the Draft EIR (DEIR) for the proposed Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan. The action taken at the June 19, 1996 meeting summarily removes any reference to PRC Section 21096 and the Caltrans Handbook from the original findings. As already indicated, we believe that PRC Section 21096 must be utilized and we believe that the ALUC's action was without justification. The minutes of the June 19, 1996 ALUC meeting indicate considerable confusion as to whether or not "noise" is connected with overflight considerations. In view of the confusion and other related comments within the record, there is additional reason for the Handbook to be Mr. Thomas J. Lando August 30, 1996 Page 3 consulted on these matters. A reading of the material would provide some clarification to the issues discussed. Our position supports the original findings submitted in the May 15, 1996 report in addition to the applicability of PRC Section 21096 to both projects. A review of the environmental documents provides even more reason for our position. The DEIR for the Foothill Park East project makes little mention of any airport -related impacts. This project is located less than two statute miles from the CMA boundary. It is within the flight corridor indicated in the 1978 CMA Environs Plan. It is underneath the general traffic pattern for CMA as indicated in Exhibit IV -1 "Generalized Flight Tracks", 1994 Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program and Environs Plan map which was sent to us with the environmental documents. Also, Mr. Dick Tiller, Air Attack Officer, in his May 13, 1996 letter to Mr. Steve Lucas, staff to the ALUC, indicates that this area is overflown by airtankers loaded with retardant at altitudes as low as 400 feet above the ground: Based upon these facts, and in contrast to how these issues are presented in the EIRs, we believe that the adverse environmental impacts resulting from the project are potentially quite significant. For example, on days when the California Department of Forestry (CDF) airtankers are operating from.CMA, the'Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) values will increase by an estimated 5dB to l OdB, thus creating a major difference in the overall daily noise level. At the very least, mitigation would be necessary as a matter of overriding significance, after a finding that would warrant the adverse impacts as justifiable. The DEIR for Foothill Park East states that "...the FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program for the Chico Municipal Airport does not include projections of the noise contours beyond 1997." If the Foothill Park East project is developed, it would most likely be done in 1997 or thereafter, which means that there will be no noise analysis available, based upon either a current measurement or a projected measurement done in a prior analysis. This fact alone should have triggered a thorough analysis of the noise -related impacts associated with CMA during the environmental review process. The Bidwell Ranch project is similarly located relative to CMA and its operations. The DEIR for the project states that "the Chico Municipal Airport is approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the plan area." The Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan DEIR (and final EIR) are also deficient in their consideration of the aviation -related impacts. Likewise, this project would be built in 1997"and thereafter (subsequent to the 1997 projected noise contours in the FAR Part 150 study), and with no appropriate analysis regarding the specifics of airport noise. As stated in the ALUC's May 15, 1996 findings, Chapter 10 of the DEIR contradicts itself in two places regarding anticipated noise impacts on residential development and the proposed schools. Page 10-9 of the DEIR also makes an incorrect reference to "Ldn". The required standard in California for the measurement of airport noise is the Community Noise Equivalent Level, or "CNEL" measurement. Appendix E of the DEIR includes statements on the noise contours developed for the 1978 Environs Plan, which is the adopted compatibility plan for CMA. It states, in significant Mr. Thomas J. Lando August 30. 1996 Page 4 part, "The noise contours for the 1978 Environs Plan do not reflect current levels of operations or current aircraft usage which is approximately two-thirds of operations that the contour is based on, but will serve as a conservative method of reducing potential aircraft noise conflicts in residential areas developed near the airport..." A Figure 10-4 is referenced to show the noise contours for CMA (and specifically, the 55dB CNEL), yet that figure within the DEIR identifies only noise monitoring sites. We did not locate any diagram containing airport noise contours as described in the DEIR for the Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan. In that same section, Appendix E makes some reference to required avigation easements for residential development within the 55 dB CNEL. However, it did not specify what would be received in return for agreeing to the easement. An avigation easement alone is not a mitigation for potential airport noise impacts, particularly for outdoor activities. Homeowners are exposed to no less noise or hazards to safety after having agreed to an avigatiori easement. . In addition to a lack of meaningful airport noise contours, aircraft overflight associated with noise and safety were not considered in the environmental review process. Mr. Dick Tiller's letter states that CDF flies airtankers from CMA loaded with an average capacity of 1,500 gallons of fire retardant. The prevailing winds require a south departure about 90 percent of the time. They are currently required to fly a noise abatement procedure to avoid existing homes.which places their flight over and near both proposed projects. He estimates a five-year average of 386 overflights per year between the dates of June 1 to October 15. About 40 percent of the time, the airtankers return fully loaded with retardant. The letter states that the tanker base and the airport tower already receive many calls during the fire season complaining about aircraft overflights and the associated noise. Mr. Tiller states in his letter, "Due to the low altitudes of departing airtankers over this departure route, we would expect a serious increase in complaints requesting we change our departure route to the south..."- The planners of noise abatement . procedures sometimes develop procedures and routes that are difficult or impossible to fly. Thus, it cannot be assumed that there are numerous routing options always available. Safety considerations associated with overflight are also mentioned in Mr. Tiller's letter, "Should an airtanker develop [a] mechanical problem such as losing an engine the airtanker will jettison its load of retardant to enhance performance of the aircraft. The retardant can cause injury and property damage. Serious mechanical problems could cause a forced landing in the proposed subdivision..." A discussion of the hazards associated with overflight must also consider that an aircraft cannot always be controlled to stay within a narrowly defined area should a malfunction occur. We saw no indication that these issues were addressed in the EIRs; they should not be ignored in the environmental review process. The standard measurement of noise impacts is the calculation of cumulative noise levels identified as a CNEL measurement in California. However, the Handbook points out that cumulative noise metrics do not adequately identify some aspects of noise exposure effects. "...Other characteristics of noise, whether measured on a decibel scale or evaluated in a more qualitative manner, may nevertheless also need to be considered... with respect to Mr. Thomas J. Lando August 30, 1996 Page 5 overflight issues... Single' -event noise levels are often promoted as useful in identifying the existence of noise concerns in locations beyond those outlined by cumulative noise exposure contours. Since there is no single -event "standard", the Handbook recommends the use of the altitude of aircraft overflights (their height above ground level) as a means of defining the limits of any additional concerns. For general aviation airports, a correlation is suggested "...between frequent, low -altitude aircraft overflights and noise -related annoyance. Such a measure also correlates with the fear and anxiety component of overflight annoyance..." The City of Chico's FAR Part 150 study makes reference to the same information in even greater detail with an adjoining recommendation. Appendix A is entitled: SINGLE EVENT NOISE AND ANNOYANCE. The information correctly differentiates between aspects of noise proven as associated with human health and those associated with other adverse effects of noise. In addition to sleep and speech interferences as annoyance factors, the following excerpts are quoted from the FAR Part 150 study: Community response to aircraft noise can be affected by factors other than the noise itself. Fear of crashes, other forms of pollution, and proximity to aircraft flight tracks are three non -noise aspects that are .related to airport noise contours and complaint patterns... If any conclusion can be drawn from the above [referenced in the Part 150 study] studies, it may be that a variety of factors, including direct overflight, the fear of crashes, -vibration, and concerns over pollution, are contributory to the number of noise complaints received from areas outside of the CNEL 65dB noise contour at airports... In 1968, the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] was mandated to protect the `public- health and welfare" as a guide in prescribing and amending aviation standards and regulations. Recent federal court decisions have defined Public Health and Welfare to include both physical and mental health effects. Physical effects are fairly well defined ( such as hearing loss), but welfare effects can be interpreted to cover many things; most recent definitions of welfare define it as the mental or emotional reaction. to noise, often characterized as annoyance or interference with a normal activity (speech, sleep or solitude). As a result of this mandate, the FAA recommends that both the physical and mental health effects of airport noise be addressed in the environmental review process (emphasis added). It appears that the City of Chico has ignored the recommendations contained within its own FAR Part 150 study. We understand from the City's planning division that supplemental materials "in the form of an analysis of very relevant data" are being prepared for planning commission review.instead of a Supplement to the EIR(s). The lack of in-depth review of aviation -related impacts, which include'the issues of noise, safety and overflight, should warrant a full supplement to the EIRs. It concerns us that a Supplement to the EIRs will not be done, as Mr. Thomas J. Lando August 30, 1996 Page 6 is indicated, in the minutes of the June 19, 1996 Butte County ALUC meeting and confirmed by telephone with Clif Sellers, Director of the City Planning Division, Community Development Department. Your June 28; 1996 letter to Christa-Maria Engle broaches the subject of irresponsibility on our part. We appreciate your having placed this issue on the table. -Should damage, injury, or loss of life become connected with either of these projects, the subject of irresponsibility would be one for the courts to decide. At this time, our discussions would be more productive in the direction of ensuring that those possibilities are either m nimized or are not likely to occur. Should you need to discuss either of the two letters, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, MARLIN BECKWITH, Program Manager Aeronautics Program cc: Chico City Council c/o Thomas J. Lando City of Chico, Fred Gerst, Chairman _ Butte County ALUC City of Chico Planning Commission Chico Airport Commission •Department of Development Services • 7 County Center Onve. Oroville, CA 95965 • ( 1 • June 20, 1996 City of Chico Planning Commission c/o Clif Sellers 411 Main Street POB 3420 Chico, CA 95927 RE: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Findings for Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan. Dear Commissioners: At the urgent written request of the City's Planning Director, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan Findings at its June 19, 1996 meeting. The findings were originally submitted to the Chico Planning Commission on May 15, 1996. Mr. Sellers was concerned that the findings prepared by staff "greatly overstates those actually adopted by ALUC". It was his opinion that the ALUC only adopted two simple findings regarding the consistency of the Bidwell Ranch Project with. the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and the inadequacy of the draft environmental impact report prepared for, the project. At the June 19,1996 ALUC meeting, the ALUC discussed this concern and unanimously confirmed the original findings to be an accurate representation of the ALUC's position.. However, to accommodate the City's request to alter the findings, ALUC agreed to the attached revised findings identified as Exhibit A-1. The revisions essentially remove all references to compliance with the Caltrans Airport Planning Handbook and Public Resources Code Section 21096. It should be understood that the revised findings in no way diminish the concerns of the ALUC or do they reduce the significant inadequacies of the draft environmental impact report. The revisions were made in effort to cooperate with the City and soften the potential adverse impacts to the project resulting from ALUC actions. It should also be noted that the aviation planners with the Caltrans Aeronautics Program have reviewed and support the original findings, submitted and that these revisions in no way affect the findings submitted for the Foothill Park East Project. Sin ely, ers hair n ; Butte Co my Airport Land Use Commission cc: ALUC Caltrans Aeronautics, Christa Engle Chico Airport Commission Bill Farrel, Development Services • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • EXHIBIT A-1 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FINDINGS FOR BIDWELL RANCH PROJECT The following findings have been made by the ALUC and are for the consideration of the City of Chico (local agency) when making a decision on this project. If the City decides to not follow the direction of the ALUC and allow a project to be approved, the City may override the ALUC decision with a 2/3 vote of the City Council if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the State Aeronautics Act as stated in Section 21670. As detailed'in the ALUPH, overriding findings cannot be adopted merely as matters of opinion, but instead must be supported by substantial evidence. Section 1: CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ENVIRONS PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS A. Find that the Bidwell Ranch project is not within the study area of the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan as defined by the Compatible Land Use Zones and as such a consistency finding cannot be made; and B. Find that'the Bidwell Ranch project is within the overflight corridor of heavy aircraft departures and specifically the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection aerial fire tankers;. and C. Find that the project is inconsistent with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Section 8, Land Use Recommendations which establishes the principle to protect the health and welfare of the community where there is a clear and supportable requirement. The ALUC has established at public hearing on May 15, 1996 that there is a clear and supportable foundation for noise and safety impacts related to the overflight of low flying California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection aerial tankers. Section 2: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS. A. Find that the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project is inadequate in that it does not fully address the potential impacts of the project in the following items: 1. The DEIR fails to eernply with Publie Rescurees Code 04 A-0-6- whieh requires that when an EIR i -s pfeapared, for a prejeet in proximity to an airport or within the boundaries of a eernpr-ehensive airport 'and use plan, the lead ageney for the projeet must utilibe the Galtrans Acirpert Land Use Planning 1 land6eeki�-� in -its -analysis -of analyze airport related safety hazards and noise problems; and 2. The DEIR fails to discuss the potential noise and safety impacts related to the overflight of the project site by aircraft and specifically, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection aerial fire tankers which are ' operating at a height of 300 to 500 feet above the project site, are carrying heavy loads of fire retardant, and exceed acceptable residential noise levels. 3. The DEIR. fails to provide an adequate address the Cumulative Impact Analysis with respect to traffic and safety impacts as they relate to the operation of the Chico Municipal Airport and the impacts to traffic circulation on Cohasset Road which.is the primary access to the airport; and 4. The DEIR in Chapter 10, indicates that approximately 49 acres are subject to noise levels of 55-60 dB CNEL, with 136 residential units housing approximately 407 people being affected. However, the DEIR indicates on page 10-17 that there will be no exposure of residential areas or schools to excessive aircraft noise and that the 55dB CNEL noise contour is located. northeast of the plan area. This appears to be a direct contradiction. 5. The statement that there will be no exposure of residential areas or schools to excessive aircraft noise resulting in no mitigations is not substantially supported by the facts. There is no discussion of how the-ee4tfwis 1 landbeek information was tifilired in this process this statement was arrived at and no discussion of the extreme noise levels that are generated by low flying_ California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection aerial tankers. e Butte County *Airport Land Use Commission e Section 3. GENERAL FINDINGS A. The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission finds that: 1. The signing of avigation easements as a means to protect airport operations is not reasonable mitigation for noise -or safety impacts. The impacts of noise on project residents will not simply vanish by the signing of avigation easements. The residents will be exposed to higher than average levels of noise, especially single event noise levels from low flying CDF aircraft that will fly directly overhead of residential areas. Avigation easements are not an absolute assurance that airport operations will not be impacted. Easements have been successfully challenged in a court and resulted in the obstruction of airport operations. The only manner to ensure airport viability is to not place large concentrations of people in the overflight zones. 2. The project as designed does not indicate the provision of 10% to 15% of usable open space for emergency landings as recommended by the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Usable open space for California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection aerial tankers is unknown at this time and the project documents do not address this concern; and 3. That a Notice of Preparation of environmental documents was not submitted to ALUC for review and comment prior to the environmental documents being prepared. Approved and Submitted by: K\aluctidwell.rev firman, f3utte County Airport Land Use Commission • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ' ERONAUTICS PROGRAM M.S. 440 .130 K STREET i - 4TH FLOOP P.O. BOX 942973 . SACAAMENrO, CA 94273-4001 (918) 322-3090 TOO (918) 854-4014 FAX (918) 327.9093 May 23, 1996 Fred Gerst, Chairman Butte County ALUC 7 County Center Drive Qroville, CA 95965 Dear Mr. Gerst: In response to your inquiries and request for information regarding the Bidwell Ranch and Foothill Park East sites, we have begun an analysis of the proceedings and the actions contemplated for these developments. We will be sending our specific comments in a subsequent letter in the near future. Based upon our preliminary information, we feel that it is important to place within the public record that we have grave concerns regarding: The adequacy of the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport (CMA) Airport Environs Plan; The absence of clearly defined planning boundaries as required in statute; The potential for school sites. underneath heavy aircraft overflights; California Depantment'of Forestry (CDF) tanker overflight impacts on residential development; The adequacy of the FAR Part 150 study as it relates to the CDF flight patterns; the absence of appropriate consideration of airport impacts in the Environmental Impact Report; The finding that the Bidwell Ranch Project is not in the "study area" for appropriate action by the ALUC. We will complete our analysis of these and any other related concerns and forward our comments to you ata later date. Sincerely, C s STA-MAIUA ENGLE Aviation -Planner Aeronautics Program r cc: Chico City Council, C/o Thomas J. Lando City of Chico P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 Chico Airport Commission P.O. Box 3420 Chico, -CA 95927 +BUTTE COUNTIW AIRPORT LAND 1* COMMISSION + •Oepartment of DevelopmentServices • 7 CountyCenter Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • e - MEMORANDUM TO: Members, Chico Planning Commission FROM: Airport Land Use Commission DATE: November 27, 1996 ' RE: Bidwell Ranch Aircraft Operation Impact and Conflicts Study.' The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission held a Special Meeting on November 27, 1996 to review the Aircraft Operation Impact and Conflicts Study prepared for the Community Development Department by John Freytag of Charles M. Salter Associates Inc. In the August 13,1996 letter (attached) to Jack Freytag from Clif Sellers, the study was to address the following issues: 1. Exposure of persons residing in the project area to safety hazards from aircraft overflight and operations, including those associated with air tankers. 2. Exposure of persons to noise impacts from aircraft overflight and operations. 3. Constraint of safe aircraft operation by urban development. 4. Identification of measures to reduce any conflicts identified during the analysis. The ALUC heard much discussion concerning the project from Bill Brouhard, Bill Davis and Clif Sellers. Although the ALUC staff analysis questioned many aspects of the Study, the ALUC was in favor of forwarding the following comments to the Planning Commission for consideration. It should be noted however, that the Bidwell Ranch project was previously submitted to the ALUC for review by the Chico Planning Department and received an independent analysis and findings were submitted to the Planning Commission. These comments are only related to the current study and are not intended to affect the previous findings and comments. Comments: 1. - In order to minimize the noise and safety impacts to residents in the Bidwell Ranch development, a 1000 foot wide open space flight corridor should be established and maintained along the approximate course of the Sycamore Creek Diversion Channel and Sycamore Creek. 2. The project proponents and the City of Chico should deviseenhanced disclosure measures that may include deed notices, public notices, inclusion of information in the Department of Real Estate Public Report, and signage along entrances to the project Signage should provide adequate information concerning the operation of fire -fighting tankers such as the times of operation, height of aircraft above the ground and the noise levels associated with such operations. 3. The City of Chico should provide public education materials concerning the fire -fighting tankers including informational bulletins, interpretive displays at the airport, and other measures devised for this intended purpose. r 4. The flight corridor may impact Phase #11 of the Bidwell Ranch project which is tentatively designated for Medium Density Development. Development proposed in this area should be clustered to the eastern portion of the site, include sound attenuation features in the building design and provide limited or reduced sized windows along the flight corridor. The safety of future inhabitants should be considered in the overall design of the project site. .5. The Commission recommends a minor technical adjustment to the 2nd radius of.the turn as the turn is to tight and adversely affects aircraft operations. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission 0 * COMMUNITY D LOPMENT 'DEPARTMENT PLANNING CITYofCHICO 411 Main Street INC 1872 P.O. Box 3420 _ Chico, CA 95927 VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL (916) 895-4851 FAX (9 16) 895-4726 ATSS 459-4851 August 13, 1996 Jack Freytag, Director Charles Salter Associates 130 Sutter Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Re: Aircraft Operation Impact and Conflicts Dear Mr. Freytag: As we discussed this morning, the City is currently considering two land use development proposals for properties located to the southeast of the Chico Municipal Airport. During recent public reviews of these projects, potential hazards from aircraft overflight, particularly air tankers, were identified as a concern that had not been addressed, as well as other potential conflicts between urban development and airport operation. The Butte County ALUC has considered these projects and expressed similar concerns. Briefly, the two projects are described as follows: Bidwell Ranch - A 750 -acre site north of Wildwood Avenue and east of the Sycamore Creek Diversion Channel proposed for 1,500 residential units, a small commercial area, a neighborhood park, an elementary,school and open space. Development will be concentrated on 305 acres with the remaining 445 acres of the site retained in open space. This site is outside the CMA Environs Plan area. Foothill Park East - A 173.83 -acre site south of Sycamore Creek and west of the diversion channel. This site is proposed for development of up to 125. residential units, a 5 -acre neighborhood park, and 11 larger parcels for future subdivision into single family residential lots. A total of approximately 550 residentail units will be developed. The northerly 31 acres is reserved as permanent open space as is the contiguous 200 acres north of Sycamore Creek. - (it should be noted that the Foothill Park and Bidwell Ranch open spaces are contiguous.) This project is within the airport Environs Plan area. Enclosed are several documents further describing the projects and their location in relation to the airport. Additional information necessary to evaluate these projects is enclosed, and my office can provide other relevant information upon request. 2;&Made F mm Recycled Paper Jack Freytag, Director Page 2 August 13, 1996 After review of the information provided and other relevant considerations, including further clarification of available materials or site visit, it is requested that you submit a letter proposal for the provision of consultant services for. the. analysis of issues related to aircraft operations. The primary issues are: 1.. Exposure of persons residing in the project area to safety hazards from aircraft overflighf and operations, including those associated with air tankers. 2. Exposure of persons to.noise impacts -from aircraft overflight. and operations. 3: Constraint of safe aircraft operation by urban development. 4. Identification of measures to reduce any conflicts identified during the analysis. _ The analysis shall include utilization of the Cal Trans Airport Land'Use planning Handbook and consultation with Cal Trans Aeronautics Program, California Division of Forestry and Fire Protection .Air Attack Base,- Mendocino National Forest and' other major airport operators. Your proposal should anticipate the submittal of 10 copies of administrative.: draft documents and 50 copies of final documents. You should also anticipate attendance at a minimum of five public hearings (one on the general topic and two on each of the . M specific projects).' Meeting attendance maybe expressed as a per meeting cost with an anticipation of billing at time of meeting scheduling. As consideration of these projects is currently, pending before the Planning Commission, it is essential that this analysis be concluded as soon as possible. Please feel .free to contact my office if you` require any add itional'information or assistance regarding this matter: 1,10'ok forward'to receipt of your. proposal. , Sincerely, CLIF . ELLERS :. Planning Director . ± jIs cc: Bill Brouhard _=.Steve Lucas, Butte County ALUC UTTE COUN7'PAIRPORT LAND UA COMINUSSION + • Department of Development SerAces • 7 County Center Drive, Orowle, CA 95965 • ( • AGENDA ITEM - N. A TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: Stephen Lucas, Associate Planner DATE: November 20, 1996 ITEM: Review of the Foothill Park East and Bidwell Ranch Aircraft Operation Impact and Conflicts Study prepared for the Chico Planning Commission. FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of November 27, 1996. SUMMARY: The City of Chico Planning Commission (CPC) is presently considering the Bidwell Ranch and Foothill Park development projects. During the public hearings on the projects, the CPC considered the Inconsistency Findings and Comments submitted by the ALUC concerning the projects. The ALUC findings and comments caused the CPC to question the impacts of the project on the airport and they requested that an additional study be prepared to address these impacts. The Foothill Park East and Bidwell Ranch Aircraft Operation Impact and Conflicts Study (Study) was prepared by a consultant and will be reviewed and discussed by the CPC on December 9, 1996. Staff has reviewed this document and provides the following analysis. If the City elects to approve the project it must, regardless of this study, make overriding findings to dismiss the e)asting ALUC Findings of Inconsistency. No /Ncor�trfTQ.vcy v.rw (Faritim, P*vc EAsr) R. ANALYSIS: The Study addresses the impacts associated with noise and safety concerns. Primarily, it is focused on the overflight of the project sites by laden fire -fighting aircraft departing from the airport. The Study makes five findings with respect to these two issues and staff has addressed these individually. Finding #1: Laden fire -fighting aircraft departures from Chico Municipal Airport have a low crash hazard potential and negligible noise impacts on the proposed development sites. Accidents The Study indicates that there has been only one engine failure in Aero Unions 15 years of operations at the airport resulting in the plane releasing its retardant load to gain altitude and proceed to land safely. The only mention of the impact of falling retardant is on page 6 which states that retardant is routinely released at 150 feet over fires and ground based personnel without injury or damage. It further states that the retardant is non-tobc and will not stain if items are washed soon after contact. Given this is the only reference to the release of retardant, the Study seems to indicate that the release of retardant only has the potential for cosmetic impacts. Data supplied from the CDF Air Attack Base indicates the planes carry between 800 to 3000 gallons of fire retardant when departing to a fire which translates into 7360 to 27,600 pounds of retardant in each plane. The result of retardant release is a plane dropping 7360 to 27,600 pounds of retardant at a height of 400 feet on the tops .of homes with the potential result being significant damage to homes/cars and potential for injuries or deaths. Discussions with CDF personnel indicated that such releases during actual fire fighting scenarios havedattene fire trucks on impact. While 14 staff is not indicating this is the probable result of a forced release, the Stud seems to indicate that any forced release n rPtar an K Without imoactto Dersons or structures on the ground without providing any su tanttve a a o support this claim. The Study does not address the potential for accidents resulting from the 70,000 non -fire related flights at the airport each year. The reason for this omission is -unknown, but any decisions concerning the safety of future residents in these two projects should have the benefit of such an analysis. e Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 1. Noise The Study indicates that there are an average of 386 flights per fire season resulting in an average of five flights every three days (1.66 flights/day) during the summer fire -fighting season. The Study also indicates that fire -fighting aircraft will produce noise levels in excess of 90 dB to locations on the ground directly below resulting in negligible noise exposure in terms of the average annual Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). This conclusion is misleading when considered in terms of single event noise levels in excess of 90 dB 386 times during the fire -fighting season. If you combine 386 flights with average noise exposure time of ten seconds as indicated in the Study, this equates to 64.3 minutes of exposure to extreme noise levels. While this may not appear significant over a four month period it does expose persons on the ground to noise levels far above the acceptable 60 dB noise level for residential areas and have HA< the potential to generate numerous noise complaints from residents of these projects. It is these noise complaints t could have the potential for further increasing the restrictions on aircraft operations and/or the relocation of fire -fighting se ces as a result of allowing additional residential development in the airport environs. K The Study does not address the impacts of a relocation of this critical service provided to all residents in the County in comparison to the benefit of development received by the project proponent. Finding #2: Considerable adverse community reaction may be expected from residents and neighbors if high density land uses (over six unit/acre) are established directly under a fire -fighting aircraft departure. X This is not disputed and further lends support to the failure of this Study to address the realistic possibility that the residents of these projects will generate complaints that may force the alteration of flight paths/departures or the relocation of fire -fighting services. Finding #3: A combination of a formalized aircraft departure route for laden fire -fighting aircraft and land use restrictions for property beneath the departure flight paths creates the solution that allows the continuation of fire -fighting aircraft operations at Chico Municipal Airport and development of Foothill Park East and Bidwell Ranch. The Study clearly indicates, through this finding, that there exists an incompatibility between the development and the fire -fighting operations. The solution to the problem, as is almost always the case with airport impacts, is to alter or restrict the existing aircraft flight patterns. Staff does not dispute the potential benefits of creating a flight corridor along the Sycamore Creek Diversion Channel, but does point out that the Study on page 4 states that "over the past 15 years, Aero Union Corporation has seen increasing restrictions placed upon its operations at Chico Muni as residential land use has increased in the areas surrounding the Airport. Departure procedures no longer allow laden fire -fighting aircraft to depart straight out or the right when departing from Chico Muni using RW 13L." This admission in the Study clearly indicates that over the past 15 years aircraft operations have assumed a lower priority than residential development around the airport Given this fact, the Study does not address the impacts of, or the potential for, further increasing the restrictions on aircraft operations or the relocation of fire -fighting services as a result of allowing additional residential development in the airport environs. Finding #4: A formalized aircraft departure route and land use restrictions are required to comply with County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) policy and Caltrans recommendations regarding safety of persons on the ground. This statement also clearly indicates an incompatibility between these projects and the aircraft operations in the airport environs. If land use restrictions are the desired solution, it is clear that the area #11 of the Bidwell Ranch project identified as MDR (Medium Density Residential) is not compatible with the proposal for a formalized departure route along the Sycamore Creek Diversion Channel. Staff would recommend that this area be included in the Bidwell Park Buffer area as open space. The Study also fails to address the compatibility of the proposed school site located in the Bidwell Ranch project, this is clearly an important issue as both the ALUC and the Aeronautics Program have indicated that this area is not appropriate for a school site. As this has been offered as a school facilities mitigation by the developer, it will need to be replaced by the payment of full mitigation fees for school facilities. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 2 Conclusions There are several areas where the Study fails to address important concerns discussed by ALUC, COF personnel, and the general .public. The Study clearly indicates the solution to the impacts to the aircraft operations at the airport is for the aircraft to avoid the development. The word avoid is used several times in the document and sums up the proposed solution for allowing the 'highest and best use' of the' properties. RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to submit this report to the City of Chico Planning Commission or prepare separate comments with ALUC concerns for submittal. 1 +BU`l TE WUNTY AIRP®lI T LAND USE COMMISSION •Department of Development Services • ounty Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-T785 • June 20, 1996 Development Services City of Chico Planning Commission U 2 5 1996 c/o Clif Sellers ®rovilie, California 411 Main Street POB 3420 Chico, CA 95927 RE: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Findings for Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan. Dear Commissioners: At the urgent written request of the City's Planning Director, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan Findings at its June 19, 1996 meeting. The findings were originally submitted to the Chico Planning Commission on May 15, 1996. Mr. Sellers was concerned that the findings prepared by staff "greatly overstates those actually adopted by ALUC". It was his opinion that the ALUC only adopted two simple findings regarding the consistency of the Bidwell Ranch Project with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and ,the inadequacy of the draft environmental impact report prepared for the project. i At the June 19,1996 ALUC meeting, the ALUC discussed this concern and unanimously confirmed the original findings to be an accurate representation of the ALUC's position. However, to accommodate the City's request to alter the findings, ALUC agreed to the attached revised findings identified as Exhibit A-1. The revisions essentially remove all references to compliance with the Caltrans Airport Planning Handbook and Public Resources Code Section 21096. It should be understood that the revised findings in no way diminish the concerns of the ALUC or do they reduce the significant inadequacies of the draft environmental impact report. The revisions were made in effort to cooperate with the City and soften the potential adverse impacts to the project resulting from ALUC actions. It should also be noted that the aviation planners with the Caltrans Aeronautics Program have reviewed and support the original findings submitted and that these revisions in no way affect the findings submitted for the Foothill Park East Project. Si"ely, ers hair n Butte Co rity Airport.Land Use Commission cc: ALUC Caltrans Aeronautics, Christa Engle Chico Airport Commission Bill Farrel, Development Services v/ • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • EXHIBIT A-1 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FINDINGS FOR BIDWELL RANCH PROJECT The following findings have been made by the ALUC and are for the consideration of the City of Chico (local agency) when making a decision on this project. If the City decides to not follow the direction of the ALUC and allow a project to be approved, the City may override the ALUC decision with a 2/3 vote of the City Council if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the State Aeronautics Act as stated in Section 21670. As detailed in the ALUPH, overriding findings cannot be adopted merely as matters of opinion, but instead must be supported by substantial evidence. Section 1: CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ENVIRONS PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS A. Find that the Bidwell Ranch project is not within the study area of the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan as . defined by the Compatible Land Use Zones and as such a consistency finding cannot be made; and . B. Find that the Bidwell Ranch project is within the overflight corridor of heavy aircraft departures and specifically the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection aerial fire tankers; and C. Find that the project is inconsistent with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Section 8, Land Use Recommendations which establishes the principle to protect the health and welfare of the community where there is a clear and supportable requirement. The ALUC has established at public hearing on May 15, 1996 that there is a clear and supportable foundation for noise and safety impacts related to the overflight of low flying California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection aerial tankers. Section 2: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS A. Find that the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project is inadequate in that it does not fully address the potential impacts of the project in the following items: 1. The DEIR fails to prepared for a projeet in proximity to an airport eF within the boundaries of a eernprehensive airport 'and use plan, the lead ageney for the projeet must utilize the Galtrans Airport Land Use Planning I landbeek to assist in its analgsis-of analyze airport related safety hazards and noise problems; and 2. The DEIR fails to discuss the potential noise and safety impacts related to the overflight of the project site by aircraft and specifically, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection aerial fire tankers,-vhich are operating of a height of 300 to 500 feet above the project site, are carrying heavy loads of ffire fdtardant, and exceed acceptable residential noise levels. 3. The DEIR fails to pfevide an adequate address the Cumulative Impact Analysis with respect to traffic and safety impacts as they relate to the operation of the Chico Municipal Airport and the impacts to traffic circulation on Cohasset Road which is the primary access to the airport; and 4. The DEIR in Chapter 10, indicates that approximately 49 acres are subject to noise levels of 55-60 dB CNEL, with 136 residential units housing approximately 407 people being affected. However, the DEIR indicates on page 10-17 that there will be no exposure of residential areas or schools to excessive aircraft noise and that the 55dB CNEL noise contour is located northeast of the plan area. This appears to be a direct contradiction. 5. The statement that there will be no exposure of residential areas or schools to excessive aircraft noise resulting in no mitigations is not substantially supported by the facts. There is no discussion of how the-Eaftrans I landbook information was utilized in thus preee this statement was arrived at and no discussion of the extreme noise levels that are generated by low flying California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection aerial tankers. e Butte County *Airport Land Use Commission,e Section 3. GENERAL FINDINGS A. The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission finds that: 1. The signing of avigation easements as a means to protect airport operations is not reasonable mitigation for noise or safety impacts. The impacts of noise on project residents will not simply vanish by the signing of avigation easements. The residents will be exposed to higher than average levels of noise, especially single event noise levels from low flying CDF aircraft that will fly directly overhead of residential areas. Avigation easements are not an absolute assurance that airport operations will not be impacted. Easements have been - successfully challenged in a court and resulted in the obstruction of airport operations. The only manner to ensure airport viability is to not place large concentrations of people in the overflight zones. 2. The project as designed does not indicate the provision of 10% to 15% of usable open space for emergency landings as recommended by the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Usable open space for California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection aerial tankers is unknown at this time and the project documents do not address this concern; and 3. That a Notice of Preparation of environmental documents was not submitted to ALUC for review and comment prior to the environmental documents being prepared: " Approved and Submitted by: red G t, C firman, utte County Airport Land Use Commission K:\a1u6bidwell.rev • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • May 21, 1996 Christa Engle. Caltrans Division of Aeronautics POB 942873 - Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 RE: Butte County ALUC project review. Dear Christa, As we discussed on the phone on Monday, the Butte County ALUC is reviewing the proposed Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan. The Plan calls for a 1500 unit mixed used development that includes an elementary school site located approximately 2 miles southeast of the Chico Municipal Airport (CMA). Staff has reviewed the currently adopted Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP) for project consistency. The CMAEP indicates two areas for review, the "Study Area" and the "Horizontal Surface". All land use recommendations described in the CMAEP as Compatible Land Use Zones (CLUZ) are linked to the "Study Area", which does not cover the Bidwell Ranch site and as such, we cannot find the project to be inconsistent with the CMAEP. However, the project site can be linked to the Horizontal Surface and can be reviewed for overflight considerations. An additional concern is the overflight of the area by CDF aerial tankers. The tankers will overfly this project site at 300-500 feet and will generate significant single event noise concerns for future residents. This issue has been completely ignored in the EIR prepared for the project. Several Commissioners are greatly concerned with this project and the continuing trend of the City of Chico to allow high density development in the area south of the airport. The southern approach to the airporthas been drastically diminished by development and this project will fill the last remaining open area for southern departures. The Commission has received little support or concern from the City and we are looking for some "expert" help in dealing with this issue. Could you please review the attached pages and maps from the CMAEP and the staff report prepared for ALUC. It would be greatly appreciated if you could offer any insights or comments that might help the. Commission in their analysis of the project. As you know, time lines are tight and I am hopeful you will be able to address this matter given your own time constraints. Thank -you for your assistance and I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, � Fref fG5et�, Chairman, Butte County ALUC +BUTTE C01 Affli'PORT LAND Z ik)-coMMISSION + Department o eve opment Services • 7 County Genter Onve, Oroville, CA 95965 • • TO: City of Chico, Planning Commission, City Council FROM: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission DATE: 15 May 1996 SUBJECT: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission consistency findings and Draft Environmental Impact Report comments for the proposed Bidwell Ranch.Specific Plan project located in northeast Chico. SUMMARY: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission conducted a public meeting- on-May,15, 199eto discuss and determine the potential airport related impacts of the proposed Bidwell Ranch project-in•norheast Chie6.—The Commission reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the project and reviewed the project for consistency with the currently adopted Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP). The Commission also heard much discussion concerning the impacts to the California Department of Forestry (CDF) and Fire Protection Air Attack Base located at the Chico Municipal Airport (CMA). The Commission unanimously found_the,project DEIR to be inadequate with respect to airport related .impacts and found the project notto'be within the study.area of the CMAEP_as" defined by the Compatible Land`UseZones`"The Commission was also con6emed that the Califomia Department of Transportation', Aeronautics Program was not solicited for comments and'sLrongly recommended that the City of Chico contact Caltrans fora formal determination:` - AUTHORITY The authority of the ALUC is derived from the statutes set forth in Chapter 4, Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 21670) of the State Aeronautics Act (Division 9, Part 1 of the California Public Utilities Code). The California state legislature's purpose for creating the ALUC is stated in Section 21670(a) which states; 1. It is in the public interest to provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state and the area surroundng these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems; and 2. It is the purpose of this article to protect the health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public use airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. To meet these goals the ALUC was given the powers and duties outlined in Section 21674 to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of ebsting airports and to coordinate planning at the state, regional,.and local levels so as to provide for the orderly development of air transportation, while at the same time protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. The ALUC has many tools to utilize for the implementation of these powers and duties when reviewing projects in the vicinity of airports which include the individual airport comprehensive land use plans (CLUP), the general plan of the local jurisdiction, and the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (ALUPH) developed by the Caltrans Aeronautics Program. CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ENVIRONS PLAN (CMAEP) .4 The comprehensive land use plan developed for the Chico Municipal Airport is designed to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general for a period of twenty years. The CMAEP was adopted in 1978 and due to the rapid growth of the northeast Chico area, especially those areas located southeast of airport, the plan is now in need of a comprehensive update to ensure the future viability of the airport. The ALUC has determined that the proposed project is not within the identified "Study Area" of the CMAEP as defined by the Compatible'Land Use Zones and for this reason --a consistency finding with respect to the Compatible Land Use'Zone designations'cannot be made"However, the CMAEP -does -indicate that the: Bidwell "1Ranch site -is within'the-Horizontal-Surface-or what'is'commonly'referred to as the "Overflight Zone The`CMAEP_when created'in'1976? did tifforesee that the land this,project occupies would'be co vn erted to high density residential uses; and as such, the CMEAP made assumptions based on existing -land use patterns that designated • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • the Bidwell Ranch site to be in agncuuse. The Commission determined that a gh the -project area was not within the Compatible Land Use Zone Study TAribf the CMAEP, the Plan does discuss safe mpacts- associated with the overflight of aircraft and that the Bidwell Ranch site is in the flight corridor,of-the airportand will be exp so ed'to saf&V'hazards and nose exposure levels beyond the accepted'55'CNEL ontour. ' CALTRANS AERONAUTICS PROGRAM AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK (ALUPH) Safety issues and acceptable risk standards are discussed in Chapter 9 of the ALUPH and residential density issues are evaluated. The operable issue one of acceptable risk. Caltrans understands that "the need for developable land around urban area airports typically is such that avoidance of only the most risky forms of development - those in the most accident prone locations or ones which greatly increase the potential severity - may be more affordable. The problem with accepting this concept, of course, is that an aircraft accident in a developed area hardly ever results in pressure to eliminate the conflicting_h nd use, rather. the pressure inevitably, is to restrict or close the airport." , The ALUPH indicates that residue anti development in;Trat Patte_m Zones (the equivalent to the Overflight Zone)jis accept b from a safety perspective if itp am gd PML— - - - for,, ess than 4-6 ts per acre and units are clustered to allow for more open space in the event of an emergency landing scenario—Thi-ALUPH recommends that developments'in the Traffic Pattern Zone providell0%"to 15% usable open space? Usable open space`is'-defined as an area sufficient in size to allow an emergency -landing -of an aircraft as to limit -the extent of injuries to aircraft occupants and to persons on the ground. Applying this standard to CDF fire tankers, usable open space would equate to an area lar9e enough for these large planes to land n an emergency, or 10% to 15% contiguous open area. The Bidwell Rancti project could accommodate'.fhesafety and noise concerns presented by low flying CDF aircraft by allowing'an open,space corridor approximately 300 -feet _wide and-t3000'feet�in length along the western boundary corresponding to the approximate location of the Sycamore Creek Diversion Channel:? DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) The DEIR prepared for the project is substanbally'iriadequate with respect to addressing airport related impacts. The fundamental issues to be addressed are ttie lack of�ALUC notification the failure tojinclude airport safety issu s as required by CCEQA, and the lack of a reasonable cumulative impact analysis'as it pertains to airport issues. As discussed in the DEIR on ,page 2,_ a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared that listed those areas of possible environmental impact. Airport related safety or'noise 'issues are not found -on that:liStranywhereIg Furthermore, the DEIR indicates that a Initial Study/NOP was circulated to, local, agencies, however,,-ALUC was not sent a`NOP�requesbng comments, thus no mention of airport safety issues were addressed. The CEQA guidelines require in Public Resources Code Section 21096 thatwhen an bR'is prepared for a project in proximity to an airport ,or within the boundaries of a comprehensive. airport Ll.and'use plan, the lead'agency for the project must utilize the,Caltrans Airport Land -Use Planning -Handbook to,assist F8, analysis of airport related safety hazards and, noise- problems- The- DEIR'for Foothill Park East has no mention of the Caltrans Fiandbook�-no'mention of airport related safety hazards? and no mention of the considerable noise impacts generated by the overflight of CDF fire tankers. The DEIR also fails to discuss the potential of.,traulative f' impacts to Cohasset Road, the primary access to the airport. This issue is further compounded by a4lack of cumim_ pact analysis1hat'identifies how cumulative development in the northeast Chico area may impact future ort ons airpoperati CALTRANS AERONAUTICS PROGRAM The Commission is concerned that the City of Chico had not contacted the CaltransAeronautics'Program for comments on the proposed project. iCaltraris is the sole state agency responsible for the�planned orderly growth of airports�and considered to be the "expert' in the analysis of potential airport related impacts. The Commission tias'received a letter_ from Caltrans indicating that they have grave concerns" regarding the adequacy of the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan; the placement of school sites underneath heavy aircraft patterns; the impacts of overflight of CDF tankers on residential development; the adequacy of the FAR Part 150 study as it relates to CDF flight patterns and noise generation; the absence of appropriate consideration of airport impacts in the EIR; and the ALUC finding that the project is not within the "study area" requiring a consistency finding. Caltrans is continuing its analysis of the project and will submit formal comments to the City. A copy of the Caltrans letter has been provided to the City for inclusion into the record. This summary is in support of the following findings attached as Exhibit A. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • EXHIBIT A n BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FINDINGS FO EAST The following findings have been made by the ALUC and are for the consideration of the City of Chico (local agency) y) when making a decision -on this project. If the City decides to not follow the direction of the ALUC and allow a project to be approved r the City may override the ALUC decision with a 2/3 vote of the City Council if it makes specific findings that the proposed action' is consistent with the State Aeronautics Act as stated in Section 21670. As detailed in the ALUPH, overriding findings cannot be adopted merely as matters of opinion, but instead must be supported by substantial evidence. Section 1: CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ENVIRONS PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS A. Find that the Bidwell Ranch project is not within the study area of the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan as defined by the Compatible Land Use Zones and as such a consistency finding cannot be made; and - ' B. Find that the Bidwell Ranch project is within the overflight corridor of heavy aircraft departures and specifically the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection aerial fire tankers; and C. Find that the project is inconsistent with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Section 8, Land Use Recommendations which establishes the principle to protect the health and welfare of the community where there is a clear and supportable requirement. The ALUC has established at public hearing on May 15, 1996 that there is a clear and supportable foundation for noise and safety impacts related to the overflight of low flying California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection aerial tankers. Section 2: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS A. Find that the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project is inadequate in that it does not fully address the potential impacts of the project in the following items: 1. The DEIR fails to comply with Public Resources Code Section 21096 which requires that when an EIR is prepared for a project in proximity to an airport or within the boundaries of a comprehensive airport land use plan, the lead agency for the project must utilize the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook to assist in its analysis of airport related safety hazards and noise problems; and 2. The DEIR fails to discuss the potential noise and safety impacts related to the overflight of the project site by aircraft and specifically, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection aerial fire tankers which are operating ata height of to 500 feet above, noiseise levels. the project site, are carrying heavy loads of fire retardant, and exceed acceptable =reside ntial 3. The DEIR fails to provide an adequate Cumulative Impact Analysis with respect to traffic and safety impacts as they relate to the operation of the Chico Municipal Airport and the impacts to traffic circulation on Cohasset Road which is the primary access to the airport; and 4. The DEIR in Chapter 10, indicates that approximately 49 acres are subject to noise levels of 55-60 dB CNEL, with 136 residential units housing approximately 407 people being affected. However, the DEIR indicates on page 10-17 that there will be no exposure of residential areas or schools to excessive aircraft noise and that the 55dB CNEL noise contour is located northeast of the plan area. This appears to be a direct contradiction. 5. The statement that there will be no exposure of residential areas or schools to excessive aircraft noise resulting in no mitigations is not substantially supported by the facts. There is no discussion of how the Caltrans Handbook information was utilized in this process and no discussion of the extreme noise levels that are generated by low flying California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection aerial tankers. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • Section 3. GENERAL FINDINGS A. The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission finds that: 1. The signing of avigation easements as a means to protect airport operations is not reasonable mitigation for noise or safety impacts. The impacts of noise on project residents will not simply vanish by the signing of avigation easements. The residents will be exposed to higher than average levels of noise, especially single event noise levels from low flying CDF aircraft that will fly directly overhead of residential areas. Avigation easements are not an absolute assurance that airport operations will not be impacted. Easements have been successfully challenged in a court and resulted in the obstruction of airport operations. The only manner to ensure airport viability is to not place large concentrations of people in the overflight zones. 2. The project as designed does not indicate the provision of 10% to 15% of usable open space for emergency landings as recommended by the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Usable open space for California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection aerial tankers is unknown at this time and the project documents do not address this concern; and 3. That a Notice of Preparation of environmental documents was not submitted to ALUC for review and comment prior to the environmental documents being prepared. Approve Submitt Fred Ger t, Chair an, Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Klaluc\bidwell.fdg. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • +BU'1C'1[[']E COAgRPORT LAND AE-COMMISSION + • Department of Development Services • 7 CountyCenter Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • • AGENDA ITEM - VI.C. TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: Stephen Lucas, Associate Planner DATE: March 28, 1996 ITEM: Review for consistency findings and comment the City of Chico Bidwell Ranch Project located in northeast Chico approximately two miles from the Chico Municipal Airport. FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of May 15, 1996. SUMMARY: The City of Chico is presently considering the Bidwell Ranch development project and has submitted a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report to the Planning Division for review. The City did not submit a copy of the draft EIR to ALUC directly. The Commission will consider the project for consistency with the Chico Municipal Airport (CMA) Environs Plan and review the adequacy of the Draft EIR in addressing airport related impacts. The Commission will then forward their findings and comments to the City of Chico Planning Commission for inclusion into the Final Environmental Impact Report. ANALYSIS: The Bidwell Ranch development project is a potential 1500 unit mbced core commercial and residential project located at the entrance to Upper Bidwell Park and east of the Sycamore Creek diversion channel. The project is located approximately 10,000 feet from the south end of the CMA runway. The project represents three issues to be addressed by the Commission, the adequacy of the draft EIR, the consistency with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and the impact to the California Department of Forestry Fire Attack Base at the CMA. Draft Environmental Impact Report The City did not solicit comments from the ALUC at the project inception stage and as a result no significant analysis of airport related impacts was included in the draft EIR. The draft EIR only addresses the airport with respect to noise generation in Chapter 10. This chapter indicates that approximately 49 acres of the project site are subject to noise levels of 55-60 dB CNEL, with 136 estimated dwelling units housing approximately 407 people. These figures were taken from FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program adopted by the City. This noise study was not adopted by ALUC and does not replace the currently adopted Environs Plan. The draft EIR does not address the noise generated by low flying CDF fire tankers, the safety issues involved with placing 1500 units under the airport flight path, and it does not address the traffic impacts in relation to the use of the airport. All of these items should be addressed as required by state aeronautics law and the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. It should be noted that the City of Chico General Plan indicates in Section 3.8 that all projects within a two mile radius of the airport should be reviewed by ALUC. Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP) The currently adopted CMAEP indicates that the project is not located within the Study Area as shown in Figure CIC -6. However, the authority of the ALUC is derived from the statutes set forth in Chapter 4, Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 21670) of the State Aeronautics Act (Division 9, Part 1 of the California Public Utilities Code). The California state legislature's purpose for creating the ALUC is stated in Section 21670(a) which states; It is in the public interest to provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems; and 2. Itis the purpose of this article to protect the health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and Me adoption of land use measures minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • hazards within areas around public use airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. To meet these goals the ALUC was given the powers and duties outlined in Section 21674 to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of existing airports and to coordinate planning at the state, regional, and local levels so as to provide for the orderly development of air transportation, while at the same time protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. Itis within the purview of ALUC to comment on this project and recommend to that the City not approve this project based on the potential for the project to cause longterm impacts to-the-eirport.. Fire Service Concerns In addition to the land use consistency issue discussed above, the project may place an additional burden on the California Department of Forestry Fire Attack Base at the CMA. Comments from pilots flying for both the CDF and the United States Forest Service indicate that pursuant to the City of Chico Noise Abatement Procedure for aircraft operations around the CMA, fire tankers departing from CMA must follow a prescribed flight path that is directly above the project site. There are two significant concerns arising from this impact, the impacts to persons on the ground and the potential loss of the base due to complaints from future residents. The fire tankers when departing from CMA will be at a height of 400 feet above the project site which will result in noise impacts to residents that exceed the 55-60 CNEL noise exposure'level described in the CMAEP in Figure CIC -2. The planes cant' between 800 to 3000 gallons of fire retardant when departing to a fire, this translates into 7360 to 27,600 pounds of retardant in each plane. The pilots indicate that approximately 50% of the fire flights do not result in the retardant being dropped and the planes return to the base fully loaded. The concerns arises that in the event that an aircraft suffers a mechanical failure or a loss of power over the project site, the pilot may either be forced to release the retardant load to gain altitude or attempt a forced landing. The result of these scenarios is a plane dropping 7360 to 27,600 pounds of retardant at a height 400 feet on the tops of homes or crash landing the plane into homes. In either event, the result would be significant damage to homes and potential for injuries or deaths. The project also has the potential to create numerous complaints from future residents that may cause the City to alter the flight paths in the Noise Abatement Procedures. This may result in further impacts to the flight operations of the fire tankers resulting in a closure of the base and the transfer of equipment to Redding. This scenario would have a devastating impact to county residents who live in the foothills and mountains and depend on the fire tankers to provide a quick response to wild land fires. The base closure would mean a change in response time to a fire from approximately 10 minutes to 45 minutes if the planes must depart from Redding. At this time staff has not received any official comment from CDF on the matter and recommends that the Commission seek further confirmation of this information from CDF. The Commission is provided with two staff recommendations, one to address the consistency of the project with the adopted Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and the other to request additional information from the California Department of Forestry as to the impacts to the air attack base. RECOMMENDATION: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission finds that the Bidwell Ranch Project is not in the study area of the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan;; and 2. Prepare findings and comments to address the inadequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project; and SArk- 1 ttwC( s44L, as: ADISW(fb rN Accua74rJCA -1 C14L"AMsNA0g0%'(. X 2. Contact the California Department of Forestry for confirmation of the information provided to staff by fire tanker pilots. 4W-)oavf S cx( kJaludbidwell.rpt C - • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 2 t, l Mr. Lucas said that staff was not informed on the subject of the article and he suggested that ALUC write a letter to BCAG to ask to be kept informed on the subject. Chairman Gerst said that BCAG will discuss the subject on the meeting of September 19, 1996, at 9:00 a.m. in the Board of Supervisors' Room. He suggested that interested ALUC members attend. Commissioner Lambert was interested in funding for airport operations and where ALUC fits in. Commissioner Hennigan said that ALUC would fill the role of interested observer. He noted that a higher rating for Planning Grant funding can be obtained if an airport has a higher priority under "a Systems Plan. Commissioner Franklin said that the regional aviation plan is not a land use issue and therefore would not involve ALUC directly. Commissioner Hennigan said ALUC would be concerned if there should be a new master plan for an airport under ALUC's jurisdiction. ******** B. Caltrans Aeronautics Program responses to Bidwell Ranch and. Foothill Parkfl - - East projects. I Mr. Lucas summarized the content of the letters from Caltrans to Thomas Lando of the City of Chico dated August 30, 1996. Commissioner Hennigan noted that ALUC does not have a copy of the referenced letter from Tom Lando to Christa Engle of Caltrans dated June 28, 1996. Alternate Koch said "that if the discussion of ALUC's action and the letters are to be revisited, he would suggest that the item be continued in order to allow for the participation of several interested parties including Tom Lando and Bill Brouhard. Ms. Leasure agreed that if the letters are to be discussed they should be agendized for a future meeting. She said those letters were placed in the packet for information purposes at today's meeting. Commissioner Lambert said that County Counsel does not appear to have received copies of the letters and she asked that he be sent copies of the letters. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission - September 18, 1996 7 Ms. Leasure said that the decisions were made by ALUC on the two projects at a prior meeting, and the Commission should now move forward. Better communications between the City, County and ALUC should occur in the future. There was a question as to ALUC's role regarding the letters. Mr. Lucas said that ALUC has fulfilled its role in bringing its concerns to the attention of Caltrans and the City of Chico and further discussion of the issue might not be beneficial. Commissioner Campbell said that since ALUC's determination will not be changed, it would not be beneficial to "rehash" the issue. There was a consensus that ALUC should not discuss the letters further and that its role has been accomplished. Bill Davis, representing Bidwell Ranch and Foothill Park East wished to address the Commission on the subject of the letters. He said he disagreed strongly with. the content -of the letters because he said that the Bidwell Ranch project is outside of the CLUP and also that PRC Section 21096 does not apply. There was a consensus that ALUC discussion of the subject was finished and that the comments of Mr. Davis would be -appropriate to the City of Chico Planning Commission at this time. Mr. Davis said that the whole process of review by ALUC and Caltrans is wrong and that is what he wished to discuss. He presented several items which he thought ALUC should review as follows: a flowchart, the City of Chico Resolution adopting the General Plan and several pages from the Caltrans Handbook. There was a consensus that the above items would be of interest for future ALUC discussion and should be placed on a future agenda, since they relate to ALLJC's authority and could have a direct effect on future processes. Information regarding ground side access There was a question whether ground side access should"be in a CLUP. Commissioner Hennigan said that he had provided Chairman Gersh with some information relating to ground side access being part of Caltrans plans. He suggested that copies of the information be distributed to ALUC members and staff. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission- September 18, 1996 8 ABSENT: Commissioner Causey ABSTAIN: 0 NO VOTE: Commissioner Hennigan V. Business From the Floor on Items Not Already on the Agenda None at this time VI. Business Items A. Distribution and discussion of the findings and comments submitted to the City of Chico for Foothill Park East and the Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan..j Staff requests direction from the Commission regarding letter from Clif Sellers, City of Chico, as to accuracy of findings for the Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan. Alternate Koch said that he was somewhat surprised by the extent of the findings which were made in the letter to the City of Chico, and in the future would like to review any. such detailed findings prior to signing of the letter. He felt that the report to the City of Chico was overstated and included more detail than was talked about. Ms. Leasure said that a significant amount of discussion takes places after motions are made, . without the motions being amended. More care should be taken in the way motions are adopted. She said that based upon listening to the tapes of the meeting, she feels that the letter sent to the City of Chico was appropriate. Commissioner Franklin said the letter was better written than what was actually stated at the meeting, and generally reflected the sentiment of the discussion. It would be nice to review the actual letter, but would be more time consuming. Mr. Lucas said that more detailed findings would be prepared for ALUC review in the future. Commissioner Campbell said that findings are important and should be worded so that when a motion is made, the findings will be carefully tied down and not in a gray area. ✓ Commissioner Hennigan said that if local agencies had understood the. need for ALUC review of projects, there would not have been the need to rush the findings. He felt the findings were an accurate statement of fact. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Minutes « June 19, 1996 « 2, .7 Commissioner Lambert said that after she made the motion, there had been a lot of general conversation about what should be included in the findings, and staff had been directed to prepare the necessary findings. She felt the findings prepared by staff were correct. Clif Sellers, of the City of Chico, said that the staff findings (for Bidwell Ranch) had been discussed at the previous ALUC meeting, but ALUC specifically did not adopt the recommend findings, and came up with something less "restrictive" or "blunt". He objected to the Findings in Section 2-A-1, which said that the DEIR failed to comply with PRC 21096, and that a project in proximity (which is not defined) to an airport must use the Caltrans Handbook. He said that PRC 21096 is explicit in saying that a project must fall within the Land Use Designation of the Environs Plan or within two miles of the airport and this project falls within neither so that is not a true statement. He said that Findings 2 through 5 were discussed, but this project has been around in one form or another for 15 years and analyzed and discussed, and the issue of airport and aircraft compatibility never came up until about three months ago. Now that the City of Chico is aware of the information, they will not pretend it doesn't exist and will not proceed with the project without addressing those issues. He said that the City of Chico has been in contact with the Caltrans Aeronautics Program and has solicited proposals from Mike McClintock of P&D Technologies to do an analysis of aircraft overflight noise and constraints on airport operation as part of the projects and will proceed with that, but it is inaccurate to say that the DEIR was deficient because, it failed to comply with PRC 21096 which did not apply to the project. He said that most of the findings were before ALUC as recommended by staff, and AL.UC did not specifically say they were adopting staff s recommendations. There had been a discussion and the conclusion reached was more general and the clearest conclusion was that the _ project was outside the Airport Environs Plan. The record should be clear that the PRC was not violated and no attempt was made to circumvent ALUC or any other concerns about aircraft operations or any other environmental impact of the project. He noted that if a letter by him will be on the ALUC agenda for discussion, he would like to have a copy of the Agenda prior to the meeting. He also would like to have a copy of the findings for Foothill Park East. Mr. Lucas said that those findings for Foothill Park East were hand delivered to the City of Chico Planning office. Commissioner Franklin said he would like to know what is actually correct regarding PRC 21096. Mr. Sellers said the code says "within the environs plan or two nautical miles." Commissioner Franklin said that ALUC should not make the statement that the City of Chico is in violation of something unless that is actually correct. Mr. Lucas said that a small portion of the project falls within the two miles of the airport. The Caltrans Division of Aeronautics indicated that the PRC code would be appropriate. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Minutes « June 19, 1996 « 3 s .7 Mr. Sellers asked if the area is a small portion of the project itself or the project site. Mr. Lucas said it is the project site. Commissioner Franklin said he would like to have Section 2-A-1 of the Findings deleted from Exhibit A. Alternate Koch agreed that wording should be deleted. Commissioner Lambert asked what problems would be created by leaving the wording as is. Mr. Sellers said that there is a state code which requires a different voting majority in over-riding a finding of inconsistency by the City Council in ultimately approving the project. Mr. Lucas said this particular issue wouldn't hit that over-riding finding because it is not related to the Land Use Plan itself, it is just an EIR finding. Mr. Sellers said it would leave open a challenge to the adequacy of the EIR. The project site is 750 acres and a portion which extends to the northwest is within two miles of the airport. The actual development site is about 1/4 or 1/2 mile to the southeast and was designed in response to environmental constraints. There is a great deal of open space in that area. Commissioner Lambert asked if that situation can be explained in the EIR to satisfy the code. Mr. Sellers said the EIR process has been finished and the final EIR is being considered by the Commission and it is an adequate EIR and he would prefer that the record reflect that the EIR was done correctly and all the issues have been identified which came to light in the EIR process as they were intended to. Outside of that process, other issues have come to light which will be explored, analyzed and considered in deliberations. Mr. Lucas asked if the City of Chico Planning Commission had requested a supplement to the EIR concerning airport safety. Mr. Sellers said they had not done that. Commissioner Lambert asked if the Chico Planning Commission was still in the reviewing process. Mr. Sellers said that the Chico Planning Commission has tabled consideration of this matter until the additional 'materials regarding three aspects of airport operations in the project are provided and supplemental traffic work is done. The Planning Commission does not want the information _ « Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Minutes << June 19, 1996 << 4 in the form of a supplement to the EIR but rather as supplemental materials they need in their deliberations -- they want the information in the form of an analysis of very relevant data. Alternate Koch said that the motion made by Commissioner Lambert and seconded by him for the Bidwell Ranch project on May 15, 1996, was to prepare findings to address the inadequacy of the EIR with respect to safety and overflight, and yet the Findings 2-A-3, 4, and 5 in Exhibit A talk about the issues of noise and ground traffic which are not part of safety and overflight. Noise and traffic were not included specifically in the motion. He thought there were more detailed findings in the report than were included in the motion. Alternate Koch said he did not think that noise was a problem because the project was outside the old noise study area and the most recent noise study area. Although not adopted by ALUC, the noise study is still an FAA adopted and approved noise study and the noise contours don't even come close the project. The noise study which was used for the EIR is a valid noise study used by the City of Chico. The point is that the motion did not include anything about noise. Chairman Gerst said that the motion included wording about following the Caltrans guidelines. Alternate Koch said that the motion included safety and overflight as per.the Caltrans guidelines -- not noise, because there was not a problem with noise, at least for the majority of the commission. Mr. Lucas said the Finding 2-A-4 simply states that noise levels of a certain number of acres will be in excess of a certain amount of noise. Whether or not a noise study has been prepared has nothing to do with Finding 2-A-4 which has to do with the adequacy of the EIR, which made a statement about the area of the project being within a noise study and failed to talk about why it was there. Finding 2-A-5 states that the EIR says there is no impact from noise but there is no substantiation for the statement. The Findings do not talk about an adequate noise study, but rather that the EIR did not carefully or clearly indicate where that idea originated. Alternate Koch said his point is that the motion only talked about safety and overflight inadequacies with regard to the EIR -- nothing else. Mr. Lucas said that overflight includes noise. Alternate Koch said that noise was talked about separately and if there had been a problem it would have been included in the motion, but was not included because it was not a problem. Mr. Lucas said that in the minutes, Commissioner Campbell talked about the inadequacy of the EIR based on "safety and other considerations" and Commissioner Lambert said to make the recommendation so that "all the appropriate information would be included.for a complete EIR." The motion was to "prepare findings for the inadequacy of the EIR," and in fact, the findings discuss the inadequacies of the EIR. All the concerns in the findings were part of the discussion Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Minutes « June 19, 1996 « 5 about the inadequacy of the EIR based on safety and overflight, and in his- opinion, overflight includes noise. Alternate Koch disagreed that noise was part of the safety and overflight concerns. He said his point is that the findings are not consistent with the motion. He felt that Findings 2-A-3, 4 and 5 particularly and what Mr. Sellers has said about Finding 2-A-1 are inappropriate to Exhibit A and should not have been submitted as comments. Chairman Gerst said that ground traffic has been part of the discussion. Alternate Koch said the staff report should reflect ALUC's action. There is nothing in the motion about traffic, so it is inappropriate for staff to include in the report that ALUC had a concern about traffic. Safety and overflight are the only items mentioned in the motion. Ms. Leasure said that motion was so loosely written, that a lot of the discussion could be included in the findings, and according to the tape recording of the meeting, all of the issues in the findings were discussed. Whether or not PRC 21096 should be included is a separate issue which could be looked up. Alternate Koch said that "safety and overflight" are not loosely written. Ms. Leasure said in the tape recordings, "other environmental issues" are mentioned. She suggested listening to the tapes again. Alternate Koch said that he just wanted the findings to reflect the motion, since there was lots of discussion with several points of view presented. Commissioner Lambert said that perhaps a motion of intent should been made with the detailed findings to be approved by ALUC. She said that the issues itemized in the Findings were discussed and the Resources Codes should be included even if only a portion of the property is included. As maker of the motion, she agrees with the Findings. Commissioner Campbell said he also has a problem with the findings coming back in this way. He was not sure that ALUC should be addressing the issue of traffic, but should concentrate on such items as noise and safety around the airport, and not get into other issues that are not specifically related to the airport. Although an item may have been mentioned in the discussion, he was not sure that it should have been written up in the findings. He would prefer to have the findings written,ahead of time, to be reviewed and approved along with the motion. Chairman Gerst said that vehicular traffic can have a big impact on an airport, and is part of ALUC's responsibilities. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Minutes « June 19, 1996 « 6 Alternate Koch was not sure that traffic was part of ALUC's responsibilities as per the Caltrans handbook. It was moved by Commissioner Franklin to delete Finding A-1 since it is unclear. Commissioner Lambert was not willing, as maker of the motion, to delete the finding without knowing whether or not it would be .inappropriate and perhaps County Counsel could supply that information. Mr. Lucas said that the entire boundary of a project is considered, not just where structures are proposed. If the proposed structures are not in an area where there would be conflict, the EIR should simply have stated there would be no development in that area. According to the PRC the entire property must be considered. There should not be a significant roadblock for the City. If there is no conflict, they can say so. Commissioner Franklin did not want to make a statement that the City of Chico violated the law, unless that is an accurate statement of fact, and at this point nobody knows. He does not want his name to be on an incriminating statement about breaking the law unless that is true. . RECESS Ms. Leasure said that the Government Code does relate to a portion of the project. She suggested the following modification of the Environmental Findings as discussed with Steve Lucas and Clif Sellers: A. Find that the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project is inadequate in that it does not fully address the potential impacts of the project in the following items: 1. The DEIR fails to cot*y with Public Resoluill-ces eode. Section 21696 which requires th when mi EIR is'prepared for a project in pioximity to an airpoit or within he boundaries of a comptehensive airport iand use p1mi, the lead agency for the project must utifize analysis of 6ahrwis Airport hand Use Plarming Handbook to assist in its analyze airport related safety hazards and noise problems; and 2. The DEIR fails to discuss the potential noise and safety impacts related to the overflight of the project site by aircraft and specifically, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection aerial fire tankers which are operating at a height of 300 to 500 feet above the project site, are carrying heavy loads of fire retardant, and exceed acceptable residential noise levels. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Minutes « June 19, 1996 « 7 3.. The DEIR fails to address the Cumulative Impact Analysis with ( respect to traffic and safety impacts as they relate to the operation of the Chico Municipal Airport and the impacts to traffic circulation on Cohsasset Road which is the primary access to the airport; and 4. .The DEIR in Chapter 10, indicates that approximately 49 acres are subject to noise levels of 55-60 dB CNEL, with 136 residential units housing approximately 407 people being affected. However, the DEIR-indicates on page 10-17 that there will be no exposure of residential areas or schools to excessive aircraft noise and that the 55dB CNEL noise contour is located northeast of the plan area. 'This appears to be a direct contradiction. :5. The statement that there will be no exposure of residential areas or, schools to excessive aircraft noise resulting in no mitigations is not substantially supported by the facts. There is no discussion of how the Caltrans Handbook information was tifflized in this ptocess this statement was arrived at and no discussion of the extreme noise levels that are generated by low flying California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection aerial tankers. Since the amended wording was in accordance with Government Code, and acceptable to Mr. Sellers and Planning staff, it was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Franklin, and carried unanimously to accept the amended language. B. Review for consistency findings and comment the City of Oroville Linkside Place development located on the south side of SR 162 and adjacent to the west side of the Table'Mountain Golf Course. The applicant desires to rezone the 37.4 acre parcel (APN 030-260-021 and 026) from AR -5 (Agricultural Residential -5 acre min) to SR/PUD to allow a 150 unit mobile home park and clubhouse. . Albert Garland, with Development Enterprises of Roseville, California, representing the applicants, requested a continuance in order to review the staff report which was just received. They would also like to study the conflicts with the City of Oroville General Plan, current Airport Land Use Plans and potential impacts on this project. In addition, they would like to study the suggested mitigations. HEARING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC Mr. Lucas asked that Mr. Garland submit a letter requesting a continuance. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Minutes « June 19, 1996 It was moved by Alternate Koch, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, and carried unanimously + : for continuance of this item to the September meeting. V. Business From the Floor on Items Not Already on the Agenda Vince Phelan, of Chico, said that the Foothill Park East DEIR public comment period closed on 4/26/96. His airport related safety comment was presented prior to the Chico Planning office comment period closing, so that should establish a date when action should have been taken on his safety related comment. The contents of the letter he had submitted to Clif Sellers was that "in the past, offices at the Chico Air Attack Base located at the Chico Municipal Airport have warned that heavily laden CDF and US Forest Service tankers departing from runway 13 L require air abatement turns at low altitudes over Foothill Park East. In case of engine problems, the aircraft must dump its load of fire retardant with the potential to damage homes and possibly injure people." Mr. Phelan said that the Lockheed Neptune carries 2,000 gallons of fire retardant and that is at 9.3 pounds per gallon which equals 18,600 pounds of retardant that may have to be. jettisoned. Mr. Phelan's objective is keep down agitation which might come from people living in the proposed project which could choke off the viability of the airport or cause the CDF air attack base to leave the airport location for a more distant place, and leave the foothills with delayed fire protection. There was a discussion of the role the Alternates present in the audience should play in the discussion of ALUC issues, and it was noted that the Bylaws do not discuss the issue. It was agreed that the Alternates could speak from the audience, but not as part of the ALUC panel. C. Discussion of airport planning boundaries for public use airports. The Commission will review the limits for the planning boundaries to be covered by the comprehensive Land Use Plans. Ms. Leasure said it would be helpful to decide upon the boundaries in order to prepare the maps. Mr. Lucas said there has been a lot of discussion about how far out the boundaries should go, so maps have been prepared for each airport with lines in 1/2 mile increments from the airports to show how many parcels would be affected and what the zoning of those parcels is. He discussed the maps of each airport displayed on the walls. He said that the concentric lines could be modified to indicate actual flight paths or in response to local geography. He suggested that the boundaries should include the areas that will be impacted by overflight, not necessarily what the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Minutes « June 19, 1996 « 9 1 ABSTAIN: Acting Chairman Gerst 2 3 It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Alternate Koch, and carried by the following vote 4 to elect Commissioner Franklin as Vice Chair. 5 6 AYES: Commissioners Crofts, Campbell, Lambert,, Alternate Koch and Chairman Gerst 7 NOES: 0 8 ABSTAIN: Commissioner Franklin 9 10 12 B. - ' Review for consistency findings and comment on the City of Chico Foothill Park East Subdivision 13 located in northeast Chico approximately 1.75 miles from the Chico Municipal Airport. 14 15 Mr. Lucas said that the Agenda Report outlines the three basic issues to be addressed by ALUC, one.of 16 which is that the Draft Environmental Impact Report addresses the noise issues relating to the Chico 17 Municipal Airport, but not the safety issues. According to the CEQA guidelines, which have been 18 distributed to the Commissioners, the Caltrans Handbook must be used to analyze safety issues also 19 including: overflight, single event noise of CDF tankers, and traffic impacts. Mr. Lucas indicated on an 20 aerial map, the location of the proposed subdivision which lies within a noise contour and overflight area of 21 the CDF tanker departures and some other flights. The contours are taken from the 1978 Environs Plan. 22 A noise compatibility study has been prepared by the City of Chico, but that is not an adopted study of 23 ALUC, nor is it a part of any Comprehensive Lane Use Plan. 24 25 Alternate Koch said that the noise study which was used, reflects current conditions and is a valid study 26 although it has not been adopted. 27 28 Mr. Lucas said the important issue which the Draft EIR did not address is: safety. Staff recommends that 29 ALUC inform the City of Chico that it is legally required to include safety issues in the EIR for the 30 subdivision. The other two issues which should be addressed are: compatibility with the Airport Environs 31 Plan and pressure on the CDF Fire Attack Base. 32 33 It was moved by Alternate Koch that the City should be notified that safety issues should be addressed 34 before the final EIR is certified. Commissioner Franklin seconded the motion. 35 36 Chairman Gerst said according to the Agenda Report, the project is located approximately 8000 ft. from 37 the end of the runway, and that fire tankers will be flying at a height of 400 feet above the project site. 38 According to the 1978 Environs Plan, on the 51 flight path ratio, the air space is only 160 feet. The aircraft 39 don't have to fly at 400 feet and on a 50:1 ratio it is 160 feet. There would have to be hearings to change 40 that glide path ratio. At 10,000 feet, the ratio would be 40:1. 41 42 Commissioner Franklin said the tankers go up pretty low; they don't climb very fast; they are pretty flat 43 when they go out; they are the flattest ones going out. 44 45 Chairman Gerst said that he is concerned about that situation. 46 47 Commissioner Franklin said that the commercial jets do not use the same flight pattern as the borate 48 bombers and he explained the difference in flight patterns. 49 50 Alternate Koch withdrew his motion at this time. 51 52 It,was agreed to open the hearing to the public since concerns of the CDF tankers would also be related to 53 discussion of the adequacy of the Draft EIR. # Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Minutes N May 15, 1996 # Page 2 # HEARING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC Ron Bulber. Manager of the Ranchaero Airport, said the noise abatement program at the CMA requires an immediate left turn to the south which puts planes over the shaded area on the aerial map overlay. He said that the noise of the tankers on Floral Avenue is quite loud. Because tankers don't climb as fast as commercial jets, they would create a lot of noise for any residences in the proposed subdivision, but there is no other area for them to fly over. Fred C. Davis, 14737 Julliard Court, Magalia, said that the CDF tankers are the safety valve for the Upper Ridge. If there are noise complaints from the proposed subdivision, the air tankers might be transferred to Mather Air Force Base, which would be a 45 minutes delay in fire protection for the Upper Ridge area which contains 60,000 people. He distributed copies of a'statement by the Committee to Keep the Air Tankers in Chico expressing the need to keep the area around the airport open for the tankers to fly for fire protection on the Upper Ridge. Bill Davis, 5390 South Libby Road, Paradise, said the aerial map does not display the flight path of the tankers going north. He said according to a study done by students at CSUC, the tankers make a hard right turn in order to go north. If the tankers can do that, they should be able to alter their flight path to avoid the proposed subdivision. Mr. Lucas said that the only impact being considered is that on the proposed Foothill Park East Subdivision. Mr. Davis said it is germane to the discussion that the tankers can make a sharper turn in order to go north, and that information should be shown on the exhibit. . , Mr. Davis said he is working on both Foothill Park East and the Bidwell Ranch subdivisions. He submitted a map associated with the Chico General Plan with the proposed subdivisions colored in, and an arrow showing the current path of the CDF tankers going over the proposed Foothill Park East. There were arrows drawn indicating the turns the tankers take to go north. He said if they can make the turns to go north, they can make the same type of turn to avoid the subdivisions. He indicated on the map where open space areas would be which would function as a safety overflight zone and noise zone. There are things in the General Plan which would mitigate the potential for impact. Mr. Lucas said it would have been nice if the information just submitted could have been included in the Draft EIR to explain there was even an impact and there could be a mitigation available. In fact, the EIR failed to -address the safety issue of overflights. CDF has indicated that the flight path:which would be impacted by the subdivision is the primary southern departure route at this time. Commissioner Lambert said it would be necessary to know what the County General Plan and Zoning indicate for the areas suggested by Mr. Davis for potential flight paths. Commissioner Franklin said that if the flight pattern is altered, there would be a serious safety problem with CDF tankers attempting to make the sharp turn, especially on a hot day. It would be dangerous to make such a sharp turn at an altitude of 150 feet, because lift is lost, and if there was engine failure, there would be no place for the tankers to go. Commissioner Franklin said he would not attempt such a turn himself. Mr. Lucas indicated the 500 ft. contour on a map and said that the tankers might not attain sufficient altitude at that point while making a turn. Commissioner Franklin said that if the turn is pushed, the plane could stall. # Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Minutes # May 15, 1996 # Page 3 Clif Sellers, Planning Director of the City of Chico, said the discussion is hampered because there has been no formal response from the federal or state agencies as to their routes and climb rates, which is crucial information. He agrees that it is important to keep the air tankers based in Chico, however there are budgetary reasons which might be important in that decision as well as local land use decisions. The City will correct any technical deficiencies in the EIR due to omissions of information, however, the review period ended on April 26, 1996. The Notice of Preparation for the EIR and the draft document were circulated through the State which would have included Caltrans Aeronautics and the Division of Forestry, neither of whom submitted comments. Mr. Sellers agreed that noise and traffic are not significant problems. The most recent noise study was used. There will be cumulative impact on traffic, but not project specific. He noted that ALUC made the finding that portions of the Chico General Plan are. inconsistent with operations of the Chico airport. The Chico city council made an over-riding finding and approved the General Plan. Commissioner Lambert asked if Foothill East or Bidwell Ranch has access from Cohasset. Mr. Sellers said that both projects will rely on Eaton Road which will eventually be extended to Manzanita Avenue by the Elks Lodge. There will be traffic onto Cohasset, but most traffic patterns will be to the south and west. There would be impact at the Cohasset intersection with traffic going to the airport or the freeway. Chairman Gerst asked if there was a calculation of the cumulative impact of traffic onto Cohasset. Mr. Sellers said that the General Plan indicated that development north of East Avenue and east of Cohasset would result in significant traffic onto Cohasset Road. There would also be impact from development in the area of Eaton Road, Morseman Avenue, Godman Avenue and Cohasset Road. There will be increased traffic from the community of Cohasset and the airport, especially truck traffic from the airport. There are plans to .widen Cohasset Road from Eaton Road to the airport and to widen Eaton Road out to the freeway. Chairman Gerst asked what level of service is expected for the roads. Mr. Sellers said that with the exception of critical intersections, it is expected that all roads would operate at level "C" or better with the ultimate improvements, which would include 4 lanes and significant improvements at the Cohasset/East Avenue intersection. Chairman Gerst said he was concerned with emergency vehicles getting to the airport. Alternate Koch asked what the density of Foothill Park East will be. Mr. Sellers said the density will be 3.5 units per acre. The development has 230 acres of open space — along the diversion channel and in the northerly portion of the project site. 150 acres will be developed. There is a setback of 500 ft. south of the Diversion Channel and all the area north of the channel to Thorntree except for an area near Cohasset which is designated as Industrial. The westerly boundary of the property tapers almost to and maybe is contiguous to the Clear Zone. Commissioner Campbell asked what the density of the developed area would be. Mr. Sellers said the density would be 3.5 units per acre for the developed area. Including the gross area, the density will be approximately 1.75 units per acre. Mr. Lucas said that Dick Tiller, the air attack officer at the CDF base in Chico, has indicated concerns for the air tankers in a recent letter. In response to the comment period having expired for the Draft EIR, state law allows ALUC to comment once a referral is received. A letter from the City of Chico dated March # Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Minutes # May 15, 1996 # Page 4 • • 19 indicates a 60 day period to respond, which would be May 19, 1996. Planning staff solicited the referral. Mr. Sellers said that in addition to the referral of March 19, there was a referral on March 12 for the Draft EIR, which has a 45 day response period. There is one time period for the Draft EIR and another one for the statutory consistency finding. That is for Foothill Park East only. Bidwell Ranch is outside of the mandatory notice area. Notice was provided to the County, but not specifically, to ALUC. Safety and airport viability are the main concerns in any case, not deadlines. Mr. Lucas said that Mr. Sellers has indicated that he is interested in dealing with the safety issue and comments from ALUC will be accepted and incorporated into the EIR. Based on ALUC's law for referral periods, the timeline has not closed. Vince Phelan, North Avenue. Chico, said it is true that the air tankers fly over heavily laden at a low altitude. If the wind comes from the east/southeast at 20 mph, aircraft will have to fly over the southeast. Regarding the off-site infrastructure, there could be problems for emergency vehicles dealing with heavy congestion at some locations. Mr. Phelan said he opposes encroaching residential growth east of the airport because of safety for the plane crew and the residents. Burgeoning residential projects could choke off future expansion, prosperity and viability of the airport. He is in favor of retaining the CDF air tanker base for protection of residents, property and woodlands from wildfires. Geri Benedict, 6093 Timber Ridge Drive, of the Upper Ridge Co-ordinating Council, spoke in favor of retaining the CDF air tanker base. She said it would drastically slow response time for fire protection on the Upper Ridge, where there are 20,000 people living on a cul-de-sac, if the air tankers are based at Mather. The state has required that the Magalia Reservoir be drawn down which might weaken the dam and the road built on it, and is now raising the possibility of moving the tanker base as well. The safety issue includes fire safety. Bill Davis said that regarding the compatibility guidelines for safety, according to the existing airport plan, residential uses are compatible in an overflight zone as long as the average density does not exceed 25 people and maximum density does not exceed 50 people per acre. In Foothill Park East the average density will be 11.25 and for Bidwell Ranch the average density will be 18.75 per acre. Both projects are consistent with existing policies for land use compatibility for residential uses in an overflight safety zone. Barbara Hennigan said that the noise study which produces the CNEL lines is based on an average and does not deal with single event noises. She said that in 1994, based on gallons of retardant used, and the capacity of the planes, she calculated that there were more than 700 departures of air tankers, mostly to the south. Aero Union also has numerous flights and training flights during the fire season. Many flights . are launched and aborted with no retardant being dropped, or partial loads being dropped. The planes would fly 400 ft. above houses in the proposed projects; dripping hydraulic fluid and retardant. The residents of a subdivision would be outraged by the overflying air tankers., Mrs. Hennigan said that in some cities, air ambulances have been prohibited or restricted because of complaints from area residents. There was a 30 degree left turn required at the Chico airport due to pressure from the residents living under the straight out approach. Then since 1983, the noise abatement procedure was changed to a 50 degree left turn in response to complaints. There will be outraged people and political pressure and there is no other place for the tankers to go heading south. Jean Crist, said her home was saved by prompt response from air tankers and helicopters. She said there a fragile agreement with federal and CDF fire protection tankers which is badly needed and needed in a timely manner -- not 45 minutes. John Papadakis, a taxpayer, said that CDF should be asked what takeoff pattern they follow to the west and the north. If a right turn is made it would be hazardous to many people. # Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Minutes # May 15, 1996 # Page 5 # 1 Ron Bulber said that avigation easements and noise abatement procedures do not appease people. 2 People who don't fly and who live around airports don't like the noise of airplanes. There would be no 3 safety net for the big tankers, and no matter what the residential density on the ground is,, it would still be a 4 disaster if a big tanker went down. Ranchaero Airport is already feeling the pressure from encroaching 5 development. 6. 7 Alternate Koch said that City Manager's Office in Chico gets very few complaints about the Ranchaero 8 Airport, so the problem should not be overstated. He asked if it is correct that there is no development 9 north of Sycamore Channel. 10 11 Mr. Sellers said no houses are proposed north of Sycamore'Channel in the western portion of the site. 12 There are about 75 acres of industrial property just south of Thorntree and east of Cohasset. The eastern. 13 portion north of the channel is in the wetland set-aside area. 14 15 Alternate Koch said that if it is true that the water tankers use Sycamore Channel as a turning point, and 16 go around the channel to avoid going over populated areas, and if the proposed houses are 300-500 ft. 17 south of the channel, and the planes turn at the channel and go east and south, and don't fly over 18 populated areas, then there should not be a significant adverse affect on the developments. 19 20 Commissioner Lambert asked where the Bidwell Ranch site is located in relation to the diversion channel 21 22 Mr. Davis said that on the General Plan exhibit map, the orange area east of the diversion channel 23 indicates the development area of the Bidwell Ranch site. There are 450 acres set-aside out of 750 on 24 the Bidwell Ranch project. 25 26 Commissioner Franklin said there is obviously lots of room on`both projects to put a plane down. 27 28 Commissioner Lambert asked how avigation easements are implemented. 29 30 Mr. Sellers said that avigation easements are an acknowledgement of aircraft operations and would show 31 up in a title report, although buyers may not realize what it signifies. Avigation easements are required.for 32 subdivisions in certain corridors used by aircraft. There is an avigation easement over Foothill Park and 33 would also be one over Bidwell Ranch. 34 35 Chairman Gerst indicated that avigation easements are, not a guarantee of safety, nor do they prevent 36 people from complaining or taking legal action. 37 , 38 .-:"'Mr. Phelan said the proposed developments would comprise over 2,000 homes; which is larger than the 39 town of Corning. The opposition to the proposed flight school at the airport was over 3,000 people. 40 41 HEARING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC 42 43 Mr. Lucas said that many of the issues brought up relate to. compatibility of the residential uses, separate 44 from the CDF flight paths. It appears that ALUC feels that safety issues should be mentioned in the EIR. 45 Compatibility with the Environs Plan should also be discussed. He said that the Environs Plan calls for 46 SR -1 zoning with parcel sizes of one acre in Zone IV, which is inconsistent with the proposed - 47 development, with 3.2 units per developable acre. A small portion of the project is located in Zone V, 48 which allows SR zoning which is 6 units per acre on sewer. Zone IV would definitely have inconsistency, 49 and Zone V has potential inconsistency depending on the configuration of the units. Zone V does not 50 allow 6 units per acre in the flight corridor. 51 52 Alternate Koch said that the Environs Plan might be out-of-date, since it is 18 years old, and might be a 53 good reason for a finding of Over-riding Consideration. ,1 Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Minutes # May 15, 1996 # Page 6 # • . • Commissioner Campbell asked if there is a map which shows the layout of the development. Mr. Lucas said there is not a map which shows location of actual homes. Approximately 40% of the project site is in Zone IV and approximately 60% in Zone V, but of Zone V the flight corridor takes up about 30-40% of the area. About 60-65% of the project is incompatible and perhaps the remainder is acceptable according to the Environs Plan. Commissioner Lambert said that keeping the air tankers at Chico is a priority, and that findings of consistency cannot be made based on the current Environs plan, and the EIR needs additional comment including information ft,om CDF or other entities. Mr. Lucas said that ALUC can find the project not consistent with the Environs Plan and notify the City of Chico of that finding. As for the CDF issue, ALUC can request more information from the federal government and CDF. The City of Chico could simply be told that ALUC would prefer to see comments from CDF and the U. S. Forest Service in the EIR or at least in the discussion process. As for the EIR, ALUC can submit the concern that the EIR failed to address the safety issue for overflights and make specific findings to that effect. . Commissioner Franklin said the CDF issue is moot. There is not consistency with the 1978 plan anyway. The City will over -rule, and the project will be built. Commissioner Lambert said she would like to know if CDF has any plans to alter their routes. Chairman Gerst asked if ALUC has the authority to ask Caltrans for comment. Mr. Lucas said that ALUC can certainly ask, although Caltrans is not obliged to respond, nor is the City obliged to follow Caltrans recommendations. CEQA guidelines do require the City to utilize the Caltrans handbook in the determination of whether or not there is a safety issue in the EIR. Chairman Gerst said that if review is a service which Caltrans provides, it should be utilized. Alternate Koch said that the state clearinghouse process was used, and apparently Caltrans did not choose to comment. There would be no reason to ask Caltrans for comments to ALUC since the project will not be coming back to ALUC. There are certain timelines which must be.met, which cannot be held up to wait for more comments. The City of Chico could be encouraged to contact Caltrans directly. Commissioner Lambert said it might be beneficial to the City of Chico to have Caltrans comments. Alternate Koch said that maybe Caltrans lack of comment was an oversight, and someone could call them and ask them for comments. Chairman Gerst thought it would be advisable to have comment from Caltrans. Mr. Lucas said that contacting Caltrans in addition to CDF for comments could be done. He noted that Dick Tiller, the Air Attack Officer of the Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection, sent a letter to ALUC, dated May 13, 1996, and it confirms most of what has been said today regarding the numbers of flights taken by CDF tankers, and that the planes are older and not the best maintained, and could possibly drop large amounts of retardant, and there are a number of flights which return fully or partially loaded. Mr. Tiller, in his letter, indicated that pressure from residents could lead to loss of the tanker base, which would lead to higher fire losses due to a longer response time. Chairman Gerst asked about the concerns of Aero Union. H Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Minutes # May 15, 1996 # Page 7 # Alternate Koch said that according to the general Manager of Aero Union, his company has no objection to the proposed subdivisions. Commissioner Campbell suggested that as part of the findings of inadequacy of the Draft EIR, reasons for the findings should be given. Mr. Lucas said that he would include the specific items that were not addressed in the EIR, in the notification to the City of Chico. He suggested that ALUC can make inconsistency findings with the currently adopted Environs Plan, and put the City on notice that ALUC does have concerns which, if -they are not addressed by the EIR process or during the public hearing process, that they are potential grounds for litigation in the future, as alluded to in the handout from the CEQA guidelines which refer to a "legal trap that leads otherwise complying lead agencies into violation of CEQA requirements." Commissioner Lambert said that is what ALUC should do and is about all it can do. Mr. Phelan suggested notifying Caltrans regarding the findings relating to safety. Chairman Gerst asked the Commissioners if staff could be directed to put the necessary findings together. It was agreed that staff could put the necessary findings together. It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Crotts, and carried unanimously to follow.staff recommendations for Foothill Park East as per the staff report dated March 28, 1996, as follows: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission finds that the Foothill Park East Subdivision is inconsistent with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and directs staff to prepare inconsistency findings for the Foothill Park East project based on the.Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan; and prepare specific findings and comments to address the inadequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project; and the letter from Dick -Tiller is to be forwarded to the City as additional information relating to the EIR. Mr. Lucas said in making the findings, he would detail those areas of the project which are inconsistent. His findings would also note that due to the requirements of the CEQA guidelines, the Caltrans handbook must be used to assist in the analysis of airport related safety hazards, and a reference to avigation easements would be included. The Commission agreed unanimously. 10:30 a.m. BREAK IN THE MEETING FOR THE AIRPORT MANAGERS TO SELECT A NEW REPRESENTATIVE ON ALUC. Jim Causey was selected as the new representative on ALUC. Ron Bulber was selected as Commissioner Franklin's alternate on ALUC. C. Review for consistency findings and comment on the City of Chico Bidwell Ranch Subdivision located in northeast Chico approximately two miles from the Chico Municipal Airport. Mr. Lucas said that the project is not in the Compatible Lane Use Zones study area, so a finding of consistency or inconsistency cannot be made, however as in Foothill Park East, the safety issue was not addressed in the Draft EIR. He said that the DEIR seems to be contradictory as to whether or not a portion of the subdivision would be affected by noise levels of 55-60 db. # Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Minutes # May 15, 1996 # Page 8 # Alternate Koch said the current noise plan does not indicate anything that comes close to Bidwell Ranch. He suggested that if there is an inconsistent statement it should be brought to the City of Chico's attention. Commissioner Lambert asked what the study area includes. i Mr: Lucas said the maps in the Environs Plan include the study area. CIC -6 is an example. Commissioner Franklin said the study area would be two miles by default if it is not specified. Mr. Lucas said that Bidwell Ranch lies beyond the area covered by the Environs Plan for land use. Findings can still be made such as the project not being in the best interests of the airport based on the California Public Utilities Code that establishes ALUC authority, even if findings of inconsistency with the Environs Plan cannot be made. Alternate Koch said that comments can be addressed to the Draft EIR in order to make comments on issues that are a concern such as overflight. The letter from Dick Tiller of CDF could be included. Mr. Lucas said that basically, in following the recommendations of the staff report, ALUC would be notifying the City of Chico of potential problems which have been identified and which should be addressed in the review of the project. It was so moved by Alternate Koch and seconded by Commissioner Campbell. (This motion was later withdrawn.) HEARING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC A letter was submitted from Lance Tennis, President of the Humboldt Highlands Homeowners Assn., 14770 Eagle Ridge Road, Forest Ranch, expressing concern about the ability of the air tankers to continue to use the Chico Airport for an air base if the area east of the airport that is currently being used as a noise suppression area for take offs is threatened by the development of homes. Bill Davis, of Bidwell Ranch, said. that the 1978 Environs Plan does not cover the area of Bidwell Ranch, so that is a moot issue. The analysis of the EIR will not be changed, and the level of potential impact will not be changed. Based on that plan, there is no significant impact. During the 1994 update of the Chico General Plan, the areas of the proposed subdivision were designated for development under the same guidelines as they are being considered today for density and land use. These issues should have been considered at that time and not on a project by project basis. A lot of good planning has gone into Bidwell Ranch and there is inclusion of open space area which would provide a safety zone in an overflight zone and the project is consistent with the Caltrans guidelines for airport land use. Mr. Sellers said that the EIR for Bidwell Ranch included a site specific noise study that has actually gone out to the field: There was a short sampling period, which might explain why the noise contour was greater than what developed over a year period as indicated in the Airport Compatibility Noise Study. As for the Environs Plan, there are two types of issues addressed: the air safety zones and land use issues. If for instance, there was a tower proposed in the subdivision, that would relate to the air safety zones. In the absence of that type of obstruction, land use in the study area is the issue, and Bidwell Ranch is outside of that area. The City of Chico is concerned about safety issues and is.supportive of contacting the various agencies to get additional information to present to the various boards and councils in consideration of Bidwell Ranch. Also the Draft EIR comment period is long overdue. What the City of Chico would be looking for in ALUC's recommendation is that safety issues be taken into consideration and the appropriate agencies be contacted. Commissioner Lambert asked if a portion of the project is within the study area Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Minutes # May 15, 1996 # Page 9 N Mr. Lucas said that no portion of the project is within what is considered to be the Compatible Land Use Zones study area. Chairman Gerst suggested that it should be determined what impact the borate bombers would have in relation to the maps in the Environs Plan. Alternate Koch disagreed with that. He said that the maps being referred to are a source document, but are not the Environs Plan. Mr. Lucas said that on Page 2-2 under Safety Analysis it says: this finding combined with the fact that no discernible pattern of accident locations could be defined, led to the decision to not recommend additional safety restriction zones around the airport." He speculated that there is land that has no CLUZ rating, because in 1978 it was not perceived that those areas would ever be built upon. Alternate Koch said that perhaps there was no CLUZ rating given because it was thought there would not be a conflict regardless of what was built in those areas. Mr. Lucas said it is true the study area does not indicate a land use restriction for the Bidwell Ranch site, however, that may not be the final word. There may have been no restrictions because it was not foreseen in 1978 that there would be a density issue. ALUC can look at proposed uses such as Bidwell Ranch and can find an impact even if not inconsistency based on land use classifications. ALUC has the right to protect airport safety. The land use classifications do, not place restrictions on the land, however there are indications in the Plan that some of the areas were not addressed. Alternate Koch said that it is too late to comment on the EIR, and consistency is not an issue since the project is outside the study area, but ALUC may or may not have certain concerns on overflight and safety that should be looked at in the final decision. Commissioner Franklin said that ALUC could take the position of having the right to comment on the EIR, as stated by Mr. Lucas. There was confusion if it is too late for ALUC to comment on the EIR for the project. Mr. Lucas indicated that ALUC never received a Notice of Preparation and this is new substantial information. Mr. Sellers said there are two processes: an EIR process and an ALUC consistency finding process. The EIR process is closed. Mr. Lucas said that based on the requirements of PUC Section 21096, the EIR failed to address safety issues. The case can be made that the requirement was never met, which would require the City of Chico to address the safety issue in some way. If the City of Chico is willing to address safety, that would be the important thing. Mr. Sellers said that if there is a safety issue, it will be addressed, and in the EIR if necessary. The appropriate document will be incorporated in order to have a legally sufficient final EIR. If it is question of safety requirements, it still needs to be addressed, but is not necessarily an EIR requirement. Alternate Koch asked what the density of Bidwell Ranch would be. Mr. Sellers said that the density is 2 units per acre on the gross, and 5.5 on the net developable area. Open space will be 450 acres out of the 750 acres, including the northerly part, and the area along the diversion channel. N Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Minutes # May 15, 1996 # Page 10 # Commissioner Campbell said he could support recommending that the EIR is inadequate based on safety and other considerations, because public comment is allowed right up to final certification of the EIR and approval of the project. Maybe all that ALUC can do is communicate their concerns. Commissioner Lambert agreed that ALUC needs to make their recommendation so that all the appropriate information would be included.for a complete EIR. The motion made earlier by Alternate Koch was withdrawn. Commissioner Lambert said that ALUC should make comments which are in the best interests of the airport. There should be a complete and accurate document for the City's own protection. It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, and seconded by Alternate Koch that the Butte County ALUC find that the Bidwell Ranch Project is not in the Compatible Land Use Zones (CLUZ) study area of the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan, and prepare findings and comments to address the inadequacy of the EIR with respect to safety and overflight in accordance with the requirements of the Caltrans airport land use planning handbook pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21096, and the Dick Tiller of CDF letter should be forwarded to the City of Chico as part of the record. Mr. Lucas said that the aeronautics division of Caltrans is not the same office which studies traffic issues, but Caltrans should be able to respond with a comment for Bidwell Ranch as well as Foothill Park East. Bill Davis said that comments should be made during the EIR comment period, and if comments are made after the comment period has closed, those issues would not stand up in court. The City of Chico does not. legally have to address safety if it was not raised during the comment period. Commissioner Lambert _asked if ALUC was notified of this project during the time period.for review, or had to specifically request it for review. Mr. Lucas'said that ALUC did not receive a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the project and should have been notified by the City since the project is within two miles of the airport. f f.• f f f D. Distribution of the final draft of the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Policy Plan. The plan is to be adopted as the Commission's guide for revising individual airport comprehensive land use plans. (CLUP) This item was continued to the June 19, 1996, ALUC meeting. If the Policy Plan is not ready prior to that time, there will be no meeting of ALUC until the regular meeting of July 17, 1996. The Commissioners would like to be able to review the Policy Plan prior to the meeting. E. Discussion of airport planning boundaries for public use airports. The Commission will decide limits for the planning boundaries to be covered by the Comprehensive Land Use Plans. Mr. Lucas said it would help in preparation of the maps for the CLUPs if a decision is made on the planning boundaries. Commissioner Lambert said she should prefer to begin with a two mile limit, which can be reduced if that isnot necessary. # Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Minutes # May 15, 1996 # Page 11 # Airport panel backs Chico developments By Nick Ellena Staff Writer OROVILLE — The . Butte County Airport Land Use Com- mission squeezed out a compro- mise recommendation Wednesday that allows it to endorse two con- troversial development projects in east. Chico: Bidwell Ranch and Foothill Park. By.a 6-1.4ote commissioners agreed that safety impacts from firefighting aircraft overflying the projects can by mitigated by: • Providing an open space depar- ture flight corridor 1.000 feet wide. • Require avigation easements for properties in the project areas. • Provide comprehensive disclo- sure process that includes record- ing of deeds and public education programs to alert home buyers of the proximity of the flight corridor. The subject before the commis- sion was a Department of Development Services staff report alleging that a consultant's study done for the city of Chico fell short of addressing the potential impacts. .With the * Chico Planning Commission scheduled to miff o' n Dec. 9 to review the Foothill Park East and Bidwell Ranch Aircraft Operat'on Impact and Contlict Study. the airport commission had scheduled a special session for Wednesday to discuss it and send forward its recommendation.. Chairman Fred Gerst dissented. The report, by associate planner Stephen Lucas. was critical of the study for soft-pedaling the potential hazard to residences and people below from firefighting planes which will be taking off on a south- east route, heading over the pro- posed undeveloped corridor that runs along the Sycamore Creek Diversion Channel between the two projects. It contended the study also underestimated the noise factor from firefighting aircraft taking off. It concluded that it fails to address important concerns and that it "clearly indicates the solu- tion to the impacts to the aircraft operations at the airport is for the aircraft to avoid (overflying) the development." In a tart reply. Chico community development assistant Clif Sellers stated the report "badly misrepre- "sents the content and conclusions" of the study. ' Overtones of the recent jurisdic- tional conflict between the com- mission and the city cropped up sporadically during the meeting. Commissioners maintain they have the authority to make findings on whether proposed development projects are consistent with city or county airport environs plans. Except for Gerst, commissioners conceded they don't have policy making authority but only submit findings to the jurisdiction in question for consideration. Gerst advocated a continuance of the hearing until the commis- sion has the actual corridor and noise abatement plans before it for evaluation. A motion to approve the three- part recommendation and send on to the Chico Planning Commission was made by Bob Hennigan and seconded by Bob Koch. Responding to Gerst's sugges- tion for a continuance. Commissioner John Franklin said it was a choice of the airport panel having a voice in the process or not, since the . Chico Planning Commission was likely to take action on Dec. 9. "If we concur on these three they should 'go to the Chico Planning Commission." he said.. "That's where the battle is going to be done. Not here." Gerst said he intended to go before the commission to press his concern for adequate noise abate- ment. Firefighting tankers are being routed southeast of the airport because it still is mostly open space. Most of the regular traffic heads south on a direct flight path from the runways. The magnitude of hazard posed by laden tankers was also discussed at length. Hennigan. a contract flier with the California Department of Forestry, said the Chico study's estimate of 1.66 tanker flights per day average was greatly underesti- mated. He said the average is spread out over the course of a year and does not include training flights. assignment of planes to other in other areas, and test flights. Also discussed was the poten- tial hazard of emergency dumping 27,600 pounds of fire retardant chemicals if a problem is experi- enced on takeoff and the plane has to be lightened. The Chico study stated retar- dant has been routinely released from a, height of 150 feet without; harm to Firefighters or property. Hennigan said depending on the altitude released. 37.600 pounds oC retardant can do considerable dam age. The airport commission staff° report said dropping retardant at; low altitude "has the potential - result for significant damage to homes/cars and potential for injuries or deaths." It was agreed that commission':. "'bottom line" position for endors-` ing the project was adoption of the. three-part recommendation. The Foothill Park East project lies west of the Sycamore. Diversion Channel. two miles east' of the airport. It is proposed for 135- single-family residential parcels of; between 4.000 and 10.000 square, feet each. The Bidwell Ranch, Development lies across the than-' net opposite Foothill Park East. and'- north of Bidwell Park. It would: consist of a residential; area. an ele-' mentary school site. commercial uses. and 200 acres bf open space. to protect endangered species' including a meadowfoam preserve SECTION 5 OBSTRUCTION AND SAFETY ANALYSIS Section 4 has presented�a detailed discussion of existing and projected. Se _ aircraft noise conditions at the'Chico Municipal Airport. Although this is typically the most significant community concern related'to the eration of an airport, it is also important to consider factors which relate to the safety of flight operations. The purpose of this section is to'address these concerns and to define land and planning criteria which can be utilized to preserve and protect the safety of flight Op- erations and of the general public. 5.1 IMAGINARY, SURFACES s 5.1.1 Introduction An consideration in the protection of the airspace surrounding Chico Municipal Airport is the preservation of unobstructed runway approach surfaces. Past experience has shown that if some form of control is icinity of the placed laced on the construction of -tall structures in the v airport, developments may occur which force flight altitudes to be raised or patterns relocated. 51.2 Description of Imaginary Surfaces }' The A proach and Clear Zone Plan, depicted in Drawing CIC -5, `illustrates P the imaginary surfaces on and about the airport through which no object should penetrate: Criteria utilized in determining the .shape, size, and position of the various surfaces are outlined in Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77., The various imaginary surfaces may be de - 9 scribed as follows: Primary Surface The primary surface for, Runway 13L/31R (instrument runway) is -a rectangular surface, the boundaries of 5-1 An important recommendation reached as a' result of the questionnaire survey deals with the issue of using contour lines as planning.boundaries.- The results of the survey clearly indicate that noise exposure contour lines should not be used as the only source for making final land use planning decisions. Public opinion is not closely correlated with the predicted CNEL values. This fact leads to the- conclusion that land use decisions should be based on specific site analysis and a thorough understanding of all other land use related issues. The contours portrayed in Drawings CIC -2, and CIC -3 should be important considerations in reaching land use decisions but should be used only as guidelines. This also suggests.that the actual boundaries of the final planning areas should be based on factors such as geographical boundaries and land ownership boundaries rather than noise contour lines 4-23 which lie 500 feet either side of the runway center= line and extend 200 feet beyond each landing thresh - hold. The primary surface elevation follows the ry 3 slope of the runway. • Approach Surface Beginning at -the end of the primary surface, the approach surface extends outward and upward at a wYi ratio of 50 feet horizontally to 1 foot vertically, a distance of 10,000 feet. At this point it is 200 feet above the runway threshold .elevation and '. A. has increased in width to 4,000 feet. From this point the approach surface steepens to a ratio of 40 feet horizontally to 1 foot vertically, an ad- ditional distance of 40,000 feet., At the end of the 40,000 feet the approach surface is at an elevation of 1;200 feet above the runway threshold and has increased in width to 16,000 feet. . =" • Transitional Surface ^:. The transitional surfaces extend outward and upward _ from the edges of the primary surface and the approach a surfaces at a ratio of .7 feet horizontally to 1 foo vertically to an elevation where they intersect the Y: horizontal or conical surfaces. • Horizontal Surface V The surface is at an.elevation of 150 feet above .%: the established airport elevation (described in highest of the usable runway(s)). a -Part.77 as the point In the case of a precision instrument runway such . x as Chi co's, the outline of the horizontal surface is developed by striking arcs of 10,000 foot radius from the intersection of the extended runway centerline Y: and the outer ends of the primary surface, then :..� . connecting the ends of these arcs with tangents. • Conical Surface utilizing the same radius points as for the horizontal be- ` = surface, arcs of 14,000 foot radius (4,000 feet <r yond the limits of the horizontal surface) are develop- ed, and the ends of the ares.connected with tangents. s ° The top of the conical surface, which is at a ratio of 20 feet horizontally to 1 foot vertically, rests 350 feet above the established airport elevation -- or "i 200 feet above the horizontal surface. 5-3 ,t (2) A Map of Record, specifying noise'and flight corridor constraints, should be filed with the' Office.of the County Recorder. (3)' Voluntary action by the Chico Real Estate Board " should disclose the prevailing noise and safety environment in the CLUZ"III areas. 8.3.5 CLUZ Area IV ; South of CIC The CLUZ IV area south of CIC comprises numerous small parcels and a single large parcel. The largest of these. parcels is currently' shovin with an SR zoning within the flight corridor -and an. SR -1 zoning for the easternmost segment of the parcel. The southernmost segment of the" Zone IV area encompassing the smaller parcels currently has an SR -1 r classification. All the CLUZ IV area -is outside the Interim Zone boundary: Recommendations: (1) The entire large parcel within the CLUZ IV. area should be designated as SR -I to preclude new higher density development in the flight corridor. This would allow consistent SR -1 zoning over the ' entire CLUZ IV area. (2) Zoning permitting mobile home park development should be precluded, in this area. (3) A Map of'Record, specifying noise.and flight corridor constraints, should be filed with the . Office of the County Recorder. _ 8_13 t (4) Voluntary action by the Chico Real Estate Board should disclose the prevailing noise and. safety -environment in CLUZ IV "areas. .(5) Guidelines for construction methods and procedures for improved noise reduction should be distributed to builders through the building plan check procedure. North of CIC ` The CLUZ IV area north of -CIC consists of two large parcels and roughly one dozen smaller parcels. The smaller.. parcels.are;located closer to the CNEL 65 contour than the larger parcels. All parcels by definition are located within the flight corridor. It is important to note, however, that 'only half of one of the large parcels fall's within th.e flight corridor and consequently within the CLUZ IV area. All of the smaller parcels and a portion of the larger parcel falls within the Interim Zone . boundary.,_ Recommendations: (1) The smaller parcels within the north CLUZ IV area should be designated as SR to accommodate already established development patterns. Consideration should be given to zoning the large parcels as'SR-1 to discourage additional higher density development. (2) Zoning permitting mobile home park.development should be precluded in this area.. (3) A Map of Record, specifying noise and flight corridor constraints should be filed with the Office of the County Recorder. 8-1° (4) Voluntary action by the Chico. Real Estate Board should disclose the prevailing noise and safety environment in CLUZ IV areas. (5) Guidelines for construction methods and procedures for improved noise reduction should be distributed to builders through the building plan check procedure. 8.3.6 CLUZ Area V The,CLUZ V category includes those peripheral parcels which are within the airport influence area, i.e., within the CNEL 55 boundary. This area requires the least restriction on development and, for the most part, carries a suitable zoning classification at the present time. The ex ception would be the parcels included in the so-called Hays Re -Zone area. The one parcel°in this area which is included in the Interim Zone area should be to an SR -1 zoning to limit the density of develop- ment. The remaining parcels could carry the zoning classification S -R as the least restrictive category. Recommendations: (1) A zoning. classification of SR -1 should be applied to the single_ parcel east of CIC contained within the Interim Zone boundary. (2) The least restrictive zoning for the remaining parcels should be SR. (3) The parcels with segments intruding into the flight . corridor.should not be developed in _these segments° (4) Noise control construction procedures should be distributed for applications in this area at the time.of the building plan check. 8-20 0 C-) z C) Z 0 TOWER =ACE Mn ?� niW J♦ +1 _ SC' � ROI1C11 SURFACE -:E TERRAIN OBSTRUCTION 0 •' '�x �'�,. �b '.i fit, �`. .; ,/Y. (� .. - ..1 __�.�.�` � •� � f 0 10.000 MV 31L PROFILES SCALE: HORIZ. 1'-2,000' VERT. 1' • 100' NOTE: GROUND PROFILES ARE A COMPOSITE OF THE HIGHEST ELEVATIONS*ACROSS THE WIDTH OF THE APPROACH. 3000 o sono e000 SCALE IN I m SOURCE: U.S.G.S. QUAD. MAPS PHOTOREVISED 1969. SCALE — 1: 24,000 RT ENVIRONS PLAN °m"A"� "° APPROACH AND CLEAR ZONE PLAN CiC-5 D MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 1 r� •r A.. ilI.rl ` A. Cf�OR�ft if y:�....I.����t. r '�x �'�,. �b '.i fit, �`. .; ,/Y. (� .. - ..1 __�.�.�` � •� � f 0 10.000 MV 31L PROFILES SCALE: HORIZ. 1'-2,000' VERT. 1' • 100' NOTE: GROUND PROFILES ARE A COMPOSITE OF THE HIGHEST ELEVATIONS*ACROSS THE WIDTH OF THE APPROACH. 3000 o sono e000 SCALE IN I m SOURCE: U.S.G.S. QUAD. MAPS PHOTOREVISED 1969. SCALE — 1: 24,000 RT ENVIRONS PLAN °m"A"� "° APPROACH AND CLEAR ZONE PLAN CiC-5 D MUNICIPAL AIRPORT STATE OF CALIFORNIA - - THE RESOORCAENCY • ' PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF -FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION FZtlitl v Chico Air Attack Base 1135,Fortress St. Chico, Ca. 95926 Ni A'( 2 9199F' (916) 895-6505 May 27, 1996 Fax: 895-6029 CITY MANAGER GY OF CHIGG Cliff Sellers, Planning Director City of Chico, Community Developement Dept. POBox 3420 Chico,, Ca. 95927, Dear Cliff .Sellers, This letter responds to the impacts of the City of Chico Foothill Park" East and Bidwell subdivisions to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection airtanker operations from the Chico Municipal Airport. CDF operates the tanker base from June 1 through Oct. 15 and assigned aircraft are a Skymaster .Cessna. 337, Gruman S2 Tracker airtanker, 800 gallons retardant,. and a Lockheed Neptune SP2H airtanker, 2000 gallons retardant. Airtankers are dispatched on all reported vegetation fires for..initial attack. Initial attack means airtankers are dispatched immediately along with ground recourses. Airtankers are at there best when used to attack small fires and hold them in check supporting ground resourses.. On large fires many airtankers will be used and the reloading with retardant will be done. at the base at Chico Municipal Airport. Impacts: The prevailing wind at Chico requires a south departure approximately 90% of the the time. Noise abatement and safety procedures requires airtankers to depart over the proposed subdivision for'noise.abatement and to avoid flying over populated areas. 'The- departure heights of airtankers above the ground in Foothill subdivision will range from 400 to 1000 feet and in the Bidwell subdivision will range 800 to.1500 feet. - Should an airtanker develope mechanical problem such as losing an engine the airtanker will jettison its load of retardant to enhance performance of the aircraft. The retardant can cause injury and property damage. Serious mechanical problems .could cause a forced landing in the proposed subdivision. FIT Ged.nCCL% p FO_FC_FO� Ac"ecb Cser iF The tanker'base.5 year average of retardant delivery to fires is 460,000 gallons of.fire.retardant. The average gallons capacity of the two airtankers at Chico is .1500 gallons. This, equates to 276 overflights for.90% of the departures. Since airtankers are dispatched to all vegetation fires, the airtankers do not always drop.there retardant and return to the base with there load. This occurs 40% of the. time. This is an additional 110 overflights for a -total of. 386 overf ights . The tanker base and the airport tower receives many calls each fire season complaining of overflights and noise. Do to the low .altitudes of departing airtankers over this departure route we would expect a serious increase in complaints requesting we change our departure route to the south. Pressure from residents living in this area could possibly lead to. the closer of the tanker base. This would lead to higher fire losses as the next closest tanker bases would support our .area. This would add 15 to 30 minutes to the response times. I would recommend consideration be given to provide a air corridor for departing and arriving aircraft to avoid overflight of populated areas. Sincerely, Dick Tiller, Air Attack Officer S CC: Airport Commission Att: Steve Lucas, Chairman • � ns. Table 0 sets forth aviation forecasts as resented in future aircraft operations. Chapter III of the Phase I reportact analyses for future condi- lo ed in the noise imp osure Map reflects the 150. The yew 2010 noise Two forecast scenarios were emP y in FAR part represents a forecast x 7 and 2010). The 1997 forecast conditions Noise ort P tions (199 ear projection as stated osure Map rep ) 1equirement for afive-y P . exposure map (not published in the Noise osure. P term potential community noise exp of long - Noise Ex sure Ma 1997 conditions) for the Five -Year 199 noise exposure map represents the five -yam Tab] 1-4, an estimated 179.5 5acres 60dB range for Exhibit 12 P as set forth in Ta CNEL Airport For 1997, sitive land uses would be located in meas noise sensitive land uses woul en a located in the existing no Airport No noise 1, 60dB. Chico Municipal exposed to noise levels in excess of CNE 2010 Noise Ex osure Ma year 2010. Projected noise exposure for they ed after consultation Exhibit I-3 depicts the forecast based n assuinptions develop The contours group Save Our Skies (SOS). contours for 2010 were develop operations, many of which would be the with the City of Chico and the citizens a flight training facility at the Chico were developed based on 190,000 annual op 409 acres of noise potential establishment of a mayor approximately 55ac and 6 noise result of thAirport As set forth in Table I-5, Municipal would be exposed to noise between CNEv%po ed to noise levels sensitive land uses nosed to noise 1 7,4 acres of noise se,oise sensitiveive uses °uSesbwould be exp Approximately 60dB and 65dB. No between CNE L 65dB. levels in excess of CNE ISSUE AND CONCERNS of acts to areas exp°sed to noise levels orizon n Despite only a slight increase i �i4 acres, throug h the 2010 planning dB approximately with future general aviation and rocommuter ounitty 60ir dB to 65 ort, it is clear ed and im- community noise levels associated w a rogram must be develoenvironment, aircraft operations at Chic? ons Municipal hatpa Airport, ocal living carver ai ort oPe quality of the 1 term and if reaction to existingrtect and enhance the q y . lemented tc protect air carrier service is re-introduced in the near particularly if chedactivity takes place as recently environs during mayor flight training raised by local agencies and residents of the airportter and from issues rn over the effects of individual aircraft noise Among the was a cone inning of er, 0 it has the conduct of the study Sing Appendix A, le -Event Noise and Annoy ents. From the standards and criteria cited at the e it health effects are likelyort ev term commun y the information tea °nos nous or long- oncluded ro• ected aviation activity at Chico Municipal Aire been c Cult of existing or projected lit occur as are ht training faci y• including a projected flight --therefore, to-m�ntai-, a,,e.�'�-�`� ,P,, _..- r of this 'Noise Comp atibility Program � is, ort, PThe� environment in the environs _of the Chico Municipal Airport, quah y iving enviro ' Y0 SAGELY �-� PK! T 150 I-13 _.. "viation ® A Division of PSD Technoo logies allowing fbi-Ahe.-reasonable growth-and-development�of�the A sport; The range of noise abatement options available to the City of Chico (as airport operator) and others is dis- cussed in Chapter H. Options considered include measures which directly affect the operation of aircraft at the Airport (operational measures), measures which the City of Chico may exercise in matters of policy and fiscal management (airport management policies), and options which involve both remedial and preventive control of off -Air- port land use (land use control measures). I the specific plan uses the natural drainage features of existing arroyos and swales for major drainage. Localized drains from the neighborhoods would'discharge into a system of.small water containment and treatment areas before discharging into the open space drainage channels. Small detention areas with gravel or sand bottoms and vegetation would provide for percolation and cleansing of the urban runoff. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be used to minimize pollutant runoff during a storm. The .BMPs available to decrease stormwater discharge include structural and nonstructural measures. The structural measures that qualify as BMPs include first flush diversion, stormwater retention or detention structures, onsite runoff infiltration, oil/water separation, use of open vegetated swales and natural depressions, use of porous pavement, or a combination ofthese practices. Nonstructural measures include grading controls and housekeeping techniques. Typical grading controls involve grading timing, staging, and buffer areas. Housekeeping techniques include limitations on material storage and disposal, soil stabilization near roads and entrances, dust control, and mandatory site cleanup when spills occur. Solid Waste Disposal No facilities for solid waste disposal are proposed within the,plan area. Solid waste generated within the plan area would be collected by one of the privately owned disposal companies that service the Chico urban area and deposited at the Butte County landfill site. Gas and Electric Service Gas and electric service would be provided to the plan area by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). Electric service would be extended from existing lines located on the western boundary of the plan area, and gas service would. be extended from lines located approximately 1/3 mile west of the plan area. As required by the California Public Utilities Commission, underground lines would be required for distribution of electricity within the plan area. Schools A 12-acre'elementary school site is proposed adjacent to the proposed neighborhood park in the north -central portion of the plan area (Figure 2-5). The school would have a capacity of 750 students. Middle- and high -school-age students would be accommodated at existing district facilities. School district fees levied on citywide residential development would be used to help finance the local share of the construction of the necessary school facilities. Bidwell Ranch EIR Project Description Draft EIR 2-19 October 1994 Existing Plan Area Noise Levels The plan area is potentially affected by noise from aircraft at Chico Municipal Airport and traffic from the major streets serving the area. Ambient Noise Monitoring Five monitoring sites were established in the plan area vicinity to develop a characterization of noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptor locations. Site 1 was the subject of a 24-hour noise measurement period with the intent of describing day and night variations in noise levels (Figures 10-2 and 10-3). At this location, the background noise level was dominated by nearby traffic; the measured Ld„ and CNEL values were 68 and 69 dBA, respectively. One-hour noise level measurements were made on February 21, 1991, at sites 2, 3, 4, and 5 (Figure 10-4). The measurement results are summarized in Table 10-2. The ambient noise levels along roadways that would be affected by the project were estimated to be 54- to 69-dBA Ld„ or 54- to 70-dBA CNEL. Identifiable noise sources at each location included local and distant traffic and aircraft. Students were let out of school for the day during the noise -monitoring period, increasing the ambient noise levels at the sites. Aircraft Noise Levels The Chico Municipal Airport is owned and operated by the City and serves an air trade area incorporating all of Butte County. The airport is situated in the northern area of the city and is adjoined by unincorporated lands of Butte County to the north, east, and west. The airport serves a growing role in business aviation, is home to about 148 multi - engine aircraft and seven rotorcraft, and has the potential to become an important center of flight training activity. (Chico Municipal Airport 1992.) The airport has two parallel runways with headings of 13L/31R and 13R/31L. Currently, most aircraft operations are associated with general aviation aircraft. Five commercial operations per day use the airport, however, and, in 1991, the Chico Municipal Airport hada total of 74,642 aircraft operations. (Chico Municipal Airport 1992.) The City, in cooperation with local public agencies, airport users, and residents of the airport environs, undertook to study noise exposure in the surrounding area, consistent with requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration. The results of the first phase of the study were published in December 1992, as the FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Program. The impacts of airport noise on noise -sensitive land uses in the vicinity (single- family and multifamily residential uses) are summarized in the compatibility program. Approximately- 49 acres are subject to noise levels of 55- to 60 -dB CNEI, with 136 Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan Noise Draft EIR 10-4 October 1994 Schools E)dsting Schools Chico Unified School District (CUSD) provides elementary and secondary education service to the city and much of the surrounding area. The district has 14 elementary schools (grades K-6), two junior high schools (grades 7 and 8), and two high schools (grades 9-12). Enrollment and capacity figures for 1994-1995 are presented in Table 6-1. Existing schools near the project site include Marigold Elementary, Bidwell Junior High, and Pleasant Valley Senior High School. CUSD averages 28.5 students per classroom. Proposed Schools The draft general plan indicates that six elementary schools, one junior high school, and one or two high schools will be needed by 2012 (Table 6-2) (City of Chico Community Development Department 1994). Facilities proposed for development include a new junior high school along Notre Dame Extension and the Henshaw Elementary School on Henshaw Avenue. As part of the Bidwell Ranch settlement agreement, one elementary school site and a junior high school site would be dedicated in the plan area by the property owner. Based on current CUSD plans, the junior high school site may not be needed in this area and dedication would not be required. Financing Funding for school development is provided in several ways: imposing a state - determined maximum fee on residential development, creating assessment districts, or passing bond measures. Current developer fees are $1.72 per square foot (sf) of new residential development and $0.28 per sf of new commercial development. If a project requires legislative action, such as a general or specific plan amendment, then the district can assess $4.46 per sf based on a nexus study .or equivalent measures. No assessment districts currently exist in the city. Bonds have also helped finance schools. District voters passed a bond issue in June 1990 to finance the district's share of funding for participation in the state's school building program. However, this arrangement has not generated sufficient funds to meet school construction needs because the state has not been able to meet its funding obligation to CUSD. Another bond measure is ' proposed for March 1995 that will finance the construction of a new high school. (D. Moore pers. comm.) Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR i 6-7 Public Services - October 1994 estimated dwelling -units -housing approximately 407 people. The plan area would not be, affected by the airport's 55 dB Ldn contour: -- - Noise Prediction Modeling Model Description Traffic noise levels were predicted using the STAMINA 2.0 computer model (Bowlby et -al. 1982). The STAMINA model uses traffic data to estimate a 1 -hour Lq value for up to 40 receptors. STANIINA's noise generation equations for automobiles, medium -duty trucks, and heavy-duty trucks were replaced by equations developed by Caltrans (Hendricks {� 1984). STAMINA is limited to modeling traffic at speeds between 30 and 60 mph. Input speeds less than 30 mph are defaulted to 30 mph, and input speeds, greater than 60 mph are . defaulted to 60 mph. This results in a noise level higher than the actual level when input speeds are less than 30 mph and a noise level lower than the actual level when speeds are above 60 mph. Peak -hour Ley noise levels are calculated based on peak -hour traffic volumes and speeds. Peak -hour Lq values were extrapolated to Ld„ values by subtracting 1.77 dBA from the peak -hour value. This adjustment value was derived from the 24-hour noise monitoring conducted at Site 1 (Landscape Growers of Chico). Model Data Peak -hour traffic volumes used in this analysis for surface roads are based on counts conducted in 1991 by Metro Design and Tech. Posted speed limits, adjusted to reflect realistic conditions, were used for vehicle speeds on surface roads. Truck percentages are based on counts taken during the 1 -hour noise monitoring episodes at sites 2, 3, 4, and 5. Vehicles are defined as follows (see Table 10-3 for the truck percentages. used in this analysis): ■ automobiles and light trucks all vehicles with two axles and four wheels designed primarily for transportation of nine or fewer passengers or for the transportation of cargo; generally, the vehicle weight is less than 10,000 pounds; ■ . medium trucks - all vehicles having two axles and six wheels designed for transportation of , cargo; generally, the vehicle weight is greater than 10,000 pounds but less than 26,000 pounds; and ■ heavy trucks - all vehicles having three or more axles designed for transportation of cargo; generally, the vehicle weight is greater than 26,000 pounds. Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan Noise Draft EIR 10-9 October 1994 o e :r \ .. ` �..-4r..,_ .s..:�..� 'I� AN 220 ', •.... ''L+•. � '` •+ - I .. \',�•• i � ttAa • ilii ,. 1,03'',•..::►� �... •. • Oot ours* • _ juv � • .. :, .,..........• kj LA r :� .:.... ... ... : •.• ,. ,....,,. •c, 60 :A ..�w.�EA�T,' .. AVE '•.� 2 ••�� ..:11 lisc 04h, ���• • ,'. L JI "Sto �O •Z 6; •. ::� i Marlsn,ldIcA :'1 Y'�•: G�� : ` : iL .CHI 0 �. ;.• _= ::::..;::': �i�/' �yhligk .tib; ►J � 'u �--+ -- •?� � � --- -LEGEND- , mss.• a .'� '•• ., - :Noise Monitoring Sites ; 2S� . • ��'} �� ,• ,��p -� .Cumulative* Traffic Noise Contours Figure 10-4. Current Noise Monitoring Sites Source: R. Dixon speas Associates 1978. ?rw.• 'N As'^ int? w ;:" i"J rR 'C• F rY%-`.` 'd• Wei, 9 ra _ -i r „ i lih� I S•ri` >x r ♦ :. i. << v.�:, eta♦ a i. �a �ry R! ` ?.t #a <i!"' a < A'' •r r :3'� WYi ��t ? %_- r p{ t' `t .;lH i ,,: rh,�� i.:` ,�z �.. r+. �3 t ::rjr�-r•4f.+•.J � >, � � v ,✓'. i'�t f t�.� .1 � r - ,;. ti 1� i,. r ..e4 � !' <sY� s. y7.a r .( b•.` +' k) .. Ll ri SY - LR; S rF,{!• t ~tr r r tt<� r e� k i <r �•j+,t t ry a.x .. •K '� �� Y•1 n t+r' 3'a}'tit Jl F�'4y� � N i ? �t : E'yi'tt fz + +. t : y .� �, vt � , :.� r .tt �.f'."rf irts�'���'�{ �{ yYd" � t F� i � t .� 1 __:}r •! � - r .r7i_ it 'f` '"• itt.r -t r )4- C`}`1 y1.3H t pS .:� '4 t g'+ r± -. � - y f� � t s . }3 i ' Y rtt� y��li �? T„ .°S rXI Y 'tit tFx� �S �c 'a +e ✓' r �.. �r�l�� i r 1j ,. / �y-r• i. ,1 I . �r z t < r k .; i .. Ir s r.< 1 fzi.f��_+�M ,•,4<'f.1. .aI',� 1. . a� � �.• tit � - t _�,� 1 Z .* t � ��a ! a Ls Y t 'r'� � 'L J � k '4 f,tJ_'rc;: x �I" 4.>*' t ,t ! '�'vi � 1 a t .v .; �•+. : - ' r/6 (� ,: T < N y t 1r � %<N.�rr"ir+ > 9.d,`,�, •�,^t�+.y,�:} 4�' 7�f4 -s•. T.Y{ � ` 7 :•j 'T } ,t r.7-� -�. � ty .e ..h. h r. 1'�1T- C i s 1r S I'r• v+771 I �, Srt.s }�8 . t•C{�v7K .y �. ..,4 r �( £t� n'�u.r Y 'l � ..{ s rid a a ,� �!<t��£r /`t. J'tt3r 'jl'i. 4s _f• f. trr ( i 1t'� r ,,* �. a t t : y F r � fi >4 �. -3/:t..t t J., f Vf ♦ s ..+ Y r / f t t ,< a..�++! �,. =�� 1 � ��� � �?!�*t,! 2r tl+ '' -: � � F.r ! r � v f Y �s � �C t ^• r z Wf ..,•t .E'1.: r` '' :'ei° �d f s i� des � `ate t' a i ?.> (� �'` '-� : =. \. ��1•t t} �J1}alt f i r �.�SY .,��{ -�. � r h: �1 .4 r• ,,,\• i"`' ,,;.r� h<Y`� �f .-<. �r S � � ,, W,.:. r j 3 x t .t�� "r ,�,t' ZJ r , er"" d ,i""ti++. ' � y} '�i�F��4e�'�' C f k f.. / M �> '� f ; th? f w: i J . -� rn f K'°/sl. ea �{�.�r ~y „!' •r r v . • �#.' i*' _ .i � "� j ✓ Na r t ,� *arc ya' y'�l: � t �. 4 y . � . y 'j �.,�� ,r P 5 i. s 4 i.✓".� i.' x ! i � { r N+ antis r y �- r y` •A, , r t id �. .y 1`rr ��� i •_ r -e r s 9L Spn" I., J Z ti 4;;'ri'! � rF` �� fx r s t j r hc, %• Z <'+ad: 'C'�',b]ti�'� ;' �. i r.,..t �_< b f j +; r - " .t - '� q a 4,1 S + f 71 f tai Wr'.�..gt8 -.�� .raj �}?1,`Y;�°n'\� �i i^i• �t x a t,� 4 N = !4 -rS i�P ' Yf %. /f i 44 '. ty`..• .'1'• t�...siii L,y,7J i {` s 1r. ',1'4•{� s at I Y' {`+ / t> -„� -.:l ' > t-i.,.<ya ?.rra�•x;.'+14� �� �^r c�y� P`l dx Vii' , t ++,, ;i k jt J • •f , % � � vfi. '` � , I r '' ,fry ♦:•')•"� .! x hr. vy "' �l� 1. t w ..qt.'�v� ''�- ..3,sit' N'�? >r it'1 �r.�..v i . ! „ rY < � 9 t _> w t •< r ! s : 1 ,. <i '� t! Si ?' a •r�.<qt c c., ✓ � .<(. fi Yy �rji°.+..w.?.< t. si.: •.�- :; y�".�w.t shy ) .:r ! � L i� ,r, 1 r': >4 x 0. ^' y� r T s ^ry ..�t�k 8 ".0 S..'��t � wi:✓ �. r ti,'�,r: �� �`.-� "`�'�y-'r'.a— .n r't t 11 �� �� ' k t . r.! f, .%1 � / 't by ...�rr S .i : >; � ..e �...� �+.. �.:'� ✓* iF �� i� 1�C� � (•�.. 'vi- e,, rad 1 ' '� ��. �,+�,9 _,.�n.r arz". _, .-. rtf'?'ta,..�f,i.�'>r.h.r.,n..w:.a�iti�--a-,'e:ih!t"•'k`ifrif^s r.<r i�tf..'..�'...�„t--,S.r`,.�w..":'cr..,: N{c.h��s?a:;,.r�__..t'�/t<�,:,�:Yf��..,1"Yd�lt:fo'��.��iu t.t..,_'K%�'�r''�Fi.",E� n Ca 0 '71 "t•, �J+,�:r i�y l�l.w r,• �_ wr }erwaZ � .44 a 4ja'1, �,>.r 1'y���. a.. --1 etc ; � �t ! .� 1 ;4;rQ � ,+�" � t • , v740 a` M..+�” t eisa.�� C ',�, t,L� _. ,(,�.tF'n,,,r4: il�r�' i�'°"..�• 'r; '�.2^ `t �''"°�`'. ,,��--1 _ T7 � t r o' 1'n „♦ 'r �i r 6w s� d���ij%� � � It ,