HomeMy WebLinkAboutMEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) CITY OF CHICO - BOS - ALUC 209:01 1997 - 1998BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES
. FEBRUARY 18, 1998
4. Consideration of Memorandum of Understanding between the Airport Land
Use Commission and Board of Supervisors_ At the request of the Chairman, the
Director of Development Services will provide a status report regarding staffing
and training agreements contained in the Memorandum of Understanding.
Chairman Franklin noted the wording of this particular item on the Agenda had been modified
from what he had originally suggested. Also the wording of the letters sent to Caltrans and the
City of Chico regarding. FAR PART 150 had been modified. He said the MOU evolved from a
need to clarify the relation of this Commission to staff and these examples of modification of
language are indicative of that -need for clarification.
Commissioner Hennigan questioned why staff did not attend the workshop on airport noise?
Mr. Parilo said that it is important that letters which go out from the department under his direction
be written in an objective and professional manner. The issue of staff training is based upon the
budget and there was not funding available for the noise class. He said that there is not a separate
budget for ALUC. The Board of Supervisors is required to provide funding to meet ALUC's
mandate. ALUC may disagreewith the level of funding provided. The opportunity to obtain
funding is through this budget process.
Chairman Franklin said ALUC spends too much time worrying about this MOU and the one with
the City of Chico, which is distracting from doing other things that need to be done. Chairman
Franklin asked if Mr. Parilo will review everything Mr. Lucas brings to ALUC? He said ALUC
would like to know, when the budget is done, what money is available. ALUC does not want to be
in the position of not being able to do things because of mistakenly thinking they had the money to
do it.
Mr. Parilo said the CAO's budget goes to the Board in July and is adopted at the end of August.
Staff can provide a report to ALUC at that time.
Chairman Franklin said that would be fine.
Mr. Parilo suggested that ALUC members participate in the budget adoption process. He
suggested the chairman participate in requesting funding ALUC feels is critical to the operation of
the Commission.
Chairman Franklin asked if ALUC could have a closed session for a discussion of staffing -- to talk
about the MOU and internal rules that staff is working under.
Mr. Parilo did not know if ALUC has the ability to, hold a personnel session, but he would find out.
He said that primary staff will be working within the organizational structure of the department.
Butte County Airport Lane Use Commission minutes - February 18, 1998 - Page 1
Chairman Franklin said he is assuming Mr. Lucas is the designated staff person at this point.
Mr. Parilo said Mr. Lucas has not been designated as primary staff person for ALUC.
Alternate Rosene said the MOU stipulates designation of a primary staff member to ALUC.
Chairman Franklin asked Mr. Parilo to explain to ALUC how the MOU will be implemented.
Chairman Franklin said not to schedule the closed personnel session for the next meeting but rather
for the April meeting.-- after the policy plan.
t
Butte County Airport Lane Use Commission minutes - February 18, 1998 - Page 2
+BU'I"I'E COUPOY tgRPpgZ'd' LAND SE COMMISSION+
o �s"U"em OF uftvWment ser4kme ■ 7 County Center Drive, OrovWe, CA
959t35 0 (916) 5313.7601 FAX (91� 538.7786 6
REGULAR MEETING NOTICE OF THE COMMISSION
Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers, 25 County
Center Drive, Oroville, - California
Daterrime: February 18, 1998 - 9:00 a.m.
AGENDA
ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
C. Acceptance of the Agenda (Committee members or staff may request additions,
deletions or changes in the Agenda order.)
D. Approval of Minutes of January 21, 1998.
E. Business Items
ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS
1 • Butte County Tentative Parcel MaD NN -13 APN 030-160-021 Run e : A Request f
Consistency Findings for a tentative parcel map to divide a 6.7 acre parcel into ,our lots
of 1.1 acres each and a remaining parcel of 2.2 acres on property zoned AR located on
the east side of Middlehoff Lane appro)dmately 400 feet north of Wray Ct., Thermalito
area. Recommended Action: Find Consistent with the Oroviile Airport Lend Use
Plan.
2. Consideration of Comments on the Draft P21ficy Plan dated ober 6 1996. The
Draft Policy Plan is intended to be the guideline for the update of the Comprehensive Land
Use Plans. The Policy Plan establishes compatibility guidelines for noise and safety
considerations. (Continued from January 21, 1998)
ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Discussion of Operational Status of Ranchaero Airport The Commission will consider
the request of the Airport Manager to support the protection of the Runway Clear Zone.
Consideration of Memorandum of Understandino between the Air Land Use
�:ommission and Board of Supervisors• At the request of the Chairman, the Director
of Development 'Services will provide a s _
status report regarding staffing and training
agreements contained in the Memorandum of Understanding.
N butte Count' ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■
+B=IE COUTA AIRPORT LAND Ut COMMISSION+
■ Department of Development Services ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ■ (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 ■
1 MINUTES
2 October 15, 1997
3
4 VII. ALUC COMMISSION ITEMS:
5
6 A., Consideration and Adoption of an MOU between the Airport Land Use
7 Commission, the City of Chico, and the County of Butte to Establish
s Project Review Procedures. Update .on meetings of Chico City council
9 (Oct 7) and Board of Supervisors (Oct 14).
10
11 Mr. Parilo reported that the City of Chico rejected the MOU on a 3-3 vote. There were
12 concerns about their position that they don't need to make over-riding findings, and a
13 concern about how the MOU would be affected by the lawsuit by the California Pilots
14 Association.
15 `
16 Alternate Koch said there was a concern that the MOU could provide a platform for future
17 lawsuits by ALUC. If the MOU contained language that the City would not be sued by
18 ALUC for future over -rides it might be looked upon more favorably. Another option would
19 be for ALUC to review projects submitted by the City for review but not consistency
20 findings.
21
22 Commissioner Campbell asked if the failure to complete the MOU would affect the funding
23 of the CLUP's by Caltrans:
24
25 Mr. Parilo said it appears that the MOU being in place was necessary for the state to fund
26 the CLUP's. An item on today's agenda deals with preparation of the CLUP's using in -
27 house staff. Relative to the CLUP's for the Chico and Oroville airports, once the costs are
28 determined, a formal request for funding to the state should be made.
Alternate Koch said an item on the October 21 agenda of the Chico City Council will be a
discussion of loaning the County money for preparation of the CLUP. There is a desire to
move the CLUP forward, and the connection of the CLUP to the MOU did not seem
appropriate to some of the Council members. At this point the money is being discussed
as a loan.
36 Mr. Rosene said he would like to hear what the California Pilots Association has to say
37 about the lawsuit. Mr. Rosene was concerned that ALUC has no ability to protect the
38 airport without the threat of the lawsuit. He is concerned that ALUC cannot protect the
39 airport "without any teeth," and he would like to know what basis there is for the lawsuit
40 and possibly joining of the lawsuit by ALUC.
41
42 Chairman Franklin asked if the MOU would have an effect on the funding from the state.
43
44 Mr. Parilo said it appears that the state has linked funding to the adoption of an MOU,
45 although there may be additional hurdles.
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ October 15, 1997 ■ Page 1 ■
2 Alternate Koch suggested writing a letter to the state, explaining that ALUC made the effort
3 on the MOU but the City of Chico did not agree to it, and requesting release of the funds
4 for preparation of the CLUP.
5
6 Mr. Parilo agreed that would be a good approach once it is known what the costs are.
7 Once the RFP process is completed within 30 to 45 days, the estimated costs of
s preparation of the Chico and Oroville CLUP's should be known, and at that time the state
9 can be approached. Mr. Parilo noted the MOU was pulled from the Board of Supervisors
10 agenda since it was not signed by the City of Chico.
11
12 There was a consensus that further discussion of the MOU was unnecessary.
13
14
15
16 B. Consideration of an MOU Between the County of Butte and the Butte
17 County Airport Land Use Commission to Establish Staffing Agreement:
18 Report from subcommttee of John Franklin, Tony St. Amant and Bob
19 Hennigan on language of MOU (continued from Oct 15).
20
21 Mr. Parilo said the meeting of the subcommittee resulted in an MOU with which he is in
22 agreement with the addition of some minor revisions suggested by the County
23 Administrator's Office. Mr. Parilo distributed a revised MOU contained an additional item
24 #7 and modified wording on item #4.
25
26 There was a discussion of the modified wording of item #4 which added the following
27 portions in bold: The staff assigned, subject to item 3 above, shall be directly responsive
28 and responsible to the ALUC when engaged in Commission business mandated by the
29 requirements of the Public Utilities Code.
30
31 Commissioner Lambert wanted clarification of the "mandated requirements."
32
33 Mr. Parilo said that all the items on the agenda, except the MOU with the City of Chico,
34 would be mandated items. Changes in the General Plan and zoning and the Bylaws would
35 be included. The County Administrator wants to make sure that staff is provided to ALUC
36 for essential support to carry out the requirements of the PUC, but if there is ever a
37 situation where ALUC requests staff to perform duties outside that boundary, it will be clear
38 where that boundary lies. Item #4 clarifies what is stated in item #3.
39
40 Commissioner Lambert recommended, for the sake of consistency, to use the word "shall"
41 in the memo where appropriate.
42
43 There was general consensus that the modification to item #4 and the addition of item #7
44 were acceptable.
45
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ October 15, 1997 ■ Page 2 ■
1 It was moved by Alternate Koch, seconded by. Commissioner Campbell, and carried for
2 approval of the revised version of the MOU received at today's meeting, including changing
3 the word "will" to "shall" where appropriate.
4
s AYES: Commissioners Gerst, Hennigan, Lambert, Campbell, Alternate Koch and Chairman
s Franklin
7 NOES:O
s ABSENT: Commissioner Causey
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ October 15, 1997 ■ Page 3 ■
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
MINUTES
September 17, 1997
VII. ALUC COMMISSION ITEMS:
A. Consideration and Adoption of an MOU between the Airport Land Use
Commission, the City of Chico, and the County of Butte to Establish
Project Review Procedures, The Commission will review the draft MOU for
potential revisions.
Mr. Lucas said the City of Chico is ready to sign the MOU if language is included "for a
maximum period of 24 months."
Alternate Koch said that the following language should also be included, "whichever occurs
first."
The CLUP should be done within 24 months and the time limit will act as an incentive to get
it done. When the CLUP is done.there will be no need for the MOU.
Commissioner Lambert asked what are the steps to go through in order to get to the CLUP,
and can those steps be completed in 2 years?
Mr. Lucas described some of the steps necessary for preparation of the CLUP. He said, a
consultant could be working.on the document in less than two months if all goes well. All the
information currently available can be used without additional approvals or public hearings.
Once the CLUP is prepared in draft form, the public hearing process can begin. He said
normally staff would select a consultant from a Caltrans list.
Commissioner Lambert wanted to participate in the consultant selection process.
Commissioner Hennigan said the Board of Supervisors may have to come up with funds in
addition to the $41,000 to complete the process . He asked if the Board members are aware
and supportive of the CLUP process.
Mr. Parilo said the Board members are aware that $41,000 may not be enough and may not
be granted. He said they are generally, aware of the ALUC mandates. The two Board
members who worked on the MOU are especially aware of ALUC issues.
Mr. Lucas said it appears that Caltrans is eager to see the MOU completed and is comfortable
with the process as.per their letter of August 13, 1997.
Commissioner Gerst thought,a Master Plan or Airport Layout Plan would be needed prior to
completion of a CLUP.
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ September 17, 1997 ■ 1
Mr. Lucas said a copy of the Airport Layout Plan has been distributed to the Commission
today.
Commissioner Gerst thought the environs area should be'included on the Layout Plan.
Mr. Lucas said the Layout Plan only deals with the airport itself.
Alternate Koch said the Airport Layout Plan is defined by the FAA and this Layout Plan meets
those requirements.
Commissioner Hennigan said the Layout Plan is the "bare minimum."
Alternate Koch said the requested $200,000 grant from the FAA for a Master Plan is
unavailable so the Master Plan is on hold.
Commissioner Hennigan thought the expansion of the Chico airport is unlikely since there
does not appear to be political support for a regional airport in Chico and BCAG has stated
that Chico does not want a big airport.
Mr. Lucas was in favor of moving forward with the CLUP, noting that the CLUP can be
amended once per year.
Commissioner Hennigan said the CLUP can be amended, but the. land use decisions based
on the CLUP cannot be amended and revised.
Chairman Franklin noted that ALUC's job is to protect the airport for the use as projected by
the owner of the airport and ALUC cannot tell the owner of the airport what to do within the
boundaries of the airport.
Mr. Parilo said if the CLUP is not completed within two years, it should be possible to extend
the MOU as long as necessary to complete the CLUP. x
Y ,
Commissioner Hennigan said the City of Chico rejected that very suggestion.
Mr.. Parilo said the MOU would shift the responsibility to the County in terms of processing and
developing the CLUP and would provide incentive for completion of the CLUP.
Mr. Lucas read aloud the most recent version of the MOU. He said the City of Chico wants .
the 12 month review replaced'by a 24 month maximum time period.
Alternate Koch suggested retaining the 12 month review in the MOU as well as having a 24
months time period. That would allow for a review and still provide for incentive.
Alternate St. Amant thought there was an agenda of some kind related to development
behind the 24 month time period, however he said ALUC cannot have a significant impact on
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ September 17, 1997 ■ 2
a
development around the airport without a CLUP. Without the CLUP, the validity of ALUC
keeps coming into question:
There was general consensus of the need to complete a CLUP.
It was moved by Alternate Koch, seconded by Commissioner Causey, and carried for
approval of the MOU with the amendment proposed by staff "for a maximum period of 24.
months," and to include "whichever occurs first" at the end of the sentence, and to retain the
12 months review.
Vote on the motion:
AYES: Commissioners Hennigan, Lambert, Causey, Alternates Hatley and Koch and
Chairman Franklin
NOES: Commissioner Gerst
Chairman Franklin suggested that staff prepare a "critical. path" in order to monitor progress
on completion of a CLUP, with no money currently available.
Commissioner Gerst agreed a "list of hurdles" is a good idea.
Alternate Koch said there should be a report on the status of the grant at the next meeting,
if the MOU is adequate for release of funds,
There was consensus that staff should prepare a list or "critical path" for the next meeting and
there was no need at this time for a subcommittee.
B. Co-mideration of an MOU Between the Count/ of Butte and the Butte
County Airport Land Use Commission: This item was requested by
Commissioner Hennigan who provided a draft copy of the proposed MOU to the
Commission at the August 5, 1997 meeting. A memo was provided by Tom
Parilo at August 20 meeting and the item was continued to the September 17,
1997 meeting.)
Mr. Parilo summarized the main points of his memo dated August 18, 1997, regarding ALUC
staffing.
Alternate St. Amant distributed a memo written in response to Mr. Parilo's memo. -
PAUSE TO READ MEMO
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ September 17, 1997 ■ 3
Chairman Franklin said information could be much better digested and a more intelligent
discussion could take place if information -is provided prior to the meeting.
There was a consensus that ALUC should have a discussion about the issues discussed in
the memos rather than sending them on directly to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Parilo said he was willing to modify the language of his memo if it would help clarification
of his ideas.
There was a suggestion that an attempt should be made to negotiate the ideas in the various
memos and work out a satisfactory document between ALUC and the Director of
Development Services.
Commissioner Hennigan noted that ALUC had voted a year ago to set the draft policy plan
for public hearings in February 1996. Somehow the wishes of ALUC were thwarted. The
process was stopped without ALUC ever voting to stop the process. He was in favor of staff
reporting on previous actions by the Commission and progress being made on carrying out
actions. Either the action as directed by ALUC should occur or there should be a report back
to ALUC on why the action cannot take place.
Mr. Parilo explained that his department is extremely short on professional staff and is on the
lower tier of staff when compared to unincorporated populations on a per capita basis.
Compared to other counties, his department has greater responsibilities. His department only
has four working days per week. He said the MOU and Bylaws take time away time from
other ALUC work.
Commissioner Lambert said it has been said that "ALUC is out of control." She said ALUC
is trying to take control of what needs to be done and to get it done. ALUC is finally being
heard.
There was a discussion on the collection of fees by ALUC.
Alternate St. Amant recommended more communication between ALUC and staff regarding
the workload. If too much is expected from staff, that situation should be communicated. back
to the Commission.
Mr. Parilo said refinement and fine tuning of documents is a very time consuming process and
it is not easy to say just how much time it will take.
Chairman Franklin suggested giving ALUC the opportunity to set priorities on staff work.
A committee was formed of Tom Parilo, John Franklin, Tony St. Amant and Bob Hennigan
to work out the language of an MOU between the County of Butte and the ALUC.
■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ September 17, 1997 ■ 4
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES
August 20, 1997
G. Consideration of an MOU Between the County of Butte and the Butte
County Airport Land Use Commission: This item was requested by
Commissioner Hennigan who provided a draft copy of the proposed MOU to
the Commission at the August 5, 1997 meeting.
Mr. Parilo said he prepared a letter outlining his concerns with the MOU drafted by
Commissioner Hennigan and offering six points for consideration. Mr..Parilo's letterwas
distributed to the members of ALUC.
It was moved by Alternate -Koch, seconded by Commissioner Causey, and carried
unanimously to continue this item to the next meeting (towards the beginning of the
agenda.)
A y
,
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission - August 20, 1997 1
k
•
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES
August 20, 1997
A. Consideration and Adoption of an MOU between the -Airport Land Use
Commission, the City ofd, and the County of Butte to Establish
Pro'ect Review Procedures.. The Commission will review the draft MOU as
negotiated by the joint city-county-ALUC subcommittee on August 18, 1997.
Mr. Lucas had distributed the updated version of the draft MOU which was the result of the
joint of meeting of the subcommittees of the ALUC, Chico City Council and the Board of
Supervisors which had met'on Monday, August 18, 1997. He noted that the language of
Section 1 says that ALUC would be considering noise and safety issues only, not
consistency findings, in review and comment on subsequent phases of Foothill Park East.
He noted that in Section 5 the word "law" would be used rather than specific legal cases.
He noted the change in Section 7 to allow for review of progress on the CLUP 12 months
after the MOU becomes effective rather than having the MOU simply remain in effect until
such time as the new CLUP is adopted by ALUC. Also Section 8 was added regarding
exemption from CEQA.
Norm Rosene objected to the reference to a specific project in the MOU.
Al Rubke, of Nimshew, spoke of his concern for the air tanker base in Chico and safety of
the residents in the Upper Ridge. If there is a fire, evacuation could be impossible.
He was concerned that encroaching development could impact the air tanker base.
Jack Kimmerlee, California Regional Representative for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association; and recently retired Chief of the California Division of Aeronautics, objected
to an MOU that places a specific project out of review by ALUC. He was in favor of the
remaining portions of the MOU and of ALUC taking a strong stand on airport land use
planning for.all the public use airports in the county.
Darrel Wilson, Chairman of the Upper Ridge Co-ordinating Council was concerned about
Chico's approval of a development that does not comply with ALUC's recommendation.
He said the Upper Ridge relies upon the air tankers for safety.: He noted that other.people
who wanted to speak at this meeting could not stay until the Closed Session was over.
Ray Harrington, of Paradise, and President of the National Association of Retired Federal
Employees, and a Board Member of the Gold Nugget Museum, spoke of his concern for
the borate bombers being based at the Chico Airport and the. safety of residents of the
Upper Ridge because of impact on the air tanker base from -Foothill Park East.
John Papadakis agreed that the MOU should not mention a specific project. He suggested
having a separate document with a disclaimer indicating that passage of the MOU with the
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission - August 20, 1997
attachment would not preclude ALUC from having the document set a standard for future'
considerations.
Geri Benedict, of Magalia, was not in favor of a specific project being named in the MOU'.
She asked what would happen to ALUC once the CLUP is finalized. She was concerned
that ALUC could .be weakened. She would like to see somewhere in writing fhat no
homeowner complaint of the air attack airplanes would be allowed and that each
prospective home buyer would sign such an agreement at the time of purchase and that
the agreement would be perpetual -- meaning that the agreement would go with the
property. She said such agreements would make the foothill, residents feel that their safety
is a concern.
Commissioner Lambert was -concerned about Section 3 regarding the 21 day time period
and if regular ALUC meetings are monthly or quarterly.'
Mr. Lucas said normally 21 days would be sufficient for project review. He saidaccording
to the current bylaws, ALUC has quarterly meetings.
Commissioner Lambert said she favors the version of the MOU which was drafted at the
previous ALUC meeting rather than that created by the joint subcommittees. She does not
feel a specific project should be mentioned in the MOU and the references to specific legal
cases should be included. Replacing the legal citations with the word "law" makes the
MOU useless_ since disagreements over following standards set forth in law was the reason
for the MOU in the first -place. The MOU should deal with procedures and policies only.
She would not support the language coming out of the. joint subcommittee meeting.
Commissioner Lando saw the MOU as the City of Chico agreeing to submit projects to
ALUC that otherwise would not have to be forwarded to ALUC for comments, because
Chico is interested in receiving comments and protecting the airport. The process is
obviously negotiated. There is also concern for not wanting to be put in the middle of the
process, having made 'a commitment to a project. He felttthe word "law" would be
adequate and he would not want to specify a certain case without reading it. He noted a
specific case could always be superseded by another case.
Commissioner Lambert said she would be in favor of including language to include any.
new laws or superseding cases.
Commissioner Lando suggested including the two specific cases as they now represent
the status of the law, and as they may be superseded or replaced in the future.
There was a consensus to include the two specific cases and language about superseding
cases in Section 5.
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission - August 20, 1997 2
The wording in Section 3 was left with "monthly ALUC meetings." Further discussion of
changing the bylaws to specify monthly meetings should take place during discussion of
the bylaws.
There was more discussion of Section 3 and the 21 day time period and the language
"except in cases where compliance with such 21 day submittal schedule would create a
conflict with State law."
Mr. Lucas said the language means that if there is a conflict with. state law, there are 60
days available beyond the basic 21 days.
Commissioner Gerst thought the flight corridor shown on the Exhibit map on the wall is not
practical or safe and pilots would not actually fly it. He said the corridor was moved to the
north in order to get the second turn at a certain place. Now the first turn is being made
at the end of the runway.
Commissioner Lambert said since air tankers are emergency vehicles, she was not sure
what difference the location of a flight corridor on a map would make..
Commissioner Lando said the 1000 foot corridor came about as a way to make the projects
"work" without endangering the airport. He was in favor of people knowing what the
concerns are so they can be addressed.
Commissioner Lambert thought the corridor on the map would restrict development on the
ground, but a loaded air tanker would have to fly where it can negotiate the turns.
Alternate St. Amant felt there was lack of input from people who actually fly the air tankers. .
Bob Koch said that Commissioner Hennigan, from his professional experience, has.
indicated that with a few adjustments to the radius curve, the corridor is viable, and a
mitigation to that effect was included in the ALUC recommendation for the Foothill Park
East project.
Commissioner Lando did not see any reason to have the 1000 flight corridor (in Section
1 of the MOU.)
Vice Chair Campbell suggested if the flight corridor is deleted, the remainder of the
paragraph (in Section 1 of the MOU) should be deleted also.
Commissioner Lando said -the concern with Foothill Park East is that the City of Chico does
not want to be in the position of being sued.
Commissioner Gerst said the decision was made today not to pursue a lawsuit.
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission - August 20, 1997 3
i4
Commissioner Lando said he was. comfortable with the changes of deleting the 1000 foot,
corridor and including the reference to current law, but was not sure what City Council
would do (on deletion of the remainder of Section 1.)
Vice Chair Campbell said the 1000 foot corridor would at least provide open area for
emergencies. He was comfortable with the wording of the MOU resulting from the joint
subcommittee meeting -- which said that it was the Chico City Council that approved
Foothill Park East.
Mr. St. Amant felt it is important that the flight corridor is actually used, since in addition to
open space,for emergencies, it will attenuate noise impacts if it is actually used, whereas
if it is not used, and the flights go elsewhere, there is potential for conflict.
Commissioner Gerst said the FAA would have the final word on the flight corridor actually
being usable. He thought Commissioner Hennigan's testimony on the usability of the flight
corridor was for a different location. Commissioner Gerst thought the turn would be made
when the aircraft is too low.
Bob Koch thought Commissioner Hennigan had .indicated the flight corridor would be
practical with a few minor modifications and in fact Commissioner Hennigan had voted for
it.
Vice Chair Campbell thought it would be better to retain the wording about the flight
corridor in the MOU.
Commissioner Gerst thought the flight corridor might as well be left out of the MOU.
Vice Chair Campbell said if the flight corridor is left out, there will be no basis for requiring
setbacks on the subdivision at a later date.
Commissioner Lando did not see any harm in leaving the flight corridor in the MOU, but
noted FAA approval would still be needed for the corridor.
Vice Chair Campbell noted that if the wording agreed upon by the joint subcommitees is
changed there will have to be another, round of meetings on the MOU. Vice Chair
Campbell said there was a general consensus on the wording by the joint subcommittees
although it was ynot unanimous. He was in favor of the wording from the joint subcommittee
which says that the Chico City Council approved of Foothill Park East -- not ALUC.
It was moved by Vice Chair Campbell and seconded by Commissioner Causey, that the
MOU as approved Monday (August 18, 1997) by the joint subcommittees be approved by
the ALUC with Section 5 to reflect the wording referring to the court cases or current law.
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission - August 20, 1997 4
There was a discussion of the language of the MOU as developed by the ALUC
subcommittee and ALUC. The ALUC subcommittee met after the July 16, 1997 ALUC
meeting and prior to the Special ALUC Meeting of August 5, 1997. . The language
developed by the ALUC subcommittee was modified by the ALUC on August 5 and
forwarded to the joint subcommittees -- retaining the wording about the flight corridor and
deleting wording about Foothill Park East.
Commissioner St. Amant felt the MOU should not include a specific'project, which he feels
undercuts the "core" of ALUC. He was in favor of having an MOU and perhaps another
document that would negotiate details'of Foothill Park that would go along with the MOU.
He feels this MOU would be a "pig in a poke," especially the wording about subsequent
phases of the subdivision only reviewed.for noise and safety -- not consistency.
Commissioner Lando said that MOU's often address_ particular issues of disputes, as for
instance on annexation issues. The MOU needs to address what it is trying to -solve. It
would be acceptable to him to have a separate document to address the issues.
Commissioner St. Amant wanted to be more comfortable with the specifics and long term
implications of the MOU. I
Commissioner Gerst did not think Caltrans would like the language that came out of the
joint subcommittee meeting on Monday.
Commissioner Lando said the only drawback with two separate documents is that the site
agreement would have to be negotiated before the MOU could be approved.
Commissioner Lambert suggesting going back to the language of the MOU resulting from
the July 16 ALUC meeting, which did not include the flight corridor 'in Section 1,. and
including Sections 7 and 8, and putting the court cases back in Section 5 plus the
additional language about "any new laws."
Commissioner Lando said he would be agreeable to that wording of the MOU as long as
it is understood that there would have to be a collateral agreement. Chico would not sign
the MOU without a collateral agreement. He withdrew his'' original motion and
recommended that this MOU as described by Commissioner Lambert be used with the
understanding that prior to adopting the final MOU, there would have to be a collateral
agreement regarding the unresolved issues. He said he would leave the wording broad
in case the flight corridor is included or Foothill Park or maybe CSA 87.
Commissioner Lambert suggested leaving out the "flight corridor" wording if it would be
included in the separate document. She seconded Commissioner Lando's motion.
Mr. Parilo was concerned that the debate would be ongoing over points that might not have
a practical =purpose. The purpose of the MOU is to reach agreement, and the current
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission - August 20, 1997 5
language may serve no real purpose other than to get the MOU in place. He does not see
that subsequent phases of `Foothill Park East will be on file with the City of Chico in
advance of a CLUP being adopted by ALUC even if that takes two years. He was
concerned that debating a site agreement could delay having an MOU, Which would then
translate into delay in funding the CLUPs. He noted there is always risk and uncertainty
in negotiations. The purpose of the MOU is to establish a review process that at present
might not even have to legally occur. The MOU has identified the need to pursue
completion of the CLUPs with diligence .by all parties concerned. He urged that the
Commission consider a motion that would enable the MOU to go forward.
Commissioner Lando also did not think that subsequent phases of Foothill Park East would
occur prior to a. new CLOP. He withdraw his previous motion. He was not concerned
about inclusion or exclusion of the flight corridor but did want it recognized as part of the
MOU that the ALUC would not -initiate a lawsuit on the existing approved portions of
Foothill Park East. He said that would not speak to subsequent map phases.
Vice Chair Campbell said the motion means that all reference'in the MOU to Foothill Park
East would be replaced by a statement that ALUC would agree not to initiate or join a
lawsuit on Foothill Park East to the extent that it is already approved.
Mr. Lucas recommended acceptance of the proposed language, based on the discussions
in Closed Session.
Commissioner Lambert asked what ALUC has gained. She felt the MOU should deal with,
the process in general and not address a specific project. She did not think an agreement
to follow the standards set forth in law was sufficient since there has been disagreement
over what those standards are. She suggested withdrawing the MOU in its entirety. She
said if the City of Chico intends to do better they will and if not, they won't.
Commissioner Lando said the City's opinion is that, based on past actions, nothing needs
to come to the ALUC and they believe that is a legally defensible position. There is a real
desire on the part of the City of Chico to plan for and protect the airport. The Chico City
Council is willing to set aside that position and to refer projects to ALUC with the full force
of the law through the MOU. He thinks the City and County are giving up a considerable
amount to accommodate the process and that ALUC is giving up nothing.
Vice Chair Campbell thought a site agreement would be postponing a solution. He said the
wording that came out of the subcommittee was acceptable and without an MOU there
would be no agreement by the City to send projects to ALUC.
At this point it was agreed there was no motion on the floor.
Mr. Parilo said he understood that Commissioner Lando's motion would have modified
Section 1 with the statement that ALUC would agree to not initiate or join a lawsuit against
the approved Foothill Park East subdivision consisting of the 140 lots portion, and all
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission - August 20, 1997 6
subsequent. phases would be subject to the rest of the MOU. The last two sentences
would be deleted from Section 1.
Commissioner Lando said he would again make his motion, specifying the modification of
Section 1 as mentioned by Mr. Parilojeaving in the part about the flight corridor, and
including language that ALUC would not initiate,or join a legal action regarding the existing
approved portion of Foothill Park East which comprises approximately 140 lots, and for
Section 5 to contain the reference to the two court cases and making sure the language
reflects something like "or the current state of law as either the legislature or court may
determine," and retaining Sections 7 and 8.
The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Campbell and carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Lando, St. Amant, Causey and Vice Chair Campbell
NOES: Commissioners Gerst and Lambert
ABSENT: Commissioner Franklin
4
Mr. Parilo asked if, as part of the motion, the Vice Chair.has been authorized to sign on
behalf of the ALUC and that the MOU can be forwarded on to the City of Chico and the
Board of Supervisors.
Vice Chair Campbell said that is correct:
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission -August 20, 1997 7
s ,
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 5, 1997
B Consideration of an MOU between the Airport Land Use
Commission, the City of Chico, and the County of Butte to Establish
Project Review Procedures. The ALUC MOU Subcommittee met on
July 29, 1997 and recommended additional modifications to the draft
MOU for review by ALUC.
Commissioner Lambert said the ALUC subcommittee met to revise the wording of the
draft MOU since the City of Chico was not in favor of the.wording developed at the
previous ALUC meeting. The wording proposed by the subcommittee has been
distributed to the Commissioners.
Commissioner Lando was infavor of the MOU in order to avoid contentious
discussions.
Commissioner Lambert referred to the 'italicized portion of the draft MOU prepared:by
the ALUC subcommittee which talks about the 1000 foot corridor and the FoothillPark
East project, and asked why it is necessary to mention a specific project in an MOU.,
Commissioner Lando thought the area should be included and there should be a twelve
month limit on the MOU, and once the new CLUP is in place, there would be no need
for the MOU.
Commissioner Lambert suggested a two year time frame since things tend to move
slowly.
Chairman Franklin suggested the MOU exist until the new CLUP is in place.
Commissioner Lando said there needs to be honesty about the additional project in
Foothill Park that will not have a significant impact on the airport which will go through
the normal processes, and he would rather deal with it now.
Commissioner Lambert asked what is the City's objection to ending Section 1, General
Agreement of the MOU after "Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan."
Commissioner Lando said the City needs to know as well as the County what ALUC is
concerned about in protecting the airport. The City thought the 1000 foot corridor was a .
good compromise for the area, and by incorporating that into the project they were
responding to ALUC's concerns. Apparently that is not the case, and rather than'
having a general agreement, and the City bringing in another project, the MOU will be.
no good except to say that there will be more arguing and ALUC will have more rights in
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission August 5, 1997 1
the way of arguing. Commissioner Lando,said he would rather argue right now. about
land use if that is the case -- residential or non-residential use or whatever. The MOU
will be no help unless the specific issue is addressed now.
Commissioner Lambert understood the MOU to be dealing with the process of project
review and the time periods. She did not think any one project needs to be mentioned,
or the corridor either since it is a part of a project outside of.the MOU.
Commissioner Lando was curious what Commissioner Lambert thinks the.MOU will do.
His impression is that both parties want assurances. The City and County want to get
to he nitty-gritty of -what is reasonable and what is not. He thought ALUC.wanted the
assurance that all projects would be referred to the Commission for comments.
Commissioner Lando explained what he thinks the MOU does.
Commissioner Hennigan said he heard the explanation twice, but cannot make the
connection between Commissioner Lambert's question and Commissioner Lando's
explanation. The question was, "why does the Foothill Park East project specifically
have to be in the MOU?"
Commissioner Lando said it doesn't have to be included, but if it isn't, he would like the
whole area included.
Commissioner Lambert thought the MOU covers everything within a certain area.
Commissioner Lando asked what the MOU would be agreeing to.
Mr. St. Amant said, "the process."
Commissioner Lambert said, "the process."
Mr. St. Amant said, "the process, if it doesn't have Foothill Park East in it."
Commissioner Lando asked if, as County Counsel, Mr. St. Amant was advising the
County to sign the document.
Mr.. St. Amant said he is not County Counsel, but is an alternate commissioner, and it
the -policy of the Commission to allow alternates to speak.
There was a tangential discussion about another MOU which deals with another
subject.
Commissioner Gerst said if the wording about the 1000 foot corridor is going to be
included as well as Foothill. Park, why not address the "whole carrot" and address noise
and over-riding findings as well?
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission - August 5, 1997 2
Commissioner Hennigan said, "and signage." He said, "why don't we put it all in?"
Commissioner Lando agreed
Chairman Franklin said that is exactly what Commissioner Lando is talking about.
Commissioner Lando asked what ALUC needs to have happen to avoid nasty
disagreements which are kind of silly.
Chairman Franklin said he understands that Commissioner Lando wants an MOU that
takes care of everything in Foothill Park, and then everything else in the MOU comes
back to what Commissioner Hennigan wants, which is for everything to come to ALUC .
as though the over-riding findings were never made and that would take away the
reason for the lawsuit because it would be back to the over-riding findings never being
made on the General Plan, but Commissioner Lando wants to take care of Foothill Park
and not argue about it anymore.
Commissioner Lando said that is exactly what he.thinks. He thinks the County has the
same concerns.
Commissioner'Gerst understood that Foothill Park East is a vested map. He wanted to
know how noise concerns and other issues could be incorporated.
Commissioner Lando said he believes that ALUC's concerns will be incorporated into
the project.
Commissioner Gerst said ALUC has not had a chance to see the subdivision map.
Commissioner Hennigan said he wants to see the City of Chico conduct the public's
business in public. He said a project can be submitted which. is consistent with the
airport's land use plan, which ALUC can find consistent. If a project is submitted which
is not consistent with the airport's land use plan, and ALUC finds it not consistent, there
is an opportunity to conduct an over -ride, but the PUC sets out the requirements -for
making over-riding findings and the Brown Act sets out the requirements for public
hearings. That is what the City of Chico should do.
Commissioner Lando suggested agreeing peacefully to disagree on what has
happened in the past. He is willing to have everything referred to ALUC. In exchange
for that, he thinks it is reasonable request to know what they are "opening themselves
up to."
Commissioner Hennigan asked what "opening themselves up to" means.
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission - August 5, 1997 3
Commissioner Lando said there was a series of requests made by ALUC for Foothill
Park East, and yet it appears that ALUC wants to have a lawsuit, so it appears that
there are other concerns "out there" that ALUC is concerned about. He would like to
see it "on the table" so it can be negotiated.
Commissioner Gerst said regarding the comment that "everything was done on Foothill
Park East", the over -ride was never done, the noise study was not accomplished.
Commissioner Lando acknowledged there.are some disagreements, but he said the
City is willing to enter into an MOU and is ready to discuss it. The City just wanted to
acknowledge Foothill Park in the MOU, but is willing to negotiate.
Mr. Lucas said the MOU has all discretionary projects coming back for review and talks
about the 1000 foot corridor and Foothill Park East. The ALUC subcommitee wanted
the City to recognize the 1000 foot corridor connected to an Exhibit Map. The ALUC
subcommitee was willing to include the language recognizing that the City Council had
approved Foothill Park East as a residential subdivision, but was not willing to
acknowledge that they agreed to the subdivision. Basically the MOU says that all future
discretionary projects will come to ALUC and Foothill Park East is recognized as being
approved by the. City Council.
{
Commissioner Lando said the City is agreeable to that, but he recommends,a
reasonable time frame on the MOU since a new CLUP will be adopted and issues will
disappear with a new CLUP.
Mr. Parilo said even if a CLUP is not adopted within a time frame, the MOU language
provides for amending the MOU and if more months are necessary he is sure the
signatories of the various parties would agree to extension.
Commissioner Lambert suggested saying, "until the CLUP's are adopted."
Mr. Parilo said there should be "due diligence" in completing the CLUP's. The only
reservation he has with a one year time frame is the lack of release of funds by Caltrans
to prepare the CLUP's. Without the funds it would be difficult to complete the CLUP's.
Commissioner Lambert suggested saying, "one year or until adoption of the new
CLUP."
Chairman Franklin said there is a good reason for a timeframe, because otherwise the
CLUP might not get done. He suggested 18 months.
Commissioner Hennigan said the City has agreed to do what the law requires.
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission - August 5, 1997 4
Chairman Franklin said the disagreement exists because the City thinks they have done
what the law requires. The MOU accomplishes the City of Chico agreeing to do what
the law requires without going to court.
Commissioner Lando said the City believes they have complied with the law; they have
been pursuing a new CLUP; and there should be a time frame on the MOU.
Mr. St. Amant said ALUC has no control over money and could become a potential
victim of the County'if for some reason the County does not want to fund the CLUP's.
The :various Board members have varying opinions on the value of CLUP's and the
activities of ALUC. There might be motivation on the partof the Board not to provide
money for the CLUP's and let the MOU expire. He recommended the MOU being in
force until there is a CLUP so the people with the money will provide the money for the
CLUP.
Chairman Franklin said three Board members could think the MOU is better than a
CLUP and leave the MOU in force.
Mr. St. Amant said that at least there would be an existing agreement on a process.
Now there is not even an existing agreement on a process.
Chairman Franklin was in favor of an 18 months time frame in the spirit of compromise
Commissioner Hennigan said Alternate Koch had said he did not know if the MOU
would require projects to come to ALUC or not. Commissioner Hennigan did not
understand the reason for a time frame.
Commissioner Lando said if Alternate Koch made the above statement about the MOU,
he would correct him, because if the MOU is signed, it is clear that projects will come to
ALUC.
Commissioner Lambert suggested deciding the language of the MOU and said that it is
imperative that the three groups meet prior to finalization of the MOU, including the .
Board members and the Chico. City Council. She felt it is very important that the Board
members be included, especially since the Board staffs and funds ALUC.
Commissioner Lando said he was. in favor of a joint meeting but it might be hard to`
schedule.
Commissioner Lambert referred again to deciding upon the language of Section 1,
General Agreement of the MOU.
Commissioner Lando said the language of the MOU is acceptable with a 12 or 18
months time frame.
i.
+r
r
Butte County Airport Land, Use Commission August 5, 1997 5
Commissioner Hennigan asked Commissioner to explain "why."
Commissioner Lando said he wants to resolve the issue and not have it go on forever.
Commissioner Hennigan asked what would happen in 18 months if there is ,no CLUP.
Commissioner Lando either there will be no progress made on the CLUP and the
situation will be back at "ground zero" or the_CLUP will be close to adoption and there
could be an extension to the MOU until it can be adopted.
Commissioner Hennigan asked what is so onerous about submitting projects to ALUC,
and if consistency is not found by ALUC, then holding public hearings to make over-
riding findings.
Commissioner Lando said it seems reasonable that anyone would want to know what
they need to do to get approval.
Chairman Franklin said if there is a plan in place, the public can know what is required.
If the City. of Chico does over-riding findings on ALUC actions, and puts their General
Plan in place, everyone knows what is going on. At this point everything comes to
ALUC and -is subject to the whims of who is on ALUC. The important thing is to get the
Plan in place.
Commissioner Hennigan said "tomorrow" will be different only if the City agrees they
have to have their projects reviewed by ALUC.
Chairman Franklin said if the General Plan is brought into conformance with the new
CLUP, "tomorrow" will be different if the City of.Chico follow the rules. He said that
worrying about whether or not they follow the rules in the future because they haven't
followed them in the past is not the issue today.
Mr. Parilo asked if on the July 30 memo sent to the City of Chico, modifying Section 1,
starting at Line 23, is acceptable.
Commissioner Lando said that language is acceptable to the City Manager with a time
limit. If there is not a time limit, the City of Chico subcommittee would like.to rewrite that
section to clarify Foothill Park as a development, not just Foothill Park East. He would +`
recommend the language to City Council, but it was not discussed with a time frame.
Mr. Parilo said the language in the memo he is referring to is the portion of the draft
MOU prepared by the ALUC subcommitee in italics prior to the Note, as follows:
"Furthe& the establishment by the City of Chico of a 1,000 foot wide undevelope
aircraft flight corridor approximately centered on the Sycamore Creek diversion channel
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission -August 5, 1997 6
a � •
7
as shown on the attached man (Exhibit "B'). Apparently Commissioner Lando said the
City wants a time limit also.
Commissioner Lambert suggested, "18, months or the adoption of a CLUP.
Mr. Parilo said he thinks the MOU is necessaryto obtain funds from the Division of
Aeronautics, but he is concerned about the time necessary to obtain a consultant (90
days or more) and other requirements that Caltrans may come up with that will take up
time.
Commissioner Lambert was in favor of a meeting on the MOU with the joint
subcommittees as soon as possible. She felt the time frame of the MOU should be tied
to the adoption of the CLUP.
Mr. St. Amant said the Board has the means to support development of the CLUP
within the time frame.
Commissioner Lando was willing to recommend the MOU to City Council..
It was moved by Commissioner Lando that ALUC adopt the language as amended with
an 18 month time period, recognizing that the MOU can be amended at any time
including extending the time frame.
11
Commissioner Gerst asked what amendments are being referred to.
Chairman Franklin said the motion is to accept the language of the draft MOU as
prepared by the ALUC subcommittee (including everything in italics) with an 18 month
time limit.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Parilo suggested that the;MOU should remain in effect for 18 months or until a
revised CLUP for the Chico Municipal Airport is adopted whichever occurs first.
Commissioner Hennigan said that if the Board of Supervisors commits funding for the
CLUP, the time limit is not a problem. If the Board does not provide funding, there
would be nothing at the end of 18 months.
Commissioner Lando said City Council is also concerned about the language in the
MOU about the litigation with the California Aviation Council v. City of Ceres.
Commissioner Lando moved the motion suggested above by Mr. Parilo. (There,was no
second)
t
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission - August 5,.1997 7
Commissioner Hennigan suggested including language which brings the Board of
Supervisors into the loop since they "hold the purse strings."
r
Mr. Parilo said that since the Board is a party to the MOU, they would be committing to
the time schedule. Obviously they would be interested in using grant funds for,
preparation of the CLUP's. Their contribution would be to making their professional
staff available to support the effort.
Commissioner Lambert was concerned that 18 months might not be time enough to get
a new CLUP adopted, recognizing the need to move as quickly as possible on the
adoption of a new CLUP. She emphasized the need fora joint meeting of all parties
working on the MOU, and noted the MOU would also have to be considered by the full
Board of Supervisors, all of which is time consuming.
Commissioner Lando suggested making a motion without setting a time frame and
requesting a meeting with the City Council and Board of Supervisors as soon as
possible.
Commissioner Gerst said that if the italics portion of the MOU is left in, there is no point
in the lawsuit, and lie was opposed to leaving the italics portion in the MOU.
Commissioner Hennigan was concerned about the areas of Foothill Park which are as
yet undefined and ALUC having any jurisdiction in that area. i
Commissioner Lando said the language of the MOU only refers to Foothill Park East.
There would be future subdivision maps on the as yet undefined area.
It was noted that Section 7 of the MOU provides for an amendment of the MOU.
Chairman Franklin was in favor of retaining the italics portion of Section 1 about the
1,000 foot corridor.
Commissioner Gerst was in favor of ALUC reviewing the map on which the flight
corridor will be identified.
It was moved by. Commissioner Lambert to accept'the language of the MOU, retaining
the italics portion as follows: Further, the establishment by the City of Chico of a 1,000
foot wide undeveloped aircraft flight corridor approximately centered on the Sycamore
Creek diversion channel as shown on the attached maP (Exhibit `a.), and deleting the
next italics portion' -about Foothill Park East subdivision, setting no time frame and
requesting a meeting with the Chico City Council and Board of Supervisors as soon as
possible.
The motion was seconded by Chairman Franklin.
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission - August 5, 1997 8
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Lambert, Hennigan, Alternate Hatley and Chairman Franklin
NOES: Commissioners Gerst and Lando
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission - August 5, 1997 9
•
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES
July 16, 1997
B. Consideration and Adoption of an MOU between the Airport Land Use
Commission, the City of Chico, and the County of Butte to Establish
Project Review Procedures, The Chico City Council MOU Subcommittee
met and reviewed the draft MOU created by the ALUC MOU Subcommittee
and subsequently submitted a revised draft MOU for review by ALUC.
Mr. Lucas said the subcommittee of: Commissioners. Campbell, Lambert and Gerst, made
some modifications to the revised draft MOU prepared by the City of Chico. The
committee suggested eliminating references to Foothill Park on Page One and ending the
page at "Sycamore Creek diversion channel." The committee suggested retaining the
language of the original MOU in Section 5, lines 23 - 27, which is essentially the same but
more strongly worded regarding over-riding findings.'
Alternate Koch asked why the Topanga,case was deleted from the original language.
Mr. Lucas said Topanga was a general land use case, and the.California Aviation Council
was the critical case.
Mr. Lucas said on Page 3, line 3, the committee recommends inserting, "including over -ride
findings" before "to ALUC."
Mr. Parilo said the City of Chico seems to be in accord with the modifications.
Alternate Koch said the City Manager of Chico wants a reference on Page One to Foothill
Park East after "diversion channel." There is also some objection to the map, but the main
issue is having some closure on Foothill Park. On Page 2, the language as recommended
by the committee is fine, except it should also include "or°any subsequent case which may
take precedence over Ceres."
Commissioner Lambert was in favor of retaining the language'a.bout the Topanga case.
Mr. Parilo said the Ceres case followed the Topanga case and reflected heavily on the
Topanga conclusion.
Alternate Koch said Foothill Park East has already been through the ALUC process and
is now an approved subdivision. The language in the MOU indicates that the project will
not come before ALUC again.
Commissioner Hennigan said the Foothill project has a general map, but not a specific plan
and there a great many things which remain to be planned.
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION -JULY 16, 1997
Alternate Koch said the project will be a residential development, and densities, clustering
and roads have been discussed.
Commissioner Hennigan said there are large tracts that are still unplanned.
Alternate Koch said he was expressing the point of view of the City of Chico's
subcommittee.
There was a question if the Supervisors who have been working with the subcommittees
have seen the latest version of the draft MOU. It was suggested that the subcommittees
get together again and work out the final version.
Mr. Parilo suggested that this commission reach a consensus on satisfactory wording.
Alternate Koch suggested reaching a consensus on at least a portion of the MOU, and
moved that ALUC accept the committee's recommendation for the change on Page -3 to
insert, "including override findings" and the committee's' recommendation for modified
wording for the first part of Section 5 on Page 2, retaining the original language citing the
Topanga court case, and with the amendment, "or any subsequent case which may take
precedence over Ceres."
Commissioner Gerst said there were originally two suggestions-- the sphere of influence
expansion and the major capital improvements which he thought should be included in the
MOU.
Alternate Koch said ALUC would -have to have a separate MOU with LAFCo to deal with
those concerns because the City of Chico cannot require LAFCo to send projects to ALUC
for comments. As for ALUC review of the City of Chico capital improvements program --
the City would not be interested in that.
Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion made by Alternate Koch, which was carried
unanimously, to accept the changes to Pages 2 and 3 as recommended by, the
subcommittee and discussed at this meeting.
It was moved by Alternate Koch that the ALUC subcommittee meet with the City of Chico
subcommittee and the Board's subcommitee if that is appropriate, to discuss the inclusion
of wording about Foothill Park East in the MOU.
Mr. Lucas said that the ALUC subcommittee should know the general attitude of the ALUC
members toward the language about Foothill Park East prior to meeting with the other
subcommittees.
Alternate Koch withdrew his motion until that issue is resolved.
BUTTE COUNTYAIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION -JULY 16, 1997 2
Mr. Parilo suggested discussing increments in the language which might be acceptable,
or eliminating all references to the 1000 "foot channel and Foothill Park East.
Mr. St. Amant said the MOU is supposed to be about a process, and should not include
detailed issues.
Alternate Koch suggested deleting the 1000 foot corridor.
Mr. Rosene agreed with Mr. St. Amant that the language about Foothill Park is
inappropriate. He did not think any gains have been made with the MOU.
Alternate Koch said that the City's legal position has been that,projects don't have to be
sent to ALUC, and with the MOU, the City -will agree to send projects to ALUC for review
and will accept the fact that over -ride findings will have to be made..
Commissioner Lambert said that if there is a meeting of all the subcommittees, the
discussion should be open for the whole MOU, rather than just Page 1,.although ALUC has
agreed to the changes on Pages 2 and 3.
Commissioner Campbell asked how the City of Chico interprets the language about Foothill
Park East to mean that nothing related to that subdivision will have to come to ALUC. He
said ALUC recognizes that it is a residential subdivision, but has not approved the design
of the subdivision. He said the whole purpose of the MOU is that ALUC would review
projects and make recommendations and the City would over -ride if they have to. He did
not see how the wording of the last four lines of Page 1 of the MOU mean that when
Foothill Park is developed into subdivisions, with the laying out of streets and such, ALUC
will not be able to review them.
Alternate Koch agreed that the wording is not that specific.
Commissioner Gerst was concerned that -the Foothill Park project is vested and "set in
concrete."
Alternate Koch asked why ALUC objects to the language about Foothill Park.
Commissioner Campbell said the language is objectionable because it appears that ALUC
approved of Foothill Park East, which ALUC did not. It is not appropriate to put language
into the MOU that indicates ALUC approved of Foothill Park, when it is on record that
ALUC did not approve of it. ALUC indicated the project was inconsistent, and
recommended at least getting the 1000 foot corridor.
Alternate Koch said that mitigation and others were included in the project, and the
language in the MOU recognizes that.
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION - JULY 16,'1997 3
Commissioner Campbell said the language of the MOU makes it appear that ALUC agreed
to the whole project which is 'not what happened.
Alternate Koch said the wording only indicates the land will be developed as a residential
subdivision.
Commissioner Campbell was also concetned.about Alternate Koch's earlier interpretation
of the wording to mean that future projects would not have to come to ALUC for review.
Commissioner Lambert thought it was inappropriate to mention a particular project by
name in an MOU, and that it should deal with the terms and process that would apply to
any project. She suggested taking out the reference to the 1000 foot corridor and deleting
the lines after "Airport Environs Plan."
Commissioner Campbell thought the intent of the MOU was that the City of Chico would
agree to send new developments -to ALUC.
There was a consensus to delete the reference to the 1000 foot corridor.
Mr. St. Amant said that if the 1000 foot corridor is removed from Foothill Park East project,
that would be a major change to the project, and the project would have to come back to
ALUC for review.
Alternate Koch said he could not provide a legal opinion on Mr. St. Amant's comment. He
said the 1000 foot corridor was in the MOU because ALUC wanted it recognized. He
suggested deleting the corridor from the MOU.
Mr. Papadakis said if there is a change to Foothill Park East, it would have to come back
to ALUC -- that is the whole point of the. MOU.
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lambert, and
carried by the following vote to delete the last 5-1/2 lines .of Page 1 -- everything after
"Airport Environs Plan."
AYES: Commissioners Gerst, Hennigan, Lambert, Campbell, Causey and Chairman
Franklin
NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: Alternate Koch
Alternate Koch was concerned that the representatives from the Board of Supervisors are
not involved in the wording of the MOU at this point and the wording'could still be changed.
il
Mr. Parilo suggested that the subcommittees could still meet as a group, or the Board
subcommittee could be asked to review the draft MOU as revised today.. -,,If the language
is agreeable to the Board subcommittee and the City of Chico subcommittee, the MOU can
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION - JULY 16, 1997 4
0
be finalized. If any individual group has a problem with the language, the subcommittees
could meet again as a group. He suggested that if no other changes are made to the
MOU, ALUC authorize the finalization of the document.
It was moved.by Commissioner Hennigan, seconded .by Commissioner Campbell, and
carried unanimously, that if the other entities accept the MOU as drafted at this meeting,
ALUC authorizes the Chairman' to, sign the MOU.
Commissioner Lambert asked what would be the next step if, for instance, the City of Chico
does not agree to the changes. 1 • .
Mr. Parilo recommended in that case, to bring the various subcommittees together as a
committee of the whole.
There was a consensus to that effect.
It was moved by Alternate Koch and seconded by Commissioner Campbell to .table the
following Items C and D, since they are tied to the MOU, and to bring. them forward along
with the progress of the MOU.
Commissioner Hennigan argued against that motion. He said at the hearing before the
City of Chico Council on the appeal by John Merz, the staff assured the City Council that
they had in fact overridden ALUC. Senior Planner Joliffe that she could produce the
documents that showed them conducting a legal over -ride of ALUC. Commissioner
Hennigan had a problem with City staff claiming they can produce documents which they
cannot produce for ALUC, and he believes there was not a legal over -ride of ALUC. He
said Barbara Hennigan provided documentation of all the meeting notices, minutes and
records and there is no transcript of the required hearing or a record of evidence presented
at a hearing and -there is no notice of a hearing. There was no public hearing held at which
evidence was presented and findings made. .
Commissioner Campbell asked what would be accomplished by discussing Items C and
D while working on the MOU.
Commissioner Hennigan said ALUC is empowered'by the Public Utilities Code to make a
finding of fact and he is asking that ALUC make a finding of fact that the City of Chico has
not produced any evidence of the required public hearing.
Commissioner Gerst said outside help will be needed to resolve that issue.
BUTTE COUNTYA/RPORT LAND USE COMMISSION -JULY 16, 1997 5
t
Commissioner Lambert' suggested continuing • Items C and D, and discussing
Commissioner Hennigan;s concerns along with Review of City of Chico Action Taken
Concerning Foothill Park East Project which was tabled to the end of today's meeting.
Commissioner Gerst did not think Item C relates to the MOU.
The motion (by Alternate Koch) to continue Items C and D to the next agenda, when the
MOU is discussed, passed by the following vote.
AYES: Commissioners Campbell, Causey, Lambert, Alternate Koch and Chairman Franklin
NO Commissioners Gerst and Hennigan
ABSTAIN: 0
BUTTE COUNTYAIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION -JULY 1'6,1997 6
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES
May 21, 1997
CE _— Consideration and Adoption of an MOU between the Airoort Land Use
Ms. Leasure said the item was placed on the agenda for a status report. Staff met with the
subcommittee on May 6 to discuss the proposal. The subcommitee had the following
concerns: It was noted that under Item 1, the fifth point, LAFCo is responsible for sphere
expansions On Item 2 it was noted that the Code Section number is incorrect. On Item 4
there was concern about the 60 days notice being too long for items that normally take
much less time to process. There was a suggestion to amend the General Plan Land Use
Element to include the 1000 foot flight corridor. The City preferred some other mechanism
to protect the corridor other than amending their General Plan. On Item 6 "Request for
Proposals" was recommended for deletion. On Item 8 there was concern about referring
questions to ALUC staff if they were not present at a meeting, which would mean
postponing discussion of the items. Ms. Leasure said that City staff should be able to
interpret ALUC policy, since ALUC staff would not be able to attend every meeting for
every city with an airport.
Commissioner Hennigan asked what is the status of the ALUC staff.
Ms. Leasure said that currently she and Mr. Lucas are assigned to be ALUC staff, but
projects are being assigned to no particular Planner on staff. She said ALUC has been
assigned to the Long Range Planning Section of the Planning Division, which she
manages.
Ms. Leasure said that on Item 10, there was a suggestion to delete the word "unanimous."
Alternate Koch said the intent was that all three agencies would need to be in agreement,
but not necessarily a unanimous agreement by every board member of every agency.
Alternate Papadakis was concerned about something being in the MOU that, may
supersede current Public Utility Regulations, so he suggested including a statement that
if anything in there supersedes that, the regulations take effect, which might clarify
something that might be overlooked.
There was a discussion of Brown Act considerations involved with one person "wearing two
hats." (Tom Lando)
Alternate Koch said that according to the City of Chico attorney, there is no violation of the
Brown Act, but perhaps the City attorney and County Counsel, Neil McCabe, could meet
informally for a discussion, although there is the question if County Counsel can represent
ALUC.
Butte County Ailrport Land Use Commission - May 21, 1997
i
Commissioner Franklin said that according to, County Counsel, he can represent ALUC
unless there is a conflict with the Board of Supervisors.
There was a consensus that Alternate Koch could arrange an informal meeting with the
City of Chico Attorney and Butte County Counsel regarding compliance with the Brown Act.
I
Butte County Ailrport Land Use Commission - May 21, 1997 2
+BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION +
•epa men o eve opmenServices • 7 CountyCenter Drive, Orovd1e, CA 95965 • _7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 o
June 23, 1997
Chico City Council
Butte County Board of Supervisors
Re: Proposal for Enhanced Co-operation Between the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission,
Butte County and the City of Chico
Dear Council Members and Supervisors:
ALUC greatly appreciates this opportunity to meet with the City Council and Members of the Board. Our
hope is that by meeting together we can initiate a process to achieve a closer working relationship
between ALUC, the City, and the County.
We should all begin with a recognition that we share a common goal: protection and enhancement of
the Chico Municipal Airport operation, while allowing reasonable and safe development in the airport
environs. Our disagreements primarily relate to the specifics of achieving this goal.
By virtue of its unique composition, ALUC has a broad perspective and a wealth of expertise in airport
land use issues. Both the County and the City benefit when ALUC is allowed meaningful participation
in the land,use process.
At present, however, there is significant confusion and disagreement as to ALUC's authority to review
specific projects within the airport environs. This confusion is causing projects to be approved, or
delayed and leading to threats of litigation. It is also resulting in ALUC's recommendations not being
considered.
If the parties could sit down and work together to clarify their respective roles, this problem could be
reduced if not eliminated. We propose the formation of a joint subcommittee of the respective bodies
and their staffs to meet and develop a Memorandum of Understanding. The MOU would specify which
projects would be brought before ALUC and how the ALUC's findings would be considered by the
County and the City. The MOU would remain in effect until the ALUC adopts a new Airport
Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). The CLUP is anticipated to be drafted and adopted within a
year.
As we envision it, the MOU would provide for ALUC review of projects in the Airport Environs prior to
final approval by the City or County. If the City or County disagreed with ALUC's findings, the approving
agency would have the right as provided in the Public Utilities Code to override those findings. Thus,
ALUC would be assured a serious consideration of its recommendations and findings while reserving
final say to the City or County.
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •
We offer this as a proposal for our joint consideration here today. We do not expect your immediate
commitment to everything we have proposed. However, if the general concept is acceptable, we would
ask that you join with us in attempting to develop such an MOU.
Working together rather than against each other, we are confident a better approach to airport land use
planning can be achieved.
Sincerely,
Fred Gerst, Chairman
Airport Land Use Commission
cc: Chico Planning Commission
Chico Airport Commission
D
• Butte County a Airport Land Use Commission •
OR—
,
WIF
•�
,
roll
rol
•.. .. � .
•-�c' .. ���� :��! is
UM
man
Will
��_� iii
+BUTTE COUNIk-AIRPORT LAND UTE COMMISSION
• epa ment of Developmentservices • 7 Countyenter Drive, Orovilie, CrM65 • 65•
r
MEMORANDUM
TO- ALUC MOU Subcommittee
FROM: Staff
DATE: 30 April 1997
The following items should be included in the Memorandum of Understanding between the ALUC City
of Chico and Board of Supervisors.
w'c (hdat)
1. All discretionary projects that ,are located in the ALUC approved Chico Municipal Airport Area of
Influence as depicted on the attached map, shall be sent to ALUC ,for comments and consistency
findings with the adopted Environs Plan.
2. Should the lead agency (City of Chico or County of Butte) be in disagreement with an ALUC
finding of inconsistency, legally appropriate overriding findings of fact shall be prepared and
adopted.. .
A
3. The ALUC shall be notified' ten (10) days prior to all public hearings where the lead agency `
iv e to adopt overriding findings. If overriding findings are adopted by the lead agency, ALUC
shall be notified of this action within five (5) working days.
1
4. All discretionary projects submitted to the ALUC shall include ten (10) copies of a project
description, site plan, and all associated environmental documents. All submittals shall be
submitted 60 days prior to any anticipated action on behalf of the lead agency.
5..
The lead agency shall report all ALUC communications in their entirety to the appropriate board
or commission and seek additional information from ALUC when board members, council
members or commissioners request such information or clarification.
6. The lead agency shall utilize ALUC staff for interpretations of planning and policy documents.
I .
7: This MOU agreement is to remain in effect until such time a revised comprehensive land use plan
for the Chico Municipal Airport is adopted by the ALUC.
��. c,ti of ca•co.riµtc
8. PQio OL --7o ANy fYloJecT Anp2o �t ,ocr,onT SAN "MPrA,v,6.0 P(_-viK+-TVW-e aeako0PC . p
k:\aluc\chico.mem\mou.mem
NOP %,o( Lt sc.f �o A (.uc . �• ��I d, ►.r �IrcluSilrc. �S-i AH -e iG mtA ek . J
10. DcS{\..t�d1�. bt��UC� �Gv+ty+ of F—AnW__/f 6) cti'.-e+r
" N5
\>>
ACC'rP4_aq(<`
• Butte County s Airport Land Use CommissionoT Cql? i��/SF - IG ►jcirc wS.
TE 00 L= AIRPORT LAND STC
• Department of DevelopmentServices • 7 CountyCenter Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • •
August 28, 1997
Tom Lando, City Manager
City of Chico
P. O. Box 3420
Chico, CA 95927
L
Re: Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Chico, the County of Butte and the
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Chico Municipal Airport Area of Influence
Dear Tom:
Enclosed is the original Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) relating to ALUC review of land use
matters within the Chico Municipal Airport area of influence, signed by Alan Campbell; Vice -Chair of
the Airport Land Use Commission and one copy of the MOU.
If this MOU is approved. by your City Council, please sign'the original and return 'it as soon as
possible. • We will place this item on the September 16, 1997 meeting of the Butte County Board of
Supervisors. If approved, the Chairman of the Board will sign the original.' Copies of the completed
MOU will -sent to the City of Chico and the Board of Supervisors.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Paula Leasure
Principal Planner
Attachments
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHICO,
THE COUNTY OF BUTTE AND THE BUTTE COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
REVIEW OF DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS FOR
COMMENTS AND CONSISTENCY FINDINGS
CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
AREA OF -INFLUENCE
Section 21676.5 of the State Public Utilities Code provides that local agencies may enter into
agreements with airport land use commissions to authorize review of local agency discretionary
land use projects for comment and/or consistency findings with the adopted airport environs
plan. In order to promote the protection, preservation and continued viability of the Chico
Municipal Airport ("Airport"), the City of Chico and the County of Butte, (each of which are
hereafter referred to as "lead agency" in regard to land use decisions within their respective
jurisdictions in the area around the Airport), and the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC), have reached mutual agreement regarding the process by which such discretionary
land use projects will be referred to and considered by ALUC.
Such agreement is set forth in this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the parties.
Section 1. General Agreement:
It is agreed between the parties hereto that discretionary land use projects, as
defined herein, that affect territory located in the Chico Municipal Airport Area of
Influence, as depicted on the attached Exhibit "A" shall be forwarded to ALUC for
comments and/or findings of consistency or inconsistency with the adopted Chico
Municipal Airport Environs . Plan: Further, all parties acknowledge the
establishment by the City of Chico of.a 1,000 foot wide undeveloped aircraft
corridor approximately centered on the Sycamore Creek diversion channel as
depicted on the attached Exhibit "B".
The Airport Land Use Commission agrees not to initiate or join in legal action
against the City of Chico for the existing approved portions of the Foothill Park
East Subdivision which consists of approximately 140 lots.
Section 2. Discretionary Project Defined:
For the purposes of this MOU, discretionary shall include the following:
■ Use Permits, except Administrative or Minor Use Permits, issued at the .
discretion of the lead agency. 1
■ Tentative Parcel Maps, Tentative Subdivision Maps and revised Tentative
Maps.
■ Specific. Plans, Rezones, General Plan Amendments and Zoning
Ordinance Amendments.
■ Amendments to site design standards or other development or building
standards affecting land use or building. construction as related to noise or
safety compatibility, noise attenuation and lotcoverage.
Section 3. Materials to be Submitted by Lead Agency; Time Period:
All discretionary projects submitted to the ALUC shall include ten (10) copies of
the project description, site plan, and all associated environmental documents.
Such submittals shall be made at least thirty (30) days prior to any anticipated
action on the project by or on behalf of the lead agency, provided however, that
for major projects, such submittals shall be made at least twenty-one (21) days
prior to the date of the next regularly scheduled monthly ALUC meeting except in
cases where compliance with such 21 day submittal schedule would create a
conflict with State law.
Section 4. ALUC Review of Environmental Documents:
Each lead agency shall submit to ALUC all environmental documents associated
with discretionary projects, including the Notice of Preparations, in order to ensure
that all airport related issues and concerns are explored prior to a lead agency
action. ALUC shall have the right to review and comment, during the CEQA
comment period, upon environmental documents for discretionary projects that are
within its authority to review pursuant to this MOU, or existing State law.
Section 5. Overriding of ALUC Findings; Notices to ALUC:
Should the lead agency (City of Chico or County of Butte) be in disagreement with
an ALUC finding of inconsistency for any discretionary project, legally appropriate
overriding findings supported by substantial evidence shall be prepared and
adopted pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section,21676 and in accordance with
the standards set forth in Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County
of Los Angeles and California Aviation Council v. City of Ceres or current state of
law as either the legislature or courts ,may determine. The lead agency shall
provide written notice to ALUC, at least ten (10) days in advance, of all public
hearings at which the lead agency will consider adopting or intends to adopt
overriding findings. If overriding findings are adopted by the lead agency, the lead
agency will provide written notification of such action to ALUC within five (5) days
thereafter with a copy of the written findings included. .
Section 6.: ALUC Communications:
Each lead agency shall forward in their entirety all communications received from
ALUC relating to discretionary projects and which are directed by ALUC to be
forwarded to the appropriate board or commission, and shall seek additional
information or clarification from ALUC when Board members, City Council
members or Commissioners request such information or clarification.
Section 7. Term of MOU; Amendment or Termination:
This MOU shall remain in effect until such time as a revised Comprehensive Land
Use Plan (CLOP) for the Chico Municipal Airport is adopted by ALUC. All parties
agree to use due diligence in processing and finalizing the CLUP: The combined
ALUC, City and County sub -committee shall meet 12 months after this MOU
becomes effective to further review the status and progress of the CLUP. This
MOU may only be amended or terminated by agreement of all the parties hereto.
r
Section 8. MOU Compliance with California Environmental. Quality Act:
This project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act under the
General Rule Section 15061(b)(3).
Signed and dated by the parties hereto as follows:
For the Butte County Airpo nd Use Commission:
Al eri Campbell, Vice Ch.*
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
For the City of Chico:
Thomas J. Lando
City Manager
For the County of Butte:
Fred C. Davis, Chair
Butte County Board of Supervisors
7
Date
Date
Date ''
• i
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
County Counsel
County of Butte
City Attorney.
City of Chico _
f
'a
t,
MEMORANDUM
Department of Development Services
Director's Office
TO: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
FROM: Tomas A. Parilo, it of Development Services
SUBJECT: PROPOSED MOU DESIGNATING STAFF TO ALUC
DATE: August 18, 1997
I have reviewed the draft MOU and agree with most of the points and assertions made.
I am committed to provide the assistance necessary for ALUC to fulfill its mandated
responsibilities and duties.
The State Public Utilities Code clearly states that it is ALUC's role to assure the orderly
and compatible development around and in the vicinity of airports. First and foremost, this
is accomplished through the establishment and adoption of Comprehensive Land Use
Plans (CLUPs) around public use airports. It is secondarily accomplished through the
review of land use projects against the stated purposes of the adopted CLUP. The Public
Utilities Code also establishes that staff assistance to ALUC be provided. by the .County.
The Public Utility Code does not establish minimum staffing levels.
The Public Utilities Code clearly establishes that it is the ALUC that has the responsibility
to assure compatibility around airports. Staff merely provides assistance to ALUC.
The Public Utility Code does not mandate that ALUC have staff or an executive secretary
that is independent of the county. Furthermore, I have found nothing in the law that
defines or otherwise requires staff to be independent or perform an independent role. The
code clearly establishes the responsibility of the ALUC. Section 21671.5(d) of the Public
Utilities Code provides that the commission may employ staff or an independent the
with approval from the Board of- Supervisors. The law does not mandate the assignment
of staff or the establishment of staff titles or functions: - It only states in Section 21671.5(c)
that staff assistance be provided and that such costs be borne by the county. The county's
legal obligation is to provide support so ALUC can fulfill it's mandated powers and duties. ;
The July 30, 1997, letter indicates that it is indispensable to the effective'performance of
the Commission to eliminate the current inherent conflict of interest within the Department
of Development Services. The draft MOO refers to a potential for conflict of interest. If
there is a conflict of interest within the Department of Development Services, I'm not aware
of it..I have been advised by individual commissioners that there were attempts by the
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
August 18, 1997
Page 2
prior director to improperly influence or direct staff assigned to review various ALUC
projects, inconsistent with state law. There are other more effective means to eliminate
or correct such problems that are superior to an MOU. I view the draft MOU as confining
and could unnecessarily complicate the management of the department. In light of the law
and the department's limited staff resources, assigning a single staff person to serve as
an executive secretary, similar to LAFCo is infeasible. While a single example has been
set with LAFCo, it is not a precedent to be applied to all of the various commissions and
committees that I am required to support with staff.
To date, I have pledged that professional trained staff will be available to assist ALUC in
performing its mandated functions. This commitment fulfills the staffing requirement
imposed on the county by the Public Utility Code. In light of this commitment and the state
law, I will provide staff in the following manner:
1. The Director of Development Services will assign a primary staff member to support
the efforts of.the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission;
2. 'The assigned staff member will be the primary point of contact for ALUC business;
3. Staff assigned to various projects and ,policy plans will be responsive to the
direction provided by ALUC, consistent with the powers and duties prescribed in the
Public Utilities Code;
4. The Director of Development Services shall have full discretion in managing the
workload of staff assigned to ALUC in meeting the requirements of Public Utilities
Code Section 216715 and other department responsibilities;
5. Staff assigned will carry forward and convey all recommendations and official
actions of ALUC; and
6. At least one staff member will be afforded the necessary funding for training related
to the unique aspects of ALUC duties and responsibilities.
I also concur with the approach to remove staffing issues from the Commission's by-laws.
The by-laws should only address membership issues and meeting related procedures.
If the above arrangement is unsatisfactory to ALUC, the commission should request that
the Board designate staff pursuant to the draft MOU. In doing so, ALUC should include
an explanation of why dedicated staff is necessary to fulfill its responsibilities. In
forwarding such a • recommendation' to 'the Board I will advise . the Board of my
recommendation, as well.
TO:
BY:
SUBJECT!
DATE:
r INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF BUTTE COUNTY COUNSEL
Opinion X97-016
Thomas A. Parilo, Director of Development Services /
Robert W. MacKenzie, Chief Deputy County Counsel
Limits on anticipated Request for annual Budget and Dedi ated Staff
by County Airport Land Use Commission
July 10, 1997
ISSUE
Thomas A. Parilo, Director of Development Services, queries whether
State law requires that a county board of supervisors dedicate paid county
staff members and/or a yearly budget for operations to a requesting airport
land use commission (ALUC).
SHORT ANSWER
State law provides that counties are obligated to provide ALUCs staff
assistance, necessary quarters, equipment and supplies and that the usual and
necessary operating expenses of ALUCs shall be a county charge..Approval ofd
the Board. of Supervisors; is required before an-ALUC may hire employees orl
consultants at county expense,.,
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Parilo's concern apparently stems from an anticipated request by the
Butte County Airport Land -Use Commission (the Commission) for dedicated staff
and an annual budget. Development Services'Administrative Analyst Brian A.
Larsen included in the request for an opinion by this office a copy of a
draft of proposed Commission bylaws which includes a provision that the
Commission shall develop a work program for the following year, determine the
expenses necessary to perform the tentative work program (with the help of
Development Services Department staff) and submit its recommended. work
program and cost estimates to the Director of Development Services, who shall
include them in the Department's annual budget proposal to the Board of;
Supervisors.
I. APPLICABLE LAW
A. Airport Land Use Commissions: What Are They? '
Public Utilities Code §21670, enacted in 1967 and amended in 1993 and
1994, currently mandates that all -counties in which there is an airporti
1
r
Tom Parilo
July 10, 1997
Page 2
served by a scheduled airline or operated for public benefit shall establish
an ALUC for the purpose of promoting orderly development and expansion of
each public use airport in the State so as to protect public health, safety
and welfare and minimize the public's exposure to excess noise and safety
hazards within areas around public airports.
The Legislature -has flip-flopped on whether the creation of an ALUC in
each county is mandatory or optional. The 1993 amendment made creation of
an ALUC optional under some conditions: The `1994 amendment made the creation
of an; ALUC mandatory for every county(,-in=which there=is=an-ai-rpor-t=served=by
a=scheduled-airline=or operated:=far=public=benef=its.
B. Powers and Duties of Airport Land use commissions
Public Utilities Code §21674 sets forth the following duties of ALUCs:
"(a) To assist local agencies in.ensuring compatible land
uses in the vicinity of all new airports and in the
vicinity of existing airports to the extent that the
land in the vicinity of those airports is not already
devoted to.incompatible uses.
(b) To coordinate planning at the state, regional, and
local levels so as to provide for the orderly
development of air transportation, while at the same
time protecting the public health,.safety, and welfare.
(c) To prepare and adopt an airport land use plan
pursuant to Section 21675.
(d) To review the plans, regulations, and other actions
of local agencies and airport operators pursuant to
Section 21676.
(e) The powers of the commission shall in no way be
construed to give the commission jurisdiction over the
operation of any airport.
(f) In order to carry out its responsibilities, the
commission may adopt rules and regulations consistent
with this article."
ALUCs are empowered to review "all actions, regulations and permits
within the vicinity of an airport" prior to adopting a comprehensive airport
land use plan. The Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook defines "all
actions" as general and specific plans, ordinances and regulations, individual
development projects and airport plans (Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook, 4-2, 4-3). Public Utilities Code §21675.1 provides, in pertinent
part:
"(b) Until a commission adopts a comprehensive land use
plan, a city or county shall first submit all actions,
regulations, and permits within the vicinity of a public
airport to the commission for review and approval.
2
Tom Parilo
July 10, 1997
Page 3
Before the commission approves or disapproves any
actions, regulations, or permits, the commission shall
give public notice in the same manner as the city or
county is required to give for those actions,
regulations, or permits. As used in this section,
"vicinity" means land which will be included or
reasonably could be included, within the plan. If the
commission has not designated a study area for the plan,
then "vicinity" means land within two miles of the
boundary of a public airport.
(c) The commission may approve an action,"regulation, or
permit.if it finds, based on substantial evidence in the
record, all of the following:
(1) The commission is making substantial progress toward
the completion of the plan.
(2) There is a reasonable probability that the action,
regulation, or permit will be consistent with the plan
being prepared by the commission.
(3) There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future adopted
plan if the action, regulation,.or permit is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
(d) If the commission disapproves an action, regulation,
or permit, the commission shall notify the city or
county. The city or county may overrule the commission,
by a two-thirds vote of its governing body, if it makes
specific findings that the proposed action, regulation,
or permit is consistent with the purposes of this
article, as stated in Section 21670.
(e) If a city or county overrules the commission
pursuant to subdivision (d), that action shall not
relieve the city or county from further compliance with
this article after the commission adopts the plan.
(f) If a city or county overrules the commission
pursuant to subdivision (d) with respect to a publicly
owned airport.that the city or .county does not operate,
the operator of the airport is not liable for damages to
property or personal injury resulting from the city's or
county's decision to proceed with the action,
regulation, or permit.
(g) A commission may adopt rules and regulations which
exempt any ministerial permit for single-family
dwellings from the requirements of subdivision (b) if it
makes the findings required pursuant to subdivision (c)
for the proposed rules and regulations, except that the
3
Tom Parilo
July 10, 1997
Page 4
rules and regulations -may not exempt either of the
following:
(1) More than two single-family dwellings by the same
applicant within a subdivision prior to June 30, 1991.
(2) Single-family dwellings in a subdivision where 25
percent or more of the parcels are undeveloped."
Public Utilities Code §21675.provides:
"(a) Each commission shall formulate.a comprehensive land
use plan that will provide for the orderly growth of
each public airport and the area surrounding the airport
within the jurisdiction of the commission, and will
safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within
the vicinity of the airport and the public in general..
The-commission--p-lan-sha1:1_-includes and--sh&ll-, be--based---.on,
a long=range-=master=plan- or-_an--airp.ort.:_layout:-plan; as
determined by the Division, of Aeronautics of the
Department of Transportation, that reflects the
anticipated growth of the airport during at least the
next 20 years. In formulating a land use plan, the
commission may develop height restrictions on buildings,
specify use of land, and.determine building standards,
including soundproofing `adjacent to airports, within the
planning.area. The comprehensive. land use plan shall be
reviewed as often as necessary in order to accomplish
its purposes, but shall not be amended more than once in
any calendar year.
(b) The -commission may include, within its plan,
formulated pursuant to subdivision (a), the area within
the jurisdiction of the commission surrounding any
federal military airport for all of the purposes
specified in subdivision (a). This subdivision does not
give the commission any jurisdiction or authority over
the territory or operations of any military airport.
(c) The planning boundaries shall be established by the
commission. after hearing ,and consultation with the
involved agencies.
(d) The commission shall submit to the Division of
Aeronautics of the department one copy of the plan and
each amendment to the plan.
(e) If a comprehensive land use plan does not include
the matters required to be included pursuant to this
article, the Division of Aeronautics of the department
shall notify the commission responsible for the plan."
In City of Coachella v Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission,
(1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1277, the California Court of Appeal set aside an
4
Tom Parilo
July 10, 1997
Page 5
ALUCIS long-range land use plan because the plan did not comply with the
requirement in Public Utilities Code §21675(a) that airport land use plans
must include a long-range master plan reflecting anticipated growth over the
next 20 years. Thus, it is essential that the Commission develop a long-
range airport land use plan which incorporates a study of anticipated growth
of the airport during at least the next 20 years.
Public Utilities Code §21674.5 provides that the Department of
Transportation shall assist in the training and development of the staff of
ALUCs and suggests the following type of assistance: ,
"(1) The establishment -of a process for the development
and adoption of comprehensive land use plans.
(2) The development of criteria for determining airport
land use planning boundaries.
(3) The identification of essential elements which
should be included in the comprehensive plans.
(4) Appropriate criteria and procedures for reviewing
proposed developments and determining whether proposed
developments are compatible with the airport.use.
(5) Any other organizational, operation, procedural, or
technical responsibilities and functions which the
department determines to be appropriate to provide to
commission staff and for which it determines there is a
need for staff training or development.
(c) The department may provide training and development
programs for airport land use commission staff pursuant
to this section by any means it deems appropriate.
Those programs may be presented in any of the following
ways:
(1) By offering formal courses or training programs.
(2) By sponsoring or assisting in the organization and
sponsorship of conferences, seminars, or other similar
events.
(3) By producing ,and making available written
information.
(4) Any other feasible method of providing information
and assisting in the training and development of airport
land use commission staff."
Public Utilities Code §21674.7 provides that the formulation, adoption,
and amendment of comprehensive airport land use plans by ALUCs shall be
guided by information provided by the Department of Transportation
(Caltrans). Caltrans has developed and published written guidelines for ALUCs.
entitled Alport Land Use Planning Handbook. The handbook is lengthy and
5
Tom Parilo
July 10, 1997
Page 6
imposes the consideration of a significant number of factors on an ALUC which
is developing a comprehensive airport land use plan.
Public Utilities Code §21676 provides, in pertinent part:
(b) Prior to the amendment of a general plan or specific
plan, or the adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or
building regulation within the planning boundary established
by the airport land use commission pursuant to Section 21675,
the local agency shall first refer the proposed action to the
commission. If the commission determines that the proposed
action is inconsistent with the commission's plan, the
referring agency shall be notified. The local agency may,
after a public hearing, overrule the commission by a two-
thirds vote of its governing body if it makes specific
findings that the proposed action is consistent with the
purposes of this article stated in Section 21670.
(c) Each public agency owning any airport within the
boundaries of an airport land use commission plan shall,
prior to modification of its airport master plan, refer such
proposed change to the airport land use commission. If the
commission determines that the proposed action is
inconsistent with the commission's plan, the referring agency
shall be notified. The public agency may, after a public
hearing, overrule the commission by a two-thirds vote of its
governing body if it makes specific findings that the
proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this
article stated in Section 21670.
(d)Each commission determination pursuant to subdivision (b)
and (c) shall be made within 60 days from the date of
referral of the proposed action. If a commission fails to
make the determination within that period, the proposed
action shall be deemed consistent with the commission's plan.
It is apparent from Section 21676 that each ALUC has ongoing duties
which continue long after the formulation, adoption and amendment of its
comprehensive airport land use plan has been completed. In California
Aviation Council_. v. Ceres (1992) 9 Cal. App.4th 1384, the City of Ceres
enacted an ordinance approving development within the approach and
transitional surface of the Modesto Airport. The local ALUC reviewed the
ordinance and found it incompatible with its Airport Comprehensive Land Use
Plan. After a public hearing, the city overruled the ALUC's finding of
inconsistency and found the ordinance compatible with its Airport
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The California Aviation Council sued the city
on the basis that the findings made by the city when it had overruled the
ALUC's finding of inconsistency were inadequate. Although the trial court
sided with the city, the Court Of Appeal reversed the trial court and held
cthatithe;c:ity'�s �f-ndi-ngs�were.-insufficient-becausd-the�find rigs=were= not=fact
spedfic=,--but-c,Thus, if a city or county disagrees with
an ALUC by overruling a finding by the ALUC that a plan is inconsistent with
a comprehensive airport land use plan, in order to prevail in a lawsuit
brought against it, the city or county lmust--have=made fact specific=findings
Q: IF SURMMIEO CAN IT 13F WFINbgAWO ? OL IGNORED? 6
Tom Parilo •
July 10, 1997
Page 7
that the=plan-rs--rndeed=compatible—with the ALU -C's -comprehensive -air -port land
us_e= ran .
After an ALUC has developed a comprehensive airport land use plan, if
a city or county has neither revised its general plan or specific plan to be
compatible with the ALUC's comprehensive airport land use plan ,norzoverridden
the ALUC with regard to the general plan or specific plan, the ALUC may
require that it review all subsequent actions of that city or county until
its general plan or specific plan is revised or it overrides the ALUC.
Public Utilities Code §21676.5 provides:
"(a) If the commission finds that a local agency has not
revised its general plan or specific plan or overruled
the commission by a two-thirds vote of its governing
body after making specific findings that the proposed
action is consistent with the purposes of this article
as stated in Section 21670, the commission may require
that the local agency submit all subsequent actions,
regulations, and permits to the commission for review
until its general plan or specific plan is revised or
the specific findings are made. If, in the
determination of the commission, an action, regulation,
or permit of the local agency is inconsistent with the
commission plan, the local agency'shall be notified and
that local agency shall hold a hearing to reconsider its
plan. The local agency may -overrule the commission
after the hearing by a two-thirds vote of its governing
body if it makes specific findings that the proposed
action is consistent with the purposes of this article
as stated in Section 21670.
(b) Whenever the local agency has revised its general
plan or specific plan or has overruled the commission
pursuant to subdivision (a), the proposed action of the
local agency shall not be subject to further commission
review, unless the commission and the local agency agree
that individual projects shall be reviewed by- the
commission."
C. .Required County Expenditures; Limitations on Required Expenditures;
Authorization for ALUC Fees
Public Utilities Code §21671.5 provides, in pertinent part:
"(c) Staff assistance, including the mailing of notices
and the keeping of minutes and necessary quarters,
equipment, and supplies shall be provided by the county.
The usual and necessary operating expenses of the
commission shall be a county charge.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this
article, the commission shall not employ any personnel
either as employees or independent contractors without
the prior approval of the board of supervisors.
7
Tom Parilo • •
July 10, 1997
Page 8
(f) The commission may establish a schedule of fees
necessary to comply with this article. Those fees shall
be charged to the proponents of actions, regulations, or
permits, shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost
of providing the service, and shall be imposed pursuant
to Section 66016 of the Government Code. Except as
provided in subdivision (g), after June 30, 1991, a
commission which has not adopted the comprehensive land
use plan required by Section 21675 shall not charge fees
pursuant to this subdivision until the commission adopts
the plan.
(g) In any county which has undertaken by contract or
otherwise completed land use plans for at least one-half
of all public use airports in the county, the commission
may continue to charge fees necessary to comply with
this article until June 30, 1992, and, if the land use
plans are complete by that date, may continue charging
fees after June 30, 1992. If the land use plans are not
complete by June 30, 1992, the commission shall not
charge fees pursuant to subdivision (f) until the
commission adopts the land use plans."
II. DISCUSSION
The legislature granted ALUCS certain powers and duties, required
them to consult written materials prepared by the Department of
Transportation in exercising their duties and provided that counties must
provide staff assistance, necessary quarters and supplies to ALUCS and
also that the usual and necessary operating expenses of ALUCS shall be a
county charge. To the extent that CALUC requests"for'"staff and, ori
c articular_ items i.n-an-annu_a_l budget—are- actually -required for -the-7
Cexercise of the-ALUC!S_powers and -the performance -of the�ALUC'S-dut es,r X
the county is �legalay obligated to grant those requests=
_
A statute imposing county requirements similar to those discussed
above, which requires counties in the Lake Tahoe region to pay a share of
the support costs for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, has been held to
be a constitutional exercise of the Legislature's power. In People ex
rel. Younger v. County of E1 Dorado, (1971) 5 Cal.3d 480, the California
Supreme Court ordered the Counties of E1 Dorado and Placer to pay to the
Tahoe Regional Planning -Agency their statutory share of the support costs
for the agency's activities, pursuant to Government Code §66801. The
Legislature created the Tahoe Regional Planning Commission and provided
for the financing of its operations by enacting Government Code §66801.
The two counties had refused to pay the amount which the Commission had
determined they owed. In Younger, the court rejected a number of state
and federal constitutional challenges by the two counties to Government
Code §66801.
At least one other statute requiring counties to pay "necessary"
expenses of county agencies has been held to require county boards of
8
Tom Parilo
July 10, 1997
Page 9
supervisors to pay incurred expenses which the agencies had demonstrated
were necessary to the performance of their statutory duties. In Hicks v.
Board of Supervisors, (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 228, the Court of Appeal held
that the Orange County Board of Supervisors was obligated to pay the
expenses of the District Attorney for investigators assigned to
investigate criminal activity. The Board of Supervisors had transferred
22 District Attorney investigators to the Sheriff's department. The
transfer was characterized by the Board as budgetary in nature. The Court
of Appeal held that the transfer was, in effect, an attempt to implement a
plan of reorganization which would place all investigative functions under
the control of another agency.
The mks court specifically noted the language of Government Code
§29601, which provides that certain expenses which are necessarily
incurred by the Sheriff and/or the District Attorney are county charges,
and ruled that a iboar-dt,Qf— supervisors�may�znot- =by.: -:fa Tiiig=t-o--appropriate
:funds', prevent' the District Attorney kfroia=incur-r--ing tlose�expenses
The language of Government Code §29601 is similar to that of Public
Utilities Code §21671.5(c), which provides.that the usual and necessary
operating expenses of an ALUC shall be a county charge. Thus, it appears X
that Eif=tlae-Commission -can-demonstrate=that_:spe_c fis_items-_ included -An -a3
request=for-an 4nnua1_e
budget -ar-necessary-for-it-ao`perform :it s__statutoryo
duties-,_the-County-would�be legaflly obligated=to`=pay -those expenses
There are limits, however, to the demands for resources that a
county agency can make on a county board of supervisors. In County of
Butte v. Superior Court, (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 693, the Butte County
Sheriff and several other parties filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandate
in the Butte County Superior Court in an effort to halt implementation of
a County budget which reduced the Sheriff's staff by eliminating 23
positions. The Sheriff requested that the Superior Court order the County
to provide for staffing at the previous year's level in its budget. The
Superior Court did so. In reversing the Superior Court.'s order, the Court
of Appeal held that the Board of Supervisors was acting within the scope.
of its -constitutional role in undertaking to reduce the size of the
Sheriff's staff, in light of evidence which indicated that it had reduced
the size'of the staff of a number of County departments during a financial
crisis. The Court distinguished Hicks by noting that the Butte County
Board of Supervisors had not engaged in the type of reorganization
condemned by Hicks. There was no evidence in the County of Butte case to
suggest that the Board's action had been calculated to transfer any of the
Sheriff's functions to another County office.
The County of Butte Court also found that Government Code §29601 did
not constitute a legal basis for an action by the Sheriff to compel Butte
County to include in its budget sufficient funding to provide ongoing law
enforcement services at the level desired by the Sheriff, because §29601
discusses expenses that have already been incurred, not proposed future
expenses.
One might contend that County of Butte allows a county to refuse to
appropriate a future annual budget to an agency such as the Commission,
because the County of Butte Court drew a distinction between future
9
Tom Parilo •
July 10, 1997
Page 10
expenses and those already incurred. A categorical refusal to appropriate
funds for an ALUC, however, may be unlawful because the usual method which
is utilized to pay necessary expenses of agencies which a county is
required to fund is for the board of supervisors to approve.all or a
portion of an agency's proposed budget for the next fiscal year, based on
the agency's needs and the county's available revenue.
In a situation similar to the one being considered here, the County
has entered into a. Memorandum of Understanding with the Butte County Local
Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), in which the County has agreed, among
other things, to pay for various LAFCo support services and also to pay
for an Executive Officer, who has specified duties. It is relevant to
compare and contrast the statutes through which the legislature imposed
duties on counties to fund LAFCos and ALUCs, because the two entities are
similar and the responsibilities.imposed on counties to fund them are also
similar.
The Legislature created LAFCos by statute to encourage orderly
development and discourage urban sprawl. As is stated above, LAFCos are
very similar to ALUCs. This is true both in terms of their respective
duties and also in terms of the statutory responsibilities placed on
counties to fund their activities. Government Code §56380 provides that
the board of supervisors shall furnish the LAFCo within its borders
necessary quarters, equipment, and supplies, and that the usual and
necessary operating expenses incurred by a county's LAFCo shall be a
county charge. This portion of Government Code §56380 is identical to the
language of Public Utilities Code §21671.5(b) and (c), describing what
counties shall provide ALUCs. There are, however, important differences
between the requirements imposed on counties to fund LAFCos and those
imposed on counties to fund ALUCs.
Government Code §56380 also requires that counties use the budget
SppSSpriatideetbce&edurbheet forth in Government Code §56381, in meeting
a requirement that county boards appropriate at least as much money to an
ALUC as the ALUC has determined is necessary for its activities. These
areas appear to be left up to the discretion of each county board of
supervisors.
There is another significant area which is also left to the
discretion of a county board of supervisors. Government Code §56375(m)
empowers LAFCos "To appoint and assign staff personnel and to employ or
contract for professional or consulting services to carry out and effect
the functions of the commission." In contrast, Public Utilities Code
§21671.5(d) provides:
"Notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, the
10
.F
Tom Parilo
July 10, 1997
Page 11
commission shall.not employ any personnel either as employees or
independent contractors without the prior approval of the board
of supervisors."
One might contend that by not mandating that counties utilize a
budget appropriations process to fund ALUCs, by not requiring that
counties fund ALUCs at the level that the ALUC determines is necessary and
by providing that the board of supervisors must approve any hire of ALUC
employees or'independent contractors.at county expense, that the
Leg:isaatur_e`,meant=to=allow-count es:=to=refuse-to=appropriate=a=future*
annual=budgetm.to an-ALUC-and/or=refuse-categorica-lly=to=dedicate=county;,
staff=or=-hire--independent=contractors=-at=county eexpense ="for-an=ALUC.
Such an approach would be fraught with danger, however, as a county
which refused to appropriate any budget for an ALUC, or which refused
categorically to dedicate:county staff or to hire independent contractors
for an ALUC might very well be - �i:ewed=by;.the,courts asrattempting�to �
c-ir-cumvent---statut0r-y=requ rements'*t0=pay-=an=ALUC! s --necessary-expenses. i
This might be particularly true if the ALUC-had demonstrated=a=necessity. 1
for—the-dedication of county r;.
=staff=othe=hir-ingrof=independent,
contractor_(_s). j
Thus, although the above referenced statutes discussing ALUCs appear 'f
to grant county boards of supervisors discretion'in the actual process
`they use to fund ALUCs, there--is,def.initely=a=1'ega-l=duty=imposed=on9
(countties=.to-prow=idd=hdb- ssary=experises =for-ALUCs.: 'The difference between �}
the statutory responsibilities imposed on counties funding ALUCs and l
LAFCos is mainly that the'' determination of what is "necessary and
usual," -and, in particular, whether the hiring of ALUC employees or #
independent contractors at county expense is necessary, is left up to the
discretion of -the board of supervisors.
Apparently; members of the Airport Land Use Commission have expressed
their desire for a dedicated staff, independent of any existing county r
agency,'yet paid for by the county. 'Although the question of whether the
county must merely provide staff assistance to*the commission or whether
the county must provide a dedicated staff was not resolved for every f
future situation by the legislature, it is apparent that the legislature
.provided language which each.county may use to resolve the question. For
instance, if conflicts) develop between the county and the commission,
then it may become quite difficult for county staff members, who answer to-',
a county department head, to perform tasks requested by the Commission. '
Thus, d f=ALU_s rC'equest=for dedicated=staff=wer-e=accompanied=by=arn� y
explanation=ofrwhy ALUC=members=believeza=ded cated,staff=is=necessary to,
do the-agency's-mbusiness;-the=Boa-r-d--of=Superv-isors=would=be=much more able,
,to -assess whether-a=dedicated—staff-is-�necessaryrunder=the,mandate'=of .
c§ 21:.6_7_5_-(-c_)_-.-
III. CONCLUSION
The Legislature did not provide a blueprint with which to decide all
future ALUC funding issues. The Legislature did, however, provide -county
boards of -supervisors with a standard by which each board could determine ;.
whether or not to grant specific requests for funding and/or•staff on a
11
Zoom Parilo
July 10, 1997
Page 12
case-by-case basis. Butte County, it appears, should proceed:on-suchza,
case-by=case=bas surto-dec de=,whether.:-the-Commission-wi-1=receive-theme
budget and=staf:f=services-which--it=r_equests-.�
(opiniorA97-016)
12
•
OFFICE OF THE
CITY MANAGER
411 Mein Street
CITYWCMICO P.O. Box 3420
the ,e7= Chico. CA 95927
(630) 895-4800
FAX (630) 8964825
ATSS 459-4800
D-90-1/Chrono
Butte County Planning Commission
Attention: Craig Sanders
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
•
January 7, 1998
Re: Butte County General Plan Amendment #97-02 and Specific Plan
Amendment #97-01 (Kammerer) - APN 047-250-141.
Dear Mr. Sanders,
At Its meeting of December 16, 1997, the City of Chico Airport Commission was
made aware of the pending request of George T. Kammerer for Butte County
General Plan and North Chico Specific Plan amendments to allow and/or increase
density for residential development on the above referenced parcel, generally
located on the west side of and adjacent to the north clear zone of the Chico
Municipal Airport.
At the conclusion of the discussion, .the Commission voted 4 to 0, with 1
abstention, to indicate to the Butte County Planning Commission its opposition to
residential development on the subject property, and to urge that it not be
allowed, because it is under the traffic pattern of the Chico Municipal Airport and
adjacent to this important Airport safety zone -
Please make_ the Airport Commission's position on this matter part of the public
record when this matter Is next considered by the Planning Commission.
Thank you for your consideration of the Commission's position on this matter.
49"relYy,
ROBERT E. KOCH
Risk Manager
c: CM; CDD; Planning Dir.
Airport Commission (5)
Planning (Division
.' A N 0 8 1998
Oroville, California'
V:, J Made From k6eyew Perm.
COUNTY- OF BUTTE - AGENDA ITEMS
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - 5
FROM: Butte County Airport Land Use'Commission DATE: October 7, 1997
SUBJECT:'Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Chico, Airport Land Use Commission and the.Board +�
of Supervisors. - -,
SUMMARY OF REQUEST - ACTION REQUESTED:
Review the MOU.and authorize,the Chairman to sign the agreement.
` p �
- e . ,a ' 4 � a � ._ "' .ref .'. _ i • .-� �`
��f-ti
S
ot
• p ' - [ i} • ,,,,'
i 1111
�• - • x- ..f
. _.
t"�
5'
.. �
� Z' � .�
.. _
r ' ter+ • � � _,.,�. "`•.�--� x �
z
*
Additional information attached: Yes'_ No Describet. Memo
Previous Board action: Date'` Minute Orderf Summary of Action -
Funding sources
Current year cost' Budgeted Yes No Annualized cost If also = JV
planned for next year ,
Will proposal required additional personnel? Yes No' Stat 'No. = Permanent_Temporary_Other_
Will proposal require a budget transfer? • Yes. No If yes, read the following:
1. Complete worksheet on back
2. Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda deadline "+: -
Administrative Office Approval: 4/5 Vote required Majority vote required
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK
Contact Person: Paula Leasure, Principle Planner Telephone No.: 7601
'Ordinance'Required' _ Resolution Required"- Minute Order' Required f
Agreement?. Yes No `
Special distribution directions (copies attached):
1 3.
2. - 4.
Return to'department '
Legal publication and notification requirements: "
Publication: _ Clerk to Publish and Notice attached _ Department Published and Affidavit attached
Publish: _ Countywide _ Local (specify)
Number of times Days before hearing -
(Code Section)
Notification: _ Clerk to mail.Notice and Notice attached _ Department mailed Notice and Affidavid
attached
Notify: _ Countywide _ Local (specify) -
Number of time Days before hearing
(Code Section)
BUDGET TRANSFER REQUEST/WORKSHEET
List each of the affected line items with regard to their current status: (As of�l ,
(date)
Expenditures + '
Line item Budget r Encumbrances To Date Balance
Transfer Request: ;
.AMOUNT.e ` LINE ITEM .LINE ITEM �-, s• .t'�i„ 't'
,
Transfer $ (no cents) from .to
Transfer $ (no cents) from to'
Transfef $ (no cents) from to
Transfer $ (no cents) from to
Reason for request: •- ' ~ { '
W
*1�U'd"Il'lE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND U'fk COMMISSION +
•
Department of DevelopmentServices • 7 CountyCenter Drive, Oroville, CA 95955 • •
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Chair and Board of Supervisors
FROM: Department of Development Services
DATE: September 30, 1997
SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Chico, Airport Land Use Commission
and the Board of Supervisors.
SUMMARY: The Airport Land UseCommission (ALUC) has been developing a three-way Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) with the City of Chico and the County of Butte over the past four (4) months.
The MOU is a result of the joint meeting of the ALUC, Chico City Council, Chico Planning Commission,
Chico Airport Commission and Supervisors Dolan and Houx representing the Board of Supervisors which ;
occurred on April 16, 1997. The joint meeting was intended to clarify the roles of the respective
participants in the airport planning process and develop a format by which future development within the ;
Chico Municipal Airport Area of Influence wouid be processed by the City, County and ALUC.
Several drafts have*been, prepared and reviewed by the City. and ALUC with the attached signed draft
having been approved by ALUC on September 17, 1997. It is anticipated that the Chico City Council
will authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement following the October 7, 1997 Council meeting.
The Department of Development Services has reviewed the MOU and concurs with the text and maps
as approved by the'ALUC. _
In allied .matter, an. approved MOU is an essential step in obtaining the release of a previously allocated
$41,000.00 grant from the State Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Program. The Aeronautics
Program has been reviewing the relationship between the City of Chico and the ALUC and has been
critical of the procedural conformance with State Aeronuatics Law. This has led to a reluctance to
release the grant funding. The MOU will assist the ALUC in obtaining compliance with Aeronautics Law
and be a positive and necessary step towards receiving the allocated grant funding.
RECOMMENDATION: Review the MOU and.authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement.
Attachment: Memorandum of Understanding including Exhibits A and B.
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHICO,
THE COUNTY OF BUTTE AND THE BUTTE COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
REVIEW OF DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS FOR
COMMENTS AND CONSISTENCY FINDINGS
CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
AREA OF INFLUENCE
Section 21676.5 of the State Public Utilities Code provides that local agencies may enter into
agreements with airport land use commissions to authorize review of local agency discretionary
land use projects for' comment and/or consistency findings with the adopted airport environs
plan. In -order to promote the protection, preservation and continued viability of the Chico
Municipal Airport ("Airport"), the City of Chico and the County of Butte, (each of which are
hereafter referred to as "lead agency" in regard to land use decisions within their respective
jurisdictions in the area around the Airport), and the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC), have reached mutual agreement regarding the process by which such discretionary
land use projects will be referred to and considered by ALUC.
4
Such agreement'is set forth in this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the parties.
Section 1. General Agreement:
It is agreed between the parties hereto that discretionary land use projects, as
defined herein, that affect territory located in the Chico Municipal Airport Area of
Influence, as depicted on the attached Exhibit "A" shall, be forwarded to ALUC for
comments and/or findings of consistency or inconsistency with the adopted Chico
Municipal Airport Environs Plan. Further, all parties acknowledge the
establishment by the City of Chico of a 1,000 foot wide undeveloped aircraft
corridor approximately centered on the Sycamore Creek diversion channel as '
depicted on the attached Exhibit "B".
The Airport Land Use Commission agrees not to. initiate or join in legal action
against the City of Chico for the existing approved portions of the Foothill Park
East Subdivision which consists of approximately 140 lots.
Section 2. Discretionary Project Defined:
For the purposes of this MOU,. discretionary shall include the following:
■ Use Permits, except Administrative or Minor Use Permits, issued at the
discretion of the lead agency.
M
■ Tentative Parcel Maps, Tentative Subdivision Maps and revised Tentative
Maps.
■ Specific Plans, Rezones, General Plan Amendments and Zoning
Ordinance Amendments.
■ Amendments to site design standards or other, development or building
standards affecting land use or building construction as related to noise or
safety compatibility, noise attenuation and lot coverage. .
Section 3. Materials to be Submitted by Lead Agency; Time Period:
All discretionary projects submitted to the ALUC shall include ten (10) copies of
the project description; site plan, and all associated environmental documents.
Such submittals shall be made at least thirty (30) days prior to any anticipated
action on the project by or on behalf of the lead agency, provided however, that
for major projects, such submittals shall be made at least twenty-one (21) days
prior to the date of the next regularly scheduled monthly ALUC meeting except in
cases where compliance with such 21 day submittal schedule would create a
conflict with State law.
Section 4. ALUC Review of Environmental Documents:
Each lead agency shall submit to ALUC all environmental documents associated
with discretionary projects, including the Notice of Preparations, in order to ensure
that all airport related issues and concerns are explored prior to a lead agency
action. ALUC shall have the right to review and comment, during the CEQA
comment period, upon environmental documents for discretionary projects that are
within its authority to review pursuant to this MOU, or existing State law.
Section 5. Overriding of ALUC Findings; Notices to ALUC:
Should the lead agency (City of Chico or County of Butte) be in disagreement with
an ALUC finding of inconsistency for any discretionary project, legally appropriate
overriding findings 'supported by substantial evidence shall be prepared and
adopted pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676 and in accordance with
the standards set forth in Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County
of Los Angeles and California Aviation Council v. City of Ceres or current state of
law as either the legislature or courts may determine. The lead agency shall
provide written notice to ALUC, at least ten (10) days in advance, of all public
hearings at which the lead agency will consider adopting or intends to adopt
overriding findings. If overriding:: findings are adopted by the lead agency, the lead
agency will provide written notification of such action to ALUC within five (5) days
thereafter with a copy of the written findings included.
H
H
Section 6. ALUC Communications:
Each lead agency shall forward in their entirety all communications received from
ALUC relating to discretionary projects and which are directed by ALUC to be
forwarded to the appropriate board or commission, and shall seek additional
information or clarification from ALUC when Board members, City Council
members or Commissioners request such information or clarification.
Section 7. Term of MOU; Amendment or Termination:
This MOU shall remain in effect.for a maximum period of 24 months or until such
time as a revised Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLOP) for the Chico Municipal
Airport is adopted by ALUC, whichever comes first. All parties agree to use due
diligence in processing and finalizing the CLUP. The combined ALUC, City and
County sub-committee shall meet 12 months after this MOU becomes effective to
further review the status and, progress of the CLUP. This MOU may only be
amended or terminated by agreement of all the parties hereto.
Section 8. MOU Compliance with Califomia Environmental Quality Act:'
This project is exempt from ;Califomia Environmental Quality Act under the
General Rule Section 15061(b)(3).
Signed and dated by the parties hereto as follows:
For t Butt Airport Land Use Commission:
Boh nklin,. Chair
utte County Airport Land Use Commission
For the City of Chico:
Thomas J. Lando
City Manager
For the County of Butte:
Date
Date
Fred C. Davis, Chair Date l
Butte County Board of Supervisors h
�4��� '` ` ' . • . .� � �-\, - !�-i%ilii
�i�!:.: is �' • `.. _,;ti �rl►t�:.: �;
��
. - __..-�--- �-,�� Y ...,, ,
•.�.5..._ .._-_u
COUNTY OF BUTTE - AGENDA ITEM
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission DATE: October 7,1997
SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Chico, Airport Land Use Commission and the Board
-of Supervisors. _ - ►
SUMMARY OF REQUEST - ACTION REQUESTED: t
Review the MOU and authorize the Chairman to'sign the, agreement.
Additional information attached- Yes No Describe Memo
Previous Board action: Date. Minute Order Summary of Action: ; f
- Funding sources +
-Current year cost Budgeted Yes No Annualized cost . If also ,
a planned for next year
Will proposal required additional personnel? Yes No State No. Permanent_ Temporary_Other_
Will proposal require a Budget transfer? Yes. No- If yes, read the following:
1. Complete worksheet on back'
2. Deadline is one business day' rior to normal agenda deadline
Administrative Office Approval: 4/5 Vote required ' - Majority vote required
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK
, r 4
Contact Person: Paula Leasur!e, Principle Planner f • Telephone No.: 7601
Ordinance Required Resolution Required _ Minute Order Required
'
Agreement? Yes No
Special distribution directions (copies attached)`
1. .3. -
2. - 4.
Return to department `
Legal publication and notification requirements:
Publication: _ Clerk to Publish and Notice attached _ Department Published and Affidavit attached
Publish: _ Countywide _ Local (specify) . Y
Number of times Days before hearing
(Code Section)
Notification: _ Clerk to mail Notice and Notice attached _ Department mailed Notice and Affidavid
attached '
Notify: _ Countywide _ Local (specify) +
Number of time Days before hearing
(Code Section) • ,
BUDGET TRANSFER REQUEST/WORKSHEET ,
List each of the affected line items with regard to their current status: (As of �1
- (date) '
` Expenditures + r '
Line item Budget Encumbrances To Date Balance
Transfer Request:.'
r
AMOUNT, .,LINE ITEMLINE ITEM, '
o
Transfer $ (no cents) from to
Transfer $ (no cents) from to '
Transfer $ (no cents) from to
Transfer $ (no cents) from to
Reason for request:,'' • " ..f _ .. > _ '
+BUT"TE COUNTY AIRPORT ]LAND USE COMMISSION- + .
• Department of Develop •ouenter Drive, rove e, • •
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Chair and Board of Supervisors
FROM: Department of Development Services
DATE: September 30, 1997
SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Chico, Airport Land Use Commission
and the Board of Supervisors.
SUMMARY: The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has been developing a three-way Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) with the City of Chico and the County of Butte over. the past four (4) months.'
The MOU is a result of the joint meeting of the ALUC, Chico City Council, Chico Planning Commission,
Chico Airport Commission and Supervisors Dolan and Houx representing the Board,of Supervisors which
occurred on April 16, 1997. The joint meeting was intended to clarify the roles of the respective
participants in the airport planning process and develop a format by which future development within the
Chico Municipal Airport Area of Influence would be processed by the City, County and ALUC. '
Several drafts have been prepared and reviewed by the City and ALUC with the attached signed -draft
having been approved by ALUC on September 17, 1997. It is anticipated that the Chico City Council,
will authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement following the October 7, 1997 Council meeting. ,
The Department of Development Services has reviewed the MOU and concurs with the text and maps
as approved by the ALUC.
In allied matter, an. approved MOU is an essential step in obtaining the release of a previously allocated
$41,000.00 grant from the State Department'of Transportation, -Aeronautics Program. The Aeronautics
Program has been reviewing the relationship between the City of Chico and the ALUC and has been
critical of the procedural conformance with State Aeronuatics Law. This has led to a reluctance to .
release the grant funding. The MOU will assist the ALUC in obtaining compliance with Aeronautics Law
and be a positive and necessary step towards receiving the allocated grant funding.
RECOMMENDATION: Review the MOU and authorize ,the Chairman to sign the agreement.
Attachment: Memorandum of Understanding including Exhibits A and B.
• Suite County • Airport Land Use Commission.* l
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHICO,
THE COUNTY OF BUTTE AND THE BUTTE COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
REVIEW OF DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS FOR
COMMENTS AND CONSISTENCY FINDINGS
CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
AREA OF INFLUENCE
Section 21676.5 of the State Public Utilities Code provides that local agencies may enter into
agreements with airport land use commissions to authorize review of local agency discretionary
land use projects for comment and/or consistency findings with the adopted airport environs
plan. In order to promote the protection, preservation and continued viability of the Chico
Municipal Airport ("Airport"), the City of Chico and the County of Butte, (each of which are
hereafter referred to as "lead agency" in regard to land use decisions within their respective
jurisdictions in the area around the Airport), and the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC), have reached mutual agreement regarding the process by which such discretionary
land use projects will be referred to and considered by ALUC.
Such agreement is set forth in this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the parties.
Section 1. General Agreement:
It is agreed between the parties hereto that discretionary land use projects, as
defined herein, that affect territory located in the Chico Municipal Airport Area of
Influence, as depicted on the attached Exhibit "A" shall be forwarded to ALUC for
comments and/or findings of consistency or inconsistency with the adopted Chico
Municipal Airport Environs Plan. Further, all parties acknowledge the
establishment by the City of -Chico of a 1,000 foot wide undeveloped aircraft
corridor approximately centered on the Sycamore Creek diversion channel as
depicted on the attached Exhibit "B".
The Airport Land Use Commission agrees not to initiate or join in legal action
against the City of Chico for the existing approved portions of the Foothill Park
East Subdivision which consists of approximately 140 lots.
Section 2. Discretionary Project Defined:
For the purposes of this MOU, discretionary shall include the following:
■ Use Permits, except Administrative or Minor Use` Permits, issued at the
discretion of the lead agency. -
■ Tentative Parcel Maps, Tentative Subdivision Maps and revised Tentative
Maps.
■ Specific Plans, Rezones, General Plan Amendments and Zoning
Ordinance Amendments.
■ Amendments to site design standards or other development or building
standards affecting land use or building construction as related to noise or
safety compatibility, noise attenuation and lot coverage.
Section 3. Materials to be Submitted by Lead Agency; Time Period:
All discretionary projects submitted to the ALUC shall include ten (10) copies of
the project description, site plan, and all associated environmental documents.
Such submittals shall be made at least thirty (30) days prior to any anticipated
action on the project by or on behalf of the lead agency, provided however, that
for major projects, such submittals shall be made at least twenty-one (21) days
prior to the date of the next regularly scheduled monthly ALUC meeting except in
cases where compliance with such 21 day submittal schedule would create a
conflict with State law.
Section 4. ALUC Review of Environmental Documents:
Each lead agency shall submit to ALUC all environmental documents associated
with discretionary projects, including the Notice of Preparations, in order to ensure
that all airport related issues and concerns are explored prior to a lead agency
action. ALUC shall have the right to review and comment, during the CEQA
comment period, upon environmental documents for discretionary projects that are
within its authority to review pursuant to this MOU, or existing State law.
Section 5. Overriding of ALUC Findings; Notices to ALUC:
Should the lead agency (City of Chico or County of Butte) be in disagreement with
an ALUC finding of inconsistency for any discretionary project, legally appropriate
overriding findings supported by substantial evidence shall be prepared and
adopted pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676 and in accordance with
the standards set forth in Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County
of Los Angeles and California Aviation Council v. City of Ceres or current state of
law as either the legislature or courts may determine. The lead agency shall
provide written notice to ALUC; at least ten (10) days in advance, of all public
hearings at which the lead agency will consider adopting or intends to adopt
overriding findings. If overriding findings are adopted by the lead agency, the lead
agency will provide written notification of such action to ALUC within five (5) days
thereafter with a copy of the written findings included.
t
Section 6. ALUC Communications:
Each lead agency shall forward in their entirety all communications received from
ALUC relating to discretionary projects and which are directed by ALUC to be
forwarded to the appropriate board or commission, and shall seek additional
information or clarification from ALUC when Board members, City Council
members or Commissioners request such information or clarification.
Section 7. ' Term of MOU; Amendment or Termination:
This MOU shall remain in effect for a maximum period of 24 months or until such
time as a revised Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Chico Municipal
Airport is adopted by ALUC, whichever comes first. All parties agree to use due
diligence in processing and finalizing the CLUP. The combined ALUC, City and
County sub-committee,shall meet 12 months after this MOU becomes effective to
further review the status and .progress of the CLUP. This MOU may only be
amended or terminated by agreement of all'the parties hereto.
Section 8. MOU Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act:
This project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act under the
General Rule Section 15061(0)(3).
Signed and dated by the parties hereto as follows: J
For tP6 Butt P Airport Land Use Commission:
oh nklin, Chair
utte County Airport Land Use Commission
• z
For the City of Chico:
Date
Thomas J. Lando Date i
City Manager
i
For the County of Butte:
Fred C. Davis, Chair
Butte County Board of Supervisors
Date
_.f ��Lr�_\moi ':' _1\ .t, �"���. rs ici �.
I
r
•
Department of DevelopmentServices • 7 CountyCenter Drive, Ciroville, CA 95965 • •
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Chair and Board of Supervisors
FROM: Department of Development Services
DATE: September 30, 1.997
SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Chico, Airport Land Use Commission
and the Board of Supervisors.
SUMMARY: The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has been developing a three-way Memorandum,
of Understanding (MOU) with the City of Chico and the County of Butte over the past four (4) months.
The MOU is a result of the joint meeting of the ALUC, Chico City Council, Chico Planning Commission,
Chico Airport Commission and Supervisors Dolan and Houx representing the Board of Supervisors which ,
occurred on April 16, 1997. The joint meeting was intended to clarify the roles of.the respectivei
participants in the airport planning process and develop a format by which future development within the;
Chico Municipal Airport Area of Influence would be processed by the City, County and ALUC.
Several drafts have been prepared and reviewed by the City and ALUC with the attached signed draft'
having been approved by ALUC on September 17, 1997. It is anticipated that the Chico City Council
will authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement following the October 7, 1997 Council meeting.;.
The Department of Development Services has reviewed the MOU and concurs with the text and maps,
as approved by the ALUC.
r '
In allied matter, an. approved MOU is an essential step in obtaining the release of a previously allocated
$41,000.00 grant from the State Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Program. The Aeronautics
Program has been reviewing the relationship between the City of Chico and the ALUC and has been
critical of the procedural conformance with State Aeronuatics Law. This has led to a reluctance to
release the grant funding. The MOU will assist the ALUC in obtaining compliance with Aeronautics Law
and be a positive and necessary step towards receiving the allocated grant funding.
RECOMMENDATION: Review the MOU and authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement.
Attachment: Memorandum of Understanding including Exhibits A and B.
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •
•
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHICO,.
THE COUNTY OF BUTTE AND THE BUTTE COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
REVIEW OF DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS FOR
COMMENTS AND CONSISTENCY FINDINGS
i.
CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
AREA OF INFLUENCE
Section 21676.5 of the State Public Utilities Code provides that local agencies may enter into
agreements with airport land use commissions to authorize review of local agency discretionary
land use projects for comment and/or consistency findings with the adopted airport environs
plan. In order to promote the protection, preservation and continued viability of the Chico
Municipal Airport ("Airport"), the City of Chico and the County of Butte, (each of which are
hereafter referred to as "lead agency" in regard to land use decisions within their respective '
jurisdictions in the area around the Airport), and the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC), have reached mutual agreement regarding the process by which such discretionary ;
land use projects will be referred to and considered by ALUC.. - ,
Such agreement is set forth in this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the parties. + .
Section 1. General Agreement:
It is agreed between the parties hereto that discretionary land use projects, as
defined herein; that affect territory located in the Chico Municipal Airport Area of
Influence, as depicted on the attached Exhibit "A" shall be forwarded to ALUC for
comments and/or findings of consistency or inconsistency with the adopted Chico
Municipal Airport* Environs Plan. Further, all parties acknowledge the
establishment by the City of Chico of a 1,000 foot wide undeveloped aircraft
corridor approximately centered on th_e_ Sycamore Creek diversion channel as
depicted on the attached Exhibit "B".
The Airport Land ,Use Commission agrees not to initiate or join in legal action
against the City of Chico for the existing approved portions of the Foothill Park
East Subdivision which consists of approximately 140 lots.
Section 2. Discretionary Project Defined: Y ,
For the purposes of this MOU, discretionary shall include the following:
■ Use Permits, except Administrative or Minor Use Permits, issued'at the
discretion of the lead agency.
•
•
■ Tentative Parcel Maps, Tentative Subdivision Maps and revised Tentative
Maps.
■ Specific Plans, Rezones, General Plan Amendments and Zoning
Ordinance Amendments.
■ Amendments to site design standards or other development or building
standards affecting land use or building construction as related to noise or
safety compatibility, noise attenuation and lot coverage.
Section 3. Materials to be Submitted by Lead Agency; Time Period:
All discretionary projects submitted to the ALUC shall include ten (10) copies of
the project description, site plan, and all associated environmental documents.
Such submittals shall be made at least thirty (30) days prior to any anticipated
action on the project by or on behalf of the lead agency, provided however, that
for major projects, such submittals shall be made at least twenty-one (21) days
prior to the date of the next regularly scheduled monthly ALUC meeting except in
cases where compliance with such 21 day submittal schedule would create a
conflict with State'law.
Section 4. ALUC Review of Environmental Documents:
Each lead agency shall submit to ALUC all environmental documents associated
with discretionary projects, including the Notice of Preparations, in order to ensure
that all airport related issues and. concerns are explored prior to a lead agency
action. ALUC shall have the right to review and comment, during the CEQA
comment period, upon environmental documents for discretionary projects that are
within its authority to review pursuant to this MOU, or existing State law.
Section 5. Overriding of ALUC Findings; Notices to ALUC:
Should the lead agency (City of Chico or County of Butte) be in disagreement with
an ALUC finding of inconsistency for any discretionary project, legally appropriate
overriding findings supported by substantial evidence shall be prepared and
adopted pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676 and in accordance with
the standards set forth in Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County
of Los Angeles and California Aviation Council v. City of Ceres or current state of
law as either the legislature or courts may determine. The lead agency shall
provide written notice to ALUC, at least ten (10) days in advance, of all public
hearings at which the lead agency will consider adopting or intends to adopt
overriding findings. If overriding findings are adopted by the lead agency, the lead
agency will provide written notification of such action to ALUC within five (5) days
thereafter with a copy of the written findings included.
Section 6. ALUC Communications:
Each lead agency shall forward in their entirety all communications received from
ALUC relating to discretionary; projects and which are directed by ALUC to be
forwarded to the appropriate_ board or commission, and shall seek additional
information or clarification from ALUC when Board members, City Council
members or Commissioners request such information or clarification. .
Section 7. Term of MOU; Amendment or Termination:.
This MOU shall remain in effect for a maximum period of 24 months or until such
r time as a revised Comprehensive Land'Use Plan (CLUP) for the Chico Municipal
Airport is adopted by ALUC, whichever comes first. All parties agree to use due
diligence in processing and finalizing the CLUP. The combined ALUC, City and ;
County sub -committee shall meet 12 months after this MOU becomes effective to
further review the status and 1progress of the CLUP. This MOU may only be
amended or terminated by agreement of all the parties hereto.
Section 8. NOU Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act.
This project is exempt from California, Environmental Quality Act under the a
General Rule Section 15061(b)(3).
Signed and dated by the parties,hereto as follows:
FoenklinX.Cirph0air
Airport.Land Use Commission:
o - Date
utte County Land Use Commission
For the City of Chico: r
Thomas J. Lando Date .
City Manager
For the County of Butter
Fred C. Davis, Chair t Date
Butte County Board of Supervisors ,
•
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
County Counsel
County of Butte
City Attorney
City of Chico
k:\planning\alucVnou
k
t
t
k:\planning\alucVnou
ice. ♦1 •�,... z:. - _' , �
.•:'�i � ��:
'
�
iiia •.,����y�
90
i��.
• Fe
Artl.' r•.I �•�
lfv
sm'�,
�._
-+BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND AE COMMISSION +
• Department of Developmentennces • 7 CountyCenter Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • •
MEMORANDUM
M
TO: Honorable Chair and Board of Supervisors
FROM: Department of Development Services
DATE: September 30, 1997
SUBJECT:. Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Chico, Airport Land Use Commission
and the Board of Supervisors.
SUMMARY: The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has,been developing a three-way Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) with the City of Chico and the County of Butte over the past four (4) months.
The MOU is a result of the joint meeting of the ALUC, Chico City Council, Chico Planning Commission,.
Chico Airport Commission and Supervisors Dolan and Houx representing the Board of Supervisors which
occurred on April 16, 1997. The joint meeting was intended to clarify the roles of the respective';
participants in the airport planning process and develop a format by which future development within the ;
Chico Municipal Airport Area of Influence would be processed by the City, County and ALUC.
Several drafts have been prepared and reviewed by the City and ALUC with the attached signed draft'
having been approved by ALUC on September 17, 1997. It is anticipated that the Chico City Council'
will authorize the City Manager to: sign the agreement following the October 7, 1997 Council meeting.
The Department of Development Services has reviewed the MOU and concurs with the text and maps
as approved by the ALUC.
In allied matter, an. approved MOU is an essential step in obtaining the release of a previously allocated
$41,000.00 grant from the State Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Program. The Aeronautics
Program has been reviewing the relationship between the City of Chico and the ALUC and has been
critical of the procedural conformance with State Aeronuatics Law. This has led to a reluctance to,
release the grant funding. The MOU will assist the ALUC in obtaining compliance with Aeronautics Law;
and be a positive and necessary step towards receiving the allocated grant funding. ' s
RECOMMENDATION: Review the MOU and authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement.
Attachment: Memorandum of Understanding including Exhibits. A and B.
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHICO,
THE COUNTY OF BUTTE AND THE BUTTE COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
REVIEW OF DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS FOR
COMMENTS AND CONSISTENCY FINDINGS
CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
AREA OF INFLUENCE
Section 21676.5 of the State Public Utilities Code provides that local agencies may enter into
agreements with airport land use commissions to authorize review of local agency discretionary
land use projects for comment and/or consistency findings with the adopted airport environs
plan. In order to promote the protection, :preservation and continued viability of the Chico
Municipal Airport ("Airport"), the City of Chico and the County of Butte, (each of which are
hereafter referred to as "lead agency" in regard to land use decisions within their respective
jurisdictions in the area around the Airport), and the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC), have reached mutual agreement regarding the process by which such discretionary
land use projects will be referred to and considered by ALUC.
Such agreement is set forth in this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the parties.
Section 1. General Agreement:
It is agreed between the parties hereto that discretionary land use projects, as
defined herein, that affect territory located in the Chico Municipal Airport Area of
Influence, as depicted on the attached Exhibit "A" shall be forwarded to ALUC for
comments and/or findings of consistency or inconsistency with the adopted Chico
Municipal Airport Environs Plan. Further, all parties acknowledge the
establishment by the City of Chico of a 1,000 foot wide undeveloped aircraft
Corridor approximately centered on the Sycamore Creek diversion channel as
depicted on the attached Exhibit "B".
The Airport Land Use Commission agrees not to initiate or join in legal action
against the City of Chico for the existing approved portions of the Foothill Park
East Subdivision which consists of approximately 140 lots.
Section'2. Discretionary Project Defined:
For the purposes of this MOU, discretionary shall include the following:
■ Use Permits, except Administrative or Minor Use Permits, issued at the
discretion of the lead agency.
■ Tentative Parcel Maps, Tentative Subdivision Maps and revised Tentative
Maps.
■ Specific Plans, Rezones, General Plan Amendments and Zoning
Ordinance Amendments.
■ Amendments to site design standards or other development or building
standards affecting land use or building construction as related to noise or
safety compatibility, noise attenuation and lot coverage. .
Section 3. Materials to be Submitted by Lead Agency; Time Period:
All discretionary projects submitted to the ALUC shall include ten (10) copies of
the project description, site plan; and all associated environmental documents.
Such submittals shall be made at least thirty (30) days prior to any anticipated
action on the project by or on behalf of the lead agency, provided however, that
for major projects, such submittals shall be made at least twenty-one (21) days
prior to the date of the next regularly scheduled monthly ALUC meeting except in
cases where compliance with such 21 day submittal schedule would create a
conflict with State law.
Section 4. ALUC Review of Environmental Documents:
Each lead agency shall submit to ALUC all environmental documents associated
with discretionary projects; including the Notice of Preparations, in order to ensure
that all airport -related issues :and concerns are explored prior to a lead agency
action. ALUC shall have the right to review and comment, during the CEQA
comment period, upon environmental documents for discretionary projects that are
within its authority to review pursuant to this MOU, or existing State law.
Section S., Overriding of ALUC Findings; Notices to ALUC:
Should the lead agency (City of Chico or County of Butte) be in disagreement with
an ALUC finding of inconsistency for any discretionary project, legally appropriate
overriding findings supported by substantial evidence shall be .prepared and
adopted pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676 and in accordance with
the standards set forth in Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County
of Los Angeles and California Aviation Council v. City of Ceres or current state of
law as either the legislature.or courts may determine. The lead agency shall
provide written notice to ALUC, at least ten (10) days in advance, of all public
hearings at which the lead agency will consider adopting or intends to adopt
overriding findings. If overriding findings are adopted by the lead agency, the lead
agency will provide written notification of such action to ALUC within five (5) days
thereafter with a copy of the written findings included.
Section 6. ALUC Communications: .
Each lead agency shall forward in their entirety all communications received from
ALUC relating to discretionary projects and which are directed by ALUC -to be
forwarded to the appropriate board or commission, and shall seek additional
information or clarification from ALUC when Board members, City Council
members or Commissioners request such information or clarification.
Section 7. - Term of MOU; Amendment or Termination:
This MOU shall remain in effect for a.maximum period of 24 months or until such
time as a revised Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Chico Municipal
Airport is adopted by ALUC, whichever comes first. All parties agree to use due
diligence in processing and'firializing the CLUP. The combined ALUC, City and
County sub -committee shall meet 12 months after this MOU becomes effective to
further review the status and progress of the CLUP. This MOU may only be
amended or terminated by agreement of all the parties hereto.
Section 8. MOU Compliance with Califomia Environmental Quality Act:
This project is exempt from Califomia Environmental Quality Act under the
General Rule Section 15061(b)(3).
Signed and dated by the pirtiei hereto as follows:
Fort Butt Airport Land Use Commission:
6h6t nklin,. Chair
-I/Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
For the City of Chico:
Thomas J. Lando
City Manager
For the County of Butte:
Fred C. Davis, Chair
Butte County Board of Supervisors
r
r
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
County Counsel
County of Butte
City Attorney
City of Chico
t
;�;: :•mow' �^,,,��}_;::,,■ : .� .�(.'''. :`�� > �
TUN
■
M
•
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHICO,
THE COUNTY OF BUTTE AND THE BUTTE COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
REVIEW OF DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS FOR
COMMENTS AND CONSISTENCY FINDINGS
CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
AREA OF INFLUENCE
Section 21676.5 of the State Public Utilities Code provides that local agencies may enter into
agreements with airport land use commissions to authorize review of local agency discretionary
land use projects for comment and/or consistency findings with the adopted airport environs
plan. In order to promote the protection, preservation and continued viability of the Chico
Municipal Airport ("Airport"), the City of Chico and the County of Butte, (each of which are
hereafter referred to as "lead agency" in regard to land use decisions within their respective
jurisdictions in the area around the Airport), and the Butte County Airport Land Use. Commission
(ALUC), have reached mutual agreement regarding the process by which such discretionary
land use projects will be referred to and considered by ALUC.
Such agreement is set forth in this Memorandum of Understanding, (MOU). between the parties..
Section 1. General Agreement:
It is agreed between the parties hereto that discretionary land use projects, as ;
defined herein, that affect territory located in the Chico Municipal Airport Area of
Influence, as depicted on the attached Exhibit "A" shall be forwarded to ALUC for
comments and/or findings of consistency or inconsistency with the adopted Chico
Municipal Airport Environs Plan. . Further, all. parties acknowledge the
establishment by the City of Chico of a 1,000 foot wide undeveloped aircraft
corridor approximately centered on the Sycamore Creek diversion channel as
depicted on the attached Exhibit "B". -
The Airport Land Use Commission agrees not to initiate or join in legal action
against the City of Chico for the existing approved portions of the Foothill Park
East Subdivision which consists of approximately 140 lots.
Section 2. Discretionary Project Deiined:
For the purposes of this NIOU; discretionary shall include the following: +'
• Use Permits, except Administrative or' -Minor Use Permits, issued at the
discretion of the lead agency.
a�
0
■ Tentative Parcel Maps, Tentative Subdivision Maps and revised Tentative
Maps.
■ Specific Plans, Rezones, General Plan Amendments and Zoning
Ordinance Amendments.
■ Amendments ,to site, design standards or other development or building
standards affecting land use or building construction as related to noise or
safety compatibility, noise attenuation and lot coverage.
Section 3. Materials to be Submitted by Lead Agency; Time Period:
All discretionary projects submitted to the ALUC shall include ten (10) copies of
the project description, site plan, and all associated environmental documents.
Such submittals shall be made at least thirty (30) days prior to any anticipated
action on the project by or on behalf of the lead agency, provided however, that
for major projects, such submittals shall be made at least twenty-one (21) days
prior to the date of the next regularly scheduled monthly ALUC meeting except in
cases- where compliance with such 21 day submittal schedule would create a
conflict with State law.
Section 4. ALUC Review of Environmental Documents:
Each lead agency shall submit to ALUC all environmental documents associated
with discretionary projects, including the Notice of Preparations, in order to ensure
that all airport,related issues and concerns are. explored prior to a lead agency
action. ALUC shall have the right to review and comment, during the CEQA
comment period, upon environmental documents for discretionary projects that are
within its authority to review pursuant to this MOU, or existing State law.
Section 5. Overriding of ALUC Findings; Notices to ALUC:
Should the lead agency (City of Chico or County of. Butte) be in disagreement with
an ALUC finding of inconsistency for any discretionary project, legally appropriate
overriding findings supported by substantial evidence shall be prepared and
adopted pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676 and in accordance with
the standards set forth in Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County
of Los Angeles and California Aviation Council v. City of Ceres or current state of .
law as either the legislature or courts may determine. The lead agency shall
provide written notice to ALUC, at least ten (10) days in advance, of all public
hearings at which,the lead agency will consider adopting or intends to adopt
overriding findings. If overriding findings are adopted by the lead agency, the lead
agency will provide written notification of such action to ALUC within five (5) days ,
thereafter with a copy of the written .findings included.
I
Wi
r
i
i
Section 6. -ALUC Communications:
Each lead agency shall forward in their entirety all communications received from
ALUC relating to discretionary projects and which are directed by ALUC to be
forwarded to the appropriate board or commission, and shall seek additional
information or clarification from ALUC when Board members, City Council
members or Commissioners' request such information or clarification.
Section 7. - Term of MOU; Amendment or"Termination:
This MOU shall remain in effect until such time as a revised Comprehensive Land
Use Plan (CLUP) for the Chico Municipal Airport is adopted by ALUC. All parties
agree to use due diligence in processing and finalizing the CLUP. The.combined
ALUC, City and County .sub -committee shall meet 12 months after this MOU
becomes effective to further review the status and progress of the CLUP. This
MOU may only be amended or terminated by agreement of all the parties hereto.
Section 8. MOU Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act:
This project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act under the
General Rule Section 15061(b)(3).
Signed and dated by the parties hereto as follows:
For the Butte County Airpo nd Use Commission:
keKCampbell, Vice Ch
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission .
For the City of Chico:
Thomas J. Lando
City Manager .
l
For the County of Butte:
Fred C. Davis, Chair
Butte County Board of Supervisors
64 -BI /' '� 7
Date
Date
Date
I
A
' 4,
�.
w'
e�
i
f
41
CHICO AIRPORTAREA OF INFLUENCE"
SCALE: V= 1.5 Miles
APOPTED: May 21 1997
I`
".1
931
W.
CIO
ESPLANAD
or
T �
.� $ t{aR• a u 3 —
Rug!,
V'�' ,� . • • �
�� �3,otir w . ��,lr �.4`� y, ♦ Ly' y'" g!, �bti• �aT t�1
�y�� IBM
s
A .jw L
zt�'yrjF,s1"'rcy1�4
�11 S ii+f�i,i"4:���hY y A�HSYC3`.i `K.L
VI
�x0.l�''�4�'+w�Q�rc�Sti
S+h'� s,t' 's •
1y * . r �., y .c1 . r •�
�« �,.pY�tY� r. f:�t w•j '%x .S,��i�{ni*'yi�try- 1�,5 � y�
i1a
zt
t < �Y:• •�•E9
Z i ,ti*-: -^ fi,�. 1:'�t_;•'Srr.�Wti, 4�p
i+er�Xx�1��j��� P,
�•a�' Sy y�1a
i J t�.kxv,
'^was,'aIx_
%2.1
.4.f^�' �✓I��� ��4
t MP
*'�°c 2- '
nxP�PC"`b '�j e�af,^ �"""dr�r '}'�''1.4� i 'vi•' DQ I����J�� f�, 1�� Y�Y`•%
(A 1
N10.6 m 0yof I t
' C x I l . r t `•�' I �
Y—m
4, fi R•-+^ , iR 'aqui` � �'�' �f��y�/Y,m 5
S C Y +3 yj
ii ,{ `#• �`� ntt `*. , , ro 7t'� *@ L ayyrr z} x-a'xk .xr;r `'..
LK+f''+t s :a' •�5• a 'k" vt'
O (�
O L %� * y 2 } Tx kC t t� y t yi . �i ys74e 3 sLf
o % �,�'",
,,}[' , >r• rzk,- �,.fr •.-qY `,�.m,' ;V�(1F�t' %,'`'j7��.c
W 70 W Ut.\ �`. ��i Tf't �: '• `�" �;SF I�K�' dq" '�i <a'C'���+' y`SF�'i P'�, au-r'Sil`; '¢ � w MY+• �.in.M i .
0) t~ ;.p'Ch d ". FF 1' +�it yti194 �,�• 3
PF
� 1 0 1 1` , st••.■7 { �` � �i '. �, '`s ,� a +� -mac ' ,� �� �,,� ad
3 ray.` M
iJ
Ab...
W .\._._.\ t.\ ^ .: � },al t�"ti s k �`4 � J �' � �'� - �•:A 'x a ,ti
V Ys'��rg� (/�'l 91y, ) �tC - {<. J �fq'•.sr� �, *Fi
O ,y ��' rj�`i ,. `v � r r: i�g •.+�z`v"' .tq�f,.x , � ,S Ar.
ry
µs
MIr
r
yi
W x' {` •}mac hx,
�.h
f..
Ca
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHICO,
THE COUNTY OF BUTTE AND THE BUTTE COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
REVIEW OF DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS FOR
COMMENTS AND CONSISTENCY FINDINGS
CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
AREA OF INFLUENCE
Section 21676.5 of the State Public Utilities Code provides that local agencies may enter, into
agreements with airport land use commissions to authorize review of local agency discretionary
land use projects for comment and/or consistency findings with the adopted airport environs i
plan. In order to promote the protection, preservation and continued viability of the Chico
Municipal Airport ("Airport"), the City of Chico and the County, of Butte, (each of which are `.
hereafter referred to as "lead agency" in regard to land use decisions within their respective
jurisdictions in the area around the Airport), and the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC), have reached mutual agreement regarding the process by which such discretionary
land use projects will be referred to and considered by ALUC.
Such agreement is set forth in this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the parties.
Section 1. General Agreement:
It is agreed between the parties hereto that discretionary land use projects, as
defined herein, that affect territory located in the Chico Municipal Airport Area of
Influence, as depicted on the attached Exhibit "A" shall be forwarded to ALUC for
comments and/or findings of consistency or inconsistency with the adopted Chico
Municipal Airport Environs Plan. Further, all parties acknowledge the
establishment by the City of Chico of a 1,000 foot wide undeveloped aircraft
corridor approximately centered on the Sycamore Creek diversion channel as
depicted on the attached Exhibit "B". :'
The Airport Land Use Commission agrees not to initiate or join in legal action
against the City of Chico for the existing approved portions of the Foothill Park
East Subdivision which consists of approximately 140 lots.
i
Section 2. Discretionary Project Defined:
For the purposes of this MOU, discretionary shall include the following:
■ : Use Permits, except Administrative. or Minor Use Permits, issued at the
discretion of the lead agency. i
■ Tentative Parcel Maps, Tentative Subdivision Maps and revised Tentative
Maps.
■ Specific Plans, Rezones, General Plan Amendments andZoning
Ordinance Amendments.
■ Amendments to site design standards or other development or building
standards affecting land use or building construction as related to noise or
safety compatibility, noise attenuation and lot coverage.
Section 3. Materials to be Submitted by Lead Agency; Time Period:
All discretionary projects submitted to the ALUC shall include ten (10) copies of
the project description, site plan, and all associated environmental. documents:
Such submittals shall be made at least thirty (30) days prior to any anticipated:
action on the project by or on behalf.of the lead agency, provided however, that
for major projects, such submittals shall be made at least twenty-one (21) days
prior to the date of the next regularly scheduled monthly ALUC meeting except in
cases where compliance with such 21 day submittal schedule would create a
conflict with State law.
Section 4. ALUC Review of Environmental Documents:
Each lead agency shall submit to ALUC all environmental documents associated
with discretionary projects, including the Notice of Preparations, in order to ensure
that all airport related issues and concerns are explored prior to a lead agency
action. ALUC shall have the right to review and comment, during the CEQA
comment period, upon environmental documents for discretionary projects that are
within its authority to review pursuant to this MOU, or existing State law.,
Section 5. Overriding of ALUC Findings; Notices to ALUC:
Should the.lead agency (City of Chico or County of Butte) be in disagreement with
an ALUC finding of inconsistency for any discretionary project, legally appropriate
overriding findings supported by substantial evidence shall be prepared and
adopted pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676 and in accordance with
the standards set forth in Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County
of Los Angeles and California Aviation Council v. City of Ceres or current state of
law as either the legislature or courts may determine. The lead agency shall
provide written notice to ALUC, at least ten (10) days in advance, of all public
hearings at which the lead agency will consider adopting or intends to adopt
overriding findings. If overriding findings are adopted by the lead agency, the lead
agency will provide written notification of such action to ALUC within five (5) days
thereafter with a copy of the written findings included.
i
Section 6. ALUC Communications:
Each lead agency shall forward in their entirety all communications received from
ALUC relating to discretionary projects and which are directed by ALUC to be
forwarded to the appropriate board or commission, and shall seek additional
information or clarificatiori from ALUC when Board members, City Council
members or Commissioners request'such information or clarification.
Section 7. Term of MOU; Amendment or Termination:
This MOU shall remain in effect until such time as a revised Comprehensive Land
Use Plan (CLUP) for the Chico Municipal Airport is adopted by ALUC. All parties
agree to use due diligence in processing and finalizing the CLUP. The combined
ALUC, City and County sub -committee shall meet 12.,months after this MOU
becomes effective to further review the status and progress of the CLUP. This
MOU may only be amended, or terminated by agreement of all the parties.hereto.
Section 8. MOU .Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act:
This project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act under_ the
General Rule Section 15061(b)(3).
Signed and.dated by the parties hereto as follows:
For the Butte County Airpo nd Use Commission:
AUe ii Campbell, Vice ChY '
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
For the City of Chico:
Thomas J. Lando
City Manager
For the County of Butte: F
r
Fred C. Davis, Chair.
Butte County Board of Supervisors `
4
s
•
7
Date
Date
Date
H
K
� � ' �
.. �
!
•�
' � � - � ,
i
�
t
4
i `
�+
a
Ah
4 I
I
�• h
1 IIID
Oroville, California
Off'. .
\ Room
�i�s, MOT'.r
illii\�11nuE 1� ''�Will
� _�
ts1
II
I
• 1 1 1
'
• � sir•
1.
Oroville, California
1
D4.6.MINUTE ORDER -- APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH COUNTY OF
BUT AND BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION AND AUTHORIZATION FOR
CITY MANAGER TO SIGN.
At the 4/16/97 joint meeting between the City Council, the Board of Supervisors, the Butte County Airport Land
Use Commission (ALUC) and the City Airport and Planning Commissions held to discuss the review process for
land use matters within the Chico Municipal Airport area of influence, the City Council agreed to the
development of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the City, the County and ALUC to address
such matters. Subcommittees were appointed by each of these bodies to meet and draft _the MOU.
Numerous meetings and draft.MOU proposals have resulted in the MOU before the Council for consideration
this evening. The MOU was approved by the ALUC at its 9/17/97. meeting. The MOU has a term of 24 months
or until adoption by ALUC of a new comprehensive land use plan for the Airport area of influence, whichever
occurs first. This Minute Order provides for Council approval of the MOU and authorizes the City Manager to
sign it. The City Manager recommends approval of this Minute Order.
4.7. APPOINTMENT TO HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION.
At its 9/2/97 meeting, the Council declared a vacancy on the Commission fora term to expire on 1/1/99. By
memorandum dated 9/16/97, the City Clerk provides copies of applications that were on file in her office, which ;
the Council may consider in making this appointment.
4.8.. REQUEST TO CONSIDER CHARTER AMENDMENT FOR 11/98 ELECTION.
Councilmember Johnston requests Council consideration of a Charter amendment for the November 1998 ;
General Municipal Election concerning succession to office when a Council seat becomes vacant shortly after a
Municipal Election. ,
4.9.. LEAGUE OF CALIFORMA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS.
As requested by Council at its 8/19/97 meeting, it is being provided with copies of the LCC Annual Conference
resolutions dated 9/12/97 in order that it can give direction to its voting delegate (Vice Mayor Andrews) and a
alternate (Councilmember Guzzetti) when they vote on the resolutions during the LCC business session of the.
Annual Conference in San Francisco, October 12-14, 1997.
4.10. FUTURE MEETINGS.
A. General Plan meeting, The Council's next General Plan meeting is scheduled for 1027/97 at 7:00 p.m.
City staff is asking if Council would be interested in starting the meeting at 6:00 p.m. in order that City
staff could show the Michael Friedman video on design.
B. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission re: Teichert Ponds. At the 929/97 joint meeting of the l
Planning Commission and City' Council regarding disposition of Teichert Ponds, staff was directed to 1
compile more information and schedule another joint meeting on the matter.
4.11. ITEMS ADDED AFTER POSTING OF THE AGENDA,
5. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOtZ `
6. REPORTS AND COMMUNiCATI NS r
6:1. Chief of Police, memorandum dated 9-]0-97 forwarding Citizen's Option for Public Safety Grant Summary
Report for the period of 10/1 /96 - 8/30/97.
October -7,1997 Cleico City Council Page 8
S
• . r
y A
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHICO,
THE COUNTY OF BUTTE AND THE BUTTE COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
REVIEW OF DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS FOR
COMMENTS AND CONSISTENCY FINDINGS
CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
AREA OF INFLUENCE
Section 21676:5 of the State Public'Utilities Code provides that local agencies may enter into
agreements with airport land use commissions to authorize review of local agency discretionary
land use projects for comment and/or consistency findings with the adopted airport environs
plan. In order to promote the protection, preservation and continued viability of the Chico
Municipal Airport ("Airport"), the'City of Chico and the County of Butte, (each of which are
hereafter referred to as "lead agency' in regard to land use decisions within their respective
jurisdictions in the area around the Airport), and the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC), have reached mutual agreement regarding the process by which such discretionary
land use projects will be referred to and considered by ALUC.
. z
Such agreement is set forth in this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the parties.
,
Section 1. General Agreement:
It is agreed between the parties hereto that discretionary land use projects, as
defined herein, that affect territory locatedin the Chico Municipal Airport Area of
Influence, as depicted on the attached Exhibit"A" shall be forwarded to ALUC for
comments and/or findings of consistency or inconsistency with the adopted Chico
Municipal Airport Environs Plan. Further, all parties acknowledge the
establishment by the City of Chico of a 1,000 foot wide undeveloped aircraft
corridor approximately centered on the_ Sycamore Creek diversion channel as
depicted on the attached Exhibit "B".
The Airport Land Use Commission agrees not to initiate or join in legal action
against the City of Chico for the existing approved portions of the Foothill Park
East Subdivision which consists of approximately 140 lots..
Section 2. Discretionary Project Defined:
For the purposes ofithis,MOU,.discretionary shall include the following:
■ Use Permits, except Administrative or Minor Use Permits, issued at the
discretion of the lead agency.
l
■ Tentative Parcel Mads, Tentative Subdivision Maps and revised Tentative
i Maps.
■ Specific Plans, Rezones, General Plan Amendments and Zoning
Ordinance Amendments.
■ Amendments to site design standards or other development or building
standards affecting land use or building construction as related to noise or,
safety compatibility, noise attenuation and lot coverage.
Section 3. Materials to be Submitted by Lead Agency; Time Period:
All discretionary projects submitted to the ALUC shall include ten (10) copies of
the project description, site plan, and all associated environmental documents.
Such submittals shall be made at least thirty (30) days prior to any anticipated
action on the project by or on behalf of the lead agency, provided however, that
for major projects, such submittals shall be made at least twenty-one (21) days
prior to the date of the next regularly scheduled monthly ALUC meeting except in
cases where compliance with such 21 day submittal schedule would create a
conflict with State law.
Section 4: ALUC Review of Environmental Documents:.
Each lead agency shall submit to ALUC all environmental. documents associated
with discretionary projects, including the Notice of Preparations, in order to ensure
that all airport related issues and concerns are explored prior to a lead agency
action. ALUC shalli have the right to review and comment, during the CEQA
comment period, upon environmental documents for discretionary projects that are
within its authority to review pursuant to this MOU, or existing State law.
i
Section 5. Overriding of ALUC Findings; Notices to ALUC:
Should the lead agency (City of Chico or County of Butte) be in disagreement with
an ALUC finding of inconsistency for any discretionary project, legally appropriate
overriding findings supported by substantial evidence shall be prepared and
adopted pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676 and in accordance with
the standards set forth in Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County
of Los Angeles and California Aviation Council v. City of Ceres or current state of
law as either the legislature or courts may determine. The lead agency shall
provide written notice to ALUC, at least ten (10) days in advance, of all public
hearings at which the lead agency will consider adopting or intends to adopt
overriding findings. If overriding findings are adopted by the lead agency, the lead
agency will provide written notification of such action to ALUC within five (5) days
thereafter with a copy of the written findings included.
ri
Section 6., ALUC Communications:.
Each lead agency shall forward in their entirety all communications received from
ALUC relating to discretionary projects and which are directed by ALUC to be
forwarded to the appropriate board or -commission, and shall seek additional
information or clarification from ALUC when Board members, City Council
members or Commissioners request such information or clarification.
Section 7. Term of MOU; Amendment or Termination:
This MOU shall remain in effect for a maximum period of 24 months or until such
time as a revised Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Chico Municipal
Airport is adopted by ALUC, whichever comes first. All parties agree to use due
diligence in processing and finalizing the CLUP. The combined ALUC, City and
County sub -committee shall meet 12 months after this MOU becomes effective to
further review the status and progress of the CLUP. This MOU may only be
amended or terminated by agreement of all the parties hereto.
. r
Section 8. MOU Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act:
This, project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act under the
General Rule Section 15061(b)(3).
.4
Signed and dated by the parties hereto as follows:
ForJtl ButtAirport Land Use Commission:
_ , .
John-Rdnklin, Chair
butte County Airport Land Use Commission
For the City of Chico:
Thomas J. Lando
City Manager
For the County of. Butte:
Fred C. Davis, Chair
Butte County Board of Supervisors
Date
Date
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM: k.
County Counsel
County of Butte
City Attorney
City of Chico
BUTTE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Diirectoes Office
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, California 95965
Telephone: (916) 538-7601 Fax: (916) 538-7785
FAX TRANSMITTAL
Date: Monday, August 25, 1997
To: Bob Koch, Risk Manager
City of Chico
Fax No.: 895-4825
From: Thomas A. Parild, Director
County of Butte
i,
Pages: 5
Following for your review, is the draft MOU without• attachments.
• .i
i
r
4.
� DRAFT �
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHICO,
THE COUNTY OF BUTTE AND THE BUTTE COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
REVIEW OF DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS FOR
COMMENTS AND CONSISTENCY FINDINGS
CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
AREA OF INFLUENCE
Section 21676.5 of the State Public Utilities Code provides that local agencies may enter into
agreements with airport land use commissions to authorize review of local agency discretionary
land use projects for comment and/or consistency findings with the adopted airport environs.
plan. In order to promote the protection, preservation and continued viability of the Chico
Municipal Airport ("Airport"), the City of Chico and the County of Butte, (each of which are
hereafter referred to as "lead agency" in regard to land use decisions within their respective
jurisdictions in the area around the Airport), and the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC), have reached mutual agreement regarding the process by which such discretionary
land use projects will be referred to and considered by ALUC.
Such agreement is set forth in this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the parties.
Section 1. General Agreement:
f
It is agreed between the parties hereto that discretionary land use projects, as
defined herein, that affect territory located in the Chico Municipal Airport Area of
Influence, as depicted on the attached Exhibit "A" shall be forwarded to ALUC for
comments and/or findings of consistency or inconsistency, with the adopted Chico
Municipal Airport Environs Plan. Further, all parties acknowledge the
establishment by the City of Chico of a 1,000 foot wide undeveloped aircraft
corridor approximately centered on the Sycamore Creek diversion channel as
depicted on the attached Exhibit "B".
f
The Airport Land Use Commission agrees not to initiate or join in legal action
against the City of Chico for the existing approved portions of the Foothill Park
East Subdivision which consists of approximately 140 lots.
Section 2. Discretionary Project Defined:
For the purposes of this MOU, discretionary shall include the following:
■ Use Permits, except Administrative or Minor Use Permits, issued at the
discretion of the lead agency.
■ Tentative Parcel Maps, Tentative Subdivision Maps and revised Tentative
Maps.
■ Specific Plans, Rezones, General Plan Amendments and -Zoning
Ordinance Amendments.
■ Amendments to site design standards or other development or building
standards affecting land use or building construction as related to noise or
safety compatibility, noise attenuation and lot coverage.
• t
Section 3. Materials to be Submitted by Lead Agency; Time Period:
All discretionary projects submitted to the ALUC shall include ten (10) copies of
the project description, site plan, and all associated environmental documents.
Such submittals shall be made at least thirty (30) days prior to any anticipated
action on the project by or on behalf of the lead agency, provided however, that
for major projects, such submittals shall be made at least twenty-one (21) days
prior to the date of the next regularly scheduled monthly ALUC meeting except in
cases where compliance with such 21 day submittal schedule would create a
conflict with State law.
Section 4. ALUC Review of Environmental Documents:
Each lead agency shall submit to ALUC all environmental documents associated
with discretionary projects, including the Notice of Preparations, in order to ensure
that ail airport related issues and concerns are•explored prior to a lead agency
action. ALUC shall have the right to review and comment, during the CEQA
comment period, upon environmental documents for discretionary projects that are
within its authority to review pursuant to this MOU, or existing State law.
Section S. Overriding of ALUC Findings;i Notice's to ALUC:
. iJ
Should the lead agency (City of Chico or County of Butte) be in disagreement with
an ALUC finding of inconsistency for any discretionary project, legally appropriate
overriding findings supported by substantial evidence shall be prepared and
adopted pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676 and in accordance with
the standards set forth in Topanga Association fora Scenic Community v. County
of Los Angeles and California Aviation Council v. City of Ceres or current state of
law as either the legislature or'courts may determine. The lead agency shall
provide written notice to ALUC, at least ten (10) days in advance, of all public
hearings at which the lead agency will consider adopting or intends to adopt
overriding findings. If overriding findings are adopted by the lead agency, the lead
agency will provide written notification of such action to ALUC within five'(5) days
thereafter with a copy of the written findings included.
Section 6.
ALUC Communications:
Each lead agency shall forward in their entirety all communications received from
ALUC relating to discretionary projects and which are directed by ALUC to be
forwarded to the appropriate board or commission, and shall seek additional
information or clarification from ALUC when Board members, City Council
members or Commissioners request such information or clarification.
Section 7. Term of MOU; Amendment or Termination:
This MOU shall remain in effect until such time as a'revised Comprehensive Land
Use Plan (CLUP) for the Chico Municipal Airport is adopted by ALUC. All parties
agree to use due diligence in processing and finalizing the CLUP: The combined
ALUC, City and County sub -committee shall meet 12 months after this MOU
becomes effective to further review the status and progress of the CLUP. This
MOU may only be amended or terminated by agreement of all the parties hereto.
Section 8. MOU Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act:
This project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act under the
General. Rule Section 15061(b)(3).
Signed and dated by the parties hereto as follows:
For the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission:
y ,
Allen Campbell, Vice Chair
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
For the City of Chico: .
Thomas J. Lando
City Manager
t
For the County of Butte:
Fred C. Davis, Chair
Butte County Board of Supervisors
Date
Date
Date
9
I-JEAj D E 71))
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHICO,
THE COUNTY OF BUTTE AND THE BUTTE COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
REVIEW OF DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS FOR
COMMENTS AND CONSISTENCY FINDINGS _
CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
AREA OF INFLUENCE
Section 21676.5 of the State Public Utilities Code provides that local agencies may enter into
agreements with airport land use commissions to authorize review of local agency discretionary
land use projects for comment and/or consistency findings with the adopted airport environs
plan. In order to promote the protection, preservation and continued viability of the Chico
Municipal Airport ("Airport"), the City of Chico and the County of Butte, (each of which are
hereafter referred to as "lead agency' in regard to land use decisions within their respective
jurisdictions in the area around the Airport), and the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC), have reached mutual agreement regarding the process by which such discretionary
land use projects will be referred to and considered by ALUC.
Such agreement is set forth in this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the parties.
Section 1. General Agreement:
It is agreed between the parties hereto that discretionary land use projects, as
defined herein, that affect territory located in the Chico Municipal Airport Area of
Influence, as depicted on the attached Exhibit "A" shall be forwarded to ALUC for
comments and/or findings of consistency or inconsistency with -the adopted Chico
Municipal Airport Environs Plan. Further, the establishment by the City of Chico
of a 1.000 foot wide undeveloW aircraft flight corridor approximately centered on
the Sy
camore Creek diversion -channel as shown on the attached map_(Exhibit
u»
Section 2. Discretionary Project Defined:
For the purposes of this MOU, discretionary shall include the following:'
,,
Use Permits, except Administrative or Minor Use Permits, issued at the
discretion of the lead agency.
Tentative Parcel Maps, Tentative ,Subdivision Maps and revised Tentative
Maps.
Specific Plans, Rezones, General Plan Amendments and Zoning
Ordinance Amendments.
Amendments to site design standards or other development or building
standards affecting land use or building construction as related to noise or
safety compatibility, noise attenuation and lot coverage.
Section 3. Materials to be Submitted by Lead Agency; Time Period:
All discretionary projects submitted to the ALUC shall include ten (10) copies of
the project description, site plan, and all associated environmental documents.
Such submittals shall be made at least thirty (30) days prior to any anticipated
action on the project by or on behalf of the lead agency, provided however, that
for major projects, such submittals shall be made at least twenty-one (21) days
prior to the date of the next regularly scheduled monthly ALUC meeting except in
cases where compliance with such 21 day submittal schedule 'would create a
conflict with State law.
Section 4. ALUC Review of Environmental Documents:
Each lead agency shall submit to ALUC all environmental documents associated
with discretionary projects,` including the Notice of Preparations, in order to ensure
that all airport related issues and concerns are explored prior to a ,lead agency
action. ALUC shall have the right to review and comment, during the CEQA
comment period, upon environmental documents for discretionary projects.that are
within its authority to review pursuant to this MOU, or existing State law.
Section 5. Overriding of ALUC Findings; Notices to ALUC:
Should the lead agency (City of Chico or County of Butte) be in disagreement with
an ALUC finding of inconsistency for any discretionary project, legally appropriate
overriding findings supported by substantial' evidence shall be prepared and
adopted pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676 and in accordance with
the standards set forth in Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County
of Los Angeles and Califoroia Aviation Council v. City of Ceres. The lead agency
shall provide written notice: to ALUC, at least ten (10) days in advance, of all public
'hearings at which the lead agency will consider adopting or intends to adopt
overriding findings. If overriding findings are adopted by the lead agency, the lead
agency will provide writteh notification of such action to ALUC within five (5) days
thereafter with a copy of the written findings included.
Section 6., ALUC Communications: . ;
Each lead agency shall forward in their entirety all communications received from
ALUC relating to discretionary projects and which are directed by ALUC to be
forwarded to the appropriate board or commission, .and shall seek additional
information or clarification from ALUC when Board members,. City Council
members or Commissioners request such information or clarification.
Section 7. _ Term of MOU; Amendment or Termination:
This MOU shall remain in effect until such time as a revised Comprehensive Land
Use Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport is adopted by ALUC. It may only be
amended or terminated by agreement of all the parties hereto.
Signed and dated by the parties hereto as follows:
For the City of Chico:
Thomas J. Lando Date
City Manager
For the County of Butte:
( ) bate
For the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission:
Date
Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
City of Chico
County Counsel
County of Butte
k:\planning\alucVnou
�G /$ /997 JO6uT "MEET&16- WICXW.SOf
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHICO,
THE COUNTY OF BUTTE AND THE BUTTE COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
REVIEW OF DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS FOR
COMMENTS AND CONSISTENCY FINDINGS
CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
AREA OF INFLUENCE
Section 21676.5 of the State Public Utilities Code provides that local agencies may enter into
agreements with airportland use commissions to authorize review of local agency discretionary
land use projects for comment and/or consistency findings with the adopted' airport environs
plan. In order to promote the protection, preservation and continued viability of the Chico
Municipal Airport ("Airport"), the City of Chico and the County of Butte, (each of which are
hereafter referred to as "lead agency" ,in regard to land use decisions within their respective
jurisdictions in the area around the Airport), and the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC), have reached mutual agreement regarding the process by which such discretionary
land use projects will be referred to and considered'by ALUC.
r -
Such agreement is set forth in this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the parties.
Section 1. General Agreement:
It is agreed between the'parties hereto that discretionary land use projects, as
defined herein, that affect territory located in the Chico Municipal Airport Area of
Influence, as depicted on the attached Exhibit "A" shall be forwarded to ALUC for
comments and/or findings of consistency or inconsistency with the adopted Chico
Municipal Airport Environs Plan. Further, all parties acknowledge the
establishment by the City of Chico of a 9,000 foot wide undeveloped aircraft
corridor approximately centered on the Sycamore Creek diversion channel as
depicted on the attached Exhibit `B" Further, it is acknowledged that the proposed
MOA subdivision development known as "Foothill Park East" as previously approved by
the Chico City Council is hereby recognized .as a residential subdivision.
Subsequent phases of this subdivision which require the processing of a 4entative
subdivision map shall be referred to ALUC for review and comment as to safety
and noise issues only. f
Section 2. Discretionary Project Defined:
For the purposes of this MOU, discretionary,shall include the following:
Use Permits, except Administrative or Minor Use Permits, issued at the
discretion of the lead agency.
I
Tentative Parcel Maps, Tentative Subdivision Maps and revised Tentative
Maps.
Specific Plans, Rezones, General Plan Amendments and Zoning
Ordinance Amendments.
Amendments to site design standards or other development or building
standards affecting land usE: or building construction as related to noise or
safety compatibility, noise attenuation and lot coverage.
r
Section 3. Materials to be. Submitted by Lead Agency; Time Period:
All discretionary projects submitted to the ALUC shall include ten (10) copies of
the project description, site plan, and all associated environmental documents.
Such submittals shall be made at least thirty (30) days prior to any anticipated
action on the project by or on behalf of.the lead agency, provided however, that
for major projects, such submittals shall be made at least twenty-one (21)'days
prior to the date of the next regularly scheduled monthly ALUC meeting except in
Pcv�aps cases where compliance with such 21 day submittal schedule would create a
conflict with State law.
14 1 S�a}wk. Quuaw6c 11 +Af* T M��+61y N -lows addnssed
y
Section 4.
Section 5.
4PP CA 5075
W/ sup"CE4> D
Wo2vi n/ 6.
ALUC Review of Environmental Documents:
Each lead agency shall submit to ALUC all environmental documents associated
with discretionary projects, including the Notice of Preparations, in order to ensure
that all airport related issues and concerns are explored prior to a lead "agency
action. ALUC shall have the right to review and comment, during the CEQA
comment period, upon environmental documents for discretionary projects that are
within its authority to review pursuant to this MOU,'.or existing State law.
Overriding of ALUC Findings; Notices to ALUC:
Should the lead agency (City of Chico or County of Butte) be in disagreement with,
an ALUC finding of, inconsistency for any discretionary project, legally appropriate
overriding findings supported by substantial evidence shall be prepared and
adopted pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676 and in accordance with
the standards set forth in law. The lead agency shall provide written notice to
ALUC, at least ten (10) days in advance, of all public hearings at which the lead
agency will consider adopting or intends to adopt overriding findings. If overriding
findings are adopted by the lead agency, the lead agency will provide written
notification of such action to ALUC within five (5) days thereafter with a copy of
the written findings included.
I
.%1
Section 6.. ALUC Communications:
Each lead agency shall forward in their entirety all communications received from
ALUC relating to discretionary projects and which are directed by ALUC to be
forwarded to the appropriate board or commission, and shall seek additional
information or clarification from ALUC when Board members, City Council
members or Commissioners request such information or clarification.
Section 7. Term of MOU; Amendment or Termination:
This MOU shall remain in effect until such time as a revised, Comprehensive Land
Use Plan (CLUP) for the Chico Municipal Airport is adopted by ALUC. All parties
aciree to use due diligence in processing and finalizing the CLUP. The combined
ALUC. City and County sub -committee shall meet 12 months after this MOU
becomes effective to further review the status and progress of the CLUP.. This
MOU may only be amended or terminated by agreement of all the parties hereto.
Section S. MOU Compliance with C QA:
The adoption of this MOU is a proiect which is exempt from CEQA under the
General Rule Section 15061(b)(3).
Signed and dated by the partieshereto,as'follows:
For the City of Chico:
Thomas J. Lando r,
City Manager
For. the County of Butte: ;
For the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission:
Chair
Date
i'
t
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
t'
City Attorney
City of Chico
County Counsel <+
County of Butte
'4
i.
i
. i
i.
k:\planning\aluc\mou 9
t
MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Director's Office
TO: Tom Lando, City Manager.,
Dave Guzzetti, Councilmember
Mary Andrews, Councilmember
Coleen Jarvis, Councilmember
Supervisor Mary Anne Houx
Supervisor Jane Dolan
Nina Lambert, ALUC Commissioner
Fred Gerst, ALUC Commissioner
Allen Campbell, ALUC Commissioner
Paula Leasure, Principal Planner
@teve4-Luc�s i-atg Planner
FROM: T mas A. Pilo,/Actor
SUBJECT: ITY\COUNTY AIRPORT, LAND USE COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING - MEETING
DATE: August 14, 1997.
This is memo is to confirm .that a meeting regarding the above-referenced subject has
been scheduled for 2:00 p.m., on Monday, August 18, 1997. The meeting will be held at
the Chico Municipal Center in Conference Room No. 2, located at 421 Main Street in
Chico.
Jb
. U NrTb 6/zEE�
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHICO,
THE COUNTY OF BUTTE AND THE BUTTE COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
REVIEW OF DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS FOR
COMMENTS AND CONSISTENCY FINDINGS
CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
AREA OF' INFLUENCE
Section 21676.5 of the State Public Utilities Code provides that local agencies may enter into
agreements with airport land use commissions to authorize review of local agency discretionary
land use projects for comment and/or consistency findings with the adopted airport environs
plan. In order to promote the protection, preservation and continued viability of the Chico
Municipal Airport ("Airport"), the City of Chico and the County of Butte, (each of which are
hereafter referred to as "lead -agency" in regard to land use decisions within their respective
jurisdictions in the area around the Airport), and the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC), have reached mutual agreement regarding the process by which such discretionary
land use projects will be referred to and considered by ALUC.
Such agreement is set forth in this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the parties.
Section 1. General Agreement:
It is agreed between the parties hereto that discretionary land use projects, as
defined herein, that affect territory located in the Chico Municipal Airport Area of
Influence, as depicted on the attached Exhibit "A" shall be forwarded to ALUC for
comments and/or findings of consistency or inconsistency with the.adopted Chico
Municipal Airport Environs Plan. Further, the establishment by the City of Chico
of a 1,000 foot wide unde_v1ped aircraft flight corridor approximately centered on
the Sycamore Creek diversion channel as shown on the attached map (Exhibit
FmmILL REFERENce �
Section 2. Discretionary Project Defined:
For the purposes of this MOU, discretionary shall include the following:
Use Permits, except Administrative or Minor Use Permits, issued at the
discretion of the lead agency.
Tentative Parcel Maps, Tentative Subdivision Maps and revised Tentative
Maps.
Specific Plans,' Rezones, General Plan Amendments and Zoning
Ordinance Amendments.
Amendments to site design standards or other development or building
standards affecting land use or building construction as related to noise or
safety compatibility, noise attenuation. and lot coverage.
Section 3. Materials to be Submitted by Lead Agency; Time Period:
All discretionary projects submitted to the ALUC shall include ten (10) copies of
the project description, site plan, and all associated environmental documents.
Such submittals shall be made at least thirty (30) days prior to any, anticipated
action on the project by or on behalf of the lead agency, provided however, that
for major projects, such submittals shall be made at least twenty-one (21) days
prior to the date of the next regularly scheduled monthly ALUC meeting except in
cases where compliance with such 21 day submittal schedule would create a
conflict with State law.
Section 4. ALUC Review of. Environmental Documents:
Each lead agency shall submit to ALUC all environmental documents associated
with discretionary projects, including the Notice of Preparations, in order to ensure
that all airport related issues, and concerns are explored prior to a lead agency
action. ALUC shall have the right to review and comment, during the CEQA
comment period, upon environmental documents for discretionary projects that are
within *its authority to review pursuant to this MOU, or existing State law.
Section 5. Overriding of ALUC Findings; Notices to ALUC:
Should the lead agency (City of Chico or County of Butte) be in disagreement with
an ALUC finding of inconsistency for any discretionary project, legally appropriate
overriding findings supported by substantial evidence shall be prepared and
adopted pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21,676 and in accordance with curr d -
the standards set forth in +„ c4M
cafes -Ari ^^'' ^'•"'^ The lead agency
shall provide written notice to ALUC, at least ten (10) days in adv e, o a ub i'
hearings at which the lead agency will consider adopting or intends to adopt
overriding findings. If overriding findings are adopted by the lead agency, the lead
agency will provide written notification of such action to ALUC within five (5) days
thereafter with a copy of the written findings included.
Section 6. ALUC Communications:
Each lead.agency shall forward in their entirety all communications received from
ALUC relating to discretionary projects and which are directed by ALUC to be
forwarded to the appropriate board or commission, and shall seek additional
information or clarification from ALUC when Board members, City Council
members or Commissioners request such information or clarification.
a alt -• � _ � -
fe
t
Section 7. Term of MOU; Amendment or Termination:
This MOU shall remain in effect until such time as a revised Comprehensive Land
Use Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport is adopted by ALUC. It may only be
amended or terminated by agreement of all the parties,hereto.
Signed and dated by the parties hereto as follows: I YR STAINS R EVI E V I NO SvNfer
For the City of Chico: `
Thomas J. Lando Date'
City Manager
1Y r
For the County of Butte:
f
( ) Date
For the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission:
( ) Date
Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
City of Chico
County Counsel
County of Butte
kAplanning\aluc\mou 4
PO
jwgz
j� r:.�r,:;: . �.: !� ��;,:.�' : ;.; .. •-ski`
a ,. Ate`
/���V'yly�. .. • •�A•, • ,'tel-'"T,� �
w.: it
it t i �, �� . � � ••�� �';;"• `��
�..• � ����-ter � /
.r'
-1r2,9JI1 41%4c
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHICO,
THE COUNTY OF BUTTE AND THE BUTTE COUNTY
AIRPORT (LAND USE COMNIISSION
REVIEW OF DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS FOR
COMMENTS AND CONSISTENCY FINDINGS
CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
AREA OF INFLUENCE
Section 21676.5 of the State Public Utilities qpde provides that local agencies
may enter into agreements with airport land use commissions to authorize review of local
agency discretionary land use projects for comment and/or consistency. finding's with the
adopted airport environs plan. In order to promote the protection, preservation and
continued viability of the Chico Municipal Airport ("Airport"), the City of Chico and the
County of butte, (each of which are hereafter referred to as "lead agency" in regard to
land use decisions within their respective jurisdictions in the area around the Airport),
and the Butte County airport Land Use commission (ALUC), have reached mutual {
agreement regarding the process by which such discretionary land use projects will be
referred to and considered by ALUC.
Such agreement is set forth in this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
r
between the parties. r
Section 1. General Agreement. It is agreed between the parties hereto that
d
discretionary land use projects, as defined herein, that affect territory located in the Chico
Municipal AirportArea of Influence, as depicted on the attached Exhibit "A", shall be
forwarded to ALUC for comments and/or findings of consistency or inconsistency with '
the adopted Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan.
W... / ! iJiiW1/f71%(!1116YU
•. su[7%111!AYi'L!fu%i.-�_.i. ! _MUMM.1%/I fK_WfIl!!!L�
�/T%YLIlf/itiritilwi�z==%i
Section 2. 'Discretionary Project Defined. For the purposes of this MOV, discretionary
shall include the following:
Use Permits, except administrative or minor use permits, issued at the discretion
of the lead agency.
Tentative Parcel Maps, Tentative subdivision Maps and revised Tentative Maps.
Specific Plans, rezones, General Plan amendments and zoning Ordinance
amendments. '
Amendments to site design standards or other development or building standards
affecting land use or building construction as related to noise or safety
compatibility, noise attenuation and lot coverage.
Section 3. Materials to be Submiitted by Lead Agency; Time Period. All
discretionary projects submitted to the ALUC shall include ten (10) copies of the project
description, site plan, and all associated environmental documents. Such submittals shall
be made at least thirty (30) days prior to any anticipated action on the project by or on
behalf of the lead agency, provided/however, that for major projects, such submittals
shall be made at least twenty-one (2 1) days prior to the date of the next regularly
scheduled monthly ALUC meeting except in cases where compliance with such 21 day .
submittal schedule would create a conflict with state law.
Section 4. ALUC Review of Environmental Documents. Each lead agency shall
submit to ALUC all environmental documents associated with discretionary projects,
including the Notice of Preparation, in order to ensure that all airport related issues and
concerns are explored prior to a lead agency action. ALUC shall have the right to review
and comment, during the CEQA comment period, upon environmental documents for
discretionary projects that are within its authority to review pursuant to this MOU, or
existing Sate law.
Section 5. Override of ALUC Findings; Notices to ALUC. Should the lead agency
(City of Chico or County of Butte) be in disagreement with an ALUC finding of
inconsistency for any Discretionary Project, legally appropriate overriding findings
supported by substantial evidence shall be prepared and adopted pursuant to Public
Utilities Code section 21676 and in accordance with the standards set forth in Tse
Association for a Sc=_ic Commu_n_ity. v. County of Los Angeles and California Aviation
Council v. City of Ceres. The lead agency shall provide written notice to ALUC, at least
ten 910) days in advance, of all public hearings at which the lead agency will consider
adopting or intends to adopt override findings. If override findings are adopted by the
lead agency, the lead agency will provide written notification of such action to ALUC
within five (5) days thereafter with it copy of the written findings included.
Section 6. ALUC Communications. Each lead agency shall forward in their entirety all
communications received from ALUC relating to discretionary projects -and which are
directed by ALUC to be forwarded to the appropriate board or commission, and shall
seek additional information or clarification from ALUC when Board members, City
Council members or Commissioners request such information or clarification.
Secdon7. Term of MOU; Amendment or Termintion. This MOU shall remain in
effeceun u"c tie as a revised Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Chico
Municipal Airport is adopted by ALUC. It may only be amended or terminated by
agreement of all the parties hereto. f
Signed and dated by the parties hereto as follows:
For, the City of Chico:
Thomas J. Lando Date
City Manager
For the County of Butte:
f .
( ) Date
6 '
4
For the Butte County Airport
t
11
JUL- 9-97 WED 10:23.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I
15
16',
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CITYOFCHICO
FAX N0. 916 8954825
0
P. 03
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF
CHICO, THE COUNTY OF BUTTE AND THE BUTTE COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
REVIEW OF DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS FOR
COMMENTS AND CONSISTENCY FINDINGS
:
CHICO'MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
AREA OF INFLUENCE DRAFT
Section 21676.50f the State Public Utilities Code provides that local agencies
may enter into agreements with airport land use commissions to authorize review of local
agency discretionary land use projects for comment and/or consistency findings with the
adopted airport environs plan. In order to promote the protection, preservation and
continued viability of the Chico Municipal Airport ("Airport"), the City of Chico and the
County of Butte, (each of which are hereafter referred to as "lead agency" in regard to.
land use decisions within their respective jurisdictions in the area around the Airport),
and the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), have reached mutual
agreement regarding the process by which such discretionary land use projects will be
referred to and considered by ALUC.
Such agreement is set forth in this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between the parties.
Section 1. General Agreement_ It is agreed between the parties hereto that
r
discretionary land use projects, as defined herein, that affect territory located in the Chico
Municipal Airport Area of Influence, as depicted on the attached Exhibit "A", shall be
forwarded to ALUC for comments and/or findings of consistency or inconsistency with the
adopted Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. Further, the establishment by the City of
Chico of a 1,000 foot wide undeveloped aircraft flight corridor approximately centered on
the Sycamore Creek diversion channel, on the northerly and easterly boundaries of.the
proposed.subdivision development known as "Foothill Park East", as previously
recommended by ALUC, is hereby recognized, and itis hereby agreed that Foothill Park
East is a residential subdivision and shall be developed as such.
7/9f97
i
f
JUL- 9-97 WED 10:24
11
21
31
4
61
71
gl
9'
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CITYOFCHICO FAX NO 916 8954825 P.04
• • DRAFT
Section 2. Discretionary Project Defined. For the purposes of this MOU, discretionary
projects shall include the following:
• Use -permits, except administrative or minor use permits, issued at the discretion of
the lead agency.
• Tentative Parcel Maps, Tentative Subdivision Maps and Revised Tentative Maps.
?.-Specific. Plans, rezones, General. Plamamendments. and Zoning...Ordinance_
amendments.
• Amendments to site design standards or other development or building standards
affecting land use or building construction as related to noise or safety compatibility,
noise attenuation and lot coverage.
Section 3. Materials to be Submitted by Lead Agency; Time Period. All
discretionary projects submitted to the ALUC shall include ten (10) copies of the project
description, site plan, and all associated environmental documents. ' Such submittals
shall be made at least thirty (30) days prior to any anticipated action on 'the project by or
on behalf of the lead agency, provided, however, that for major projects, such submittals
shall be made at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the date of the next regularly
scheduled monthly ALUC meeting except in cases where compliance with such 21 -day
submittal schedule would create a conflict with State law.
Section 4. ALUC Review of Environmental Documents. Each lead agency shall
submit.to ALUC all environmental documents associated with discretionary projects,
including. the Notice of Preparation, in order to ensure that all airport related issues and
concerns are explored prior to a lead agency action. ALUC shall have the right to review
and comment, during the CEQA comment period, upon environmental documents for
discretionary projects that are within its authority to review pursuant to this MOU, or
existing State law.
Section 5. Override of ALUC Findings; Notices to ALUC. Should the lead agency
disagree with an ALUC finding of inconsistency for,any discretionary project.subject to
the'provisions of this MOU and proceed to override such ALUC finding, the lead agency
will make appropriate findings supporting the override which are supported by substantial
;I evidence, as required by Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code. The lead agency
11 shall provide written notice to ALUC, at least ten.(10) days in advance, of all public
7/"7
i
JUL- 9-97 WED -10:24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1s
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
26
27
28
CITYOFCHICO FAX N0. 916 8954825 P.05
4 -
DRAFT
hearings at which the lead agency will consider adopting or intends to adopt override
findings. If override findings are adopted by the lead agency, the lead agency will
provide written: notification of such action to ALUC within -.five (5) days thereafter.
Section 6. ALUC Communications. Each lead agency shall forward in their entirety all
communications received from ALUC relating to discretionary projects and which are
directed by ALUC to be forwarded to the appropriate board or commission, and shall
seek additional information or"clarification from ALUC when Board members, City
Council members or commissioners request such information or clarification.
Section 7. Term of MOU; Amendment or Termination. This MOU shall remain in
effect until such time as a revised comprehensive land use plan for the Chico Municipal
Airport is adopted by ALUC. It may only be amended or terminated by agreement of all
the parties hereto.
.Signed and dated by the parties hereto as follows:
For the City of Chico: 4'
Thomas J. Lando
City. Manager
For the County of Butte:
For the Butte County Airport
Land Use Commission:
Chair
_F
.r
7/9197
it
Date
Date
3
• 1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
'{ 1
1-2
13
14i
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24-
26
426
26
27
28
ki
EU LUcU vl i Ivr-vn lvv rnn nv. 0 I OJ,IYVL.1
4
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
i
City Attorney
City of Chico i
County Counsel
County of Butte ;
-
•
is
v
116
FROrti AW C, StAIS 'tU ALuL.
,j The following modifications were acceptable to the Sub -Committee:
F,
s
Section 1:1 General Agreement.
Starting Line 23: Further, the establishment by the City of Chico of a 1,000 foot wide
undeveloped aircraft corridor approximately centered on the Sycamore Creek diversion
channel as depicted on the attached Exhibit "B': on the northerly and easterly
boundarqes.of the Further, the proposed subdivision development known as "Foothill
Park East", as previously recommended by AL , approved by the Chico City
Council is hereby recognized, and it is hereby agr=eed acknowledged that Foothill
Park East is a residential subdivision and bedevelopedhas been approved by
the Chico City Council as such.
MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ,
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
To: Supervisor Jane Dolan
Supervisor Mary Anne Houx
From: Tom Parilo
Subject: JOINT MEETING REGARDING
` CHICO INDUSTRIAL AIRPORT AREA OF INFLUENCE
Date: July 23, 1997 =
0
Attached, for your information is a copy of the MOU that was reviewed by the ALUC MOU
Subcommittee with their recommended changes highlighted (Attachment No. 1). Also #
attached is a copy of the MOU reflecting the changes (Attachment No. 2) made by the
ALUC Subcommittee and subsequently approved by ALUC at their meeting on s
Wednesday, July 16, 1997. If the Chico Subcommittee concurs with the changes as
approved by ALUC, it is recommended that the MOU-be presented to the City of Chico
Council and the Board of Supervisors for adoption.
If you have any questions, please contact either Steve Lucas or myself at 538-7601
Monday through Thursday,.8:00'a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
f
jb:
Attachments
1. Reviewed Copy of MOU
2. ALUC Approved Copy of MOU w/changes '•
i
JUL- 9-97.WED 10:23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11!
12
13
14
15
16
17
181
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a
CITYOFCHICO FAX NO. 916 8954825 P.03
40 0
Attachment No. 1
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF
CHICO, THE COUNTY OF BUTTE AND THE BUTTE COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
REVIEW OF DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS FOR
COMMENTS AND CONSISTENCY FINDINGS
CHlCO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT DRAFT
AREA OF INFLUENCE
Section 21676.5 of the State Public Utilities Code provides that local agencies
may enter into agreements with airport land use commissions to authorize review of local
agency discretionary land use projects for comment and/or consistency findings with the
adopted airport environs plan. In order to promote the protection, preservation and
continued viability of the Chico Municipal Airport ("Airport"), the City of Chico and the
County of Butte, (each of which are hereafter referred to as "lead agency" in regard to
land use decisions within their respective jurisdictions in the area around the Airport),
and the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), have reached mutual
agreement regarding the process by which such discretionary land use projects will be
referred to and considered by ALUC.
Such agreement is set forth in this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
I between the parties.
Section 1. General Agreement it is agreed between the parties hereto that
discretionary land use projects, as defined herein, that affect territory located in -the Chico
Municipal Airport Area of Influence, as depicted on the attached Exhibit "A", shall be
forwarded to ALUC for comments and/or findings of consistency or inconsistency with the
adopted Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. Further, the establishment by the City of
Chico of a 1,000 foot wide undeveloped -aircraft flight corridor approximately centered on
AS DEFICCEP IP Ext' 1611 "13"-
the
Bthe Sycamore Creek diversion channel" �._ _v r r
p p sed subdivision development known as "Foothill Park East as.previousJy.
.. ....,,,.Y
APPRovE_v SY -Mg " MOCK- Ac0ov046oEO
is hereby recognized, and it is hereby agfeeE that. FoothillrPark
Is AfOROvE0 0,1 TME of E -Vow.
East is a residential subdivision and shall-be-deve l as such.
7/9197
JUL- 9-97 WED 10:24
yLvyCt'
011 1�G��
1 r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CITYOFCHICO
0
FAX NO. 916 8954825
•
N. 04
DRAFT
Section 2. Discretionary Project Defined. For the purposes of this MOU, discretionary
projects shall include the following:
• Use permits, except administrative or minor use permits, issued at the discretion of
the lead agency.
• Tentative Parcel Maps, Tentative Subdivision Maps and Revised Tentative Maps.
• Specific Plans, rezones, General Plan amendments and Zoning Ordinance
amendments.
• Amendments to site design standards or other development or building standards
affecting land use or building construction as related to noise or safety compatibility,
noise attenuation and lot coverage. '
Section 3. Materials to be Submitted by Lead Agency; Time Period. All
discretionary projects submitted to the ALUC shall include ten (10) copies of the project
description, site plan, and all associated environmental documents. Such submittals
shall be made at least thirty (30) days prior to any anticipated action on the project by or
on behalf of the lead agency, provided, however, that for major projects, such submittals.
shall be made at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the date of the next regularly
scheduled monthly ALUC meeting except in cases where compliance with such 21 -day
submittal schedule would create a conflict with State law.
Section 4. ALUC Review of Environmental Documents. Each lead agency shall
submit to ALUC all environmental documents associated with discretionary projects,
including the Notice of Preparation, in order to ensure that all airport related issues and
concerns are explored prior to a lead agency action. ALUC shall have the right to review
and comment, during the CEQA comment period, upon environmental documents for
discretionary projects that are within its authority to review pursuant to this MOU, or
existing State law.
Section 5. Override of ALUC Findings; Notices to ALUC. Should the lead agency.
disagree with an ALUC finding of inconsistency for any discretionary_ project, subject to
the provisions of this MOV and proceed to override such ALUC finding, the lead agency
will make appropriate'findings supporting the override which are supported by substantial
evidence, as required by Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code. The lead agency
` shall provide written notice to ALUC, at least ten (10) days in advance, of all public
7/9/97
i
JUL-9-97 WED 10:24 CITYOFCHICO
FAX
N0. 916
8954825
P.05
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9-
10
11
12.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- ��,��� •®RAFT...
iearings at which the lead agency will consider. adopting or intends to adopt override
Indings: If override findings are adopted by the lead agency, the lead agency will
arovide written notificatio f such action to ALUC within five (5) days thereafter.
Section 6. ALUC Communications. Each lead agency shall forward in their entirety all
communications received from ALUC relating to discretionary projects and which are
directed by ALUC to be forwarded to the appropriate board or commission, and shall
seek additional information or clarification from ALUC when Board members, City
Council members or commissioners request such information or clarification.
Section 7. Term of MOU; Amendment or Termination. This- MOU shall remain in
effect until such time as a revised comprehensive land use plan for the Chico Municipal
Airport is adopted by ALUC. It may only be amended or terminated by agreement of all
the parties hereto. '
Signed and dated by the parties hereto as follows:
For the City of Chico:-
Thomas
hico:
T omas J. Lando Date
City Manager
For the County of Butte:
For the Butte County Airport
Land Use Commission: -
Chair
117/9197
Date
Date
3
c
JUL- �'yf
1
2
.3
4
5
•6
7
8
9
10
'{ 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
1�8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to lu;cD t,ifrur�ni�u
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attomey
City of Chico
County Counsel
County of Butte
rnn iru: .710 00D40C) r. uv
4
fi -�:c-�—.ter• �.
����� � �� �..'�' ' ,� '•:..,. •lam'. • 'r . �� .� �r r �~� .I '�.:.1
�� ♦ J�
\`'ii
Attachment No. 2
1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF
CHICO, THE COUNTY OF BUTTE AND THE BUTTE COUNTY
2 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
3 REVIEW OF DISCRETIONARY. PROJECTS FOR.,
COMMENTS
OR.-
COMMENTS AND CONSISTENCY FINDINGS
4.
CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
5 AREA OF INFLUENCE
6 Section 21676.5 of the State Public Utilities Code provides that local agencies
7 may enter into agreements with airport land use commissions to authorize review of
8 local agency discretionary land use projects for comment and/or consistency findings
9 with the adopted airport environs plan. In order to promote the protection, preservation
10 and continued viability of the Chico Municipal Airport ("Airport"), the City of Chico and
11 the County of Butte, (each of which are hereafter referred to as "lead agency" in regard
12 to land use decisions within their respective jurisdictions in the area around the
13 Airport), and the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), have reached
14 mutual agreement regarding the process by which such discretionary land use projects
15 will be referred to and considered by ALUC.
16 Such agreement is set forth in this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
17 between'the parties. t
18 Section 1. General Agreement. It is agreed between the parties hereto that
19 discretionary land use projects, as defined herein, that affect territory located in the
20 Chico Municipal Airport Area of Influence, as depicted on the attached Exhibit "A", shall
21 be forwarded to ALUC for comments and/or findings of consistency or inconsistency
22,with the adopted Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan.
23 Section 2. Discretionary Projects Defined. For the purposes of this MOU,
24 discretionary. projects shall include the following:
25 ■ Use permits, except administrative or minor use permits, issued at the discretion
of the lead agency.
26 ■ Tentative Parcel Maps, Tentative Subdivision Maps,and Revised Tentative
Maps.
27 ■ Specific Plans, rezones, General Plan amendments and Zoning Ordinance
amendments.
28
1
1 ■ Amendments to site design standards or other development or building
standards affecting land use or building construction as related to noise or safety
2 compatibility, noise attenuation and lot coverage.
3 Section 3. Materials to be Submitted by Lead Agency; Time Period. All
4' discretionary projects submitted to the ALUC shall include ten (10) copies of the project
5 description, site plan, and all associated. environmental documents. Such submittals
6 shall be made at least thirty (30) days prior to any anticipated action on the project by
7 or on behalf of the lead agency, provided, however, that for major projects, such
8 submittals shall be made of least twenty-one (21) days prior to the date of the next
9 regularly.scheduled monthly ALUC meeting, except in cases where compliance with
10 such 21 -day submittal schedule would create a conflict with State law.
11 Section 4. ALUC Review of Environmental Documents. Each lead agency shall
12 submit to ALUC all environmental documents associated with discretionary projects,
13 including the Notice of Preparation, in order to ensure that all airport related issues and
14 concerns are explored prior to a lead agency action. ALUC shall have the.right to
15 review and comment, during the CEQA comment period, upon environmental
16 documents for discretionary projects. that are within its authority to review pursuant to
17 this MOU, or existing State law.
18 Section 5. Override of ALUC Findings; Notices to ALUC. Should the lead agency
19 (City of Chico or County of Butte) be in disagreement with an ALUC finding of
20 inconsistency for any Discretionary Project, legally appropriate overriding findings
21 supported by substantial evidence shall be prepared and adopted pursuant to Public
22 Utilities Code Section 21676 and in accordance with the standards set forth in Topanga
23 Association for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles and California Aviation
24 Council v. City of Ceres. The lead agency shall provide written notice to ALUC, at least
25 ten. (10) days in advance, of all public hearings at which the lead agency will consider
26 "adopting or intends to adopt override: findings. If override findings are adopted by the
27 lead agency, the lead agency will provide written notification including override findings
28
1
2
3-
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24-
25
26
27
28
of such action to ALUC within five (5) days thereafter.
Section 6. ALUC Communications. Each lead agency shall forward in their entirety
all communications received from-ALUC relating to discretionary projects and which are
directed by ALUC to be forwarded to the appropriate board or commission, and shall
seek additional information or clarification from ALUC when Board members, City
Council members or commissioners request such' information or clarification.
Section 7. Term of .MOU; Amendment or Termination. This MOU shall remain in
effect until such time as a revised comprehensive land use plan for the Chico.Municipal
Airport is adopted by ALUC. It may only be amended to terminated by agreement of all
the parties hereto.
Signed and dated by the parties hereto as follows:
For the City of Chico:
Thomas J. Lando
City Manager
For the County of,Butte
Date
Date
For the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission:
Chair Date
A
imil WA
'69A ,
wgg -q
INN."
Bar:
,gn
CITYorCHICO
INC. 1872
Q
OFFICE OF TH
CITY MANAGER
411 Main Street
P.O. Box 3420
Chico. CA 95927,
(916) 895-4800
FAX (916) 895-4825
ATSS 459-4800
G-GA-2-10/Chrono
Tom Parilo
Development Services Director
County of Butte
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
ti
June 11, 1997
Re: Draft Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Chico, the County of
Butte and the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission- Chico Municipal Airport
Area of Influence.
Dear Tom:
Enclosed is the City's proposed draft: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) relating to
ALUC review of land use matters within the Chico Municipal Airport area of influence.
This draft MOU has been reviewed by the'City Council subcommittee and is being
proposed as an alternative to the draft previously prepared by the ALUC subcommittee.
This draft contains substantially the same provisions as the ALUC draft, with some
clarifications and the elimination of a few provisions that we feel are unnecessary. In
addition, we are proposing the modification of the southerly boundary of the area of
influence to delete the area east of Cohasset Road, south of Lupin Avenue, and its
extension along the section line to the east to the intersection with Wildwood Avenue,
down to East Avenue, as shown on the plat attached to the City's draft.
Please forward this proposed,MOU to the ALUC subcommittee and the subcommittee of
the Board of Supervisors for their review.
If you have any questions, please feel free ,to call me.,
Sincerely`-
THOMAS J. LANDO
City Manager
Planning Division
JUN 16 1997
Oroville, California
��P Made From Recycled Paper
2.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14'
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.26
27,
28
DRAFT
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITYOF
CHICO, THE COUNTY OF BUTTE AND THE BUTTE COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
REVIEW OF DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS FOR
COMMENTS AND CONSISTENCY FINDINGS
CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
AREA OF INFLUENCE
Section 21676.5 of the State Public Utilities Code provides that local agencies
may enter into agreements with airport land use commissions to authorize review of local
agency discretionary land use projects for comment and/or consistency findings with the
adopted airport environs plan. In order to promote the protection, preservation and
continued viability of the Chico Municipal Airport ("Airport"), the City of Chico and the
County of Butte, (each of which are hereafter referred to as "lead agency" in regard to'
land use decisions within their 'respective jurisdictions in the area around the Airport),
and the Butte County-Aoirport, Land :Use.,Commission (ALUC), have reached mutual
agreement regarding the process ,bywhich-such-discretionary land use projects will be
referred to and considered by ALUC.
Such agreement is set forth in, this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
between the parties.
Section -1. General Agreement. It is agreed between the parties hereto that
discretionary land use projects, as defined herein, that affect territory located in the
Chico Municipal Airport Area of ln'fluence,.as'depictdd on the attached -Exhibit "K, shall,
be forwarded to. ALUC for comments and/or findings of consistency or inconsistency with
the adopted Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan.
Section 2. Discretionary Project Defined. for the purposes of this MOU,
discretionary projects shall include the following:
• Use permits, except administrative or minor use permits, issued at the discretion of
the lead agency.
• Tentative Parcel Maps, Tentative Subdivision Maps and Revised Tentative Maps.
• Specific Plans, rezones, General Plan amendments and. Zoning Ordinance
amendments.
16/10/97
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
•
Amendments to site design standards or other development or building standards
affecting land use. or building construction as related to noise or safety
compatibility, noise attenuation.and.lot coverage.
Section 3. Materials to be Submitted by Lead Agency; Time Period. All
discretionary projects submitted to the ALUC shall include ten (10) copies of the project
description, site plan,. and all, associated environmental documents. All such submittals
shall be made.at least thirty (30)�days:pr.ior to: ;any -anticipated action. on the project by or -
on behalf of the lead agency.
Section 4. ALUC Review of Environmental Documents. Each lead agency shall
submit to ALUC all environmental documents associated with discretionary projects,
including the Notice of Preparation, in order to ensure that all airport related issues and
concerns are explored prior to a lead agency action. ALUC shall have the right to review
and comment, during the CEQA comment period, upon environmental, documents for
discretionary projects that are within, its authority to review pursuant to this MOU.
Section 5.. Override: of-,ALUC Findings,• Notices to ALUC. Should the lead agency
disagree with an-ALUC.finding of. inconsistency for any discretionary project subject to
the provisions of this MOU and proceed to override such ALUC finding, the lead agency
will make appropriate findings supporting the override which are supported by
substantial evidence, as -required by Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code. The
lead agency shall provide written notice to ALUC, at least ten (10) days in advance, of all
public hearings at which the lead agency will consider adopting or intends to adopt
override findings. Such public hearings may be continued from time to time without
further -.notice to ALUC: If -override, findings are.adopted by.the lead agency, the lead
agency will provide written notification of such action to ALUC within five (5) days
thereafter.
Section 6. ALUC Communications. Each lead agency shall forward in their entirety all
communications received from ALUC relating to, discretionary projects and which are
directed by ALUC to be forwarded to the appropriate board or commission, and shall
6/10/97
2
1
2
3
4
-
5
6:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
•
Amendments to site design standards or other development or building standards
affecting land use. or building construction as related to noise or safety
compatibility, noise attenuation.and.lot coverage.
Section 3. Materials to be Submitted by Lead Agency; Time Period. All
discretionary projects submitted to the ALUC shall include ten (10) copies of the project
description, site plan,. and all, associated environmental documents. All such submittals
shall be made.at least thirty (30)�days:pr.ior to: ;any -anticipated action. on the project by or -
on behalf of the lead agency.
Section 4. ALUC Review of Environmental Documents. Each lead agency shall
submit to ALUC all environmental documents associated with discretionary projects,
including the Notice of Preparation, in order to ensure that all airport related issues and
concerns are explored prior to a lead agency action. ALUC shall have the right to review
and comment, during the CEQA comment period, upon environmental, documents for
discretionary projects that are within, its authority to review pursuant to this MOU.
Section 5.. Override: of-,ALUC Findings,• Notices to ALUC. Should the lead agency
disagree with an-ALUC.finding of. inconsistency for any discretionary project subject to
the provisions of this MOU and proceed to override such ALUC finding, the lead agency
will make appropriate findings supporting the override which are supported by
substantial evidence, as -required by Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code. The
lead agency shall provide written notice to ALUC, at least ten (10) days in advance, of all
public hearings at which the lead agency will consider adopting or intends to adopt
override findings. Such public hearings may be continued from time to time without
further -.notice to ALUC: If -override, findings are.adopted by.the lead agency, the lead
agency will provide written notification of such action to ALUC within five (5) days
thereafter.
Section 6. ALUC Communications. Each lead agency shall forward in their entirety all
communications received from ALUC relating to, discretionary projects and which are
directed by ALUC to be forwarded to the appropriate board or commission, and shall
6/10/97
2
1
2
3
4
5
.6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
"15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
seek additional information or
Council members or'commissi
Section 7. Term of MOU; An
effect until such time as a revi:
Airport is adopted by ALUC. I
:the:parties=hereto. .
Signed and dated by the parti(
For the City of Chico:
Thomas J. Lando
City Manager
For the County of Butte:
c •)
For the Butte County Airport
Land Use Commission:,
"
Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
City of Chico
County Counsel
County of Butte
6/10/97
clarification from ALUC when Board members, City
3ners request such information or clarification.
iend'ment or Termination. This MOU shall remain in
;ed comprehensive land use plan for the Chico Municipal
may only be amended or terminated by agreement of all
�s hereto' as follows: '
Date ,
Date
Date
� ,mow' � �.��..:Y�%C� �:�► .:
�•.ti ice• _- ±:-_-;_� ��=_��--
MINE I Z
+BU"Il"'1[']E CO�AdRPOIEST L.9NDtS]E COMM][SSdOlV +
o7epartment of 5evelopmentServices • 7 Countyen er rive, Oroville, CA 95965 • •
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION - CITY OF CHICO - COUNTY OF BUTTE
The following items are necessary to provide the foundation for a positive'airport land use
-- planning effort that will ensure the continued viable, responsible operation of the Chico
Municipal Airport. The MOU is intended to achieve positive cooperation between the
ALUC, City of Chico and Butte County.
1. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Sections 21674 and 21676-.5(b) and Chapter 4 of
the Caltrans Airports Planning Handbook, all lead agency actions, regulations or -
permits (commonly referred to as discretionary projects) that affect territory located
in the ALUC approved Chico Municipal Airport Area of Influence as depicted on the
attached map (Exhibit A), shall be sent to ALUC for comments and consistency
findings with the adopted Environs Plan. Discretionary Projects shall include, but
are not limited to: '
► Use Permits (Administrative, Minor, Conditional, and other land use permits
issued at the discretion of the lead agency.)
► Tentative Parcel Maps, Tentative Subdivision Maps, Revised Tentative
Maps.
► Specific Plans, Rezones, General Plan Amendments, Zoning Ordinance
Amendments:
► Amendments: to Site Design Standards or other development or building
standards affecting land use or building construction as related to noise or
safety compatibility, noise attenuation and lot coverage. I
► Sphere of Influence expansions. ;
► Major capital improvements (e.g. water, sewer or roads) that would promote
urban development in the Airport Area of Influence.
2. Should the lead agency (City of Chico or County of Butte) be in disagreement'with
an ALUC finding of inconsistency for any Discretionary Project,) legally appropriate
overriding findings supported by substantial evidence shall be prepared and F'
adopted pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676 and in accordance with the i
standards.set forth in _ n#y-ef
nd California Aviation Council v. City of Ceres. t
3. The ALUC_shall receive written notification ten (10) days prior to all public hearings
where the lead agency will consider or intends to adopt overriding findings. If
overriding findings are adopted by the .lead agency, ALUC shall receive written
notification of this action within five (5) days.
W
• Butte County # Airport Land Use Commission •
4. All discretionary projects submitted to the ALUC shall include ten (10) copies of a
-project description, site plan, and all associated environmental documents. All
submittals shall be submitted 60 days prior to any anticipated action on behalf of
the lead agency.
5. Prior to any Discretionary Project approvals including all currently submitted
applications, the City of Chico shall prepare, adopt and delineate on the Chico .
General Plan Land Use Element Map the ALUC recommended ' 1000 foot wide
Heavy Aircraft Flight Corridor located approximatelyat the present location of the
Sycamore Creek Diversion Channel
6. The lead agency shall submit to the ALUC all environmental documents associated
with a Discretionary Project review, including Notice of Preparation and Request for
Proposals to ensure all airport related issues and concerns are explored prior to a
lead agency action.:
7. The ALUC has the right to review and comment on all environmental documents for
Discretionary Projects that are within its authority to review under this MOU.
8. The lead agency shall report all ALUC communications in their entirety to the
appropriate board or,commission and seek additional information from ALUC when
board members, council members or commissioners request such information or
clarification.
9. The lead agency shall utilize ALUC staff for interpretations of planning and policy
documents as they relate to airport planning issues or concerns.
10. This MOU agreement is to remain in effect until such time a revised comprehensive
land use plan for the Chico Municipal Airport is adopted by the ALUC and can only
be amended or terminated by unanimous agreement of the. City of Chico, County
of Butte and Airport Land Use Commission. ,
kAaluc\chico. mem\mou.mem
• Butte County P:Airport Land Use Commission e
r