Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE 2001
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - 2001 Date Received Incoming Outgoing From Subject 1/2/01 Tom Parilo Office of County Counsel, Copy of Agreement to Retain Development Svcs. County of Butte Attorney Services between Mr. Larry Dir. Thelen and Office of County Counsel, County of Butte. 1/2/01 Tom Parilo and M. Jane Dolan, Chair, Butte Copy of a map included in a Chico A. Meleka County Board of City Manager report re: Bidwell Supervisors Ranch—displaying contour lines of the CDF air tanker flight pattern. 1/5/01 M. A. Meleka Thomas J. Lando, Request for copy of the adopted Chico City Manager CLUP for the Chico Municipal Airport and accompanying map. 1/8/01 M. A. Meleka Dennis Pottenger, Assoc. RE: Submission to GIS//The Central Burchill & Assoc. Public Valley Advanced Planning Project Relations//Ducks Unlim: 1/16/01 Thomas J. Lando M. A. Meleka As requested, copies of CLUP Chico City Manager Adoption document (Motion), Addendum, and Comment Matrix, from Dec. 20 meeting). 1/16/01 ALUC Dianne Harmacek In support of CLUP 2000 1/23/01 Nicole Humphreys Craig Sanders CLUP map & matrix (densities) as NorthStar Engineering requested. , 20 Declaration Dr. Chico, CA 95973 1/24/01 Jim Bearquiver, Pres. M. A. Meleka Response after review of Draft VISIONS Enterprises, Environmental Assessment prepared/ Inc. 968 Maraglia St. Enterprise Rancheria. Redding, CA 96002 U. S. Dept. of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs 1824 Trubte Rd., Ste J Sacramento, CA 95815 U. S. Dept. of Hsg. & Urban Development Office of Native Amer. Programs, SW Region 400 N 5`' St., Ste 1650 Phoenix, AZ 85004 1/25/01 Butte Co. Planning NVPA (North Valley In support of CLUP 2000. Commission Pilots Assn 1/25/01 ALUC Bernice Mandville Opposing C-1 zone for Garner Lane, Chico 1/25/01 M. A. Meleka City of Chico City of Chico Airport Commission Airport Commission Mtg. Notice 1/25/01 M. A. Meleka City of Chico Airport Agenda for their mtg. Scheduled Tues. Commission Jan. 30, 2001 7:30 .m. T/30/01 Tom Parilo & ALUC I Ozell Callahan Opposing C-1 zone for Garner Lane, Chico MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - 2001 1/30/01 M. A. Meleka CSUC Tri -County Economic Forecast Event on 1/31/01 in Chico 2/1/01 Tom Hays, Senior Planner M. A. Meleka City of Chico Analysis of Growth Community Dev. Dept./ Areas Planning City of Chico 411 Main Street P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 2/6/01. M. A. Meleka Robert D. Harp Submission of map defining Mr. Pete Giampaoli's parcel for Dec. 20, 2000 minutes 2/6/01 M. A. Meleka Robert D. Harp Letter appointing Mr. Henry Robertson as his Alternate on the Commission 2/8/01 ALUC Kim Seidler Faxed letter Re: Joint meeting of ALUC & Chico City Council 2/20/01 2/12/01 M. A. Meleka Kim Seidler Letter confirming Joint Mtg/Chico City Council and ALUC 2/20/01 2/12/01 M. A. Meleka Transportation Advisory Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Committee Program (CMAQ) Potential Lapsing of Funds 2/12/01 Brian Larsen/M. A. William E. Wilson Request for information through Calif. Meleka P. O. Box 62 Public Records Act. Re: Gen. Plan { Palermo, CA 95968 2/21/01 Norm Rosene Ozell Callahan Presented at ALUC mtg. of 2/21/01. 13728 Garner Lane Objection to C-1 Zone for her Chico, CA 95973 property. 2/21/01 ALUC Bernice Mandville Presented at ALUC mtg. of 2/21/01. Gamer Lane resident Objection to C-1 Zone for her property. 2/21/01 DUPLICATE Ozell Callahan Re: Objection to C-1 Zone for her Norm Rosene 2/23/01 M. A. Meleka Jim Bearquiver, Pres. _property._ Second response after review of Draft VISIONS Enterprises, Environmental Assessment prepared/ Inc. 968 Mara St. Enterprise Rancheria. (Includes minor Redding, CA 96002 change.) 2/26/01 M. A. Meleka BCAG / Butte Co. Assn. Notice of cancellation of Transport. of Gov. Advisory Committee mtg. of 3/1/01 3/23/01 M. A. Meleka Fax rec'd from Stephen Copy of E -R article/Re: ALUC mtg/ Irwin Byrrie proposal 3/27/01 M. A. Mel'eka Office of County Counsel, Amendment to Agreement to Retain County of Butte Attorney Services between Mr. Larry Thelen and Office of County Counsel, County of Butte. 3/28/01 Duffy Ruffin M. A. Meleka #34 March 2000 CLUP (bound book) Insite Environmental (Duffy is doing an environmental 2155 W. March Lane, review for the City of Chico in prep. Suite 1-C For their general plan) Stockton, CA 95207 /3/01 ALUC Dept. of Transp. ' Notification: Caltrans Handbook update to be completed by Oct. 2001 4/6/01 ALUC I Dept. of Trans Errata Sheet MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - 2001 4/9/01 M. A. Meleka Butte Co. Administration CSAC//Re: Statewide Database 4/16/01 M.A. Meleka Stephen Irwin FAX//Article: "Supervisors target ' airportpanel" 4/18/01 ALUC/M.A. Meleka Kim Seidler, Planning FAX//letter Re: Proposed Eaton Dir., City of Chico Ranch Subdivision 4/18/01 Planning Butte Co. Central Valley Regional Public Meeting Water Quality Control Board 4/19/01 ALUC Stephen Irwin FAX//Article: Sonoma County ALUC/ development issues 4/19/01. M. A. Meleka Duffy Ruffin RETURNED TO US: Insite Environmental #34 March 2000 CLUP (bound book) 2155 W. March Lane, Suite 1-C Stockton, CA 95207 5/2/01 M. A. Meleka Robert Hennigan Copy of letter sent to the Board of Supervisors re: Overriding Findings, Pheasant Landing Unit III Subdivision 5/9/01 M. A. Meleka ALUC Chair & . North Chico Specific Plan report Commission 5/9/01 ALUC Stephen Irwin Article: California Town Split on Airport Plan 5/9/01 ALUC City of Chico. Planning Public Hearing Notice//May 17, 2001 Commission 0, 6:30pm/City Council Chambers /9/01 M. A. Meleka CSUC, Dan Ripke Butte.County Growth Scenarios 5/17/01 Copy to ALUC Norm Rosene, Chair, Letter to Butte County Board of ALUC Supervisors Re: Stephen Schuster proposed override 5/18/01 Copy to ALUC Norm Rosene, Chair, Letter to Bruce Alpert, Butte County ALUC Counsel Re: North Chico Specific Plan (mitigation noncompliance) 5/18/01 ALUC John Franklin Letter of Resignation as Alternate - Commissioner 5/21/01 Mr. Curt Josiassen Caltrans Dept. of RE: Review of Schuster project, Chairman Transportation Pheasant Landing Phase III, TSM00- Butte Co. Board of 03 Supervisors 5/25/01 M. A. Meleka Dan Ripke, Director, CSU RE: Growth Scenarios timeline 5/25/01 M. A. Meleka Dan Ripke, Director, CSU Fdx re: Growth Scenarios timeline Du licate 5/25/01 M. A. Meleka Dan Ripke, Director, CSU Article: 'Oroville Growth Scenarios project briefing 5/30/01 Development Svcs. US Dept of Commerce Profile of Demographics: Census • U.S. Census Bureau 2000 6/1/01 ALUC Greg Webb, Chairman Copy of letter sent to Curt Josiassen, Commissioners only BIA (Building Industry Butte Co. Board of Supervisors (letter Assn.) dated 4/30/01—posted 5/2/01— inadvertently on someone's desk until hand delivered on 6/1/01. 6/1/01 Chico Planning Norm Rosene, Chair, Re; General Plan Growth Area Commissioners ALUC Analysis 6/12/01 Planning Dept. Kim Seidler Letter commenting on Byrne Planning Director Tentative Parcel Map, TSM 01-03 4 I MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - 2001 City of Chico 6/14/01 ' ALUC Stephen Irwin Copy of House of Representatives Bill to amend title 49.."End Gridlock at Our Nation's Critical Airports Act of 2001." 6/15/01 ALUC Robert Grierson Notification of Commission Appointment by the Airport Managers. ' 6/18/01 ALUC Stephen Irwin Article: Development Plan, El Toro Airport Seen at Odds 6/28/01 County Counsel Norm Rosene (on behalf of the ALUC) Request for Legal Services / legal, determination of tie -vote issue for future reference. 7/23/01 Butte County ALUC Jay Hanson, City of Chico Planning ALUCP Consistency, Foothill Park East, Unit 4 7/23/01 ALUC Dan Breedon NOTICE OF INTENT to adopt a proposed Mitigated Negative Declar.—B me TSM 01-03 8/6/01 ALUC BCAG 1991 stats for Paradise Airport 9/25/01 ALUC City of Chico Airport Commission Agenda for meeting on 9/26/01 at 4:30 pm 4 I 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . • 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 �Z 24 25 26 27 r AGREEMENT TO RETAIN ATTORNEY SERVICES LARRY THELEN COUNTY X11886 CONTRACT NC). 4 V "THIS`AGREEMENT made between the County Airport Land Commission, hereinafter referred to as "ALUC", AND Larry. Thelen hereinafter referred to as "ATTORNEY WHEREAS, . ALUC ,desires to retain ATTORNEY to provide certain legal' services on behalf of. ALUC; and, WHEREAS, the parties hereto expressly understand and' agree that -ATTORNEY is providing legal.services solely to ALUC and that there is no attorney-client relationship between ATTORNEY and the County of Butte hereinafter referred'to as COUNTY; and, WHEREAS, ATTORNEY is willing to undertake the representation ofd ALUC under the terms and conditions set out herein. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED as follows: 1. Performance of Legal Services; Member in Good Standing of State Bar Association. ATTORNEY shall perform legal services for and represent ALUC to the best of his ability and in a professional manner. ATTORNEY warrants that ATTORNEY (including, as may be applicable, any and all.* attorneys. who are. employed by', are partners in, or are otherwise associated with ATTORNEY and will perform legal services hereunder) is now, and will be at all ti:i,cs that seri?;_ces are performed during the term hereof, a, member in good standing of the State Bar of California. 2. Compensation and Expense Reimbursement. ALUC shall compensate ATTORNEY for actual legal services performed at the rate of one . hundred dollars ($100) per hour for attorney.time. Iri no event shall 1 t'r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 .9 10 11 12 13 14 151 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 11 24 25 26 27 • 28 ALUC's total payment to ATTORNEY exceed f.ive thousand dollars ($5, 000) c without written authorization'from ALUC and COUNTY. In additi { on , ALUC shall reimburse.ATTORNEY for'out of pocket costs incurred'on behalf of. ALUC, .including but not limited to, telephone toll charges,. photocopy charges, travel expenses at the rate of thirty five and one-' half cents ($.355) per mile and overnight expenses where necessary. 3. Attorneys Overhead Expenses. ATTORNEY shall be'responsible for his own overhead expenses, including, but not limited to those for secretarial service, dictation and other office .equipment, office space and incidental supplies. 4. Aareement Limited to.Matters Referred. This Agreement is to apply only to those particular legal matters that are referred to ATTORNEY ,directly by ALUC with respect to the presently pending Comprehensive Land Use Flan (CLUP). 5. Term. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for a term representing that period of time during which ATTORNEY shall review and advise ALUC on legal matters related directly to the CLUP through, final approval of'said CLUP by the Airport .Land Use Commission. Notwithstanding any of the above, this Agreement may be, terminated by either party, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days prior. written notice being given by one to the other by certified mail, return receipt requested. ' ti. Indenendent Contractor. It is specifically and expressly understood that this agreement creates no relationship of employer/ employee between the parties, that ATTORNEY is an independent contractor and not an employee of ALUC and that neither he nor his, employees are eligible to participate in ALUC health and dental protection, vacation, holiday, retirement, or other programs which are 1) I • . 0 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 1 i 1 .applicable to. .,ALUC and/or County employees. Neither ALUC nor COUNT'Y' will pay for or provide Workers' Compensation insurance, StatE'. Disability insurance benefits, Unemployment Insurance benefits ori Social Security. ATTORNEY shall be responsible to pay or provide for, such insurance or benefits and to pay his own federal and state income tax responsibilities, Social Security and any other payroll tax obligations that he may owe as a result of compensation received for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement., 7. Billings. ATTORNEY shall submit interim billings once a month, if accumulated charges are in excess of Five Hundred Dollars ($500). ATTORNEY agrees that all billings shall be maintained in an itemized form for production at a future date, if -requested by ALUC or COUNTY, detailing costs, expenses and .services performed with actual time worked in units of 1/10th of an hour. Where correspondence or phone conversations are charged, the identity of the other party shall be included in the item description. However, submitted billings shall be attached behind a County claim form (a,ttached hereto as Exhibit A), and shall only disclose the number of hours worked and any costs incurred as described in paragraph 2 to this Agreement, and shall be dated and signed by ATTORNEY. ATTORNEY'S file creation, file organization, and conferences internal to ATTORNEY's law .firm,. shall be considered overhead items and non billable. 1 8. Addresses for Correspondence: For purposes of this agreement all referred to reports,- budgets, acknowledgments,- correspondence cknowledgments;correspondence and communications between the parties shall be addressed as follows: 3 ` 1 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .14�� IS 16 17 18 19 20 21. 11 23 24 25 26 27 0 28 To COUNTY Butte County Counsel 25 County Center Drive Oroville,CA 95965 r To ATTORNEY Larry Thelen, Esq. 4534 Shady Oak Way Fair Oaks, CA 95628 f To ALUC r ALUC 7 County Center D. Oroville, CA 9596: 9. Complete Agreement;Amendment. This agreement together with exhibits attached thereto, expresses the understandings of the parties concerning all matters covered and supersedes all prior negotiations,, representations or agreements, either written or oral. No additions to, or alternation of the terms of this agreement., whether by written or verbal understanding of the parties, their officers,: agents or employees, shall be valid unless made in the form of a written amendment of this agreement and formally approved by the parties. DATE : I D L� J6 ATTO 3y ' 2 Larry Thelen ' AIRP/ORRfT L USE COMMISSION Guarantee of payment. The County of Butte hereby agrees to pay all attorney's fees, costs and charges incurred by ALUC pursuant to this Agreement. ' Insurance. The County of Butte (hereinafter "County,,) will defend and pay on behalf of Attorney for any loss arising out of legal professional liability of Attorney if the occurrence from which the loss arises .took place during the term of this Agreement and arose out of his or her contractual responsibility to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). Such occurrences are limited to the rendering of or failure to render, legal consultant services to the Airport Land Use ' 4 1 • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14� • 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 Commission (ALUC) and "does not include rendering. of or failure to render such services to private clients. Attorney will be covered under the County's self-insured general liability program and excess. liability insurance. County's obligation to defend and indemnif"y": shall be subject to and in excess of any valid., and collectible professional liability insurance ,coverage. No coverage will be afforded for any services provided for which a private billing is made or authorized by Attorney. j i i COUNTY OF BUTTE By OCK APPROVED AS TO FORM BRUCE S. ERT Butte Co nt Cou sel By: (Thelen) 5 APPROVED,AS TO BUDGETARY AND FISCAL CONTROL DAVID HOUSER, Auditor -Controller- By i211- c M a °W e,l k� ,JANE DOLAN 1 05 Supervisor, District 2, Butte County' " Office: County. Building ■ 196 Memorial way ■ Chico, Califomia Mail: P.O. Box 3700 ■ Chun, 'Califomia 95927 • (916) 891-2830 December 21, 2000 To Tom. Parilo and M.A. Meleka, Here is a copy of a map that was included in a Chico City Manager report about options for the city -owned Bidwell Ranch property. The original is color. You can see the contour lines of the CDF Air Tanker flight pattern. This is a portion of a larger map that the CDF Air Attack Base Captain has presented to us before. Certainly the ALUC should have this and use it for the flight path of.the tankers andnot something else. • • Printed on recycled paper RECEIVED BUTTI E COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION OROVILLE. CALIFORNIA. p 0 0 .0 • OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 411 Main Street ITYorCHICO P.O. Box 3420 IN 1 972 Chico. CA 95927 (530) 895-4800 1 FAX (530) 895-4825 ATSS 459-4800 G-GA-2-107-3/Chrono January 4, 2001 M. A. Maleka Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive' Oroville, CA 95965 , v L 1 t` JAN 5 2001 BUTTE COUCOYMMISSIV4 1 D USE AIRPORT LAN. �/ �l CraAi` e . E Dear Mr. Maleka: The City of Chico has concerns regarding the recently adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLOP) for the Chico Municipal Airport. However, we are uncertain as to the extent of"those concerns since we do not have a copy,of the document. Pursuant to the Public Records Act, I am hereby requesting that a copy of the adopted CLUP for the Chico Municipal Airport and accompanying map be provided to the City of Chico. Please advise me if there are any costs for the plan. If you have any questions,' please,feel free to 'call me at 895-4802. • Sincerer Thomas 'J.'Lando City Manager I JL:mh AM RECEIVED • a ;U:j: • s BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA S:WAdALAVFmit�¢C47He1Bltevlw¢d - /,,� - r�� pude From Recycled Paper en Me -61—x«. DUCKS UNLIMITED, INC. WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE 3074 Gold Canal Drive Rancho Cordova, California 95670-6116 DUCKS— c����,,w-- (916)852-2000 UNLIMITED (916)852-2200 Fax INC. January 5, 2001 M. A. Meleka, Principal Planner Butte County Planning Department 87 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Mr. Meleka; Ducks Unlimited, Inc., (DU), is pleased to present The Central Valley Advanced Planning Project to the Butte County GIS Working Group. This DU project has developed a model for the Central Valley which utilizes computer-based Geographic Information System (GIS) technology to provide a user-friendly, flexible land -use planning tool that can be effectively used by landowners, government planners, farmers, environmentalists and other community members. The model enables the user to scenario build around complex issues - concerning land -use decisions while incorporating habitat and farmland protection strategies to encourage regional compatibility. This planning model usedstate-of--the.art'satellite imagery.and C'Or iputer'technology to assist in the-assessment'and location of any Butte County sites that would fiilfil the priorities requiredby a land -use issue. Additionally, the modeling capability will assist in guiding planners and'stakeholders to design possibilities and to evaluate choices differently in order to model alternative futures for the economic, social and environmental well-being of Butte .County. The Site Suitability Model was developed as a customized interface for ESRI's ArcView GIS software using ArcView's Spatial analyst module and Avenue programming language. Visual Basic was also used for the development of customized pop-up menus. Data layers in the model have been obtained from U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish& Wildlife Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Bureau of Census, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Calif. Dept. of Fish & Game, Calif. Dept. of Conservation, and Calif. Dept. of Water Resources. DU technicians have combined these data sets and more into a simplified interactive analysis program to clarify. the data for the user. Thanks to the generous contribution of The David and Lucille Packard Foundation, DU is able to offer a CD=ROM' containing all -the capabilities That will be demonstrated at the up-.- . corning Butte County worksfiop'free,of charge to local agencies: ' It-is'thtgoal of the Foundation and DU to make this valuable opportunity available throughout the state in order to develop consistency and consensus concerning the expectations and concerns about the rapid growth in • the County and the State. RECEIVED LEADER IN WETLANDS CONSERVATION JAN 8 tom BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA ®RECYCLED PAPER DU 16-D • Olen Zirkle, Land and Water Specialist and Timothy Eisler, GIS Programmer will be . your DU presenters on January.9 We look forward to providing you and all the participants with a wonderful tool to help build a favorable future" for Butte County communities. Sincerely, Dennis Pottenger, Associate Burchill & Associates Public Relations (916) 758-9725 Chris Leininger, Local Contact Ducks Unlimited, Inca (530) 839-2720 . Z A.Bird's Eye View of our Region's Environment Landsat satellite photos taken of Butte County in winter (left) and sum Planning Yf' P'oiect.by providing seasonal land cover data. _ j The Central Valley Advanced Planning project ycan help Butte County to meet the challenge of i in balancing its many land -use interests: • •Butte County is located in California's Great Central Valley, 66 miles from Sacramento. With a population of i4tt approximately 204,500;the county is the most populous north of the state capital. • In 1997, Butte County g ranked second in Sacramento r Valley agricultural crop ount) values, totaling more than C7• $281 million. The five leading commodities were rice, almonds, prunes, walnuts and kiwifruit. • Butte Countyalso contains important natural features such as the major cS aamntn"River system,majestic groves. of valley oaks and deep alluvial soils that havecontributed to making the Central Valley one of the richest agricultural regions in the world. • Located ori the northern edge of the Central Valley, Butte County is home to some of the largest concentrations of migratory and over -wintering waterfowl in North America. Central Valley Advanced Planning can allow for wildlife -friendly land use. Following Butte County daia collection and inventory, the Central Valley Advanced Planning Project will coordinate meetings among various land -use interest groups. The goal of these meetings•,To build consensus on the interactive planning process which can lead to better projectingfor potential wetlands conservation and restoration areas in Butte County. The Central ValleyAdvanced Planning Project provides a framework for uniformity and consistency among�those groups staking an interest in the use and protection of land in the Central Valley. Y mer aid the Central Valley Advanced How Does GIS Technology Aid the Planning Process? GIS technology helps manage the complex issue of land -use mapping, allowing land -use planning decisions to be made more effectively and efficiently. In the past, a variety of maps of different types and scales had to be overlaid to work toward selecting areas for conservation and enhancement. GIS offers cutting-edge technology of the future to allow complex variables to be more efficiently handled in a computerized system. While the Central Valley Advanced Planning Model uses satellite imagery, it has been converted to a desktop computer system that will allow interested parties to use it with minimal training and support. Ducks Unlimited thanks The David and Lucile Packard Foundation for its generous support of this conservation effort. For more information, contact:'' Ducks Unlimited Western Regional Office t : _ -3074 Gold Canal Drive Rancho Cordova, CA 95670.6116 -•916/852-2000 ; , Ceh-tT'a,tYalley- Advanced. Planning ect: A ,Mode1: for Land -Use and Conservation Plannin What,is the Central, Valley Advanced Planning Project? Ducks Unlimited, with funding from The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, has developed a model for the Central Valley that can help Butte and other Valley Counties' diverse land interests manage future planning and development issues. This planning model uses state-of-the-art satellite imager` --' computer technologyto assess and locate sites that are sui wetland restoration projects. The user-friendly; computer-based Geographic Informaiio (GIS) is used to store. and manipulate geographic data, sui types of cover, soil types, land -use patterns, hydrologic fea and transportatiori routes. Each of these geographic inforr categories forms a layer in the GIS database, which can bi easily inanipulated according to selected priorities. What ares thet�boals of the Central Valley Advanced Planning Project? • To create a land -use planning tool that can be effective used by landowners, county and city planners, farmers, environmentalists and:other community members. • To prepare a rinodel using GIS technology that identifies key areas for, wetland habitat 44 protection; enhancement, management and pteservation..% r • To develop consensus among various interest groups in Butte County, including local government, community and business leaders, agricultural, environmental arid'conservation interests. 9649TT04wo k witli-other conservation interests that are developing similar habitat and farmland"protection strategies. DUCKS UNLIMITED Central Valley Advanced Planning Project software simplifies land -use planning and assessment of specificlocations in the County for habitat restoration. Why is This Project Important? California has lost approximately 95 percent of the wetland habitat that once covered the 0 Central Valley. It is estimated that about 60 percent of the Pacific Flyway's waterfowl either migrates through or winters in the Central Valley, making the region a priority for conservation efforts. No other farmland in the United States is more threatened by urban sprawl than that within the Central Valley. Ongoing changes in the Central Valley require that the inventory of existing wetlands be updated and that ongoing habitat enhancement projects are monitored. The technology used in this model, combined with a GIS wetland inventory developed by Ducks Unlimited, will help guide wetland projects in the Valley. • 4 The David a LuC Packard Foundation RECEIVEP. , i JAN 1 6 2001 A. I'%,2 � BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION • � _ � `X-'/ OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA January l 1, 2001 r1aQ E JAN 1 s 2001 Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive 4 BUTTE COUNTY Oroville, CA 95969-3397 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION } Dear Members; s I would like to add my support to the proposed expansion of the C.D.F. Facility: at the Chico. Airport. The added area will provide the Air. Tankers with the necessary space as well as a ready supply of emergency water if needed. The last few years fires in the northern state have clearly demonstrated how immensely important it is to maintain the C.D.F. at the Chico Airport. As the northern state continues to grow in population more and more rural areas are developed, expanding the fire danger each year. At the same time development of business and homes are closing in, on the airport. This is -the time to establish Chico as THE firefighting airbase in the northern California area. , • Thank.you for your time and consideration. Dianne Harmacek - 6079 Myamber Ct. Magalia, CA 95954 cc: Butte County Board of Supervisors 7County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95969-3397' Chico City Council City of Chico P.O. Box3420 Chico, CA 95927 . e Page 1 of 1 LN i j Sanders, Craig • From: Nicole Humphreys [nhumphre@dcs-chico.com] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 3:25 PM To: csanders@buttecounty.net Subject:.New Air Space Plan. Good Afternoon Craig, I was wondering if you would send our office a draft/final copy of the new air space plan for Chico/Butte County. We have been hearing so much about it but only have what was written up in the ER to tell us anything real about the concept. We have a few subdivisions that are in planning stages in the area and are concerned about the densities. Thank you, , Nicole .N'rcole .L-iiann%ire ic. ,r,•YT - ----------- - - --- �cC.� > NorlhStar Enoince6n / (/C 20 .Declaration Drive 2% C Chico. CA 9597. (5o 3) 89>-1600 Exi.21.(i Fax (5)0; 89-,-2113 uhuniphre:, dcs-chico.:,cfni Or 1/22/01 A C2; cl cl WK. ....... . . . . . . . ..... -T vru ........ ... 011 . . . . . . . . ...... Countywide pollales / Chapter 2 Additional criteria ' lbaxlarOWNS$ / Intwdit Otis uses= ,d Other DeveloPmM e Zone. Locations Rel (�) Open ReqProhibited Use= Conditions .(dulad)' Aver- Single With L&nd3 $11116 Aas' Bow aero- ► Avigation easement dedica- Ap . M Structuresexcept tion A Runway Protection 0 10 Appfl- Remain- nautical facilities zone lo - Zone cable cable . Ing cation set by FAA criteria • Assemblages of people and within Building ► Objects exceeding FAR Restriction Line Part 77 height limits ► Aboveground. bulk storage of hazardous materials • Hazards to flightmaod- 30% . Children's Schools, f0 day ' Locate es ex- s0.1 25 -care centers. libraries mum distance centerline 81 I►PProactWeParbue APPg' .Hospitals, nrpsirq bmres tended runway P Highly ► Minimum NLR of 25 dB in a parcel h noise-senstilve residences and buildings Sideline Zone :10.0 uses (e.g. outdoor the •' ,s with noise -sensitive uses acres) airs) ► Aboveground bulk storage ► Airspace review required for objects >35 teettall 13 of hazardous materials" Hazards flight° ► Avigatkm easement dedica- ton ► Children's schools; ° day ► Minimum NLR of 20 dB in s02 50 100 130 2096 residences (including MO- 82 o- 82 Ended . care centers, libraries bile homes) and buildings ApproacNDep�re (average ► Hosp'�s, nursing homes with noise -sensitive uses 12 parcel size . Highly noise -sensitive Zone 25.0 acres) uses (e.g. outdoor the- ►Airspaces >70 review required for objects . aters) a Deed notice required ► Hazards to flight ,o Deed notice required s 100 300 390 1096 Child schools, day Airspace review required C Traffic Patb2m (1) s0.2 care centers' libraries for objects >100 feet tall i (average . Hospitals, nursing homes . parcel size . Hazards to flight' i. 25.0 acres) or,. (2) :4.0 . (rage 1 parcel size 102 acres)9 . Airspace review required ' No Hazards to fright >100 feet tail No No for objects 0 Other Limit Req't Airport Environs limit ► Airspace review required Not Same as Underlying for objects >35 feet tall12 Same as Underlying App Compatibility Zone Avigation easement dedica- * Height Review bir Zone li' Compatibility ity tion required Overlay .. cable Table 2A ).J Primary Compatibility Criteria Plan Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility 2-14 Policies / Chaster 2 ' NOTES: 1 Residential development should not contain more than the indicated number of dwelling units (both primary end secondary) per gross acre. With clustering, some parcels may be much smaller than others as long as the maximum overall density criterion is not exceeded. Clustering of units is encouraged in CompatlbiW Zones B2 and.. C — see Policy 4.2.6 for limitations. 2 Usage calculations shall include all people who may be on the property (e.g., employees, customers/visiDors, etc.) both indoors and outside. These criteria are intended as general planning guidelines to aid in determining the acceptability of proposed land uses. Additional guidance is provided by Appendix C. 3 Open land requirements are intended to be applied with respect to an entire zone. Community general plans and/or implementing policies shall indicate how and where the requirements will be met. Application of open land require- ments to individual development proposals is at the discretion of the local jurisdiction and is dependent upon the size of the development (some Individual parcels may be too small to accommodate the minimum -size open area requirement) and whether the requirements can be made solely on public property. See supporting compatibility policies on safety (Policy 4.2.5) for definition of open land. 4 The uses fisted here are ones which are explicitly prohibited regardless of whether they meet the intensity criteria. In addition to these explicitly prohibited uses, other uses will normally not be permitted in the respective compatibility zones because they do not meet the usage intensity criteria. 5 Airport proximity and the potential for aircraft overflights should be disclosed as part of all real estate transections in- volving property within any of the airport influence area zones. Easement dedication and deed notice requirements. apply only to new development. 6, The total number of people permitted on a project site at any time, except rare special events, must not exceed the . indicated usage intensity. times the gross acreage of the site. Rare special events are ones (such'as an air show at an airport) for which a facility is not designed and normally not used and for which extra safety precautions can be taken as appropriate. 7 Clustering of nonresidential development is permitted except in Zone A. However, no single acre of a project site shall exceed the indicated number of people per acre. See Policy 4.2.6 for details. 8 An intensity bonus may be allowed in Zones B2 and C d the building design includes features intended to reduce risks to occupants in the event of an aircraft collision with the building. -See Policy 4.2.7 for details. 9 Hazards to flight include physical (e.g., tall objects), visual, and electronic forms of interference with the safety of • aircraft operations. Land use development which may cause the. attraction of birds to increase is also prohibited. See the supporting compatibility policies on airspace protection (Policies 4.3.2 and 4.3.6) for details. 10 For the purposes of these criteria, children's schools include through grade 12. 11 Storage of aviation fuel and other aviation -related flammable materials on an airport is exempted from this criterion. Storage of up to 2,000 gallons of nonaviation flammable materials is also exempted. 12 NLR = Noise Level Reduction; the outside -to -inside sound level attenuation which the structure provides. See the, supporting compatibility policy on interior noise (Policy 4.1.5) for details. 13 Objects up to 35 feet in height are permitted; however, the Federal Aviation Administration may require marking and lighting of certain objects. See supporting compatibility policy on height restrictions (Policy 4.3.2) for details. 14 Two options are presented for residential densities in Compatibility Zone C. Option (1) requires an average parcel size of at least 5.0 gross acres. Option (2) requires a density of at least 4.0 dwelling units per acre (an average parcel size no greater than 0.2 gross acres). In locations where only one of these options is considered acceptable, the compatibility maps in Chapter 3 show either a C(1) or a C(2) symbol. In locations where either option is allowed, the map is marked with just the letter C. In the latter locations, the choice between the two options is at the discretion of the local land use jurisdiction. All other criteria for Zone C apply to both the C(1) and C(2) designations. This two -option criterion is based upon a determination that the intrusiveness of aircraft noise is the most significant . compatibility factor in Zone C; safety is only a minor concern The concept is that noise concerns can be minimized either by limiting the number of dwellings in the affected area or by allowing high densities which tend to have comparatively high ambient noise levels. (Corrected 91261 Source: Shut•, Moen Associates (September 2000) •-i Table 2A, Continued 2-15 Y • H, ut% o C unt L. A N D O F N'A'T U R A l � WEALTH AND B E A U T AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-339 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 January 24, 2001 FAX: (530) 538-7785 Jim Bearquiver, CEO :V7 % /0 Visions (evoo-sehe) Enterprises Inc. 968 Maraglia Street Redding, CA 96002io Dear. Mr. Bearquiver: On behalf of the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission,' I have reviewed .the Draft Environmental Assessment prepared for the Enterprise Rancheria. The following comments pertain solely to the compatibility of the project with the adopted/Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the .Oroville Airport. The proposed development by the Enterprise Rancheria is located within four different Com atibili ty Zones; these are A, B-1, B-2, and C (refer to attached map). Each of these zones has limitations on residential densities and development intensities based on noise, safety, overflight, and proximity to airport facilities (refer to attached table). In referring to the table, you can see that no dwellings are allowed in Zone A. Zone B-1 limits residential density to one dwelling unit per 10 acres. Zone B-2 limits residential density to one dwelling unit per 5 acres. Zone C has a two-tiered density requirement of either one dwelling unit per 5 acres or > 4 dwelling units per acre. The proposed parcel layout in the draft environmental document is not compatible with any of the mentioned compatibility zones. In conclusion, the project cannot be found consistent with the ALUCP as proposed unless the local jurisdiction (Butte County) adopts override findings. To develop the subject project site with 43 dwelling units and maintain compatibility with the ALUCP, only one development scenario would, work. This scenario could be achieved by clustering all proposed units within Zone C; the density must also be at least 4 dwelling units per acre. Thank you for the opportunity to review your project. Feel free to call me, or staff, should you need any additional information or have questions. You can reach me at (530)342-4300 or staff at 538- 6571. Sincerely yours, Norm Rosene, ALUC Chairman cc: Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department Of Interior . Office of Native American Programs_ Snwhprn Lrr rn slagel ssaippb ®A2i13/1m �� hAr 1;m Q]e rni Livor Drroo;e4on4 U. S. Dept. of the Interior % Bureau of Indian Affairs 1824 Tribute Rd., Suite J Sacramento, CA 95815 U. S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Develoent. -`yu� Office of Native American Programs, �aJb a Southwestern Region 400 North 5"' Street, Suite 1650 Phoenix, AZ 85004 North �aIIe9 t January 18,' 2001 Pilo n r Butte Co. Planning Commission D 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 P.O. s X 685 9592 Dear Commissioners, BUTTE COUNT rAMISSION AIRPORT LAND USE CO The membership of the North Valley Pilots Association would like to commend the efforts of the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission on the recent adoption of the professionally developed Comprehensive Land-Use Plan (2000 CLUP). We recognize the extreme importance of the CLUP in protecting the future of Butte County airports, especially Chico Municipal Airport (CMA) and Oroville Airport. From , an economic standpoint, CMA represents an irreplaceable, multimillion-dollar i investment. It generates over 250 flight line jobs, 60,000 passenger annually, and over 3 million pounds of cargo per year. All of these jobs, commerce, and opportunities are at - + stake. Is the City of Chico willing to risk all these economic benefits made possible by , the existence of CMA, in order to underwrite the profits for a few selected real estate developers? As airport users, we have seen how quickly an anti-airport neighborhood group can get restrictions, curfews and closures imposed on a facility. (eg. Santa Rosa, Monterey, Natomas, Hayward, Hawthorne, Fremont, San Jose, Torrance, etc.). Incompatible residential development simply should not be permitted near Chico Airport. The City of Chico has accepted $9,970,148.00 in FAA Grant money since 1982, and with receipt of each annual grant, the City has entered into binding Grant Assurance Agreements. The Grant Assurance Agreement basically states that the City will adhere to State guidelines for noise and safety requirements (the CLUP) or the City will have to ` pay back those funds and forfeit future airport grant funds. Furthermore, Page 8, Section 21 of the. FAA AirportAssurance Clause states... "Compatible Land Use. It (the City) will take appropriate action to the extent reasonable, including adoption of zoning laws, to restrict the use of land adjacent to or In the immediate vicinity of the airport to activities and purposes compatible with normalairport operations,including landing and taking off of aircraft." We are urging you to recognize not only the importance of the 2000 CLUP, but also the commitment the City has made to the FAA. We are asking you to amend the General Plan to incorporate the specifics of the 2000 CLUP in its entirety. It is time to make the right decision, and secure the economic future of Butte County and the. region. Respectfully, Rick Thompson, 345-7400 .:. President, North Valley Pilots Association VED BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION OROVILL4, CALIFORNIA • 0 Bemice Mandville rage i or 1 E C E9VEn�4l�L7 t n 'J -,C__ From: Bemice Mandville <meeshiem@flash.net> i, : J h N 2.9 2DG i v� To: Bernice Mandville <meeshiem(Mflash.net> Sent: Wednesday, January24, 2001 3:19 PM Subject:. Regards to Rezoning BUT COUNTY n!RPORT LAND USE Co?•iMISSION Airport Land Use Planning Commission ^ Dear Sirs, In regards to the airport rezoning plan, we feel it is completely unfair. We have lived on Garner Lane almost 50 yrs.(47)and.have never been bothered by airport noise: Garner Lane is not in the holding pattern of aircraft: Our property has always been -zoned, 1 house per acre.' We feel that we are being discriminated against if -it is rezoned to 1 house per 5 acres. We have been farming this 50 `acres in walnuts and almonds for the past 25 years. It has now becoming impossible to farm this small acreage, because of the rising costs of Management,chemicals,fertilizers,and now the uncertainty.of the water situation and power costs. Our only hope for the future is to subdivide our property into :1 acre lots and join all the existing homes. on Garner Lane. We are asking for your help in solving this problem. Sincerely yours, George,Bernice Mandville and Lee Fox (bro) 1/.d 'T/ V 1 r ` RECEIVED COPIES OF THIS AGENDA PREPARED: fl -18-01 AVAILABLE FROM: BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION City Manager's Office OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA. PO 1-24-01 411 Main Street n Chico, California U ILI 5:00 p.m. Telephone: (530) 895-4803 1� 1 • 1 g;�11E use co AGENDA j ����nRT '"O CITY OF CHICO AIRPORT COMMISSION Chico Municipal Center - - 421 Main Street - - City Council Chamber REGULAR -MEETING -- TUESDAY, -JANUARY 30, 2001 -- 7:30 P.M. Items Not Appearing on Posted Agenda. This agenda was posted on the Council Chamber Building Bulletin Board at least 72 hours in advance of this meeting. For each item not appearing on the posted agenda upon which the Commission wishes to take action, other than merely acknowledging receipt of correspondence or other information, it must make one of the following determinations, (1) Determine by a two-thirds vote or by a unanimous vote if less than two-thirds of the Board/Commission is present, that the need for action came to the attention of the City subsequent to the agenda being posted. 2 Determine that the item appeared on a posted agenda. for a meeting occurring not more than 5 calendar days O PP prior to this meeting, and the item was continued -to this meeting. 1. ROLL CALL AND INTRODUCTION OF: NEW COMMISSIONER; MICHAEL MORAN. 2. ELECTION OF 2001 CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR AND DISCUSSION OF COMMITTEES. The Commission will elect a Chair and Vice Chair for the 2001 calendar year. ' In addition, the Commission may take this opportunity to discuss the various committees and the Commissioners on each. A list of the current committees has been provided to the Commission. 3. CONSENT AGENDA:. All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. Resolutions and Minute Orders will be read by title only. There will be.no separate discussion of these items unless members of the Commission or persons in the audience request specific items to be removed from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda for separate discussion prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt the Consent Agenda. If any items are removed from the Consent Agenda, the items will be considered at the beginning of the Regular Agenda. 3.1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- 11-28-00 The Commission has been provided with copies of minutes for its meeting held on 11-28-0.0. 3.2 RESOLUTION NO. 1-01: RESOLUTION'OF AIRPORT COMMISSION OF CITY OF CHICO EXPRESSING ITS APPRECIATION TO WENDY COGGINS FOR HER SERVICE AS AIRPORT Ilk COMMISSIONER FROM JUNE 1997 THROUGH DECEMBER 2000 Wendy Coggins' term as Airport Commissioner expired January 2001. The Commission has been provided with copies of Resolution No. 1-01. I- V 3.3 3.4 4. 5. 5.1. DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF LETTER TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REGARDING AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING At its meeting on November 28, 2000 the Commission unanimously approved a motion to send a letter to the Butte County Board of Supervisors indicating the Commission's desire to expand the runway to the north of the Airport. A copy of a proposed letter to the Board of Supervisors has been distributed to the Commission for their review. DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF DRAFT PROTOCOL WITH CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY . At its meeting on November 28, 2000, Chair Lucas requested that this matter be placed on the Airport Commission agenda as soon as an approved draft of the agreement is available. A copy of the agreement has been distributed to the Commission with the current agenda. HEARINGS. None. REGULAR AGENDA. AIRPORT MANAGER UPDATES. The Airport Manager will provide the Commission with updates on the following topics. a. Airport Land Use Commission meetings of December 20, 2000 and January 17, 2001. b. Update regarding the status of the Air Market Survey. c. Update on CMA parking lot expansion. 6. - BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR: A member of the general public may address the Airport Commission on any matter not appearing on the agenda which is, of interest to such person and which is within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Where a member of the general public seeks to address the Commission under Business From The Floor, the Commission' may ask questions of such person, but may not discuss the matter unless and until the matter is included on a posted agenda at a subsequent meeting, or make one of the determinations listed on the first page of this agenda in the unnumbered section entitled "Items Not Appearing on Posted Agenda". 7. ADJOURNMENT: The Commission will adjourn to Tuesday, February 27, 2001 in the Conference Room of the Airport Terminal Building. s. { Butte County Dev. Svcs, Tom Parilo •Distribution- Butte County Supervisor Dolan i Commission - 5* Butte County Supervisor Houx News Media - 9 CDF Air Attack Base i CM/AM/AA-Airport - 3* Chico Chamber of Commerce, CEO City Clerk and Council - 8 Fortress -Independence, Karl Hall City Attorney - 1* Hardesty & Sons, Donald H. Brashears ACA Barker/ACA Rock - 2 Herfi Aircraft, Retta Herfi DPW/ADPW-E/ADPW-O&M - 3* League of Wmn Voters, Catherine Monceau CDD/PI.Dir./CDA - 3* Mach 1, Paul Farsai MA -ED Merit Medi -Trans, Inc., Stan Gungl Chief of Police - 1 Mooney Farms, Mary Mooney Finance Director - 1 North Valley Pilots Association . Fire Chief/Station #3 - 2 Pacific Flight Services .. Airport Field Supervisor Paradise Town Manager, Chuck Rough ` Public Review Binder - 1* Schooler Flying Co., Harold Schooler Post Storre, Bob (BIA) File Y . Team Chico, Bob Linscheid Extra - 6 Traffic Control Tower, Karl Klemm -------- ______ Transfer Flow, Inc., Bill & Jeanne Gaines A/C Industrial, Nick Buck Valley Contractors Exchange, Inc. i Aero Union Corp., Vic Alvistur ; Allan, Ella Anagnos, Aris; Olympus Properties, Inc. Beachfront Deli, Pam Wilson Bi -Tech Software, Kristi Bennett Brady's Moving and Storage, Jeff Day Butte County Admin., John Blacklock s. rage i of Bernice Mandville From: Bemire Mandville <meeshiem@flash.net> To: Bernice Mandville <meeshiernc@flash.net> JAN 3 0 2001 Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 20013:19 PM Subject: Regards to Rezoning BUTTE COUNTY Airport Land Use Planning Commission AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Dear Sirs, In regards to the airport rezoning plan, we feel it is completely . unfair. We have lived on Garner Lane almost 50 yrs.(47)and have never been bothered by airport noise.Garner Lane is not in the holding pattern of aircraft. Our property has always been zoned, 1 house per .acre. We feel that we are being discriminated against if it is rezoned to 1 house per 5 acres. We have been farming this 50 acres in walnuts and almonds for the past 25 years. It has now becoming impossible to farm this small acreage, because of the rising costs of •Management, chem icals,fertilizers,and now the uncertainty of the water situation and power costs. Our only hope for the future is to subdivide our property into 1 acre lots and join all the existing homes on Garner Lane. We are asking for your help in solving this problem. Sincerely yours, George, Bernice Mandville and Lee Fox (bro) C. 1/!r T/VL • January 29, 2001 Norm Rosene, Chairman ALUC 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 D E C E 9 W E JAN 3 Q Zu01 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LANE) USE COMMISSION Dear Mr. Rosen: This letter will confirm our telephone . conversation on January. 24, 2001 regarding the Overflight Plan for Chico Municipal Airport. I do not believe that the C1 zone for Garner Lane is appropriate. Butte County zoned Garner Lane as one acre home sites a number of years ago. Approximately 70% of the property in this area has. been put to this use. The C1 zone that the ALUC has proposed will severely impact the future uses of my property, significantly decreasing its value. This decrease in value will cause me extreme financial hardship. This property is my retirement fund. • I• have lived on Garner Lane for 53 ears. When the roe in front of me was .� y property developed almost 35 years ago,.:my husband and..I made the decision to hold on to our property in anticipation of future. growth. That growth has occurred. More and more homes are built along. Garner Lane every year. The proposed Cl zone does not conform to the Butte County General Plan for Garner Lane and needs to be reconsidered. Property owners must not be discriminated against for the benefit of business and private interests at the airport. I understand that the airport is an essential part of Chico's economy. I do not object to the airport. I object to the ALUC and Butte County adopting an Overflight Plan that infringes, not. only..up.on the future use of my.property,.but on the security of my future. Sincerely, Ozell Callahan - 13728 Garner Lane Chico, .CA. 95971 cc: Assemblyman Sam Anestad 3rd Assembly District 1 196 Memorial Way - Chico, CA 95926 Supervisor Mary Anne Houx 196 Memorial Way Chico, CA 95926 f Supervisor Jane Dolan PO Box 3700 Chico, .CA . 95.926. 0 The Center for Economic Development at6fornia State University, Chico hosts: 0 TRI -COUNTY ECONOMIC O R E --C A SY January 31, 2001 Chico Masonic Family Center` 1110 W. East Ave Chico, CA 95926 The purpose of the Economic Forecast Event is to provide local business and community leaders with vital information about the future direction of their local and regional economies. By providing these local leaders with detailed forecasts of the future of their communities and efforts to improve local economic conditions, the Economic Forecast Event will help to improve the ability of local government and business- es to successfully plan for the future of Northern California. ADVISORY SPONSORS U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration (EDA) Chico Enterprise -Record BUSINESS ASSOCIATE SPONSORS Wells Fargo CORPORATE SPONSORS D�T-Tomes Tr. my Economic Development Corporation RSC Associates Glenn County Economic Development Corporation Chico Masonic Family Center Litho Unlimited DIRECTIONS TO THE CHICO MASONIC FAMILY CENTER: PARTNER SPONSORS From Highway 99, take the East Avenue exit. From the southbound exit Shelley Anderson's Creative turn right, and pass Esplanade to 1110 W. East Ave. From the northbound Catering exit turn left, pass Esplanade to 1110 W. East Ave. Sierra Nevada Brewing Company AGENDA: Cory's KENT BURNES, MODERATOR Danielle Taylor for Hair 8:00 a.m. Registration & Breakfast Round Table Pizza 8:30 Opening Remarks Perche No 8:45 Local Industry Outlook Panel Body & Bath 10:00 National and Statewide Outlook CSU, Chico College of Nancy Sidhu, Economist, LAEDC Engineering 10:45 California Housing Market Outlook CSU, Chico College of TBA Agriculture 11:20 a.m. Regional and Local Outlook ECONOMIC FORECAST Mark Schniepp, Director, California Economic Forecast EVENT BOARD OF Project DIRECTORS Lora Ceccon Glenn County Planning" Research, and Development Ronn Van Dusen ' Wells Fargo Fred Crosthwaite Chico Enterprise -Record ► rl /r Fliers printed by Litho Unlimited REGISTRATION FORA To register you may either mail or fax the center this form with your check or credit card number. Registration is $50 per person and includes breakfast, a forecast white paper, a 2001 County Profile, and three raffle tickets. RSVP as soon as possible. , N- ame: Title: Organization Address: Ciry/State/Z PloFax. E-mail: Make checks payable to: Please charge to: Visa Credit Card Number: Expiration Date: Signature: Mail to: Center for Economic Development California State University, Chico Chico, CA 95929-0765 Center for Economic Development Mastercard Or Fax to: 530-898-4734 For further information please call: 530-898-4598 fNon-Profit Org. California State University, Chico -_� U.S. Postage Paid Chico, CA 95929-0765 Chico, CA Center for Economic Development Permit No. 217 F TF Eu ne, coun, • 'J�� LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF.DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. . 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE•. OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 January 31, 2001 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 Tom Hays,. Senior Planner Community Development Department/Planning City of Chico. 411 Main Street : P. O. Box 3,420 Chico, CA 95927 Subject: City of Chico Analysis of Growth Areas, Dear Mr. Hays: Thank you for allowing the County to comment on your endeavor to accommodate Chico's future growth. Yesterday, the Planning Division received your letter requesting the County to comment on the referenced study by February 2, 2001. The County requests a time extension as indicated below. • Attached toyour letter was a map depicting the proposed Expansion Areas. Since no further information and analysis were available, staff needs more time to be able to provide. appropriate comments. For this purpose, it would be beneficial for the City and County staff to meet and discuss factors and issues pertaining to the subject study prior to making these comments. Based on the breadth and depth of the issues involved, as well as the outcome of such a meeting(s), County staff .would be able to identify an appropriate and realistic time extension to be requested. I will call you this week to arrange for a meeting as soon as possible. Thank you again for this opportunity to comment on the Expansion Study Areas and we look forward to meeting with you and staff. Sincerely M. A.eleka Princip 1 Planner FEB 6 2001 1350 East Lassen Avenue, Suite 2 Chico, California15973-7858 530 895-1512 FAX 530 895-0844 ATTORNEYS AT LAW February 1, 2001 /n CL %� M.A. Meleka BUTTE CO. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION' 25 County Center Drive . Oroville, California 95966 RE: 2000 CLUP Dear Mr. Meleka: After reviewing the minutes from the December, 2000 meeting of the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission, Peter Giampaoli believed that the illustration on page 10 of the minutes did not clearly define where the line meets the end of East Lassen Avenue. Enclosed please find a map • prepared by Mr. Giampaoli's engineer and submitted by Mr. Giampaoli to clear up this issue. �. After your review and consideration, If you have. any questions I suggest. that you contact Mr. Giampaoli at 891-4757. i Very truly yours, ROBERT D. HARP ' Enclosure RDH:Ick cc: Peter G. Giampaoli _ER V. MARSHALL JOHN L. BURGHARDT ERNTFST S. MIESKE ROBERT D. HARP i Law Corporation law Corporation Law Corporation I 4 83 N / / O 79ty LCC 82 $ 2 81 78 / � ' 139 N `'>. F— AY // N 29 �. \ E ABA DONED / s 7 1413' 77 30 cv s 61- 9 18 - 17n I 16 ^•s�, o. �o. ' \ 22 �� � , 76 o 10 iA 35' 56' 43' N �_ ' 41' 00. N+ - 0o. � / / / .32 o• N ^� o // — �� {� 0 020— 9 �l '�o i / / �`' ��' . 2 o �° .96 14 74, 1� ^0 h^ 9 a 46' 66 1 % / 101' 0 �h 43 oo lu 7 34 70 812 .0 O 12 ' 60 72 � 42 71 ^ tee, o. 10, o N 35 6ti ^� 1 / / I 44 g 111 0. 6 e 070 60 / / m 0 16j.X069 60 OR ST M WATER N 1 t 6 R jA ME T l O. v j � 6 . sr 103' 112 8 60 / • .T • 03. 2 cres / �, / 112 4Q Lo O � / $ 0 2 - Lo45 `� 38 / 4 _ toJ / 0 37 05' / �0o.61 5. / 9 co s' 9' �, 4 S� 6 2 b� 2 „E st' / 1 so' s1' 3�� � 46 � / , . 0 5$ s�s _ 4 4. 56 / 1 _ \ I. 100' 86' 5 \ 5 op• 5 d c 5 1 ` / 110' 1 I 1 sa' �, `Y' _ j =a _ , . 9 6 4 - 65' 131, 1 65, p _ 0 5 1 0 7 o I co b 55'65, 54, 90' >I I o 54 �lo o 64' 62' 6 61' cr 20 51 s8' s ' �, 50�o• 49 0 o 0 ., 5 �f EX. s 47 0_ PVC 8 ) sos•Is'S 5 ss• � � � 3 78t.7s ss' 6 HILKjP S wER 6j, 56' 6'9' r- 6 (-1 �g, 69 v'. 14 F % UNIT ISO. 1 + n1 — ✓P CI SE C8 EWER_I is PHAcSE . N E TO w � � . 1� � — ssL � — �� \ S Vi 6E 16 % 1,/�_ 19 1 \A(n 14 13 12 36 ' I I �� I FOOT ILLI PARK \ s W a 11 % \ 37 _ UNI 9. _ - ' I FOOTHILL PARK- f FOOTHILL PARK � UNIT N0. 7 UNIT NO. 7 PHASE 4 PHASE 3 P • • � p 38'16'10" 00 R = 957.00' L = 639.21' D ECElWE t FEB 6 2001 ' A4AMHAI 12 BVRGHARDT, AUTTF LLP .• AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 1350 East Lassen Avenue, Suite 2 Chico, California 95973-7858 ' 530 895-1512 FAX 530 89570844 ATTORNEYS AT LAW February 1, 2001 �wt,rs�lwt A (6� M.A. Meleka .(w cyt.d�-4-r JM7 BUTTE CO. AIRPORT LAND USE 'COMMISSION e 25 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95966 RE: Appointment of Alternate Commissioner Dear Mr. Meleka: This letter is to follow up and confirm my conversation with Susan in your office regarding my appointment of Henry Roberson as my alternate commissioner on the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission. Mr. Roberson's address ,is c/o ' Air Carriage, P.O. Box 3099, Chico, California 95927, Phone No.'(530) 898-8616. • If you have an questions or need an further information lease do not hesitate Y Y4 Y ,p tetocall. Very truly yours, ROBERT D. HARP RDH:Ick cc: Henry Roberson R V. ibtARSHAU JOHN L BURGHARDT ' ERNEST S. MIESKE ROBERT D. HARP Corporation Law Corporation Law Corporation .02/08/2001 THU 12:26 FAX -530 893'4726 CITY OF CHICO-BUILDING 0001/000 J i City Of Chico Planning Division ,:• P.O. Box 3420 411 Main Street cmracnco Chico, CA 95927 I -C 1W, (530) 895-4851 Date: 2/8/01 Number of Pages (including this cover page): 3 FROM: Name: Kim Seidler Planning Director Phone Number: (530) 895-4743 Fax Number: (530) 895-4726 70: Name: M.A. Meleka Company: Butte County FAX Number. 538-7785 MESSAGE: Here's the letter, Meleka. Let me know the response when you can. Sorry to complicate your life; thanks for the help. Kim • a 02/08/2001TTHU,12:26 FAX $30 893 4726 CITY OF' CHICO-BUILDING trCI7YaCHICO �Nc .e)z COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING 411 Main SueeL Y.U. Box 3420 Chico. CA 95927 (530) 095-4851 FAX (630) 896-4/213 ATSS 459-4851 Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965 February 8, 2000 Q002/003 D gC WiE FEB '8.20.01 0' BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE -COMMISSION Re: 2000 Airport Land "Use Compatibility Plan Dear Commissioners: City Manager Tom Lando.has asked me to request a joint meeting of the Airport Land Use Commission and the City Council on Tuesday, February 20, at 7:30pm. The purpose of the meeting is to provide an opportunity for the Council to.ask questions and discuss directly with the ALUC aspects of the 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan that affect the City. Your desire, expressed publicly and often, to work closely with affected • jurisdictions in this process has been noted and is very much appreciated. There are stilt a few significant issues that remain unresolved, and while I recognize that a mutually satisfactory resolution of each may not be possible, this meeting, will at least afford ALUC and the Council a chance to explore each other's views and enhance an overall- understanding verallAunderstanding of the compelling issues'that each face. The Council's major remaining concerns about the Compatibility Plan are the following, as expressed in the letter to you from Tom Lando dated November 15,2000: 1. The C1 compatibility zoning of property north of Eaton Road. 2. The B2 compatibility zoning of a large portion of Bidwell Ranch. 3. The extension of B2. compatibility zoning to a boundary 500 feet south of Sycamore Creek, rather than along the creek itself. The City is also still concerned about the adequacy of the negative declaration adopted for the Compatibility Plan, Discussion of each of these topics can be expected, as well as any others that may be raised by the ALUC. I do hope that you and your staff will be able to attend and participate in this meeting. Because of the limited time remaining before February 20, please let me know as soon as possible. , Mode Flom Wcycl cd Paper E " 1 d 02/08/2001 THU 12:27 FAX 530 895 4726 CITY OF,CHICO-BUILDING 0003/003 Letter to Airport Land Use Commission February 8, 2001 Page 2 I would be pleased to assist you in making any arrangements you find necessary.for this meeting. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Respectfully, Kim Seidler Planning Director cc: City Council CM, ACM, CA, ACA, AM, CDD 1� u I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. PLANNING ' A94eJ2kq 4,44D 411 MainStreet P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 (530) 895-4851 FAX (530) 895-4726 ATSS 459-4851 February 8, 2001 E V jf��' k. L� L/ 15 4 FEB 12 2001 AIRpORTeuTTE COUNTY LANp USE COMM'SS!ON RECEIVED Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 7.County Center Drive FEB 1..2 2001 Ciroville, California 95965 &MECOUMYPLMNINGDNIs►oN OROWU, CALIFORNIA Re: 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Dear Commissioners: City Manager Tom Lando has,asked me to request a joint meeting of the Airport Land Use Commission, and the City Council on Tuesday, February 20, at 7:30pm. The purpose of the meeting is to provide an opportunity for the Council to ask questions and discuss directly with the ALUC aspects of the 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan that affect the City. Your desire, expressed publicly and often, to work closely .with affected jurisdictions in this process has been noted and is very much appreciated. There are still a few significant issues that remain unresolved, and while I recognize that a mutually satisfactory resolution of each may not be possible, this meeting will at least afford ALUC and the Council a chance to explore each other's views and enhance an overall understanding of the compelling issues that each face. The Council's major remaining concerns about the Compatibility Plan are the following, as expressed in the letter to you from Tom Lando _dated November 15, 2000- 1. The C1 compatibility zoning of property north of Eaton Road. 2. The- B2 compatibility zoning of a large portion of Bidwell Ranch. 3. The extension of B2 compatibility zoning to a boundary 500 feet south of Sycamore Creek, rather than along the creek itself. The City is also still concerned about the adequacy of the negative declaration adopted for the Compatibility Plan. Discussion of each of these topics can be expected, as well as any others that may be raised by the ALUC. I do hope that you and your staff will be able to attend and participate in this. meeting. Because of the limited time remaining before February 20, please let me • know as soon as possible. �� Made From Recycled Paper Letter to Airport Land Use Commission February 8, 2001 • Page 2 I would be.pleased to assist you in making any arrangements you find necessary for this meeting. " Thank you for your consideration of this. request. Respectfully, Kim Seidler Planning Director cc: City Council - CM, ACM, CA, ACA, AM, CDD �cSOCAA'17gyOp OCA ��aw G� ^''•s47nno��s. BUTTE.CouNT ASSOCIATION o GOVERNMENTS 965 FiR ST., ChiCO, CA 95928.6301 • (530) 879.2468// FAX: (530) 879.2444 • www.bCAq.ORq MEMORANDUM DATE: February 7, 2001 TO: Transportation Advisory Committee FROM: Ivan Garcia, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) Potential Lapsing of Funds Background D EC E.E FEB 1 2 2001 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION As you,may be aware, Butte County has been entitled to receive Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds as a result of the Transportation Equity Act authorized by Congress in 1998.. At that time, projects were limited to the urbanized area of Chico, which was Butte ` County's only non-attaimneni area. • In the fall of 2000 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reinstated the l -hour rule for Butte County as a result of various battles with the courts on standards concerning a more stringent 8 -hour rule. Regardless, under the 1 -hour rule for ozone, Butte County has been designated as "non -attainment" and is subject to a conformity determination. This also allows for the expenditure of CMAQ funds countywide. 0 Discussion BCAG, over the last few years has been programming eligible projects within the urbanized area of Chico. A concern that has' been brought to BCAG's immediate attention is the issue of timely use of funds as identified in Assembly Bill 1012. In essence, this bill identifies that if funds are not obligated within a three-year window, they are subject to reprogramming elsewhere in the state. Unfortunately, because of project delays, staff is currently trying to secure funds that are currently subject to reprogramming. In light of the recent countywide redesigation to non -attainment for ozone, and lack of projects that have been received, BCAG staff is required to accept new projects countywide in the interest of not losing funds to this region. In particular, staff will look for projects that can be obligated within the 01/02 fiscal year: The amount available for immediate programming is $481,0001 Attachment A from the CMAQ Instruction Packet has been included. This Attachment identifies the timeline for Phase 2 of the CMAQ project selection process. METROPOLITAN PIANNINq ORGANIZATION (MPO) - REGIONAI TRANSPORATION PIANNING AGENCY (RTPA) BCAG Transportation Advisory Committee CMAQ Programming 02/07/01 Page 2 Reauested Action Staff recommends that if your agency is interested in applying for these funds, please review the application instructions and complete the application and all necessary material required. The CMAQ program is specifically aimed to addressing the regions air quality non -attainment pollutants. BCAG is required to satisfy the requirements in AB 1012 in demonstrating that CMAQ projects can and will be delivered on time. As such, staff will recommend to the BCAG Board in March that the FTIP be amended in April to allow for the programming of the funds being made available as soon as possible. This will enable the obligation of these funds by July 1, 2001. Due to obligatory meetings on the morning of March 1s', the TAC meeting will be held at 1:30 p. m. at the BCAG offices. A full TAC agenda will be mailed one week prior to the meeting. 0 ATTACHMENT A TIMELINE FOR PHASE II OYCMAQ PROJECT SELECTION I 4 Date or Time Required Activity or Action February 10, 2001 BCAG mails out program guidelines and request project nominations Match 1, 2001 Project sponsors announce intent to request funds. Project briefing to TAC with estimated costs will be required. March 12, 2001 Applications due. BCAG Staff reviews projects, prepares recommendations to the BCAG Board of Directors March 22, 2001 BCAG Board of Directors informed of priorities for funding. BCAG FTIP is "noticed" for amendment action set for April 26, 2001. April 5, 2001 BCAG staff presents project recommendations to TAC. TAC either concurs with staff or makes own recommendation for the April 26Ih BCAG Board meeting. April 26; 2001 BCAG Board amends the 2000 FTIP; approve project(s) for funding. Amended FTIP is processed and forwarded to Caltrans and FHWA for approval. April 26 — June 30 Caltrans review of air quality conformity finding and FTIP amendment on exempt projects. FHWA, FTA and EPA review and act on air quality conformity and FTIP. July 1, 2001 Project sponsor may submit to Local Assistance, "Request for Authorization Butte County Association of Governm,ent - 10 - Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program - CM40 I 4 Dost -i;,!; Note 7671 Date pagges� To 13.RKc-e- %} L C2 -t- From ✓ t s CoMept. G0 Co Co. Phone # �2q S Phone # ! Lr #Fax # • • ;T ' -r' , Re: Request to Inspect and Copy Public .Records . I foo } A) "--' I request access to records in possession of your department for/the purpose. of inspection and copying pursuant to California Public Records Ad (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.) The records I wish to Inspect and copy are: 1, �Q �Y CIX/. 67. This information reaso IY describes identifiable records or information produced therefrom and I believe that there are no express provisions of law exempting the records from disclosure. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6257, 1 ask that you make the records "promptly available" for inspection and copying. I will, of course, pay such "fees covering direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee, if applicable. If a portion of the information I have requested is exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law, Government Code Section 6257 additionally requires segregation and deletion of that material In order that the remainder of the information may be released. If you determine.tht an express provisions of law exists to exempt from disclosure all or a portion of the material I have requested,. Government Code Section 6256 requires notification to me of the reasons for this determination not later than 10 days from your receipt of this request. Government Code Section 6256.2 prohibits the use of the 10 -day period, or any provisions of the Public Records Act "to delay access for purposes of inspecting public records." Thank you for your attention to this request. p ECEO-VE FEB 12 2001 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION Very Truly Yours, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BILL LOCKYERState of JUSTICE e 2000 ' Attorney General AUG 17 DEPARTMENT O ....�• OROVILL U 13001 STREET, SUITE 125 P.O. BOX 944255 SACRAMENTO, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 324-5433 Facsimile: (916) 324-4293 E -Mail: frankr@b cdojnet.state.ca.us August 11, 2000 Butte County Board of Supervisors 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA .96965 RE: Need for Comprehensive Update of 'General Plan Dear: Butte County Board of Supervisors: The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has conducted a statewide survey of general plan updates and, pursuant to Government Code section 65040.5(b), has provided to the Attorney General a list of cities and counties which have apparently not adopted • comprehensive general plan updates in more than ten years. Your jurisdiction has been included in this list. If OPR's information regarding your jurisdiction is incomplete, or is in error in some material way, we would appreciate. being so advised and receiving information to. correct the survey. If, however, your jurisdiction has not completed a comprehensive general plan update within the last ten years, this is a matter of potential concern. For the reasons discussed below, if you have not completed such an update, we urge you to prepare and to adopt one in accordance. with the requirements of the Government Code as soon as practicable. We also request that you provide us an update of your progress towards completing, and/or your plans to prepare, a comprehensive general plan update, including a schedule for this activity. As you know, the provisions of the Government Code require each city and county to adopt a general plan which is essentially a "`constitution' for future development" within the community. (Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540; Gov. Code, § 65300.) The general plan must include seven mandatory elements, addressing these elements in the level of detail required by local.circumstances. (Gov. Code, §§ 65300.7, 65301 and 65302.) The general planis required to.' rovide; a comprehensive statement of long- v Butte County Board of Supervisors August 11, 2000 Page 2 term development policy for the community and must be internally consistent. (Gov. Code, §§ 65300 and 65300.5.) Once a general plan has been adopted, local zoning ordinances and proposed subdivisions, along with their associated improvements, are required to be consistent with the community's adopted general plan. (See Gov. Code, §§ 66473.5 and. 65860.) The general plan may be amended upon compliance with a series of procedural requirements. (Gov. Code, § 65358.) The local planning agency also is assigned the task of periodically reviewing and preparing revisions to the general plan. (Gov. Code, § 65103.) Except for the housing element, there is no express statutory requirement to amend general plans in accordance with a specified schedule. However, the courts have identified an implied duty to review and to amend general plans as local circumstances warrant, so that the plan meets*statutory objectives of providing long-term, comprehensive, internally consistent guidance for the physical development of the community. (De Vita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 CalAth 763, 792; see also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 572 .) Additionally, the Government Code requires local governments to review and report on the status of their general plans to OPR and the Department of Housing and Community. Development on a yearly basis (Gov. Code, § 65400), and also directs OPR to contact local governments with general plans that have not been revised within eight years (Gov..Code, § 65040.5(a)). Unless the general plan for your jurisdiction is reasonably current, then various actions may be at risk of being challenged. If a general plan does not reflect substantial compliance with the requirements of state law, then the city or county may be held to have failed in the "performance of an act which the law specially enjoins," and development approvals may be set aside for lack of consistency with the required. general plan. (Camp v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 334, 348.) The propriety of virtually any local decision affecting land use and development depends upon consistency with the applicable general plan and its statutorily required elements. (Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural EI Dorado County (FUTURE) et al. v. Board of Supervisors,of EI Dorado County, et al. (1998) 62 Cal.AppAth 1332,1335;1339-1341.) We recognize that general plans which have not been comprehensively revised within the past ten years may not necessarily be legally inadequate. Failure to review, and to update the plan as warranted by local circumstances could, however, subject your jurisdiction, as well as parties who are pursuing development approvals, to expensive and time-consuming litigation challenges. In addition, if a court decision were to invalidate a development approval within your jurisdiction due to an inadequate general plan, then pending and future development proposals could be stalled until appropriate general plan revisions are adopted. (See Camp v. Board of -Supervisors, supra, 123 Cal.App.3d 334.) Butte County Board of Supervisors August 11, 2000 Page 3 We also understand that your local budget resources may have been limited in the past several years and that local governments must deal with a number of competing priorities. However, the general plan lies at the heart of local government's exercise of its police power authority over land use and development. Keeping the plan reasonably current must be a priority. For all of the foregoing reasons, we urge you to complete a prompt review of your jurisdiction's general plan, and to adopt an appropriate update to your plan, as needed, as soon as possible. The. Governor's Office of Planning and Research provides guidance in the preparation of general plans and may be able to provide assistance with technical matters related to preparing general plan updates. You may contact the State Clearinghouse within OPR at (916) 445-0613, should you desire technical assistance. Sincerely, RICHARD M. FRANK Chief Assistant Attorney General For BILL LOCKYER Attorney General STEVE NISSEN Acting Director Governor's Office of Planning and Research • 0 0 R �--`e 21, 2001 A.L.U.C. li �- BUTTE COUNTY COMMISSION Dear Mr. Chairman and A.L.U.C. Board Member AIRPORT SAN° U— I am here today to protest the A.L.U.C. over -flight plan for the Chico Municipal Airport - specifically the plan for Garner Lane area. The Board of Supervisors zoned this area as one acre, residential years ago and.a majority (over 700/) of Garner Lane has been developed as such. It would be discriminatory and unfair to the remaining property owners to deny them the same right. Garner is not in the flight plan of the commercial, borate bomber planes, "touch and go" flights, or the Chico Air Show. It is not fair to penalize the few undeveloped properties along Garner Lane for other airport business or private small planes. To restrict Garner Lane to the west of the airport with a C-1 zoning when the A.L.U.C. assigned a large acreage just to the east of the airport a C zone just does not make sense! I am requesting that you amend the over -flight plan to return the Garner Lane strip back to a C zone. Thanks for your correcting this matter. Sincerely, Ozell Callahan 13728 Garner Lane Chico, CA 95973 cc: Butte County Board of Supervisors January 29, 2001 Norm Rosene, Chairman ALUC. 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Mr. Rosen: This letter will confirm our telephone. conversation on January. 24, 2001 regarding the Overflight Plan for Chico Municipal Airport. I do not believe that the Cl zone for Garner Lane is appropriate. . Butte County . zoned Garner Lane as one acre home sites: a number of years ago. Approximately 70% of the property in this area has been put to. this use. The Cl zone that the ALUC has proposed will severely impact. the future uses of my property, significantly decreasing its value. This decrease in value will cause me extreme financial hardship. This property is my retirement fund. • I have lived on Garner Lane for 53 years. When the property in front of me was developed almost 35 years ago,.:my husband and..I made the decision to hold on to our property in anticipation of future growth. That growth has occurred. More and more homes are built along.Garner Lane every year. The proposed Cl zone does not conform to the Butte County General Plan for Garner Lane and needs to be reconsidered. Property owners. must not be discriminatedagainst for the benefit of business and private interests at the airport. I understand that the airport is an essential part of Chico's economy. I do not object to the airport. I object to the ALUC and Butte County adopting an Overflight Plan that infringes, not.only..upon the future use of my.property,..but. on the security of my future. Sincerely, Ozell Callahan 13728 Garner Lane Chico, .CA..959.73_.. • • r -I L-A Bernice Mandville From: Bernice Mandville <meeshiem@netzero.net> To: Bernice L Mandville <meeshiem@netzero.net> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 4:12 PM Subject: Airport Land Planning Commission AIRPORT LAND PLANNING COMMISSIONS Sirs.... Page 1 of 2 D �- n �nnt BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION I am married to a man that has spent his whole life Sleeping, Dreaming, Breathing, nothing but Airplanes and flying. Not long after we were married he bought a 2 place T Craft airplane which he flew for a long time. At 18, 1 was instructed to keep my hands on the controls, my foot on the brake, while he stood outside, turning the propeller by hand. This was the only way to start the engine. When he moved the shocks in front of the wheels I was frightened that it might take off with me in it. We flew in this all over the valley. We took several trips to Montana in it. We went pretty fast if we had a tail wind but if we had a head wind I swear the cars went faster. Later, when we flew in a 172 Cessna I thought I had died and gone to heaven. We kept our plane at the Chico Airport for years. Our son Bruce, followed in his fathers footsteps. His career has always been flying. He was an Instructor in Chico and taught many Chicoans to fly. He is now a corporate pilot for a large company. Flying around Chico , George says he never used Garner Lane in his flight pattern. He used Hicks Lane as his down wind leg. Larger planes go around Garner lane. The only planes we see overhead is Crop dusters. We have lived on Garner Lane nearly 50 years, which we farm with my brother, Lee Fox. It is planted in walnuts and almonds. We hired a manager to take care of the orchards. We pay all the water bills. We are afraid the P G &E bills will make it impossible to keep farming. We have together almost 50 acres. Not many years ago we were assessed 146.00 per acre. This was added to our County taxes. This was a plan that stated that our property was zoned 1 house per acre. We feel it should stay this way. Garner Lane is now almost solid houses. In time we want to be able to sub -divide our land into 1 house per acre lots. It is zoned this way now and we want to be sure that it stays this way. !r/ 1// V1 Page 2 of 2 I cannot see how rezoning our acreage could in anyway help the airport. { It would destroy us and our family. If I am left a widow and I could not sub _divide my property. It would be a disaster for me. We enjoy having the airport near that our.son can fly to and visit us so easily. Our building more houses is not going in anywayto infringe on the airport. The houses are already here on Garner lane. ; Please do not change the zoning of our property. Sincerely, George &Bernice Mandville &' Lee Fox ti , , v, • January 29, 2001 Norm Rosene, Chairman ALUC 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Mr. Rosene: 40 FEB 2 1 2001 AIRPORTBUTTE LAND U EUNTY COMMISSION This letter will confirm our 'telephone conversation on January, 24, 2001 regarding the Overflight Plan for Chico Municipal Airport. I do not believe that the C1 zone for G mer Lane is appropriate. Butte County.. zoned Garner Lane as one acre home sites a number of years ago. Approximately 70% of the property in this area has been put to this use. The Cl zone that_ the ALUC. has proposed will. severely. impact... the . future uses of my property, significantly decreasing its value. This decrease in value will cause me extreme financial hardship. This .property is my retirement fund. I have lived on Garner Lane for 53 years. When the property in front of me was developed`almost, 35 years ago,..my, husband and I made the decision to hold on to our property in anticipation of future growth. That growth has occurred. More and more homes�.are built along -Garner Lane, every year. The proposed C1 zone does not conform to the Butte County General Plan for Garner Lane and needs to be reconsidered. Property owners must not be discriminated against for the benefit of business and private interests at the airport. I understand that the airport is an essential part of Chico's economy. .1 do not object to the airport. I object to the ALUC and Butte Comity adopting an Overflight Plan that infringes, not only..upon the future. use_ of my prop.erty,_.but on the security of my future. Sincerely, Ozell Callahan JAN 3 0'-2001 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA Cc: As§emblyman Sam Anestad .3rd Assembly District 196 Memorial Way Chico, CA 95926 Supgrvisor Mary Anne Houx 196 Memorial Way Chico, CA 95926 Supervisor Jane Dolan PO Box 3700 Chico, .CA. 95926..... • 0 s. a.. u Qi oun #AT OPY LAND .'OF NATURAL WEALTH. AND ' �`a; AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION s $ _,�•, �s.�} r` ;.': ~ 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-6571 'Febr 'a '23 2001 FAX: (530) 538-7785 www.buttecounty.net/dds/ Jim Bearquiver, CEO Visions (evoo-sehe) Enterprises Inc. 968 Maraglia Street Redding, CA 96002 Dear Mr. Bearquiver: On behalf of the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission, I have reviewed the Draft Environmental Assessment prepared for the Enterprise Rancheria. The following comments. pertain solely to the compatibility of the project with the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the Oroville Airport which was adopted on December 20, 2000. The proposed development by the Enterprise Rancheria is located within four different Compatibility Zones; these are A, B-1, 13-2; and C (refer to attached map). Each of these zones has limitations on residential densities and development intensities based on noise, safety, overflight, •; and proximity to airport facilities (refer to attached table). In referring to the table, you can see that no dwellings are allowed in Zone A. Zone B-1 limits residential density to one dwelling unit per 10 acres. Zone B-2 limits residential density to one dwelling unit per 5 acres. Zone C has a two- tiered density requirement of either one dwelling unit per.5 acres or > 4 dwelling units per acre. The proposed parcel layout in the draft environmental document is not compatible with any of the mentioned compatibility zones. In conclusion, the project cannot be found consistent with the ALUCP as proposed unless the local jurisdiction (Butte County) adopts override, findings. To develop the subject project site with 43 dwelling units and maintain compatibility with the ALUCP, only one development scenario would ' work. This scenario could be achieved by clustering all proposed units within Zone Q. the density must also be at least 4 dwelling units per acre. Thank you for the opportunity to review your project. Feel free to call me, or staff, should you need any additional information orhave questions. You can reach me at (530)342-4300 or staff at 538- 6571. Sinc n elyours; Norm i ALUC nan • n u BUTT' COONTy AssoaATMN 04 GOVERNMENTS CA 965 FiR ST., Chico, CA 95928-6301 - (530) 879.2468 FAX: (530) 879.2444 • WWWA)CAq.ORq i i f NOTICE OF CANCELATION F TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MARCH 1, 2001 10:00 a.m. The next Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting is scheduled for: Thursday, April 5, 2001 10:00 a.m. Butte County Association of Governments 965 Fir Street Chico, CA 95928 Phone: (530) 879-2468 Fax: (530) 879-2444 Staff will contact each of the Public Works Directors concerning CMAQ programming. METROPOLITAN PIANNINq ORGANIZATION (MPO) ' REQONAI TRANSPORATION 'PIANNING AGENCY (RTPA) F. VE 13 FEB .2,6-2001 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA T,r�'Butte County ILUC \ 0 530-538-77 From: Stephen Iruin.(707)598-0478 Via eFax.com Pg 1/ 2 03-23-01 04:44 RPI RECEIVED The California Aviation Alliance MAR 2 3 2001 Thursday, March 22, 2001 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA Developer runs afoul of airport because of lesser density By MATT WALTERSCHEIDT The Chico (CA) Enterprise Record a . Traditionally, clashes between developers and the Butte .County Airport Land Use Commission have centerediaround ALUC's opposition to high- density housing in the vicinity of Chico Municipal Airport. I However, in an ironic twist, Chico developer John Byrne was actually asking commissioners that his project be approved with a density lower than that envisioned in last year',s Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Byrne intends to build 10 houses on little more than three acres and set six more acres aside for an additional 18 units, which would be developed at a time when the property is annexed into the city and hooked up to the municipal sewer system. He said division into 0.3 -acre ,parcels was ideal for "higher -end housing ... that is above entry-level but still affordable"'and "with a better feel to it ....like the old Chico." But because the southwest corner of Eaton Road and Godman Avenue, where Byrne's property is located,•lies within what ALUC has designated a ® "C2" zone, the project does fall 'short of the mandated minimum density of four housing units per acre. t While requiring a dens_ty minimumfor land around an airport would seem strange, one reason for doing so has been that in the words of ALUC Chairman Norm Rosene the city had;repeatedly said the commission was "taking away density from around the airport, so we want that density somewhere else." As land designated C2 in the compatibility plan is neither immediately adjacent to airport runways nor part of extended approach and departure lanes; it was chosen to offset the loss in density that occurred elsewhere. Another.reason for the density requirement, according to Commissioner Bob Grierson, manager of the Chico Municipal Airport, is that.residents who live in denser subdivisions bend to be less troubled by overflight noise than most homeowners. i In applying for exception from the compatibility plan's provisions, Byrne pointed to the Regional Water Control Board's decision to exempt his property from the Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan and allow him to operate a septic "community system" until sewer services become available. i Byrne, a life-long Chico resident, stressed he had already spent nine or 10 months and thousands of doilars "trying-... to do right .by everyone." a http://califom.iaaviation.org To:.�"Butte County ALUC @ 530-538-77 From: Stephen Irwin (707)598-0478 Via eFax.com Pg 2/ 2 03-23-01 04:45 HM The California Aviation Alliance i He claimed that repeated misinformation by county planning staff had led him to believe that getting approval from ALUC would be "strictly a formality," But Byrne found out otherwise during ALUC's regular meeting Wednesday. Rosene for one seemed disinclined;to grant the exemption, fearinq such a move would open the floodgates.for other developers seeking similar consideration. ' I Further complicating the matter .is that Byrne already received approval to develop 11 single -acre units on the property under the 1999 compatibility plan. "If I'm leaving here with a denial, I'll be going with the one -acre plan," he announced. "Do you want half of something or!half of nothing?" he asked commissioners, emphasizing his revised proposal would at least raise density - though not quite to C2 'requirements. Commissioners Donald Wallrich and Bob Harp seemed to agree this would at least be a step in he right direction and "for the better good of the airport." But Rosene remained steadfast, calling it "a philosophical issue" in j that his profession - unlike Harp's - was not one based on the art of compromise. Rosene is a dentist, Harp an attorney. ® "What's going to decide it for me," Rosene said, "is airport and aviation issues.." { j And on that count, he seemed unsatisfied by Bvrne's assurances. "I'm still not convinced that this can't be reconfigured" to higher density, Rosene insisted. f In the end, the commission put off a final ruling until its next meeting on April 18. r Saying he planned to talk with supervisors about contradictory advise he had gotten from different.county employees, Byrne would not dismiss r a possible appeal to the board in case ALUC denies his application..The ' Board of Supervisors can overrule P.LUC on a four -fifth vote as long as it issues overriding findings in accordance with the California Aeronautics Act. E http://ca,lifomlaaviation.org 0 FIRST AMENDMENT TOi d; AGREEMENT TO RETAIN ATTORNEY SERVICES �GNTR'.?:CT f-.. THIS AGREEMENT is a first amendment to that. certain Agreement entitled "AGREEMENT TO RETAIN ATTORNEY -SERVICES" entered into between the .County Airport Land.; Use. Commission., ("ALUC") and LARRY THELEN, ("ATTORNEY") and datedNovember 20, 2000. This amendment supercedes all previous.amendments. 1. Amendment. The provisions at page 1, lines 26-2.8 and page 2, lines 1-6, entitled Compensation and Expense Reimbursement., are deleted and hereby replaced with the following: "2'. Compensation and Expense Reimbursement. .ALUC shall compensate ATTORNEY for actual legal services performed at., the.rate of.one.' hundred dollars ($100) per hour .for attorney. time. In no event shall ALUC's total payment to ATTORNEY exceed six thousand dollars ($6,.000) without; written authorization from ALUC.and. COUNTY. In' addition, ALUC shall reimburse ATTORNEY for out of pocket costs' incurred on behalf of ALUC, including but not limited -.to, telephone toll charges, photocopy charges, travel .expenses at the rate .of' thirty five and one-half cents ($.355') per mile. and overnight, expenses where. necessary." 2. Further'Terms. Except as expressly set forth herein, all remaining terms .of the Contract! for Legal Representation shall remain in full force and effect. DATED; .� Ll - 0 r ATTORNEY ARRY THELEN U . 1 DATED: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION DATED: Jy� COUNTY OF BUTTE J BLA OCK,' of Administrative Officer APPROVE A TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO BUDGETARY BRUCE PERT AND FISCAL CONTROL Butte oun y Counsel DAVE` OUSER, Au r By: By: ® 3 1/ al G:\CONTRACT\THELEN\THELENI'.WPD i - _ . STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ISION OF AERONAUTICS M.S. #40 EC OWE � . N STREET - ROOM 3300 D l��J BOX 942874 SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001 (916) 654-4959 APR 3 2001 FAX (916) 653-9531 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION March 30, 2001 To: Airport Land Use Commissions Dear (Contact): As you are aware, the update to the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook is currently underway. I wanted to keep you informed on the progress of the document and where we currently stand on its development. , The Airport Land Use Planning Handbook is the primary tool used by Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUCs) to address airport/land use safety issues and determine compatible land uses surrounding airports in California. The consulting firm of Shutt Moen. Associates was retained to complete the Handbook update. The original contract ending date. was December 31, 2001. Because of delays and an expanded scope, it was necessary to request an . extension beyond the ending date. The request for a contract extension was submitted to our parent agency, the office of Business, Transportation and Housing and approved on March 23, 2001. As it currently stands, the Handbook update is scheduled for completion by October 2001. Caltrans, along with ALUCs, cities and counties, consultants, and others who are involved in airport land use. planning, are aware of the importance of updating the Handbook in order to remain in compliance with existing laws concerning the updating of Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUPs). `'y t STATE OF CALIFORNIA -BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION rL SIGN OF AERONAUTICS M.S. #40 N STREET - ROOM 3300 . BOX 942874 SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001 (916)654-4959 FAX (916) 653-9531 F April 5, 2001 GRAY IS, G emor d EC 0W,E APR 6 2001 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION. To: Airport Land Use Commissions and Caltrans Districts Planning Offices As indicated in our letter dated March 30, 2001, the update of the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook is scheduled for completion by October 2001. Because of the delay in completing the Handbook update, it is necessary' to continue!to use the 1993 version. I have enclosed an errata sheet which makes current, laws that have changed since the Handbook was completed in 1993. These legislative changes are significant for Airport Land Use Commissions in complying with state mandates in the development of Comprehensive Land Use Plans. Please insert the errata 'sheet in your Handbook until the update is published later this year. If you have questions, please contact me at (916) 654-7075. Sincerely x PATRICK TYNER Aviation Planner Er J� Airport Land Use Planning Handbook Errata Sheet i Since the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook was adopted in December were passed which added to the requirements found in the Handbook. of 1993, three additional laws ♦ Public Utilities Code Section 21674.7 An airport land use commission that formulates, adopts or amends a comprehensive airport land use plan shall (Italics added) be guided by information prepared and updated pursuant to Section 21674.5 and referred to as the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation. ♦ Public Resources Code Section 21096 (a) If a lead agency prepares an environmental impact report fora project situated comprehensive land use plan boundaries, or, if a comprehensive land use plan has not been adopted, air oro a project within two nautical miles of a public airport or public use airport, the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation, in compliance with Section 21674.5 of the Public Utilities Code and other documents, shall be utilized as technical resources to assist in the preparation of the environmental impact report as the report relates to airport -related safe •ty hazards and noise problems. (b) A lead agency shall not adopt a negative declaration for a project described in subdivision (a) unless the lead agency considers whether the project will result in a safety hazard or noise problem for persons usin the airport or for persons residing or working in the project area. g ♦ Senate Bill 1350, Section 36 (Local Government Omnibus Act of 2000); Chapter 506 of the Statutes of 2000. P Section 21670 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read: (f) It is the intent of the Legislature to clarify that, for the purposes of this article, special districts are included among the local agencies that are subject to airport land use laws and other requirements of this article. Background Existing law requires an airport land use commission (ALUC) to adopt a comprehensive land use plan (CLUP) for every public use airport in that county (Public Utilities Code §21675). Cities and counties must conform their general plans to CLUP (§21676). City councils and county boards of supervisors can overrule* a CLUP on a 2/3 -vote (§21676.5). The Napa ALUC learned that the Napa Sanitation District had already started building two sludge digesters at the northern approach to the Napa Airport. The structures were 80 feet tall in an area where the CLUP and local planning standards set the maximum height at 35-40 feet. Pilots believed that the District's tall• structures were hazards to navigation. The District asserted that it was not subject to the CLUP. After conversations with the ALUC, the District continued with its construction project but agreed to install lights and use bright colors. To avoid similar conflicts in the future, Napa 401lfficials wanted the Legislature to make it clear that special districts — not just cities and counties — must ow a CLUP. This provision was part of AB 2940 Government Committee. Because AB 2940 did not reach the quested Floorus bill , the Assembld by the y !Committee are this amendment to SB 1350. Senate Bill 1350 declares the Legislature's intent that special districts -e subject to the ALUC statute. [§36 --end-- 1S 21-8„ T-811 MIN. ( 2) 2"X t0P FlA1E --- - -- -- --- rr------w----- 1 _ I L ------ 1 Lam__ J 21tX 5CLV vLr4. M0V. Q 5fAH JOW 5 (OMW FACE t0 5}tm") iW i t i1 i' if 11 i AFA!Z`AIW 5� I1 "3/ 8" MW. , i 1 1 ' H I Al' EV tO ONE FACE. NAh WN ' ' i i i 8d COMMON OK akV, WX WLS: lei , Q d" O.C. AL1)W V7a5. MD 1211oil ' 1 11 1 ►'� i i O.C. W FEW 00 -OLE- 5.11175 At COUR5 AkV O CO NtER51W MY5 & WA5 M . MIN. I / Z" fd AB. A1JC}•10K�Ol.fS W11H .. 711 MW. EMBEDMENf NA.nOWN 1MiH 1800# MW, CWACIfY (51AF50N w2A,w5Ar a eam m } 55TmaicK Pat 500 A5 ITMP _ FW. FOR I`aPo 4N) C�'Al7E i 211X 511.1. FLAS - L -7 2 L ,, EQ Et? E0 ------ —__-_ —__ —_ —_- —__ 1 -----------------.-- ----- — LI ---- ---------- -------- -----� ALTERNATE BRACED WALL PANEL NOTES: :. 1. For use in garage wall where due to location of overhead doors, a 4''- 011 lateral panel can not be provided: I ' 2. #4 Rebar, continuous at top and bottom .of stem' wall., Additional rebar may be required by manufacture of holdown. 3. Stemwall and footing must extend under garage door opening. 4: In the first story of a two - story building, each braced wall panel shall be in accordance with the details shown. Except that the plywood sheathing shall be provided on both, faces and tie - down device uplift capacity shall not ' less than 3000 pounds. } Nailing to be staggered for sheathing, applied to both faces 'S. Alternate Braced Wall Panel's cannot be used on the second floor of two - story buildin gs (U.B.C.2326.11 For Single S'r to (With noted modifications fv or two story buildings) F r.. <- • • • Sunday, April 15, 2001 "III %Iof7.�u-cniv rw aan.LucH ry v tV-1-un rV1,�,� ca RECEI http://ca liforniaaviation.org d�L �'✓ APR 16 2001 . BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA .Supervisors target airport panel Two supporters of new growth restrictions around Sonoma County airports will be replaced By STEVE HART THE S_t1-JTA ROSA (CA) PRESS DEMOCRAT Sonoma County supervisors, angered by'a plan to restrict growth around the Charles M. Schulz -Sonoma County Airport, are moving to oust two airport commissioners who support the regulations. Lee Dysart, chairman of the county's Airport Land Use Commission, said he was surprised to learn supervisors are looking for someone to replace him_ "I'm not resigning," he said. Dysart said he's a target because the commission won't give in to developers who want to build a hotel north of the airport. Supervisors also have targeted Commissioner Peggy Rohde. Both Dysart and Rohde were appointed by the supervisors and'they can be removed at.any .time. On Ti:esdav, the supervisors.are expected to appoint Santa Rosa attorney Pulliam S. Mailliard Jr. and Santa Rosa developer Michael Sass to replace Dysart and Rohde on the seven -member commission. Supervisor Paul Kelley, a leading critic of the commission, said the ouster is justified because the airport panel overstepped its authority. "They defied the county," Kelley said. "If they aren't acting in the best interests of the taxpayers, they should be replaced." The supervisors' action is the latest salvo in a long -simmering fight over development around the airport. On Jan..8, the commission voted to limit the number of homes, businesses and public facilities around Sonoma County Airport and five smaller airports in . Petaluma, Healdsburg, Sonoma and Cloverdale. Commissioners said the limits are needed to protect people on the ground from aircraft noise and possible accidents. They also warned that encroaching development could force airports to curtail operations or shut don altogether. But _he restrictions are under fire from county supervisors and some prgpert, owners, who say they go far beyond the state's guidelines for development near airports. Airport Business Center, which r_•G:ns more than 400 acres around Sonoma County Airport, has filed t',;o lawsuits challenging the commission's guidelines. The lawsuits charge that the cccn-ission violated the state's open meeting la -4• when it passed the plan, and that it adopted -the plan- without completing proper envircnmantal studies. Last vear, county supervisc•rs refused the _cnrd_gsion's re,Tlest for funds to prepare an e-n-vironmental impact report, opening the commission to lawsuits. Attend the Association of California Airports Spring Conference May 17 and 18 at.the Hawthorn Sui tes in Sacramento. Contact John Swizer at (707) 446-0322 for details. w • http: //cali fomiaaviation:org The business center filed the suits after the commission refused to adopt changes allowing it to build a 240 -room resort hotel on Shiloh Road in Windsor, just north of the airport. Business center, officials said aviation data compiled by a consultant shows there is.little risk of an aircraft accident at the proposed hotel site. But commissioners disputed the data and voted against an exemption for the project. Jay 47tiite,-an attorney for the airport commission, said the panel followed the law, and that the lawsuits are groundless. Airport=commissioner Ron Price said he fears county supervisors are trying to reshape the panel to reflect their pro -development views. "This is power politics," Price said. "It's a shame." Dysart agreed, saying the supervisors' tactics are designed to "get us to do what Airport'Business Center wants." But Kelley said the commission is asking the county to spend money ori a faulty plan. Under state law, the county is responsible for costs to prepare the plan and for the ccmm_ssion's legal bills. The seven -member commission, which is mandated by state law, includes representatives -of the county, cities and airport managers. Commissioners said the new development rules are needed because Sonoma County hasn't updated its airport land -use -plans since`1981. Such plans control development in "safety zones".up to three miles from airports. They limit the number of buildings and ban some types of development under busy flight paths, including hotels, schools, hospitals, churches and nursing homes. The plans also control structure heights, require noise -proofing and dictate buildinq occupancy in certain areas. The n ; plan will require the col-mty and several cities t, revise their own growth plans. Last month, the commission notified the county and cities they have six months to revise their growth plans so they are -consistent with the new airpnrt regulations. The rules could have a major impact on Windsor, which might be prevented from building hundreds of-riew homes that otherwise w,_uld be allowed under the city's general plan. The county and cities can override the commission's plan, but they must adopt findings that sho;.a a proposed development , •on't be a problem fc•r the airport. Attend the Association of California Airports Spring Conference May 17 and 18 at the Hawthorn Sui tes in Sacramento. Contact John SN iter at (707) 446-0322 for details. a 4 • rI LJ http:%/californiaaviation.org Monday, April 16, 2001 RECEIVE® APR 16 2001 Editorial BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION Oi WU E, CALIFORNIA Why airport traffic snarls USA Today Want to know why the nation is heading into another sizzling summer of airport gridlock? A lone runway at Memphis International is a good place to start. Back in 1937, Memphis set out to build a new landing strip to relieve chronic congestion and delays. But it took the airport five years just to slog through federal environmental reviews, nearly twice as long as it took to build the entire airport in the 1960s.. What's so remarkable about Memphis is how unremarkable it is. Runways take an average of 10 years to build, even without local fights. A Byzantine review process drags out airport -expansion projects well beyond what's needed to protect the environment'. That's'time the country can't afford to waste, 'as travel.demand surges and delays grow. During the past decade, the number of passengers shot up 37%, and it's expected rise another 4.6g to 1 billion by 2012. But just.six new runways at major airports have been built since 1991, and only one wholly new airport, Denver's. Indeed, the current environmental -review system is designed for delay - riddled with inefficiencies and duplication. Among the most serious problems: overlapping regulators. Federal agencies such as the Federal Aviatic•n :administration (FAA.), the Environmental- Agency, the Armv Corps of Engineers and the Interior Department all share pieces of the envirormental-review pie. Each moves according to its own pace and Priorities. Likewise, state and local agencies. • A jumble of laws. There are 40 federal laws executive;ecutie orders governing runway approval - from the National Environmental Policy Act to rules •-n historic preservation and endangered species. Drone is harmonized with the others. • Ho deadlines. The laws lack timetables that would limit how long ort icials can spend making decisions. To make ruatters wclrxe, the environmental workload of the Fa?, the lead agency in the process, has quadrupled since 1990, while the staff increased ov less than 50%. While, the •iq fest hurdle is often cornrnunity opposition to a ruriwav, the rev -e,,; pr -}cess takes its own toll. In Atlanta, it ate up three years. In Seattle, a 19 -year battle to add a runwa_i included a four-year � deral re: iew pltis. three _ears for a wetlands permit. Pagel of 2 lu: outt; wwlLy m-u6 a ux-am-(f rruw: atupmll Irwlll l!tl!lafa-10'1(8 Vid fx•dx.uuw ru U c M-I0-101 LU:9b Hn http://califdmiadv'ation.org {} Congress recognizes the need to have more airport capacity built ^j quickly. Last year, it'voted for $16 billion during the next three + years for runways, terminals and other.projects. Now Congress and the White House need to tackle the chaotic review process, focusing on a ' few simple reforms: a p:iority list of critical projects, clear deadlines and better coordination among agencies. That's not "to say that strict environmental review•should be gutted, a risk insome airport-industry proposals. •In the Memphis case, the review resulted in the expansion of nearby wetlands.rich in wildlife. And it's not to sav that new runways are the only solution to gridlock. Modernizing. air traffic control and managing rush-hour demand are other 'important factors. But they won't get the job done without more room for planes to land. Memphis saw its delay problem slashed once-the-new airstrip, along with a second improved one, was.opened. With air travel stressed to its breaking point, tangling new runways in. convoluted regulatory review is a sky-high mistake. e• i i E11A .® 04/17/2001 TUE 15:27 FAX -530 895 4726 CITY OF-CHICO-BUILDING � I i MyOrCHICO >»c an City of Chico Planning &ision P.O. Box 3420 411 Main Street Chico, CA 95927 (530)8 95-4851 Date: 4/17/01 001/003 f C;, FEIVEDr APR 1 8 2001 { BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA Number of Pages (including thisover page): 3 FROM: i APR 1 8 2001 0 Naive:, Kim Seidler I I Planning Director BUTTE COUNTY { j AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Phone Number: (530) 895-4743 Fax Number: (530) 895-4726 TO: Name j Airport_ Land Use Commission; M.A. Meleka I 1 Company: Butte'County Dept. of Development Services i I FAX Number: '538-7785 i MESSAGE: FORT ALUC MEETING TOMORROW- PLEASE EXPEDITE. Hi; Meleka! Triad .to reach you by phone to let you know this was coming. Let's talk sometime. Kim I . 3 i I I � { U4/17/2001 TUE 13:27 FAX 530 895 4726 CITI' bF CHICO=BUILDING 0002/003 i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ., DT:PA RTM F.NT PLANNING CP.O.TYoFCHICO 4. Main I 1c 18)1 Box 3442020 Chico, CA 95927 (530) 895-4851 l FAX (530) 895-4726 1 ATSS 459-4861 April 17, 2000 I Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive .Oroville, California 95965 Re: Proposed Eaton Ranch Subdivision Dear Commissioners: I write this letter at the request of Mr. John Byrne, an applicant with Butte County for the processing of a proposed subdivision in the County just south of Eaton Road. Mr_ Byrne met with me today to discuss his application, and has informed me that he will be ; appearing at your meeting tomorrow for your consideration of its consistency with the 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. 1 am aware that Mr. Byrne's project lies in an area zoned C(2) by the Plan, for which -a minimum density of four units per acre is required, and am informed that Mr. Byrne's r subdivision falls short of the number of lots needed to meet that minimum density. Please note that it is not the purpose of this'letter to suggest how the Commission should administer or interpret its Plan with regard to this application. I do, however, wish to verify that the City of Chico (recognizing that `the subdivision map is being processed by the County) has through its courtesy development. review process taken a close look at the arrangement of lots and access, and has advised Mr. Byrne that his design is largely, consistent with City requirements related to both density and design. Furthermore, because of the irregular shape of the project site and the City's need to restrict direct ` access to Eaton Road from. this property, it does not appear that Mr. Byrne can successfully, redesign his map to meet that density. The City has designated this site Low Density Residential in its General Plan and prezoned it R1 Single -Family Residential, which provides for a density range of 2.01 to 6 units per acre for a subdivision of this nature, and this map appears to fall well within that range. Without reference to the Compatibility Plan's density requirements, Mr. Byrne's subdivision map would appear to be supportable by'the City in its present configuration. Ul Merle From Nary w Peyer � .. I Y 04/17/2001 TUE 15:27 FAX 530 89514726 CITI' QF CHICOtW OING 0003/003 t= Letter to Airport Land Use Commission April 17, 2001 Page 2 If you require further clarification of this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.' Respectfully, Kim Seidler Planning Director cc: M.A. Meleka John Byrne 1 . j 1 , 1 V it of cAue°a bt A P Public Meeting Friday, 27 April 2001 8:30 a.m. Fresno Education Department '-I, Auditorium, 2nd Floor Central Valley Regional y)`�� Tulare & M Streets Water Quality Control Board�,'°�� BUTTE'011TY PL4NNING DIVISION The purpose of this meeting is for the Board to obtain testimony and information from. concerned and affected parties and to make decisions based on the information received. Persons who want to submit written comments or evidence on any agenda item must comply with the Meeting Procedures described at the end of the listing of Agenda items. Persons wishing to speak at the meeting should complete anattendance card and provide it to staff. Although otherwise filling out the attendance card is voluntary, we do appreciate receiving a card from all persons in. attendance. Persons applying for, or actively supporting or opposing, waste discharge requirements before the Board must comply with legal requirements 'if they or their agents have or propose contributing $250 or more to a Board member for an.election campaign. Contact the'Board office for details if you fall into this category. Items showing times will begin no sooner than indicated. Items. are numbered for identification purposes only and may not be considered in order. They may, however, be delayed by previous items. Technical questions regarding agenda items should be directed to the responsible staff person whose .name and direct phone number are indicated by the agenda item. If"no staff person is listed, or for general questions and requests for agenda material, please contact Janice Tanaka at (916) 255-3018. The facility is accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring special accommodations are requested to contact Ms.Tanaka at (916) 255-3018 at least 5 working days prior to the meeting. TTY users may contact the California Relay Service at 1-800=735-2929 or voice line at 1-800-735-2922. Board agendas and the approved minutes of Board meetings are posted on the Regional Board's website at www.swrcb.ca.gov/4gcb5. A listing of pending applications for Water Quality Certifications, pursuant to -section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act, may be obtained from the Regional Board's Web Page at www.swrcb.ca._govlrwgcb5lproiects.htm' l or by calling Pat Gillum at (916) 255-3000. The Agenda for this meeting begins on the next page. Agenda -2- 27 April 2001 TIME LIMITATIONS In order to move the Board meeting along in a timely manner, and assure . time for adequate consideration of items later in the Agenda, the Chair may enforce maximum time limitations on each item. The goal is to complete all presentations, cross-examination, Board deliberation and voting within the allotted time. Allotted times are listed on the agenda following each item. Please consider the allotted time when preparing your presentations.. Agenda INTRODUCTIONS 1. Introductions, pledge of allegiance, and approval of minutes of the 438th Regular Meeting of 15/16 March 2001. 2. Meeting Rules and Procedures UNCONTESTED CALENDAR 3. The Board will be asked to approve items 15 through 20 with no discussion if no one is here to testify about them; see pages 3, 4 &5 for descriptionflisting of items — 8:30 a.m. OTHER BUSINESS 4. Board Member. Communications - Regional Board Members and the State Board Liaison Member may discuss meetings, communications, correspondence, or other items of general interest relating to matters within the Board's jurisdiction' There will be no voting or formal action taken. 5. Executive Officer's Report 6. Public Forum - Any. member of the public may address the Board on, any matter within the Board 's jurisdiction and not scheduled for consideration at this meeting (5 minute time limit per subject) 8:30am ENFORCEMENT 7. City of Atwater, Wastewater Treatment Facility, Merced County - Consideration of Administrative Civil Liability [Gary Gagliolo (559) 445-5576] (Time Limit 30 minutes) 8. City of Porterville, Wastewater Treatment Facility, Tulare County - Consideration of Revised Waste Discharge Requirements and Cease and Desist'Order [Jo Anne Kipps (559) 445-5035] (Time Limit 45 minutes) 9. City of Merced Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Plumes, Merced County _ Consideration of Cleanup and Abatement. Orders on the following facilities: [Joe Mello (916) 255-3077] (Time Limit 60 minutes) a. R.A. Fields, Inc., Steve Carlisle, Phyllis Kirby, William George Miller, Bob Roy Miller, Anne Rahilly, and. City of Merced, Merced Laundry, 160 West Main Street, Merced b.. William Lee, Tai Ho Lee, George Lee, Frank Lee, David Norfles, and City of Merced, Parkway Cleaners; 1530 Yosemite Parkway, Merced c.. Thomas R. Simpson (deceased) and City of Merced, Simpson's Cleaners, 618 West Main Street, Merced d. Team Enterprises Inc:, C&H Development Co., and City of Merced, One Hour Martinizing, 1818 R. Street, Merced Team Enterprises Inc., Cox/Walker-Merced Partnership, and City of Merced, One Hour Martinizing,.2828 G Street, Merced f. B.A. Hansen, Vinod Patel, and City of Merced, Sunshine Cleaners, 1227 West Main Street, Merced Agenda -3- 27 April 2001, WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS 10. City of Bakersfield, Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 3, Kern County - Consideration,of Revised Waste Discharge Requirements [Dale Stanton (559) 445-5548] (Time Limit 45 minutes) 11. Sun -Maid Growers of California, Inc., Kingsburg Raisin Packing Facility, Fresno County -.Consideration of Revised Waste Discharge Requirements [Robert Schlipf (559) 445-5140] (Time Limit 45 minutes) NPDES PERMITS 12. California Department of Boating and Waterways Egeria Densa Control Program, Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins - Consideration of New NPDES Permit [Rudy Schnagl (916) 255-3101] (Time Limit 30 minutes) 13. Mirant Delta, LLC, Contra Costa Power Plant, Antioch, Contra Costa County - Consideration of NPDES Permit Renewal and Resolution Granting an Exception to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Control of Temperature in the Coastal and Interstate Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California [Jon Ericson (916) 255-3060] (Time Limit 30 minutes) 14. Closed Session - The Regional Board may meet in closed session to consider personnel matters [Authority: Government Code Section // 126(a)], to discuss either natters in litigation or decisions to initiate litigation [Authority: Government Code Section 11126(e)], ' or to. deliberate on a decision to be reached based upon evidence introduced in a hearing [Authority. -.Government Code Section 11126(c)(3) Items that maybe discussed: CVRWQCB v. Masami Cattle Ranch, inc. et al., Tehama County Superior Court Case No. 47049; CVRWQCB v. Cedar Point Properties, et al, Plumas County Superior Court Case No. 19897; United States V. Aerojet-General Corporation, et al., CIVS 86-08083 and CVRWQCB et al. v. Aerojet-General Corporation, et. al, County ofSacianrento Superior Court Case No. 286073, Consolidated with Case Nos. 288302 and 291981; Antericarr States Water Company, et al.; v. CVRWQCB et al., Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 99 AS 05947; Regents of the University of California v: CVRWQCB, Yolo County Case No. P798-1540; Sacrantento Regional County Sanitation District v. State Water Resources Cartrol Board, et al., Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 98CS01702, State of California, Department of Toxic Substances Control and CVRWQCB v. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. el al., US. District Court, Eastern District of Calif., Case No. CIV-S-91-1167-DFL-PANandUnited States v. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. et al., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Calif., Case No. S-91-0768 DFLIJFM, State of California ex rel California Integrated Waite Managentent Board et al. v. Edward Joseph Filbin et al. (Filbin Tire Fire); City of Merced, el al., v. R.A. Fields, et al., (U.S. Dist. Ci. E.D.Calif.) No. CV -F 92-5627 RDCJDLB, Franklin Tract Land Owners Assoc. v. SWRCB, et al., Sacramento County Superior Court No. 98CS03286, National Park Service, El Portal Wastewater Treatment Facility, Administrative . Civil Liability Order No. 5-01-031. " Adjournto the 11 May 2001 meeting in Sacramento. UNCONTESTED ITEMS CALENDAR Uncontested items are'expected to be routine and noncontroversial; recommendations will be acted on without discussion. If any interested party, Board, or staff member requests discussion, the item may be removed from the Uncontested Items Calendar and taken up in .the regular agenda order, or, in. an .order determined by the.Board Chair — 8:30 a.m. ENFORCEMENT 15. City of Woodlake and Sentinel Butte Water Company, Woodlake Wastewater Treatment Facility, Tulare County - Consideration of Revised Waste Discharge. Requirements and Cease and Desist Order [Robert ISchlipf (559) 445- 5140] Agenda -4- 27 April 2001 NPDES PERMITS 16. Uncontested NPDES Permits a. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., through its Operating Partner SFPP L.P., Fox Road Petroleum Release Site, Interim Groundwater Remediation System, Solano County (revision) b. Pliant Corporation, Packaging Films.Plant, Merced County (renewal) c. Plumas County Flood Control and -Water Conservation District, Lake, Davis Water. Treatment Plant, Plumas County. (renewal) d. Clear Creek Community Services District and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Water Treatment Plant, Shasta County (renewal) WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS (Land. Disposal) 17. Uncontested Water Recycling Requirements a. City of Woodlake and Sentinel Butte Water Company, Reclamation Project, Tulare County (new) b. Siskiyou Golf Resort, Inc., Mt. Shasta Resort, Siskiyou County (new) c. Robert Nuckols, Reclamation Project, Tulare County (revised) 18. Uncontested Waste Discharge Requirements Rescissions a. . McCulloch Oil Exploration Company, Hawn Lease, Helm Oil Field, Fresno County, Resolution No. 60-091 b. Trood Placer Mine, North Columbia Aggregates and Frank A. and Ethel W. Bigelow, Nevada County, Order No. 87-007 c. Spring Creek Mine and Frank A. and Ethel W. Bigelow, Nevada County, Order No. 90-016 • 19. Uncontested Change of Name and/or Ownership for Waste Discharge Requirements a. Meridian Aggregates, A Limited Partnership, Table Mountain Quarry, and Mr. George Chaffin, Butte County, Order No. 97-055 b. Pacific Oroville Power, Inc., A Subsidiary of Pacific Energy, Butte County, Order No. 91-092 c. Pacific Energy Resources, Inc., and Pacific Wood Power, Mt. Lassen Power, Lassen County, Order No. 91-062 d. Pacific Energy, A California Corporation, Burney Mountain Power, A California Corporation and Fruit Growers Supply Company, Burney Mountain Power Cogeneration Facility, Shasta County, Order No. 95-098 20. Uncontested Waste Discharge Requirements a. Initial Study and Mitigated.Negative Declaration for Land Based Discharge to Pond and Irrigation Field, Beale Air Force Base, Yuba County b. Land Based Discharge to Pond and Irrigation Field, Beale Air Force Base; Yuba County (new) c. California Department of Fish and Game, Remediation and Closure of Spenceville Mine, Nevada County (new) d. Kiewit Pacific Company, Greenhorn Creek Aggregate Wash Plant, Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Nevada Irrigation District, Nevada County (new) e. Golden Valley Unified School District, Liberty High School Wastewater Treatment Facility, Madera County (new) f. Community Recycling & Resource Recovery, Inc. and Lamont Public Utility District, for Operation, Lamont Composting Facility, Kern County (new) g. Suk.C. Lee dba Paradise Touchless Carwash, Butte County (new) h. Western Waterways, Inc., Holland Riverside Marina, Contra Costa County (update) i. _City of Oakdale, Oakdale Wastewater Treatment Plant, Sianislaus County (update) j. City of Plymouth, Wastewater Treatment Plant, Amador County (update) k. City of Atwater, for Postclosure Maintenance, Bert Crane Road Landfill, Merced County (update) 1. County of Tulare, for Closure and Postclosure Maintenance, Orosi Solid Waste Landfill, Tulare County (update) Agenda -5- 27 April 2001 m. County of Tulare and United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, for Closure and Postclosure Maintenance, Kennedy Meadows Municipal Solid Waste. Landfill; Tulare Couny (update) n. Orwood Resort, Inc., Wastewater Treatment Plant, Contra Costa County (revision) o. El Dorado Irrigation District, .Camino Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant, El Dorado County (update) p. Norcal Waste Disposal Systems, Inc. and B&J Drop Box Corporation, B&J Sanitary Landfill, Class II & III Landfills, Class II Waste Pile & Class II Land Treatment Unit, Solano County (revision) CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD MEETING PROCEDURES GENERAL MEETING RULES The Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region (Regional Board) and staff welcome information on issues and matters within the Regional Board's jurisdiction, but comments and submittals at the meeting should be concise and directed to specifics of the item under discussion to enable the Regional Board to be fully informed and take appropriate action. 1 Persons wishing to speak.at the meeting are asked to complete an attendance card and provide it to staff. Although filling out the attendance card is voluntary, we do appreciate receiving a card from all persons in attendance. Any person planning to make a presentation to the Regional Board that requires the use of visual aids (such as overheads, slides, or video projector) should contact the assigned staff person to make arrangements before the meeting date in order to avoid unnecessary delays during the meeting. All interested persons may speak at the Regional Board meeting, and are expected to orally summarize their written submittals. Testimony should be presented in writing prior to the meeting and only a summary of pertinent points presented orally. Oral testimony (i.e., direct testimony or comment, as well as cross examination and closing statements) will be limited . in time by the Board Chair (typically, for direct testimony, no more than 10 minutes for designated parties and 3 minutes for other interested parties). A timer may be used and speakers are expected to honor the time limits. Oral testimony must be relevant. Where speakers can be grouped by affiliation or interest, such groups will be expected to select a spokesperson and not.be repetitive. • Any person may submit comments in writing on any agenda item. Written comments shall not be read into the record. unless allowed by the Regional Board Chair. Persons who want to submit written comments, testimony, or evidence on any agenda item must provide such written documents to the Regional Board office in advance of the meeting, which must be by the date and time specified in the applicable Notice of Public Hearing or Meeting. Comments received by the noticed deadline will be included in the administrative record before the Regional Board. Staff may provide responses to comments. Written testimony or comments or evidence submitted after the noticed deadline will not be accepted and will not be incorporated into the administrative record. This rule may be modified at the discretion of the Regional Board Chair, for example, where a party demonstrates that application of the rule would create severe hardship, or where doing so would not prejudice any party. Written materials or other documents submitted at the Regional Board meeting must be provided fust to Regional Board counsel who will advise the Regional Board regarding acceptance into the record. PROCEDURE FOR UNCONTESTED (CONSENT) AGENDA ITEMS (see also 23 CCR 647.2(f)) Uncontested or. consent agenda items are items for which there appears to be no controversy and which can be acted upon by the Regional Board with no discussion. Such items have been properly noticed and all interested parties consent to the staff recommendation. The Regional Board Chair will recognize late revisions submitted by staff and will then call for a motion and vote by the Regional Board. If any Regional Board member or member of the public raises a question or issue regarding the item that requires Regional Board discussion, the item may be removed from the consent calendar and considered in its numerical order on the agenda, or in an order determined by the Regional Board Chair. _Anyone wishing to contest a consent item on the agenda is expected to appear in person at the Regional Board meeting and explain to the Regional Board the reason the item is contested. October 2000 PROCEDURE FOR INFORiMATION ITEMS (see also 23 CCR 649 et.seq.) Information items are items presented to the Regional Board for discussion only and for which no Regional Board action or vote normally is taken. The Regional Board usually will hear only a presentation by staff, but comments by interested persons shall also be.allowed. Members of the public wishing to address the Regional Board on the topic under discussion should submit an attendance card beforehand indicating their request to speak to the Regional Board. Comment from the public should be for clarification or to add to the Regional Board's understanding of the item; such comment must not be testimonial in nature or argumentative, as speakers are not under oath and the proceeding is not adversarial. Time limits may be imposed on interested persons. PROCEDURE FOR CONTESTED AGENDA ITEMS Contested agenda items are items to which the parties involved have not consented and the staff recommendation is in dispute. Such items require a public hearing that may be formal or informal, as defined by State regulations. At a formal hearing evidence is presented by sworn testimony and staff and other designated parties providing . testimony are subject to cross examination. Interested persons may make comments, but may not cross examine designated parties or be cross examined. At informal hearings all parties provide comments, rather than testimony under oath, and persons providing comments are not subject to cross examination. Neither formal nor informal hearings are conducted according to the technical rules of evidence, and the Regional Board will accept any evidence or testimony that is reasonably relevant. The Notice of Public Hearing will state whether the hearing will . be conducted as an informal hearing, and, unless so noticed, the hearing will be conducted as a formal hearing. However, a hearing which is noticed as an informal hearing may be converted to a formal hearing at the discretion of the Regional Board Chair in accordance with the applicable regulations. Contested agenda items that are adjudicative; not quasi legislative, are governed by the rules for adjudicative proceedings. Adjudicative proceedings before the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine regional water quality control boards (RWQCB) are governed by SWRCB regulations as authorized by chapter 4.5 of the Administrative 'Procedure Act (commencing with section 11400 of the Government Code). SWRCB regulations further provide that, with certain exceptions, adjudicative proceedings will be conducted in accordance with sections 800-805 of the Evidence Code and section 11513 of Chapter 5 of the Government Code. (Other provisions of chapter 5 do not apply to adjudicative proceedings before the: SWRCB and RWQCB)'. SWRCB regulations setting forth the procedures for adjudicative proceedings before the SWRCB and RWQCB are codified in Division 3 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations. A copy of those regulations, as well as.a copy of chapter 4.5 of the Administrative Procedure Act, section 11513 of the Government Code, and sections 801-805 of the Evidence Code can be found at Www.swrcb.ca.gov/water–laws/cawtrcde/adcov.doc An adjudicative proceeding is a hearing to receive. evidence for determination of facts pursuant to which the SWRCB.or,a . RWQCB formulates and issues a decision. A decision determines a legal right, duty, privilege, immunity, or other legal interest of a particular person or persons. Examples of adjudicative proceedings include hearings to receive evidence concerning the issuance of waste discharge requirements or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits; concerning decisions or orders on water right applications, petitions or complaints; concerning cease and desist orders; and concerning orders setting administrative civil liability. Rulemaking and.informational proceedings, including hearings for the adoption or amendmentof regulations, water quality control plans or state policy for water quality control and hearings to gather information to assist the SWRCB and RWQCB .in formulating policy for future action, are not adjudicative proceedings and are subject to different procedures. (See PROCEDURE FOR INFORMATION ITEMS, above, and.Cal. Code Regs., title 23, § 649 et. seq:) When the hearing is formal (as opposed to informal), participants in contested agenda items are. either "designated parties" or other "interested persons". Only designated parties will have the right to cross-examination, and may be subject to cross examination. Interested persons— i.e., nondesignated parties — do not have a right to cross-examination, but may ask the October 2000 Regional Board to clarify testimony. Interested persons may also be asked to clarify their.testimony at the discretion of the Regional Board. The designated parties include: • Staff of the Regional Board • Discharger or Responsible Party • Persons directly affected by the discharge All other persons wishing to testify or provide comments for a formal hearing item are "interested persons" and not "designated parties". Such interested persons may request status as a designated party for purposes of the formal hearing by submitting such request in writing to the Regional Board no later than the date specified in the Notice of Public Hearing. The request must explain the basis for status as a designated party and, in particular, how the person is directly affected by the discharge. All persons testifying must state their name, address, affiliation, and whether they have taken the oath before testifying. The order of testimony for formal hearings generally will be as follows, unless modified by the Regional Board Chair:. - Testimony and cross-examination of Regional Board staff - Testimony and cross-examination of discharger - Testimony and cross-examination of other designated parties - Testimony of interested persons - Closing statement by designated parties other than discharger - Closing statement by discharger - Closing statement by staff - Recommendation by Executive Officer (as appropriate) - Close hearing - Deliberation and voting by Regional Board Closing statements shall be for the purpose of summarization and rebuttal, and are not to be used to introduce new evidence or testimony, or to restate direct testimony. After considering evidence,'testimony, and comments, the Regional Board may choose to adopt an order regarding a proposed agenda item All Regional Board files, exhibits, and agenda material pertaining to items on the agenda are made a part of the record. Persons wishing to introduce item exhibits (i.e., maps, charts, photographs) must leave them with the Regional Board's Assistant Executive Officer. Photographs or slides of large exhibits are acceptable. Any person affected adversely by an action of the Regional Board may petition the SWRCB according to section 13320 of the California Water Code and section 2050 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations. The petition should be addressed to the Office of Chief Counsel at the SWRCB and must be filed within 30 days of the action of, or the failure to act by, either the Regional Board or the Executive Officer of the Board. The SWRCB must receive the petition within 30 days of the date of the Regional Board meeting at which the action or failure to act occurred. Copies of the law and regulations applicable for filing petitions (and cited above) will be'provided upon request and are available at www.swrcb.ca.gov/water laws/index.html. Any questions or comments regarding these procedures may be directed to Thomas R. Pinkos, Assistant Executive Officer in the Sacramento office, 3443 Routier Road, Suite A, Sacramento CA 95827, phone (916) 255-3000. »»»»»»«««««« s 3 0 • October 2000 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD CENTRAL VALLEY REGION The primary duty of the Regional Board is to protect thequality of the waters within the Region for all beneficial.: uses. This duty is implemented by formulating and adopting water quality plans for specific ground or surface water basins and by prescribing and enforcing requirements on all domestic and industrial waste discharges. Specific responsibilities and procedures of the Regional Boards and the State Water Resources Control Board are contained in the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act. BOARD MEMBERS CITY OF RESIDENCE APPOINTMENT CATEGORY Robert Schneider, Chair Davis Water Quality Karl E. Longley, Vice Chair Fresno Water Quality Susan Azevedo Modesto Undesignated (Public) Beverly Alves Princeton Irrigated Agriculture Mark Salvaggio Bakersfield County Government . Christopher Cabaldon West Sacramento Municipal Government Alson Brizard Patterson Water Supply Vacant Recreation, Fish, or Wildlife Vacant Industrial Water Use Gary M. Carlton, Executive Officer Janice Tanaka, Assistant to the Board Frances McChesney, Senior Staff Counsel Erik Spiess, Tim Regan, Staff Counsels - SACRA AIENTO OFFICE FRESNO OFFICE Address: 3443 Routier Road, Suite A Address: 3614 East Ashlan Sacramento, CA 95827-3003 Fresno, CA 93726 Telephone: (916) 255-3000 Telephone: (559). 445-5116 Lease Line: 8-494-3000 Lease Line: 8421-5116 Fax: (916) 255-3015 Fax: (559) 445-5910 Assistant Executive Officers: Thomas R. Pinkos Assistant Executive Officer: Loren J. Harlow Kenneth D. Landau Supervisors Supervisors Jerry Bruns Richard Loncarovich Bert Van Voris Lonnie Wass Gordon L. Boggs William J. Marshall David Carlson Antonia Vorster Unit Chiefs Jack E. DelConte Dennis W. Westcot Shelton R. Gray John M. Noonan Dale Harvey .. Doug Patteson Unit Chiefs Dane S. Johnson_ Russell W. Walls Sheree Bisher Robert J. Matteoli JoAnne Kipps Jeanne Chilcott Sue McConnell Wendy L. Cohen Richard McHenry Cori Condon 'Patrick Morris REDDING OFFICE Valerie Connor James Munch William A. Croyle BrianNewman George Day Steve Rosenbaum Address: 415 Knollcrest Dr., Suite 100 Victor J. Iizo John S. Russell Redding.CA 96002.. Joe Karkoski Rudy J. Schnagl Leslie Laudon Gregory K. Vaughn. Telephone: (530) 224-4845 Patricia Leary. Wendy Wyels Lease Line:. 8-4414845 Fax:: (530) .2244857 ® Assistant Executive Officer: James C. Pedri Unit Chiefs: Ronald S. Dykstra Dennis C: Wilson Phil Woodward 0 http://califoniiaaviation.org C.01 Pg 1/ 2 04-18-01 02:18 PH APR 1 9 2001 Wednesday, April 18, 2001 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION 2 airport land -use officials ousted OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA Board of Supervisors replace commissioners who sought tight limits on development By TOM CHORNEAU THE SANTA ROSA (CA) PRESS DEMOCRAT SONOMA COUNTY, CALIF. - In a rare display of political muscle, Sonoma County supervisors Tuesday removed two members of a land -use advisory commission who sought to impose tight building restrictions around local airports. Lee Dysart, chairman of the county's Airport Land Use Commission, and commissioner Peggy Rohde were replaced on a unanimous vote of the board. Supervisors appointed two new members, Windsor developer Michael Sass and Santa Rosa attorney William Mailliard. Supervisors said the move was necessary to head off costly litigation that already has been provoked by the commission's efforts to curb growth around airports, especially the. Charles M. Schulz -Sonoma County Airport, north of Santa Rosa. Dysart, a longtime Windsor activist and real estate agent, said the board's action was politically motivated to satisfy airport development interests. "This is a case where the supervisors are allowing the bottom line to come before anything else, especially the safety of people living around the airport," he said. Not so, said Supervisor Paul Kelley, whose district includes the'county airport. He said the airport'commission led by Dysart had overstepped its authority and put county taxpayers at risk. "What this commission is looking at doing is imposing safety restrictions that exceed guidelines set by the state," Kelley said. "If we were to allow them to do that, it could expose the county to lawsuits." Supervisor Mike Cale was even more blunt. "To say that they are more concerned with safety than we are is malicious," he said. "These guys have been operating in complete autonomy of the board, but they have no authority to do so." The dispute between the board and the commission has been brewing for more than a year. At the center is a growth -management plan that would drastically cut the development allowed around airports countywide. While there are many points of disagreement between the supervisors and the commission, County Counsel Steven Woodside said the panel is largely an advisory body to the supervisors: He said that while state law requires the pane_ to adopt a growth management plan that governs development surrounding airports, the plan cannot supercede general Pagel of 2 io: MMZe county HLUU V Dm -=-ti tram: Stephen Irwin (707)538=0478 Via ffax.coe Pg 2/ 2 04-18-01 02:20 p" http://califomiaaviation.org plan provisions set by a city council or the county Board of , Supervisors. Dysart said he believes the commission's plan is binding on the county and.cannot be changed by the supervisors. He conceded, however, that witli two new members joining the airport panel, there is a strong likelihood that the growth plan will be altered to satisfy the supervisors. Airport Business Center, operated by partners Larry Wassem and Richard Combs, owns more than 400 acres around the Sonoma County Airport and has filed two lawsuits challenging the commission's plan to limit growth. The businessmen contend that the commission violated the state's open meeting laws when it passed the plan and that it adopted the plan without completing proper environmental Studies. Dysart pointed out that the Board of Supervisors last year denied the commission's request for funds to prepare an environmental impact report. But both Kelley and Cale defended the board's action. They pointed to the county counsel's opinion and argued that the commission has no real authority to impose growth controls around'airports. While the supervisors hope the removal of Dysart and Rohde•will resolve the issue, both Milliard and Sass said they'll come to the commission with an open mind about the land -use issue.*Both said they have had no conversations with any of the supervisors about the dispute and have made no promises.about how they will act once on board. i"It is possible that I could find myself in support of the growth ' plan," Sass said. "At this point J don't-know'enough about it one way or the other to express an opinion."- ' ® { Page 2 of '2 April 26, 2001 Butte County Board of Supervisors 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Re: Overriding Findings, Pheasant Landing Unit III Subdivision Dear'Honorable Supervisors: 572/a I s e. A W C CdY In the draft report of findings, your staff repeats a claim first made by the developer's attorney, George Kammerer, that ALUC's decision to ignore noise contours developed by Mike McClintock in the 1995 FAR Part150 Study was "quite significant and appear(ed) extremely arbitrary„ Mr. Kammerer seems to have little, if any, aviation expertise, which may be why he is unable to understand ALUC's actions. On two separate occasions, motions were made to have ALUC adopt the 1995 FAR Part 150 Study. At the first meeting, the vote was 1-6 against. Even the commissioner who had seconded the motion, voted against adoption. The second time the motion was made, it. died for lack of a second. ALUC did not merely "ignore" Mr. McClintock's study, but twice rejected it very decisively! They had often discussed the significant errors in, and related to, this study and had serious doubts about the author's competence and/or integrity. The sisnificant errors of fact in the 1995 FAR Part 150 Study and other documents being used to justify an override of ALUC will result in great harm to the long term interests of Butte County citizens, both those who live in the foothills as well as those who will live near the . airport. These flaws include, but are not limited to: (a) (b) Inaccurate mapping of Federal Airspace. (14 CFR Part 77 Surfaces -Exhibit A) No qualified aviation consultant could fail to know the dimensions and locations -of Federal Airspace around a public use airport. Established by the FAA, in no way are they subject to -local reconfiguration. Yet, Mr. McClintock's map omits the instrument approach and transition surfaces that extend off the south end of the runway. This omission would make it appear that the impact of aircraft . overflight on land use exists only to the north. ALUC questioned how anyone knowledgeable about the Federal airspace regulations could fail to map them completely and accurately. If the consultant was competent, then this omission was extremely careless. Especially troublesome was that planning staff and planning commissions unfamiliar with 14 CFR Part 77 and relying on this document would be unlikely to spot the omission of relevant data from the maps. Missine Airtanker Departure Noise Footprint. (Exhibit B) As -a succession of Chico City Councils responded to complaints about the noise of the airtankers, a series of municipal directives gradually created two separate departure paths to the south off the main runway. There is an undeniably distinct track on the map adopted by ALUC turning to the southeast depicted on the 1978 noise map that follows, the VFR (Visual Flight Rules) noise abatement departure procedure established for the airtankers. This track is also clearly identified on the map drawn by Capt. Iverson at the Chico Air Attack Base. Saal:.'�� mr.riintnrk review rinr Nap. i of'; nnopm MAY 2 2001 BUTTE COUNn' PLANNl!dG DIVISION OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA Mr. McClintock attempted to explain the absence of that track on his maps by maintaining that certain noisy aircraft had been replaced by quieter craft that were no longer using CMA. The aircraft identified in his letter to the Supervisors (November 25, 1998) were Boeing B 727-100s and DC -9s. But, these are commercial aircraft that have never been converted for use as airtankers. The only way Mr. McClintock's self -justifications could possible be true is if commercial airlines departing from Chico were willing to risk losing their FAA certificates (and pilots risk losing their licenses) by making dangerously steep turns at low altitude, flying planeloads of paying passengers toward rising terrain to the east and abandoning FAA mandated IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) departure tracks and following the. VFR path. Your staff, being unfamiliar with CFR enforcement, failed to understand that Mr. McClintock's assertion is absolute nonsense. ALUC Commissioners questioned why any knowledgeable aviation consultant would confuse a VFR special noise abatement flight track with the IFR flight tracks mandated for commercial operations. (c) Flawed Data Collection. (Exhibit C) Comparison of the "Field Noise Monitoring" done by Mr. McClintock with CDF flight logs for the same dates show disturbing gaps in his data. Chico City Manager/Airport Manager Tom Lando repeatedly stated that it was the intention of the City to protect the continued presence of the airtankers at CMA, yet it is ironic that Mr. McClintock produced data in which absolutely no airtankers are represented. Official CDF station logs for the dates monitored by Mr. McClintock show a great deal of tanker activity. On his first day of data collection, Mr. McClintock chose to record only 17 minutes of flight activity for the whole day. It seems unlikely that 17 minutes out of 24 hours constitutes a meaningful sample. Furthermore, his data logs show that he did not include the CDF departure that had occurred during those 17 minutes. As a matter of fact, both of the flights recorded by CDF during the time periods of Mr. McClintock's survey were omitted from his published data. Copies of the CDF flight logs, Mr. Mc Clintock's source data sheets and a chart comparing the, data were submitted to be included as part of the public record for the Supervisors public hearing of December 1, 1998 and so, will be available to staff in those files. ALUC Commissioners questioned how a noise study that omitted the noisiest aircraft at CMA promoted the City's stated purpose of protecting the existence of the airtanker base. Even though Chico had paid more than $124,000 to Mr. McClintock in 1994-95 (City Finance records), they contracted for a new noise study only three years later to be used in developing the Master Plan, in part, because of this significant flaw in data collection. (d) Creation of a "solution" that did not address the "problem" as identified by the consultant himself (Exhibit D). While his map (fig III -1) shows noise contours extending out from the ends of the runway, Mr. McClintock's solution to reducing the impact of that flight activity resulted in a rectangle that extended only as far as the clear zone. He ignored the fact that the 60 CNEL contour extended.beyond the restrictions he himself recommended. The Commission questioned why a consultant would advocate such a short, fat solution to what he had already documented : as a long, skinny problem? (e) Lack of integrity, lying to a Federal Agency (Exhibit E). Repeated claims had been made in public hearings and -at ALUC meetings that the FAA had "approved" Mr. McClintock's Study. Several ALUC Commissioners questioned this assertion and inquiries were made to the FAA field office in Burlingame. An FAA representative stated that the agency gave approval based, in part, on the fact that it had been "adopted by ALUC", which, of course, had never happened. • How did the FAA get this impression that ALUC had adopted the study? Me.[:lintneVrrvirw rine. Payr. 7 of 5 naorc Nine months after Chico had adopted the study, Mr. McClintock produced a revised Chapter III and sent it to the City Manager/Airport Manager to be mailed to the FAA. This revised Chapter . III now states that ALUC has adopted the study. It is particularly disturbing that this revised chapter was not presented at a noticed public hearing, only a few copies exist, and the most crucial one was in the FAA's files where it was unlikely to be seen by ALUC. The Butte County ALUC has been described as one of the most knowledgeable in California in regards to aviation expertise and airport land use planning. Commissioners and alternates have thousands of hours as PIC of every type of aircraft (helicopters, torpedo bombers, fire -bombers, crop dusters, 747's). They have run FBO's, managed airports, managed major aircraft maintenance facilities employing thousands, built aircraft, had their work displayed in "Air and Space", and flown under FAR Parts 91, 135, 137 and 121. The Commission's decision to reject the McClintock FAR Part 150 Noise Study was neither "arbitrary", nor "uninformed".. The flaws of the McClintock study had been fully discussed at ALUC many times over the years since it's adoption by the Chico City Airport Commission in 1994, as well as during the October 21, 1998 ALUC meeting. The information in this letter has been included as part of the public record for the adoption of the 2000 CLUP and much of it was also presented at the Supervisor's public hearing of December 1998 about the Stephens project. Other inaccuracies in the staff report, probably more reflective of staff s unfamiliarity with aviation rather than any wish to mislead the Supervisors or the public: • (f) Irrelevant discussion of aircraft predictions Several pages of the staff report are devoted to the perceived inaccuracy of the predictions in the noise study used by ALUC. This is totally irrelevant for the discussion of airtankers as the estimates of future aircraft activity relate only to general aviation and commercial operations. There has been no attempt to predict future levels of airtanker operations by McClintock, by Brown-Buntin, or even by CDF. Fire -fighting operations can only be characterized as continuing in response to the number and severity of the fire season. Also, the tanker fleet has not changed much, many of the aircraft that are based at the airport now were the exact same aircraft based there when the 1978 study wasdone. (g) Reliance on the override adopted for the North Chico Specific Plan (Exhibit F) We have all learned a great deal since that override and I am grateful that your staff has opened that document for discussion. Steve Honeycutt was totally unqualified to make aviation related findings which is best displayed in his map purporting to show that the proposed school site in the village core was more than three miles from the airport! The ridiculousness of this measurement (following the down wind, cross and final approach tracks) can be understood if the tower orders an extended downwind. Measuring as Mr. Honeycutt measured, it is possible to move the school site entirely out of Butte County. This absurd claim (made in writing to Caltrans and the State Department of Education) entirely ignores the direct distance from the runway and the relationship of accident potential to the actual location. There are very harmful implications for the public welfare if the Supervisors adopt Mike McClintock's 1995 FAR 150 Noise Study, which will be a direction to the Department of Development Services to use it as a basis for planning around the airport, • 1) Use of small noise contours allows residences near the runways. (Exhibit G) is a graphic showing the enormous difference between a 55 dB noise contours that omits airtankers and one Mrriintnrk review rine. Pave. I of 5 nnorc that includes them. It is easy to understand why developers prefer that the 'smallest possible contour be used for planning: It involves fewer restrictions on their projects. • But that smallest contour can only be true if there are no airtankers operating out of CMA. The shaded portion of exhibit F shows the area that will be filled with people who will be severely affected by the operation of airtankers: For Butte County to plan around the airport as if the airtankers don't exist when so many people and their homes are vulnerable to fire and dependent on fast response times is irresponsible. 2) Inaccurate depiction of airtanker operation as "single events" The developer's attorney attempts to claim that CDF-USFS operations are "single events". Which is untrue. Only 1.3 of California's 260 airports have fire -fighting bases: too small a number for the State ALUC Handbook to address. But that does not mean that the very real effects of the largest, noisiest aircraft at CMA must be ignored by ALUC. One loud motorcycle passing your home is a "single event". Four -hundred -ninety-six (496) motorcycles roaring past: one every 5 minutes, 10 hours/day for 4 1/2 days in a row, (Sept 18- 22, 1994) is not! It is ridiculous to pretend that it is. Here (Exhibit G) is a 3 -page disclosure document about fire -fighting aircraft operations based on historical data from CDF files. Exhibit G --Figure 4 lists the dates and number of operations for several representative campaign fires. 3) Airtankers operations extend over most of the year (Exhibit H --Figure 1) shows the first and last day of fire season for a ten-year period from 1989 to 1999. Fire Season has historically lasted • between 5-7 months. The earliest start date recorded at Chico was April 11, 1988 and the latest fire season has lasted to date was December 13, 1959. Airtanker pilot training flights occur in the two months before fire season in the spring. Firefighting aircraft repairs most often occur at night with required engine testing and run -ups occurring very late and in the early morning hours. This is because the aircraft will be required to fight fires during the day and the operators are subject to fines or costs of replacement aircraft if their airplanes are unable to report for duty. From the information on this timetable it is obvious that residences near the airport will be subject to uncomfortable amounts of airtanker sounds at any time for most of the year. 4) Unpredictability of fire season severity. (Exhibit H --Figure 2) shows that the severity of any single fire season is unpredictable and that even though an average can be calculated, only one year in the ten that have been measured comes near that average. Exhibit G (Figure 3) shows the irregularity of daily operations during a single fire season. What is known is that there will fines in the foothills; that thousands are vulnerable, and that CDF will continue to respond to the best of their ability. 5) Airtanker Safety Exhibit H. also contains information about airtanker safety, which is not .- _. addressed by the accident scatters done by the U.C. Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies Accident Study. Their data involves legally maintained aircraft, currently certificated for operation in U.S. Airspace by the FAA from records on file with the Nation Transportation Safety Board.. Airtankers are a special category aircraft exempted from many of the FAA regulations because they are doing a job considered to be of vital importance. ALUC has not lost sight of the fact that many of these aircraft are over 50 year old. While the North American airtanker fleet is too small to generate any meaningful statistics about accident probabilities, there is an indication in the Airtanker Pilots Memorial List of where such accidents occur. Of • the 42 accidents resulting in fatalities where there is some description of location, 26% occurred on take -off or in the landing pattern on return to the airport. met lintnek review jinn Nap. 4 of 5 mora In spite of all of this noise and. safety information, the' County wants to allow development of residential close to the runway. The County is setting up. rows of dominos that will eventually fall. And the result will be that outraged or frightened homeowners demand that the CDF lease be canceled. It is a myth that people will not complain about airtankers because they are engaged in saving lives and property. Enloe Flight Care is a similarly virtuous aircraft where fast direct transportation to a hospital can make the difference between life and death for the victim,. yet Chico citizens who live near the hospital demanded that the helicopter's permit limit the number of flights during a single month. This means that if you have a heart attack or serious accident at Berry Creek` requiring immediate treatment, but it is near the end of the month, it is problematical whether you will receive the fastest transportation to the hospital. Those hospital neighbors were willing to risk someone else's life, rather than have their peace and quiet repeatedly disturbed. They travel to the hospital in an ambulance: the helicopter will never. transport them. However, they live subjected to the noise 'of the helicopter moving all the other patients. Enloe is not the only hospital in the nation.where this has occurred.. In exactly the same way, homeowners near the airport will probably never be threatened by a wild land fire, but will definitely be subjected to all the noise and.overflight of CDF-USFS operations. They will react to intrusive noise the same way • The Supervisors also know that many of these current (and future) County residents near the airport will someday be annexed into the City. After they have discovered what really happens. at the airport during a campaign fire, or after there has been an accident that frightens them, they will elect to the council whoever promises to cancel the CDF lease. County residents living with the danger of wild land fire count on the Supervisors to defend their interests. The three Supervisors whose districts have foothill constituents (who can never vote in City elections), have a moral duty to protect the airport from concentrations of noise and safety sensitive people. The best way to.do that is to support the ALUC Comprehensive Land Use Plan. . Thank you for your attention to this matter; Sincere , Bob Hennigan, Past Chairman Butte County Land Use Commission pc: Mr. Bruce Alpert, Butte, County Counsel Mr. Robert Grierson; Manager, Chico Municipal Airport Mr. Jay White, California Pilots Association Butte County ALUC • Mr. Larry Thelen, Attorney. Mrruntnrk review rine. Nap. S of 5 nope. Two maps of the Federal Airspace around CMA. . Map A is from the CMA Environs Plan done by Dixon Spear in 1978. The entire colored. rtion (both yellow and orange) shows the actual .area of the Federal Air Regulations Part 77 Airspace, indicating Approach, Transitional and Conical Surfaces. The orange area is that part of the Federal Airspace omitted by Mr. McClintock in Map B.. which is labeled "FAR PART 77 SURFACES" from the P&D Aviation Noise Study. �-- all Map A �. . VIM AIRPOi[T 6iYI�15 PLAN AppppAtll AND CLEAR ZONE PLAN ac-• / 201 CONICAL'SUFFACE �\ _. '1 • . . raL3 UFA kall U] _�— — Map B .. HORIZONTAL. -SURFACE ELEV..3001 IASL CHICO MUNICIP< AIRPORT _117 i l .8 `� • 1 f4nC'L'..S . ter, ` 1 . 41 '. i`/ •. S'. w.:da-. ..e...+.T -11 rsn wTn gWui: From the footnote on his map.we learn that Mr: McClintock does appear to know about, and understand,Transition and Approach surfaces. So, why did he chose to not depicted them in - their entirety? EXHIBIT A A graphic depicting the difference between the basic Wto maps created by the 1978 Dixon -Spear Noise Study and the. 1992 cClintock-Becker - Noise Study 0 •Ti The shaded area on this map shows the difference in area between the basic data used for both Noise Studies Contour of 1978 Study adopted by ALUC Contour of 1992 Study adopted by BOS Arrows depict Airtanker VFR (Visual Flight Rules) departure to the south Dots depict IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) track used by commercial aircraft as required by FAA. .fay �. �- ---�1►,� question: howcould quieter aircraft flying along the "dots" have the effect on the noise created by the airtankers flying along the "arrows" as claimed by Mr. VI tock? How is it possible that Chico's Consultant didn't know that the FAA, ,o never allow a commercial pilot to make a dangerous low level turn on take -off. »a �A*n► R load of passengers toward;rising terrain? EXHIBIT B i n• ��m�ar�oi� b� `'n;�r" Li►�Y'.1=c� 1 G-C��o I by Mr. McClintock with official CIF lIR5DAY FRIDAY sA7131mAY suRDAY station logs for the same dates. 7N 17-00.91..._ _—.-16-0[1.71 -� 11-0c"l low 5! " C? 04 15 131 50 n -- .31 - .37 159 7.10 .r 9 :f'.:'.%:.:�: 1:21 730 731 3'00 3.10 .3:12 .. ...... 3:16 •- 3:10 321 `V 325 i 3:29 3:33 ...�...... 3:36 3 41 .... _ 3:47 a;oa � � i •' ,Cf6 14:20 1425 f 1420 } , 4= ;4:43 :4:44 :4 53 - MW ,4.55 , <Sa :4'56 1591 •517 :YIO 1524 ae .... � _ • ... � . . :5:30 7534 :144 1_i.. MR15:43 154a .556 556 ` T`:% t:D 619 :G21 6.22 6.25 6:x G:40 G:x G 45 MEW 6.46 :6'54 E.56 09 10 .„ 7.35 1.36 -- AMR vow 1:37 1 0. Phis graphic shows that fire fighting aircraft were not included in the .McClintock data, thus creating smaller noise contours than if the airtanker had been included and removing the State mandated requirements for sound attenuation and land use restrictions. from properties around the airport, especially to the south. Note:' on first day of recording the. consultant logged only 17 minutes. If the consultant had been interested in measurement which included the airtankers, the CDF Station Logs show no lack of airtanker activity. There were even two CDF aircraft operating during .the time Mr. McClintock purported to have been monitoring that did not get reported by Thi �. McClintock.l Becker Noise Study (9219 ) CD Flight Log for Oct. 17-20,19911I :L:cCrli rcpurlcl3 lime lttunitured �� (ICtta IY:Cl11'i1Cli AA -210 =Air Attack h%in engine Cewun Tanker 14 = C54E Tanker 25 =1'3A Tanker 64 = C130A Tanker 72 = 82F Tanker 90 = SIi' 'Canker 00 = P3A %��. a •�, .t � ,: �• � , - .. t -. :Fpm e CHICO MUNICIPAL ' AIRPORT . �pRT N05 E COMPATISIUTY 9 / .�`•. SOGRAM AND _I t a ENVIRONS PIAN ' �' ''' S: aa• w. ao. cae MGM cm rA .a=�•:..�. :.:.:.off• , ._ _ ' . � r1 ��, - —•'a ,t��{ } 1 t i!.i 7. � is � / � _.ter • . :. • � j 1 _ , , . .......�. ' �f.-• 1 - •_�.;' I — _ ,SORT N6M COWATmoSrY PLAN • \l \ i . f•., . -/' � .i. j l P&D Aviation C cf Uss T:2'PD - EXHIBIT y of Chico's FAR Part 150 Noise Study--ALUC Discussions uence of Correspondence and Documents as of August 19, 1998 1) December 21, 1994 CMA FAR PART 150 adopted by Chico. 2) February 10, 1995 CNIA FAR PART 150 published document. 3) August 9, 1995 letter to Toni Lando from Mike NlcClintocl( stating concerns of 1iiii Cavalier of the FAA and reporting that he had drafted a letter and revised Chapter III for the City to send to the FAA. Hand written on the letter : "Pete, Please type letter, cc Bob K. Toni" m Toni Lando to John Pfeifer, FAA : cover letter for revised Chapter III :i) August 11, 1995 letter fro with enclosure (13 pages). On the top of page 8 it states "The City -of Chico and the Butte County ALUC have adopted the Land Use Plan depicted in Exhibit III -1 and the standards reflected in Table III -1 as the Official Airport'Land Use Plan.for the Chico Municipal Airport." _ On the top of page I it states: "Adopted by the City of Chico 12/21/94 5) October 4, 1996 letter to Toni Lando from Herman Bliss, FAA, transmitting FAA Approval with enclosure of FAA Record of Approval which includes m the statement that this study had been adopted by ALUC. X) Discussion at ALUC re whether or not ALUC staff should use Chico',s Part 150 Noise Study in making their own findings. Chico's representative said that Chico's noise study was FAA approved and consequently was the current noise study and had to be used. Other Commission members questioned the assertion that the study had been approved by the FAA. G) December 1, 1997 letter from Tom Lando to ALUC Staff Lucas"verifying FAA approval" with. enclosure of document 95 above. 7 Jan 21, 1998 Minutes of ALUC Discussion of the FAR PART 150 Study and request that staff research the basis for the FAA statement that ALUC had adopted the study 8) February 11, 1998 letter to Herman Bliss, FAA from ALUC stating that ALUC had never approved or adopted the Chico Part 150 noise study. 9 Februjry 11, 1998 letter to Tom Lando from ALUC requesting that Chico no longerree ALUCthe Airport Noise Compatibility Program as an adopted or approved document of t 10) July 2, 1998 letter to Bob Hennigan from Bob Koch stating that "At no time, either in writing or orally, did the City or its consultant represent to the FAA that ALUC had approved the program. . . 11) August 18, 1998 letter to ALUC from Bob Koch correcting statements in item 10, and admitting that "erroneous information was sent to the FAA". ifer, FAA from Bob Koch re.: NOTICE OF CORRECTION - 12) August 18, 1998. letter to John Pfe� , CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT. FAR PART 150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM. EXHIBIT E - ��. I P&D Consu/tants, /nc. Planners / Engineers 400 S. EI Camino Real Suite 500 San Mateo. CA 94402 ' FAX (415) 343-9446 August 9, 1995 (415) 343-0108 AC Tox+�se+d6+n�)+e Er�ix+ers Cary Mr. Thomas J. Lando City Manager City of Chico 505 Wall Street . C� ,Q.U'i AUG 1 01995 Chico, CA 95927 V RE: CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FAR PART 150 NCP Dear Mr. Lando: ' its District As we discussed last week MI • tthe FAR Part 150 Noim Cavalier of the se Compatibility Program for Office contacted me concerning_ Chico Municipal Airport. Mr. Cavalier's concern was that in adopting compatibility m�ures of Chico did not make it clear rthat it wo ds implement predicated on his reading of the report identified in Chapter III of the pfic measures, as opposed to "the wherein it said that "the City should" implement speci City will" implement these measures. Mr. Cavalier said that the FAA could not approve any such measures ested that hsvch aut a cl� commitment for implementation on the part of the City. • I Sugg commitment would probably not be a provbtilemhbe� ent to was ent all recomme ended when the City approved the NCP it was noise compatibility measures. this and have revised Chapter III of To this end I have drafted 'letter dto the FAA stating the NCP. Please send the NCP to more accurately reflect the City's intent in adopting name ADO indi- the letter with the revised Chapter III to Mr. John Pfeifer at the Burlino sated. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mi 4R- haelcClintockAssociate President. Aviation Division GATE fLS`iIIll C1P�C - nci W AaTuh 0CW . Tri^ .. _ i t EXHIBIT E ' -� -0 ILI 1 4 00 CHICO MUNICIPAL 16,350 L AIRPORT PROPOSED tELEWENTARY SCHOOL ts 10,600 LF MCMAN US ELEAL 13,500 LF PARTRIDGE ELEM. 11.800 LF EUDWELL JUN. HIGH Exhibit shows the relationship of existing schools and the proposed elementary schobi to overflights and distance from runway along flight paths. Since in the traffic pattern; altitude is proportional to distance from the runway along the pathofflight, greater distance along flight path equals. -greater altitude above oround elevation. This criterium is more relevant to noise and perceived safety issues -than direct distance to airport. The proposed school is closer to the airport than existing aublic schools but is located abeam the �\ 14,700 LF MARIGOLD ELEM. : 14.100 LF \/ PLEASANT VALLEY HIGH I runway C1 L11%,aL1_1 distance along aircraft flight tracks. Figure 174-1' FLIGHT TRACKS A &or% EXHIBIT F Airtanker Noise • . & CDF-USFS Fire -fighting Activities State of California, the US Forest Service and the US Department of Transportation have invested millions of to. provide a tyughting support facility at CMA Aircraft flown from this base protect lives and property, not only in Butte County, b but .in Tehama, Glenn, Plumas, Colusa, and as far away as Lake County. Only thirteen of California's approximately 260. public use airports that have a fire fighting air attack base. Only two of those thirteen have both fire fighting operations and a private company doing fire fighting aircraft maintenance. The CDF base was established in 1971, Aero Union began operations in Chico in 1964. This is a map of the area covered by fire -fighting aircraft flown from Chico The closer you are to the center of this circle, the more timely the response if you are threatened by fire. Butte County has more than 60.000 people living in areas of extreme fire danger. Because the air attack base is located in Chico response to a fire in Paradise, Forest Ranch, Cohasset or the hills above Oroville is counted in minutes, and re -load and return drops of retardant are also minutes apart, instead of hours. VW'W' d fires are unpredictable and fire seasons differ in intensity from year-to-year as well as from day-to-day, so who have lived here for years may be surprised by the amount of aircraft activity required to fight a major campaign fire. Because Butte County airports exist in such quiet rural surroundings, these events are much more intrusive than they would be if they occurred at an urban airport that was constantly busy. Fire fighting is seasonal, the aircraft are old and noisy, and campaign fires can produce long periods of constant, extremely loud operations. Repairs and maintenance are often done at night because the aircraft must be available during daylight hours to support the fire fighters: This means that required engine nun -ups (at up to 100% power) often occur late at night or in the extremely quiet early moming hours when people are most disturbed by loud noises. Informational signs (a mitigation required by the North Chico Specific Plan 1994) installed around the airport in:IVlarch 2000 ted: "Aircraft overflight zone. This area subject to normal airport related activity based on the overflight of aircraft to and from Chico Municipal Airport and aircraft operations at the airport." But this statement may actually be misleading because of the unique nature of fire fighting which.is not normal. Equally misleading is the use of CNEL noise contours, which describe an average. An example of the conflict between "averages" . and `reality" can be demonstrated by imagining a car with an enormous sound system driving by your house and causing your windows to rattle. Now imagine one of those cars driving by every four minutes, 10 hours a day, for 4 days in a row. You would not take it well if someone attempted to explain that you didn't have a noise problem because "on average", over the year, the sound was well below that which interfered with conversation. Prospective homebuyers must be realistic about their family member's tolerance for noise and understand clearly the { nature of. these operations before purchasing, so they are not taken by surprise when they do occur. Having airport F neighbors who understand the situation and are tolerant o4 or even enthusiastic about, aircraft better serves the interests of the airport, as well as those vulnerable for wildland fires and even the real estate community. Everyone wants to avoid the situation being confronted by unhappy homebuyers suing for nondisclosure or pressuring the Chico City Council to cancel the CDF lease at the airport. EXHIBIT H. • 0 0 The most accurate way to describe activity at an air attack base is to give factual descriptions of the history of the base at Chico. Data is from CD flight logs—the official public records of operations maintained for accounting and legal purposes. Fire Season: (Fig -1) The general time frame of fire season is pre- dictable, generally starting mid-May in Northern California, as shown by this graphic of start and stop dates For 1989- 1999. Fire season has started as early as April 11 th and ended as late as Dec. 13th. Fitt season generally lasts from 5-7 months. Fire Season Severity (Fig. 2) May be measured by the amount of retardant used Gallons of retardant loaded into aircraft during the 1991-99 seasons. Note that even though an average can be calculated, only a single fire season -1983 - came near to being "average". 11 DATES of FIRE SEASON in BUTTE COUNTY -1989-1999 19" - 1 348.384 9" --► 1994 — 1,024.066 1988 — 37,-810 ga -- .._. _ o eeeeeeeoommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmemm LEM ©©©OQO©� 19" - 1 348.384 9" --► 1994 — 1,024.066 1988 — 37,-810 ga -- .._. _ o Daily Activiri: (Fig. 3) This shows the variableness in even a very heavy fire season. This graphic gives the number of take -offs daily for the year 1994, there are many days when no airtanker flew at all. EXHIBIT H eeeeeeeoommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmemm Jun Jul eeeee■eee■eeeee�eeeeee��e�e���e Aug eeeeeeee�eeee�em�emeeeem■emm��e i Sep Oct e�eeeeeeee■�■�e��mmmmm■��eem�e� ioioiieiii■�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Daily Activiri: (Fig. 3) This shows the variableness in even a very heavy fire season. This graphic gives the number of take -offs daily for the year 1994, there are many days when no airtanker flew at all. EXHIBIT H Campaign Fires: (Fig.4) This graphic lists the dates and number of operations (take -offs or landings) of aircraft for several representative campaign fires where CMA was used as a reload base. !., Airtanker Safety & CDF-USFS Fire -fighting Activities The Airport Land Use Commission has been charged by the State (under the California State Aeronautics . Act—Public Utility Code Sections 21670 et seq., 1970) with the task of promoting land use compatibility around airports.... "..to protect public health, safety,and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excesstve noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not.already devoted to incompatible uses." The following aircraft are operated as part of the fire fighting fleet: DC4s, DC6s, DC7s, P2Vs, C130s, PB4Y-2s, P -3s, S-2Fs and the occasional exotic from Canada These are generally old and aging aircraft This list is relevant because Federal agencies contract with many different contractors, .operating the different aircraft. The agencies support and co-operate with each other. Chico. is a joint CDF-US Forest Service Base. The Bureau of Land Management has also operated out of CMA. Any of the aim -raft in this list may be operating out of Chico as resources are drawn from the Western region to fight a local fire.. While the 'fleet too small to generate any meaningful statistics about accident probabilities, there are over 120 pilot fatalities listed in the Aerial Fire-fighter's Memorial list maintained by the Air Tanker Pilots Association. Many accidents occurred over a fire where the flying is most dangerous, however, these older aircraft are not immune to engine failures, nor are they exempt frorn near airport accidents. The causes and locations of all the accidents are not listed, but of the 42 which give some indication over 25% (11 of the fatal accidents) were identified as occurring on take -off, landing or as the result of mid-air collisions in the traffic pattern at airports. r The Memorial _ list does not cover "incidents" . An example is when an engine failure occurs and the pilot manages to avoid an accident. In these situations, pilots take two actions almost simultaneously: they. dump all the retardant to lighten the aim -raft and the level the wings if they are in a turn which gives them { longer to glide and perhaps be able to restart the engine or find a landing spot that offers better survivability r for both the pilots and people on the ground. ®i Retardant dumps: These result in a concentrated quantity of fire retardant: A P-3 load weights over 13 1/2 r tons and when released is traveling at 250 feet/ second. Fire fighters are given a one-hour training course to teach them to protect themselves when they are near a drop target. EXHIBIT H # Minutes ft of tanker between Hours of Year Data First Flight Last Flight operations flights operation 1990 7 -Jul 7:48 AM 8:04 PM 84 8:47 12:18 6 -Aug 2:17 PM 8:19 PM 38 9:32 6:02 7-Aup 7:35 AM 7:28 PM 50 14:16 11:53 11 -Aug 8:46 AM 7:28 PM 30 21:24 10:42 12 -Aug 8:46 AM 7:48 PM 63 10:30 11:02 13 -Aug 9:04 AM 6:35 PM 33 17:18 • 9:31 1992 12 -Aug 7:36 AM 5A9 PM 83 7:24 1014 22 -Sep 2:48 PM 8:48 PM 42 8:38. 6:01 23 -Sep 8:52 AM . 3:57 PM 34 1230 7:05 24 -Sep 4:59 PM 5:32 PM 16 - 2:04 0:33 25 -Sep 12:22 PM 7:29 PM 58 7:37 7:07 1994 30 -Jun 1:50 PM 81.50 PM 132 3:07 8:51 19 -Aug 11:18 AM 8:18 PM 67 8:04 9:00 27 -Aug 1:48 PM 7:44 PM 42 8:29 5:56 2&ALM 10.24 AM 7:48 PM 63 8:57 9:24 18Sep 2:26 PM 7:31 PM 23 13:18 5:05 19 -Sep 8:40 AM 7:04 PM 142 4:24 1024 20-W 9:41 AM 7:45 PM 58 10:25 10:04 21-W 9:39 AM 7:19 PM 124 4:41 9:40 22 -SV 8:08 AM 8:54 PM 149 4:20 10:48 Airtanker Safety & CDF-USFS Fire -fighting Activities The Airport Land Use Commission has been charged by the State (under the California State Aeronautics . Act—Public Utility Code Sections 21670 et seq., 1970) with the task of promoting land use compatibility around airports.... "..to protect public health, safety,and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excesstve noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not.already devoted to incompatible uses." The following aircraft are operated as part of the fire fighting fleet: DC4s, DC6s, DC7s, P2Vs, C130s, PB4Y-2s, P -3s, S-2Fs and the occasional exotic from Canada These are generally old and aging aircraft This list is relevant because Federal agencies contract with many different contractors, .operating the different aircraft. The agencies support and co-operate with each other. Chico. is a joint CDF-US Forest Service Base. The Bureau of Land Management has also operated out of CMA. Any of the aim -raft in this list may be operating out of Chico as resources are drawn from the Western region to fight a local fire.. While the 'fleet too small to generate any meaningful statistics about accident probabilities, there are over 120 pilot fatalities listed in the Aerial Fire-fighter's Memorial list maintained by the Air Tanker Pilots Association. Many accidents occurred over a fire where the flying is most dangerous, however, these older aircraft are not immune to engine failures, nor are they exempt frorn near airport accidents. The causes and locations of all the accidents are not listed, but of the 42 which give some indication over 25% (11 of the fatal accidents) were identified as occurring on take -off, landing or as the result of mid-air collisions in the traffic pattern at airports. r The Memorial _ list does not cover "incidents" . An example is when an engine failure occurs and the pilot manages to avoid an accident. In these situations, pilots take two actions almost simultaneously: they. dump all the retardant to lighten the aim -raft and the level the wings if they are in a turn which gives them { longer to glide and perhaps be able to restart the engine or find a landing spot that offers better survivability r for both the pilots and people on the ground. ®i Retardant dumps: These result in a concentrated quantity of fire retardant: A P-3 load weights over 13 1/2 r tons and when released is traveling at 250 feet/ second. Fire fighters are given a one-hour training course to teach them to protect themselves when they are near a drop target. EXHIBIT H :.i Z" n - 'BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 0 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-6571 FAX (530) 538-7785 • t i TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: M. A. Meleka, Principal Planner SUBJECT: North Chico Specific Plan Report f DATE: May 9, 2001 FOR: Airport Land Use Commission [Meeting of May 16, 2001 i I have asked staff to look into the status of the North Chico Specific Plan mitigation measures regarding the Chico Municipal Airport. Attached is the staff report regarding this matter. i { K:\Planning\ALUC\MEETINGS\2001\05-16\NcspMemo `i S I • Butte County 9 Airport Land Use Commission 0 s tom' e` TO: M. A. Meleka FROM: Craig Sanders SUBJECT: North Chico Specific Plan Report DATE: April 30, 2001 FOR: Airport Land Use ;Coinmission,Meeting of May 16, 2001 As directed -by the Commission, I have researched how well certain airport protection policies in the North Chico Specific'Plan have been implemented. The selected airport -related policies of interest the Commission identified are: 1. Avigation easements shall be required., for all lands within the plan. 2. Enhanced disclosure measures shall be developed and implemented to alert prospective home buyers and rental tenants as to:the proximity of the Chico Municipal Airport, the existence of avigation easements, the: existing and projected future overflight and noise levels as such related issues as are appropriate to fully inform such prospective home buyers or rental tenant. Enhanced disclosure may be modeled on Butte County Code, Chapter 35, Protection of Agricultural Land. 3. The new Arterial Road and collector streets east of Garner Lane shall be designated with aviation -related names as set forth in Butte County Code Chapter 32. Since the adoption of the NCSP on March 28, 1995 the following parcel maps and subdivisions maps have been approved subject to the provisions of the NCSP. The following table shows which of the above policies were implemented as part of the development approval. Applicant APN Date approved Number of lots Avigation easement Enhanced disclosure Aviation - related street names Fedorko 047-250-147 i 08/07/96 2 Yes No No Troudy 047-250-178 r 11/16/95 4 Yes Yes No Baccaccio 047-280-002 06/29'/95 2 No No No Hay 047-440-006 08/22/96 34 Yes No No Liptrap 047-260-138 10/07/96 43 Yes Yes No Schuster Various Various 51 Yes Yes No n U Io: '=te coUnty HLUC V b30 -b38-7/ trom Stephen Irwin (4105W -04/S Cr • Via etax.co® Pg 1/ 4 016-05-81 NN: 7_3 HPI llie California Aviation Alliance http://califbmiaaviation.org . Friday, Mav 4, 2001 California town split on airport_ plan Town's growth plan allows construction of hotel, but ME*C EodEC n I MAY 7 2001 BUTTE COUNTY 116 says no II 1 By �J STEVE HART ,. II{ THE SANTA ROSA (CA) PRESS, DEMOCPzT „ 0 , A fight over growth around Charles M. Schulz -Sonoma Cou ty Pjirport lia ar - shifted to Windsor, where town leaders re reconsiderin plans Zx3gTg COUNTY resort hotel, apartments and offices north .of .the airpo tAlpPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Last January,'tile county's' Airport Land Use Coaduission. adopted restrictions on new, development around the airport, saying they're needed to protect people on the ground from ai-rcraft noise and possible crashes. The move sparked apolitical firestorm. First the county Board of Supervisors refused to pay for an environmental report that airport co-mmissioner's said was needed to protect their plan from legal challenge. Then the hoard ousted two members. of the cr)mmi..ssi-an, cnntending' they had exceeded their authority. The commission also is under attack from developers of the Airport Business Center, who filed two lawsuits challenging the growth • restrictions. The developers said the plan isn't valid because the commission didn't do the environmental studies that the Board of Supervizors refused to pay for. Developers also accused the commission of violating California's open meeting law. Jay White, an attorney for the commission, said the -commission didn't break anv laws. The commis. n.'s plan would block developers from building a 240-roc:.rn rctsor.t hnt.el..anri nt.hPr_ proj.ects on hn.si.ness center prnper_ty next. t.n Windsor's golf course, less than'a mile north of the airport. Late Wednesday, the controversy landed in the lap -of Windsor's Town Council. The hotel, apartments and offices would be allowed under Windsor's current growth plan but not under the airport commission's regulations. Trendwest Resorts, a Washington -based resort developer, submitted the hotel proposal to Windsor, but the town hasn't made a decision on the project. Under state law, Windsor must change its growth policy to match the commission's plan or overrule the commission by showing the proposed development isn't in conflict with.the airport. The Town Council didn't choose either option Wednesday, but Windsor faces a June 2 state deadline to act: The commission's plan pats the proposed Shiloh Road hotel site in the. Page 1 of 4 M The CaliforniarAviation Alliance. http: //califomiaaviation.brg airport's "inner safety zone," where hotels, shopping centers, schools, factories and other high-density uses are prohibited. The site is.under a flight path used.by aircraft taking off from or landing on one of the airport's two runways. Windsor.Council members were split on the issue Wednesday. Councilwoman Lynn Morehouse, arguing that safety is the highest priority, said the . town should uphold the commission's plan. But Councilman Steve Scott questioned whether the site is unsafe and said a hotel would generate, fewer airport -related noise complaints than a housing development would. Other council members said they're reluctant to change the town's newly completed growth plan and that it could be hard to find other locations for the planned Shiloh.Road development. Meanwhile, the hotel project will go to. the airport commission for review Monday. Richard Coombs, an Airport Business Center partner, told Windsor . leaders they shouldn't change the town's growth plan. He said there's no evidence the hotel location is unsafe and argued the project will generate taxes for the town. Coombs said the. commission's plan is far more restrictive than the state's.guidelines for development around airports. Lee Dysart, who was removed from his seat on the seven -member commission last month by the county Board of Supervisors, defended the airpert plan Wednesday. He told the Town Council it's less restrictive • than the state's guidelines in most cases. Dysart said the lawsuits are groundless and predicted the commission's plan will be upheld in.court. ASSOCIATION, OF CALIFORNIA AIRPORTS 2001 SPRING CONFERENCE AGENDA Hawthom Suites Hotel 321 Bercut Drive Sacramento Thursday, May 17, 2001 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. ACA Board Meeting 10:00 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. Break 10:15 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Registration California Aeronautics Program Update - Austin Wiswell, Manager. Page 2 of 4 j io: camty HLUI: @ wo-538-77 Frog: Stephen Irvin (707)5M-8478 via eFac.co® Pg 3i 4 05705-01 00:24 W1 3. The California Aviation Alliance http://califomiaaviatibn.org. , • 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. California Technical Advisory Committee on Aeronautics Update - Harry Krug 11:30 -a.m. to 12:00 p.m.� FAA Airport District Office Update--, t John Pfeifer; Manager, 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Lunch on your own 1:30 p.m. to -3:00 p.m. AIR,21 A to Z, Comprehensive Review of Federal Funding for ALL Airports - FAA 3:00 p.m. to,3:15 p.m. i Break 3:15 p;m. to 4:30 p.m. AIR 21 continued 6:30 p.m. to .8:30 p.m. - Refreshments in the Presidential Suite Friday, May IS, 2001 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Registration 8:3.0 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. 'Airport Land Use Roundtable 1. The Law 2. Land Use Handbook Update 3. The Issues 4. Legal Solutions 5. Legislative Remedies Invitees: ACA; AOPA, CPA, Shutt Moen Associates, State Aeronautics Program, SWAAAE, CSAC, League of Cities' 10:00 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. Break 10:15 a.m. to 12:00 p.m;.ALU Roundtable continued 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Lunch — on your .ow n 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Conference Wrap-up and Review Nage.3 of 4 To: 'Butte County RLUC @ 5M -5W-77 Front: Stephen Irwin (787)5W=0478 via eFaDCCOM Pg V 4 85-85-81 88:75 HPI 4 The California Aviation Alliance httg.//califoiTiiaAviation.org Accommodations: Room accommodationsshould be made direct with Hawthorn Suites ASAP and . mention you are with the Association of California Airports. Sacramento Hawthorn Suites 1-800-767-177.7 Room Rates: Single' Double Triple Quad Studio Suite $109 $119 $129: $139 Two Bedroom Suite $159 $159 $169 $179 Rate does not include state and city of 12% and $1.50 for the "Sacramento Tourism Business Improvement District". Association of ,California Airports 2001 Spring Conference Registration . NAME: TITLE: ENTITY ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP:. PHONE: FAX: EMAIL: Registration Fee: $35.00 Make check payable to ACA and send *ith registration form to: Association of California Airport c/o Nut Tree Airport 301 County Airport Road - Vacaville, CA 95688 Call 707-446-0322 for further information Visit the CAA Airport Land Use Forum at: http://wti-,tiv.califomlaaviation. ork/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?conf=DCConfD7 Page 4 of 4 0 • CCEAVE MAY . 8 2001 0 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF CHICO PLANNING COMMISSI PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE AVt7t; W- '5cCM"'Illp c/o M.A. Meleka Butte County Planning PnC0l� ..,=_ - U INg MAY 9 2001 UTTE COUNTY AIRPORTBLAND U E COMMISSION �7 May 4, 2001 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Chico Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on Thursday, May 17, 2001, at 6:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers. of the Chico Municipal Center, 421. Main Street, Chico, CA, for the following project: Growth and Land Availability Analysis The City has prepared a report examining the demand for housing in the Chico Urban Area and whether sufficient land is designated for housing to meet future needs through the City General Plan's anticipated build out in 2012 and beyond. A presentation will be made on the findings and recommendations of the report. The Planning Commission will.review this information and receive public testimony before forwarding a recommendation to the City Council. An environmental assessment will be conducted prior to formal consideration of any changes to the current General Plan. Copies of the report are available upon request. Questions regarding this project may be directed to Senior Planner Tom Hayes, who can be contacted at (530) 895-4853. Any person may appear and be heard at the public hearing, and interested parties are encouraged to submit written comments on the above noted project. Written comments should be submitted to the City Of Chico Planning Division, 411 Main Street, second floor, or mailed to P.O. Box 3420, Chico, CA 95927, and must be received prior. to 5:00 p.m. on the date of the hearing. Further information, including maps and files, may be reviewed at the City of Chico Planning Division, 411 Main Street, Second Floor, Chico, CA 95928, phone (530) 895-4851. In accordance with Government Code Section 65009, if any person(s) challenges the action of the Planning Commission in court, said person(s) may be limited to raising only those issues that were raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered .to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Publish: E -R, Saturday, May 5, 2001 cc: CDD/CITY CLERK/APC4/E-R/COUNTY CLERK/Merz/Dist. List Acct. # 862-510-5140 S`\gcr\NOTiCES1GA NOA.wpd g��l Made From Recycled Paper i 10 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING D 41TYO-CHICO 411 Main Street P.O. Box 3420 INC. 1872 Chico. CA 95927 (530) 895-4851 FAX (530) 895-4726 ATSS 459-4851 0 • CCEAVE MAY . 8 2001 0 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF CHICO PLANNING COMMISSI PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE AVt7t; W- '5cCM"'Illp c/o M.A. Meleka Butte County Planning PnC0l� ..,=_ - U INg MAY 9 2001 UTTE COUNTY AIRPORTBLAND U E COMMISSION �7 May 4, 2001 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Chico Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on Thursday, May 17, 2001, at 6:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers. of the Chico Municipal Center, 421. Main Street, Chico, CA, for the following project: Growth and Land Availability Analysis The City has prepared a report examining the demand for housing in the Chico Urban Area and whether sufficient land is designated for housing to meet future needs through the City General Plan's anticipated build out in 2012 and beyond. A presentation will be made on the findings and recommendations of the report. The Planning Commission will.review this information and receive public testimony before forwarding a recommendation to the City Council. An environmental assessment will be conducted prior to formal consideration of any changes to the current General Plan. Copies of the report are available upon request. Questions regarding this project may be directed to Senior Planner Tom Hayes, who can be contacted at (530) 895-4853. Any person may appear and be heard at the public hearing, and interested parties are encouraged to submit written comments on the above noted project. Written comments should be submitted to the City Of Chico Planning Division, 411 Main Street, second floor, or mailed to P.O. Box 3420, Chico, CA 95927, and must be received prior. to 5:00 p.m. on the date of the hearing. Further information, including maps and files, may be reviewed at the City of Chico Planning Division, 411 Main Street, Second Floor, Chico, CA 95928, phone (530) 895-4851. In accordance with Government Code Section 65009, if any person(s) challenges the action of the Planning Commission in court, said person(s) may be limited to raising only those issues that were raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered .to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Publish: E -R, Saturday, May 5, 2001 cc: CDD/CITY CLERK/APC4/E-R/COUNTY CLERK/Merz/Dist. List Acct. # 862-510-5140 S`\gcr\NOTiCES1GA NOA.wpd g��l Made From Recycled Paper i 10 May 04 01 11:45,a Center; fog Economic Devi: 5308pS84734 y p.6 California State University, Chico - Chico, Califomia 95929-0765 i 9 2001 Center for Economic Development I 530-898-4598 Fax: 898-47.34 . BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT CANO USE COMMISSION ..5/412001 M A. Meleka Butte County Principal Planner 7 County Center Dr Oroville, CA 95965 Dear M.A.-Meleka, ' The Center for Economic Development at California State University, Chico is requesting a project contract time extension from May 30, 2001 to September 30, 2001. The reason for this extension is to allow sufficient time for the added components (e- mail interviews, second public meeting) to this project. Sincerely; Dan Ripke Director Centerlfor.Economic Dev: -..5308984734 .i nnapal anner (530)538-7785 Fax Director Development Services Center fOr Econ Dev Butte County Calomia State University, Chico 7 County Center Dr California State University, Chico Oroville, CA 95965Center for Economic Development mrneleka��ut eccunty.net dt.pke@csuchico.edu Iry Schiffman (530)898-4504 Iry Schiffman (530)343-7108 Professor (530)-898-6910 Fax ' Dept..of Polltidal Science Califomia State University, Chico CSUC lSchfffftan@ehdiange.csu6Nco.edu Jacquelyn Chase (530)898-5587 Tracey Ferguson ' (916)396-8441 Jacquelyn Chase Geo9raP►tY Professor (53091-0499 Tracey Ferguson . Phy ichase Csuchico.ed Geography California State University, C u (530)898-6781 Fax JCha=@exchange.csuchico.edu ifCJgllSWl@sabef.tl8l Jim Fletcher (530)898-4332 Jim Fletcher Ruth Gurley (530)898-4772 ' (530)898-4365 Director Muth Gurtey (530)343-7438 (530)898-5095 Fax Survey Research Center Associate Professor Carifomia State University, Chico - Communication Arts and Sciences Cafifomia state University. Chico Tehama .411 Butte CSUC IfletdwQcsucIuco.edu i rgudey@csuchico.edu Bob Jackson (530)898-6880: Warren Jensen (530)898-4598 Bob Jackson Director (530 98-5406 Warren Jensen (530)342-6869 (530)898-6889 Fax School of Graduate, Inti & Sponsor CSU, Chico Center for Ecunomic (530)519-2616 Development California State University, Chico (530)598-4734 Fax 56 Tara Terr fit CSUC Chico, CA 95973 • 8MJACKSON@csuchico.edu Butte wjensen®avchico.edu ® M. A. Meieka (530)538-6572 Dan Ripke (530)898.4598 M. A. Meleka (530)538-6821 MA. PI Dan Ripke (530 )8 ) 98-4734 Fax nnapal anner (530)538-7785 Fax Director Development Services Center fOr Econ Dev Butte County Calomia State University, Chico 7 County Center Dr California State University, Chico Oroville, CA 95965Center for Economic Development mrneleka��ut eccunty.net dt.pke@csuchico.edu Iry Schiffman (530)898-4504 Iry Schiffman (530)343-7108 Professor (530)-898-6910 Fax ' Dept..of Polltidal Science Califomia State University, Chico CSUC lSchfffftan@ehdiange.csu6Nco.edu May 04 01 11:44a Cente'r'. for Ecoiioinic 1)ev: 5308984734 p.4 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Joe Wilts, Public TV lrs, 530-898-4143 April 13, 2 2001 Dan Ripke, Center for Economic Development, 530-898-4598 ' Butte County Growth Scenarios Introductory Public Meeting 5A�°.a Apt introductory meeting for the Butte County .Growth.Scenarios project will be herd on /Lad Wednesday, ApM 18; 2001 from 7:80 to 910 p.m. at the EHss=badge, 1 dG U�o.:.1+Gllico, Calif. 90GY23 O�oo:g4 S -1J_ (ft This meeting will provide an overview of this important project., The purpose of this meeting is to inform the public and answer questions about the process of developing growth scenarios. Principle project partners include Butte County, the Center for Economic Development and the Survey Research Center. During the meeting, these partners will present the step-by-step process that will be followed to develop scenarios to accommodate the County's future growth. The organizations involved with, the project include Butte County, the Center for Economic Development, and the Survey Research Center. The meeting is being hosted by. the Center for Economic Development, California State UniversityChico. For'more information, please contact M. A. Meleka at (530) 538-6572 or Dan Ripke at 530-898-4598: 1 May 04 01 11:45a Center' fo^ Economic Bev: 5308984734 P.5 Second Public Meeting 1) Location a) State Theater, Oroville;" ; 2) Marketing. a) Community Calendars, i) Chico Enterprise Record ii) Oroville Mercury News ' iii) Paradise Post iv) Gridley. I b) Newspaper Ads i) . Chico Enterprise Record ii) Oroville Mercury. News iii) Paradise Post iv) Gridley/Biggs ` c) Announcements to Association 8 Organizations ' d) Announcements to Government e) Notice (letter/faxle-mau) to Councils/Board i) Chico ii) Oroville iii) Paradise iv) Gridley V) Biggs vi) Butte.County Board of Supervisors f) Notice (letter/faxle-mail) to Planning Commissions a i) , Chico ii) Oroville t iii) . Paradise iv) Gridley ' V) Biggs " vi) Butte County Board of Supervisors 3) t i j 1 } From: van wpke Center Tor toonomlc ueveropmeni IQ-. mivrael moor Cy ODUC uninry .:�..� .�• r�y� • .. . e • butte County Development Services and the Center for Economic Development BUTTE COUNTY GROWTH SCENARIOS . SECOND INTRODUCIl'ORY PUBLIC,FETING The purpose of this meeting is'to inform the public and answer questions on the process of developing growth scenarios in. Butte County. This meeting will provide an overview, of the Butte County Growth.Scenanos project. Principal project partners, include Butte County, the Center. for -Economic -Development, and the Survey Research Center. at CSU, Chico. Principle project partners will present the step-by-step process to be followed in developing growth scenarios. WHEN.:.-Wedncsday, May 23,, 2001 c:c.trr�n. a<�cti � ♦ f �vncrcc: Siate Theater, i�+ay Ivviyers Sireei, tiiUvihie, aiuurnia TIME: 7:vC�9:00 pm HOSTED BY The Center for Economic Development at California State University, Chico CONTACT: M. A. Meleka, (530) 538-65.72 or Dan Ripke, (530) 898-4598 We .encourage your participation. Please join us to learn more about this important project that will guide future growth in Butte County. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVIaIDN 2 • • April 23, 2001 Butte County Board of Supervisors 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Honorable Supervisors: �iuffe L'ountU LAND. OF NATURAL WEALTH .AND BEAUTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) respectfully requests that the Butte County Board of Supervisors reconsider their proposed override of the ALUC in regards to the Pheasant Landing Unit III Subdivision (Stephen Schuster Application GPA/RZ 00-05; TSM 00-03; APL 01-06). After reviewing the letter from Mr: George Kammerer (attorney for Mr. Schuster) to the Board of_Supervisors (3/27/01), and the Department'of Development Services Staff report containing the drafted override findings, it is clear that a general lack of aviation and airport land use knowledge permeates the documents. Furthermore, the substan- tial evidence required by state law and listed in the CalTrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (1-7, 5=13 through 15) to support the specific findings lacks accuracy and specificity. The author(s) of the staff report attempt to com- pensate for the lack of substantial evidence by providing volumes of text. Much of their discussion is based upon single sentences, or fragments of paragraphs taken from the CalTrans Handbook without reference (and out of context). Other support for the staff report findings includes.a project currently in litigation (and denied by the County Planning Commission), and several unadopted, flawed studies. Even the proposed mitigation listed in the staff report comes from a plan (North Chico Specific Plan - NCSP) for which the same mitigation has not yet been accomplished after six years of development. It is unfortunate that county staff were required to write such a report based on direction from the Board of Supervisors, and utilizing the obvious bias of the developer's attorney. Given the Board of Supervisor's unanimous stated support for the Chico Municipal Airport,' the ALUC wonders why the Board of Supervisors continually chooses to ignore the experience and expertise of the ALUC members. In order for the public record to be accurate and complete, the ALUC respectfully . requests the opportunity to comment on the staff report as presented for the 4/24/01 Board of Supervisors meeting. These written comments are not comprehensive in nature, and the ALUC reserves the right to address issues not mentioned in this letter at a future date (should the need arise). For the purposes of discussion, this document shall follow the staff report com- patibility issues in the order they are.presented. A. Safety and Overflight The "Override Findings" section of the staff report for 4./24/01 begins with a discussion of safety and overflight. The author(s) suggest that CalTrans Handbook pages 3-8 and 3-9 hold the answer to overflight compatibility con- cerns in that buyer awareness measures are suggested to educate people in overflight areas. The ALUC agrees that avigation easements and real estate disclosure documents are important. However, the CAlTrans handbook also states on Page 3-9: "Empirical studies have documented that the absolute. number of aircraft overflights .of a residential area is a factor in the perception of an- noyance. However, for the purposes of airport land use compatibility planning, it is better to simplify this measurement. The potential. _ existence of overflight concerns can reasonably be defined by the to cation of standard airport traffic patterns and other flight tracks routinely used by aircraft in the airport vicinity, especially at or. below traffic pattern altitudes." The Pheasant Landing Unit III project sits beneath five recorded. flight tracks (NCSP Flight Track Map presented at 3/27/01 Board of Supervisors meeting). The project also sits beneath the turning area of the traffic pattern (re- ference same flight track map). In the turning area of the traffic pattern, aircraft are descending below traffic pattern altitude (TPA), or in the pro- cess of climbing to TPA. As presented at the 3/27/01 meeting, this is a very busy time for pilots as they reconfigure the aircraft's power settings, landing gear, flap settings, and relative position of the aircraft to the airport. The Pheasant Landing Unit III project also lies beneath multiple instrument approach paths .(GPS, ILS, VOR -DME). As presented to the Board of Supervisors at the 3/27/01 meeting, the minimum allowed altitude of these • approaches over the project vary, but several are at 392 feet and 402 feet above the ground. These approaches are often accomplished in poor weather with accompanying rain, gusty winds, and marginal visibility. Substantive evidence does not exist. in the staff report, nor has been pre- sented by the developer's attorney, that justifies the placement of signi- ficant amounts of housing beneath this very busy, low -altitude aircraft traffic. Regarding the suggested deed notices and enhanced real estate disclosure: these items are already required under NCSP mitigation requirements.. Un- fortunately, compliance with these requirements has been poor. -.County staff indicated at the 3/27/01 meeting that no monitoring of these mitigation factors has occurred, and no mechanism exists for current monitoring. Since that meeting, in a preliminary review, ALUC staff has determined that much of the required mitigation (enhanced disclosure, avigation.easements, over- flight signage and aviation -related street names) has not been accomplished. This issue is discussed further under separate cover in a letter addressed to Mr. Bruce Alpert, County Counsel (and distributed to the Board of Super- visors). The staff report, and Mr. Kammerer reference the CalTrans Handbook as allow- ing a density of 4-6 dwelling units/acre in the traffic pattern zone: Their argument for this density does not explain that this density relates to safety compatibility only, not overflight compatibility. Furthermore, they do not explain that the CalTrans Handbook clearly and definitively states • that "The Handbook does not (emphasis in Handbook) establish state standards or policies for airport land use planning." The CalTrans Handbook is to be used as a guide, but grants leeway to Jocal ALUCs to adjust or modify densities based on local factors. This philosophy of using the CalTrans Handbook as a general guide (not an absolute reference) was confirmed by • the ALUC in two years of communications with the'firm that wrote the CalTrans Handbook (Shutt -Moen Associates/Hodges & Shutt). For instance, the CalTrans Handbook allows for the evaluation and combination of multiple factors to determine residential density compatibility. These factors might include busyness of airspace (flight tracks)-; aircraft con- figuration and altitude.(turning area), instrument approach paths (flown often in inclement weather), proximity to a CDF Air Tanker practice drop area, proximity to a large aircraft maintenance facility (CDF/Aero Union) and location near an airport with frequent military jet touch and goes. All of the above apply to the Pheasant'Landing .Unit III Project...,In:addition,.. ttie ALUC is allowed (and expected) to evaluate the general nature of the community (i.e. rural, urban, etc.). Pheasant Landing Unit III sits in a rural area of North. Chico, where many people have horses, raise chickens, pigs, steers, etc. The CalTrans Handbook allows significant.latitude for the ALUC to consider all of the above factors and then modify its airport land use plan to accommodate local aircraft activities, and also promote compatibility. The local ALUC recently demonstrated in the 2000 Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan that certain areas (i.e. downwind cor- ridors) of the traffic pattern are more appropriate for higher residential density than other areas (i.e. the turning areas)., This aviation -based logic, utilizing local factors and.knowledge, supports and confirms the ALUC position regarding the Pheasant Landing III subdivision. Legally, the responsibility rests upon the. -Board of Supervisors to demonstrate how the override of the ALUC promotes the public's best interest. This has not been accomplished in the override document being considered. • Curiously missing.from the staff report's safety and overflight evidence are any flight track maps; accident scatter maps for Chico Municipal Airport; or the easily obtainable FAA list of accidents at Chico Municipal Airport. This last item.was reviewed with the Board of Supervisors at their 3/27/01 meeting. At that meeting, it was demonstrated that three of the last four fatalities occurring at Chico Municipal Airport in the last ten years were the result of accidents in the traffic pattern turning areas. While statis- tics are important in making generalizations, specific local information must also be considered when determining relative risk. For this reason, and for the others reviewed previously, the specific findings regarding safety are inadequate as written in the staff report. If the Board of Supervisors wish to override the ALUC with regards to safety and overflight around Chico Municipal Airport, the specific findings must meet the CalTrans Handbook criteria which were summarized in the Topanga - case as "...legally relevant conclusions that explain the decision-making agency's method of analyzing facts, regulations, and policies and the rationale for making the decisions based on the facts involved. Findings are used to show how local decision -makers arrived at their decision based on facts and established policies..(CalTrans Handbook 5-14)."' As responsible decision -makers, the Board of Supervisors will need to evaluate all of the facts, even the aviation -related ones. Once understood and com- prehended, it is obvious that substantive evidence does not support the over- riding findings in regards to.overflight and safety. 1 • B. Noise The staff report regarding noise begins ironically with a reference to the 1995 Part 150 Airport Noise Study. This is unfortunate because this study was never .adopted by the ALUC due to its poor quality and inaccuracy: An example of its ineptness is provided in the staff report as .the author(s) quotes, "... residential land uses are compatible in areas exposed to a CNEL of up to 70dB." By referencing the Sound Level Scale (Table 6A) in the CalTrans Handbook, it can be observed that 700 is equivalent to a vacuum cleaner at a distance of ten feet.._ Not many people.living in a very .quiet, rural neighborhood (horses, chickens, pigs, etc.) are going to tolerate or desire Community Noise Equivalent Levels of 70dB. Yet the staff report.utilizes such questionable arguments to support its findings. The staff report author(s) then refer to a report by P&D Aviation (a consulting firm). They attempt to demonstrate that aircraft activity is actually less than previously pro- jected, and thus noise will be less of a problem than previously thought. This line of reasoning has very little to do with actual noise at the.airport, but it does serve to confuse the issue and bulk up the staff report. Un- fortunately, the P&D study was never adopted by the ALUC:as it was of poor quality and inaccurate. The reality is that all phases of aviation -related activity are significantly trending upwards (aircraft orders, cargo transport, passenger miles, student starts, etc.). This was recently confirmed by the Chico Municipal Airport Manager. Although many sources of information are available to determine aviation activity (Chico Municipal Airport Master Plan data, 2000 Airport Land Use Plan data, Chico Municipal Airport Manager, Aviation Week Sourcebook, etc.) none is referenced by the staff report. • Regarding single event noise: the authors) of the staff report specifically mention that it was discussed before the Board of Supervisors at their 3/27/01 meeting. They dismiss single event noise as a problem, utilizing one obscure United Kingdom study mentioned in the CalTrans Handbook (6-27). This study suggests that the "average person has only a one in 75 chance of being awakened by an aircraft noise in the outdoor range of, 90dB to 100dB" (this noise would be greater than a power mower at three feet - CalTrans Handbook Table 6A). They continue their argument with "this indicates that single -event sound levels of 70dB to 80dB (garbage disposal at three feet CalTrans Handbook Table 6A) will cause less than a 2% chance of.sleep dis- turbance."' These are preposterous statements. No detailed information is given regarding the study so no conclusions can be drawn as to its veracity. Fortunately, the CalTrans Handbook also cites more believable studies. An Environmental Protection Agency Study (U.S. E.P.A.) "found that 60% of people are awakened by outdoor cumulative noise levels (bNL) of 65dB (CalTrans Hand- book 6-27). Late night engine run -ups most likely exceed this range and suggest a potential noise compatibility problem. It was for this exact reason that Mr. Vic Alvistar of the Aero Union Corporation wrote the letter (presented at the 3/27/01 Supervisors meeting) strongly requesting the Board of Super- visors to deny the Stephens' Project. The Stephens' Project (according to Mr. Kammerer's letter of 3/27/01) is located just one-quarter mile immediately east of the Schuster property in question. Later in the noise section of staff report, the author(s) incredibly. state: "... the Board of Supervisors finds that the likelihood of ambient and single event noise, even at extreme 90dB to 100dB SEL outdoor ranges to which people might be exposed during the summer months with open r windows at nighttime, present no more than -minimal public exposure to ; noise." t No evidence or sound reasoning -confirms this statement.' Common sense and logic strongly oppose it. Yet this is purported as the.\substantial evidence supporting overriding findings. , The staff report does leave out important information regarding noise. The. CalTrans Handbook (3-4) states: "The.perspective of: this Handbook is that cumulative -noise-level..metrics remain an essential tool for the purposes of airport land use compati- bility planning.- Other.character.istics of noise, whether measured on a decibel scale or evaluated in a more qualitative manner,.may never- theless also need to.be considered as discussed below with respect to overflight issues." In -other words; noise is subjective. Combined.with overflight it can cause great.annoyance in some individuals. Late night engine run -ups are mandatory for CDF and Aero Union.during the fire 'season. These run -ups can be heard miles away, and in.a rural setting like North Chico, may cause great annoyance. The ALUC rejects the specific noise findings made in the staff report.. The substantive evidence comes primarily from unrecognized sources. Much better information exists which was deliberately overlooked, or not reviewed. C. Airspace Protection The ALUC agrees with the staff report regarding airspace protection. ' D. Consistency with other approved North Chico Specific Plan projects . The author(s) of the staff report.elect to use the Stephens Project as substantial evidence to support overriding findings. The ALUC is quite per- plexed as to why staff would suggest that the Stephens Project is a good example of proper and correct airport land use planning. The Stephens Project is currently in litigation.1 It was denied by the Butte County.Planning Com- f mission. It was strongly opposed.by the City of Chico and major companies at the Chico Municipal Airport (Aero Union). It is regarded as a disaster in local planning circles. It generally violates all airport land use com- patibility principles featured in the 2000 Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan., The Stephens Project serves as an example of what not to do around an airport. It does not provide support for any specific finding related to noise, safety, overflight, or airspace protection. Additionally, in Section D of the.staff report, staff states that the Pheasant Landing III project is "infill." The CalTrans Handbook suggests definitive guidelines as to what is infill (3-18 and 19): "The infill area should be bounded by uses similar to those proposed " The proposed development should not extend the perimeter of the area • already developed with incompatible uses." The Pheasant Land III project does not meet the definition of infill, nor t the infill requirements. • E. North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) n LJ ALUC has stated its most recent concerns with the NCSP mitigation noncompliance in a letter to Mr. Bruce Alpert,. Butte County Counsel (4/23/01): A -copy of this letter has been forwarded to all.members of the Board of Supervisors. Significantly, the required Chico Municipal Airport related mitigation has not been accomplished in the NCSP area. Without the adopted mitigation, the plan is no longer valid or legal. These facts were pointed out to the Board of Supervisors At the 3/27/01 meeting. The NCSP mitigation is continually referenced as supporting evidence for' the override in question.. Because the actual airport -related mitigation has not been accomplished for the plan, it cannot be used to validate further development. It would be illogical, and most likely illegal to do so.: Until this situation is resolved, and the airport related mitigation accom plished, the ALUC has requested that County Counsel advise the Board of Super- visors to.refrain from overriding the ALUC. F. Conclusion by Staff The ALUC strongly disagrees that the Board of Supervisors has provided evidence , that support overriding findings in this matter. G. Documents For the record, the ALUC notes that the following documents listed in support of staff arguments were never adopted by the-ALUC: - Aviation Activity Forecasts for the CMA, May 1, 1992 -'McClintock, Becker & Associates - Aircraft Noise Exposure Map Report Including'Aviation Activity Fore- casts for the CMA - December 7, 1992 - McClintock, Becker & Associates - 1995 FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program and Environs Plan for the CMA - P&D Aviation In summary, the ALUC respectfully requests that the Board of Supervisors review the factual record relating to the Pheasant Landing Unit III potential override, .and vote to not override the ALUC. The ALUC makes this request on the basis of our original finding of inconsistancy for the project. We also note that the project was denied at the Planning Commission level. We further note that the evidence in the staff report for the 4/24/01 meeting does not by itself, or in combination with referenced.material meet the requirements of Public Utilities Code Sections 21670 and 21676. Approval of this project does not promote the orderly development of Chico Municipal Airport. Quite to the contrary, it facili- tates conflict and incompatibility. The staff report and the referenced support materials do not demonstrate that the project protects public health, safety; or welfare. Furthermore, the ALUC notes that similar referenced mitigation measures • in the same specific plan area have not been accomplished, and notes that Butte County has no system in place to monitor the required mitigation in the project at hand. The ALUC also notes that significant noise, safety, and overflight con- flicts exist as demonstrated.in this document., and that no substantial..evidence has been presented that supports the Board of Supervisor's findings suggesting Protection of the public in this regard., Respectfully submitted, Norm Rosene Chairman _ ._.-_._Butte. County_ Airport Land ;Use Commission - pc: Mr. Bruce Alpert, Butte County Counsel Mr. Bob Grierson; Chico-Municipal Airport Manager NR: j pr 0 • Mr. Bruce Alpert Butte County.Counsel Administration Center 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3381 Dear Bruce, quite �'a LAND OF -NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • .OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 As per our conversation of April 20, 2001, and for the record, I.am documenting Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) concerns regarding non-compliance with required mitigation measures for the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) which was adopted in 1994. As stated and confirmed by county staffin the Board of Supervisor's meeting of March 2.7,, 2001, there has been no monitoring of mi- tigation measures by the county in regards to Section 7.6 of the NCSP ("Protection of Chico Municipal Airport Operations"). Please see attached document. Because the adopted and certified EIR for the NCSP determined there would.be a significant impact to Chico Municipal Airport requiring mitigation, it.appears that Butte County has violated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) standards and laws by not requiring compliance during development of the NCSP area. In reviewing the required mitigation item by item in section.7.6 of the NCSP, the following discrepancies appear to exist (please refer to attached document): Section 7.6-1 (Avigation Easements) In a recent preliminary review by county staff, avigation easements were not accomplished for at least one subdivision in the NCSP area. The exact number of,residences has yet to be determined. Section 7.6-2 (Noise -Attenuation) This component of required mitigation is accomplished by standard building practices. For the purposes of this discussion, it is not an issue with the ALUC. Section 7.6-3 (Enhanced Disclosure Measures) Again, based upon preliminary research by county staff, it was determined that 3 out of 6 subdivisions which were investigated did not accomplish the enhanced disclosure mitigation measure. The exact number .of residences is unavailable. Section 7.6-4 (Overflight Signage) Contrary to the determination of the previous Butte County Counsel, the overflight signage mitigation has never been successfully accomplished. Section 7.6-4 (Overflight Signage) (continued) • The number and location of the required signs.is clearly marked in Figure 7-2 of the NCSP, and the requirement for a "design to.be visible and read- able from a moving vehicle" has not been met Section 7.6-5 (Street Names) The new collector streets east of Garner Lane have not been designated with aviation=related names as required. Open Space Requirement The discussion in the EIR for the NCSP cites open space as a generalized mitigation measure. Since adoption of the NCSP, open space has been de- creased through additional land use actions contrary to written plan re- quirements (Stephens' Property Amendment).. More open space will be lost because of the proposed Pheasant Landing Unit III Subdivision Amendment and Rezone. Other required mitigation may exist and therefore the above list is -not deemed to be complete. As Butte County Counsel you .understand that an adopted plan with adopted mitigation meets the basic requirements of a legal plan. However, an adopted plan.without required mitigation being accomplished is not a legal plan.. The ALUC would greatly appreciate and officially requests that Butte County Counsel further research this matter. In our previously referenced conversation,you indicated that you would support this investigation, and that discussions with the interim Development Services Director would be beneficial once he or she was selected. The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission supports this approach and looks forward to participating at that time. Until the interim Development Services Director is selected and this situation is resolved, the ALUC requests that any override proceedings by the Butte County Board of Supervisors be put on hold. This request refers specifically to the Pheasant Landing Unit III Subdivision (Stephen Schuster Application GPS/RZ 00- 05; TSM 00-03; APL 01-06). The proposed overriding findings drafted by the Supervisors' staff (and the developer's attorney) specifically reference and utilize the EIR for the NCSP as support for the override, and support for their Negative Environment Declaration. Because the required mitigation in the re- ferenced NCSP EIR has not been accomplished, the basis for their Negative Declaration is invalid. If the required mitigation has not been accomplished six years and hundreds of houses into the plan development, then by all logical and legal standards it cannot be used to support more development. Besides the obvious legal questions, it would be unconscionable to override the ALUC in a plan area (NCSP) where the specific airport -related mitigation has not been accomplished. Chico Municipal Airport is a multi-million dollar facility paid for and improved with millions of taxpayer dollars. It serves all..of the ,residents of Butte.County, and the entire region in a multitude of ways. It is essential for the protection of such an asset that the legally - adopted NCSP airport -related mitigation be fully accomplished as required by law and common sense. • • Thank you for your efforts in this matter. Sincerely, -- Norm Rosene Chairman. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission pc: Mr. Bob Beeler., Supervisor District 1 Ms. Jane Dolan, Supervisor District.2 Ms. Mary Anne Houx, Supervior District 3 Mr. Curt Josiassen,s Supervisor District.4 Mr. Kim Yamaguchi, Supervisor. District -5 Mr. Bob.Grierson, Manager Chico Municipal .Airport NR: j pr NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN This includes not only the sites of direct alteration (e.g. discharge of dredged or fill material), but also all upstream and downstream wetland are to hydrologic alterations resulting from fills, excavation, or drainage im',X31M Ngat Figure 5-2 identifies those areas that would require a formal delineation for*development to proceed. 7.5-2 Obtain Corps permits. Wetland delineations shall be reviewed and approved by the Corps, and the required processes completed resulting in the issuance of nationwide, regional or -individual permits. 7.5-3 Compensate for unavoidable wetland rills. Compensation. will be in accordance with Corps regulations. Compensation for fills or.alterations of wetland habitat shall ensure that an equal or greater acreage of wetlands, of equal or greater functions and values, will be created and shall include compensation for. temporary habitat losses. These and other considerations usually require that proposed compensation exceed the acreage of wetland affected by a ratio of 2 to 1. Wetland creation or enhancement shall be conducted according to compensation plans, approved by the Corps. Each proposed project will be responsible for adherence to Section 404(b)(1) guidelines, and for providing compensation for wetland fills either independently or in conjunction with other projects, subject to Corps approval. 7.5-4 If elements of project design or of a Plan amendment would eliminate or render unsuitable any designated preservation/mitigation area, the documentation for that project or amendment must include designation of another mitigation area of equal of greater size and suitability. Preserve and protect existing or created wetlands. . During nearby construction, establish 50 -foot buffers around wetlands (as measured from the outer edge of the pool's zone of influence) by construction of a barrier to prevent damage. Prohibit alteration of drainage into or out of a wetland. Prohibit artificial drainage or deposition into a wetland or its drainage without proper engineering design and necessary permits. Prohibit placement of materialsor substances into a wetland or its drainage. 7.6 Protection of Chico Municipal Airport Operations The proximity of the Plan area to the Chico Municipal Airport raises compatibility issues for development which are addressed with the following regulations: 7.6-1 Avigation easements shall be required for all lands within the Plan area 7.6-2 Noise attenuation features shall be incorporated into new construction. Development Regulations and Design Guidelines 7-7 EXHIBIT ;NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN 7.64; Enhanced disclosure measures shall be developed and implemented • home buyers and rental tenants as to the proximity of the Chico Municipal pros ; existence of avigation easements, ort the ctpat Airport the, existing and projected future overflight and noise i levels, and such related issues as are a buyer or rental tenant. I appropriate to fully inform such prospective home { Enhanced disclosure may be modeled on Butte County Code, - Chapter 35 Protection of Agricultural Land.. -7.6-4 "Overflight Zone" road signage shall be installed at key, including Eaton Road, Garner Lane, Hicks Lane, Nw Arterial ap Road and he Plan area, Such signage shall be of'such materials, size and design to be visible and Keefer Lane. a moving vehicle. Figure 7-2 illustrates the concept. readable from. 7.6-5 .The New Arterial Road and collector., east of Gamer Lane aviation -related names as set forth in Butte County Code Chaptear 132e designated with 7.8 Principal Land Use Districts The following. section summarizes the principal underlying land use area. The existing Butte County Zoning 0i-dinance has been followed closely and the NCSP where necessary, to ensure that NCSP -goals and policies are achieved while facilitating administration by county staff. c�litaing ing Definitions •and Conditions Terms used in this document shall have the same definitions as provided for -in th Code, unless otherwise defined herein. All regulations, design criteria requirements, utte County similar details not set forth herein shall be those as contained in appropriate sectionand - Butte County Code.s of the Residential Development Regulations r Within the Plan area there are two basic residential categories: Suburban ` } Residential. The standards contained herein are consistent with the Count zoning standardstial and although the 'designations are modified , or "customized" for the NCSP The Suburban Residential designation results in'two districts, SR -3 and -SR -1. The Residential desi n burbas three zone districts — R-1 (Lows Density Residential), R-2 (Medium DensityResidential), tn has R-3 (High Density Residential). Table 7-2 summarizes basic development regulations and i district. g of each • r 7-8 Development Regulations and Design Guidelines r 1. • i O jw Ch If r is IF 10, AIRCRAFT OVERFLIGHT ZONE t TNIS AREA SU811CT TO NOISE AND ar APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF OTHER DISTURBANCE RELATED TO THE 'OVERFLIGHT ZONE' SIGNS OVERFUGHT OF AIRCRAFT TO AND :ROY CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT. AND TO AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT THE AIRPORT. OVERFLIGHT ZONE-: SIGNAGE Figure 7-2 North C'hico' S eci lc Plan 0 Oroville; CA 95965-3397 -y Dear Ms. Meleka, With regret I am submitting my, resignation as Alternate Commissioner for the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission. In the past several moriths I have been doing a great deal of traveling and plan on . being out of the area for some time. Tam not able to give the ALUCP and its content the attention it requires to be adequately informed and efficiently perform my obligation as Alternate Commissioner. Thank you for the opportunity to give my input and ideas. Sincerely, John Franklin D E C E w M! A % i 8 G BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION • 217 FLUME STREET SUITE 200 • CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95923 PHO.NE: (530) 343-9600 FAX: (530) 343-4245 MAY -21-2001 1440 CALTRANS AERONAUTICS 916 653 9531 P.02iO3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA -BUSINESS, TRANSpORTgTION AND HOUSING AGENCY GUY DAVIS GovMor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION s�'� 10 c� I�Jyt DMSION OF AERONAUTICS M.S. o4o -ix , 1120 N STREET - ROOM 3300 2' (� A 1 -A P.O. BOX 942874 A • SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001 C1�Qu (916) 654-4959 CLQQ� M� C C'L(JJO FAX (916) 653.9531 May 21, 2001 Mr. Curt Josiassen Chairman Butte County Board of Supervisors 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 D E E0WE M AY 2 1 2001 BUTTE COUNTY "0.Por1RT LAND USE COMMISSION RE: Pheasant Landing Phase III, TSMOO-03 Mr. Josiassen: The Caltrans Division of Aeronautics is submitting our comments concerning the project identified as Pheasant Landing Phase III, TSM00-03. This project has also been identified by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) as File No. A00-07, "Consistency Finding for Steve Shuster — General Plan Amendment/Rezone and Revised Tentative Subdivision Map, APN 047-350-013, 014, 015". Caltrans Aeronautics staff has reviewed the summary of the project from the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), Agenda Item — E.1 dated September 13, 2000, and a review of the adopted Comprehensive Land Use • Plan (CLUP) and amendments for Chico Municipal Airport. As noted, the project is located northwest of Chico Municipal Airport runways 13R and 13L, within Butte County's land use planning jurisdiction. New single family homes are proposed within the Overflight Protection Zones and the Traffic Pattern Zone. Specifically, the site is partially located in the Overflight Protection Zone A & B and within the Traffic Pattern Zone 6. According to the amendments of the Chico Airport CLUP, the development of new residential uses shall be prohibited in Overflight Protection Zones A and B. Further, Safety' Zone 6 (Traffic Pattern Zone) permits density of housing not to exceed 1 dwelling unit per 2.5 acres. The project indicates residential Iots ranging from 1 to 1.3 acres within this zone. This is incompatible with standards defined in the Chico Airport CLUP. We understand that the Butte County Board of Supervisors is considering an override to the ALUCs decision of non -compatibility of this development According to state law, the local governing body has the right to override ALUC decisions by 2/3 vote, based upon specific findings that the action is consistent with the State Aeronautics Act (Section 21670). After review of this project, and the consideration of policies outlined in the Chico Municipal Airport CLUP, Caltrans Aeronautics supports the decision of the Butte ALUC which determined that the project, as proposed, is incompatible. The essential purpose of ALUCs is to recommend to local decision makers that non -compatible land uses within the referral zone of an airport be prohibited, in part, to avoid mitigation of safety and noise impacts of non- compatible developments. This type of "after the fact" planning in the vicinity of airports has • proven to be costly for cities and counties in California, in both financial and legal terms and put those who live and work in these areas at risk. MAY -21-2001 14:40 CALTRANS AERONAUTICS 916653 9531 P.03iO3 +. ' Mr. Curt Josiassen May 21, 2001 ' Page 2 I . • It must also be' noted that local .agencies that- utilize federal funds for: airport infrastructure E improvements risk losing these funds based upon a federal determination that land use compatibility around the airport has been com ' promised. Clearly; the intent of state and federal taws in this area is to protect the safety and welfare of those peisons on the "ground by j preventing incompatible land uses in" proximity of an airport. . r The Caltrans Division of Aeronautics appreciates" your agency's efforts "in working to protect the growth health, safety af et ,`:and_ welfaret' of those in Butte County,or at the same time, ensuring the derl i If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 6547075. Sinc , PATRICK TYNER - Aviation Planner ,. c: Norm Rosene, Chairman, Butte County Airport Land Use Commission California State University, Chico Chico, California 95929-0765 Center for Economic Development • 530-898-4598 Fax: 898-4734 5/23/2001 M. A. Meleka Butte County Principal Planner 7 County Center Dr Oroville, CA 95965 - Dear M.A. Meleka, _ The Center for Economic Development is requesting an extension gf the project contract for the Butte County Growth Scenarios Project. As a• result of an unidentified error in the original i project timeline, the addition of three new project tasks, and the change in position/order of one project task, the Center is requesting the date for the project task completion be modified according to the attached new timeline. Unidentified error in the original project timeline In the original project timeline, task 1 is identified as being completed .on February 15, 2001. However, task 1.3 of the scope of work is dependant upon the work being conducted by a course at CSU, Chico's Geography and Planning Department. This course is scheduled to be ® complete on May 18, 2001. Therefore, task 1.3 cannot be completed until at least the week following May 18, 2001. However, due to the extensive volume of narrative that must be edited and formatted (over 100 pages), the Center requests that our staff be given until June 8, 2001 to complete task 1. Additional Project Tasks Discussions with county staff after the completion of the project contract identified additional tasks (e.g. e-mail interviews, second public meeting, web -site) not in the contract that should be conducted before the survey. Therefore, to accommodate these changes prior to the implementation of the survey, the timeline. Sincerely, The California State University Dan Ripke Director 7� • f' ,. ` .;t 'MAY: 2 ,5 2001 ' BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION The California State University The CSU, Chico Research Foundation will provide the county of Butte with a final report including an Executive Summary of the Growth Analysis of Butte County and an electronic `copy of the telephone survey -database on or before May 30, 2001, assuming Foundation has county approval to proceed by January 2, 2001. Any delay beyond that date will result in at least two weeks delay in Foundation work.. Tasks 1 through 5 are to be performed by the CSU, Chico Research Foundation: TASK 1) IN17611MATION GATHERING 1.1 Organize Butte County into meaningful sub -regions for analytical purposes. 1.2 Inventory growth related -entities in Butte County. 1.3 Gather information on existing and emerging growth conditions (review general plans and other growth related documents on Butte County resulting in a summary document). Starting January 2, 2001 and ending June 8, 2001 2.1 The CSU, Chico Research Foundation will provide a trained%facilitators to lead up to four ® regional community meetings and two county -wide meetings in Butte County to gather necessary information to draft survey instrument for desired quality of life in Butte County. Starting January 2, 2001 and ending June 30, 2001 x. The Survey Research Center (SRC) will complete the "Quality of Life" Indicators Telephone Survey with 500 residents of Butte County and prepare a detailed report of findings. More specifically, the SRC will: 0. 3.1 Conduct a literature review to identify quality of life indicators included in other similar studies and prepare a summary report of findings. 3.2 Work with Butte County staff to clearly identify and prioritize research objectives. 3.3 Prepare a draft telephone questionnaire that addresses the research objectives. .3.4 Review and discuss the draft questionnaire with Butte County staff. Make necessary changes. 3.5 Program the draft questionnaire into CASES software for pre -testing. Conduct a pretest on 25 to 30 randomly selected Butte County residents. 3.6 Consult with Butte County staff regarding recommended changes to the,pratested telephone questionnaire. 3.7. Finalize changes on the telephone questionnaire in CASES software. 3.8 Purchase a random sample of Butte County residential telephone numbers from Survey Sampling, Inc. (SSI) f r 3.9 Complete 500 interviews with Butte County Residents through random digit dialing (RDD). Up to seven (7) calls per case (telephone number) will be made to attempt to complete an interview. 3.10 Prepare a database for completed interviews and select appropriate statistical analyses for the data in consultation with Butte County staff. _ •3.11 Analyze the data and prepare a detailed draft report of findings. Consult with Butte County staff regarding key findings and planning implications. 3.12 Prepare a final report of findings based'on comments received from Butte County staff. 3.13 Furnish. Butte County,staff with a printed original of the final report, an electronic copy of the report. Starting February 1, 2001 and ending August 10, 2001e This timetable may be extended if Butte . County approvals take longer than 48 hours to 3.4 and 3.6 above. TASK 4) BUTTE COUNTY SUB-REGIONAL GROWTH ' 4.1 Issues to be addressed in this analysis may include: natural resources, economic and social aspects, Highway 70 growth pressures, and growth impact on the infrastructure in the four sub regions of Butte County. Starting January 1, 2001 and ending August 24 , 2001 TASK 5) FokmULATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE GROWTH 5.1 Based upon the analysis of survey responses (Task 3) and the analysis of growth (Task 4) formulate three potential growth scenarios and evaluate the impact of these growth scenarios on population distribution and infrastructure capacity. Starting March 15, 2001 and ending October, 30, 2001 In order for CSU, Chico Research Foundation to complete this report, Butte County, Department of Development Services will provide the CSU, Chico Research Foundation,', Center for , Economic Development, with five copies of the General Plan for Butte County and will assist ' with obtaining two copies of each incorporated.city's general.plan. (Incorporated cites: Biggs, Chico, Gridley, Oroville, and Paradise). Also,.Butte County, Department of Development Services, and each incorporated city will need to provide the CSU, Chico Research Foundation, Center for Economic Development, access to or electronic file copies of the GIS files which created the general plans to be used to analyze 'undeveloped land by type of land. fi " M• The above items are needed by January 18, 2001. If these items are not received by this date, Foundation's work will be delayed. • ' CONTRACT ' •i This contract will begin on January 1, 2001 and end ori September 30, 2001, • { ,T ♦ ^ ` ' �+ a... •, . ' - •.� , ! � • itis .. . .. -i IL 1 i � • 1 May 24 01 09:53a Center for Economic Dev. 5308984734 5/23/2001 M. A. Meleka Butte County Principal Planner 7 County Center Dr Oroville, CA 95965 Dear M.A. Meleka, The Center for Economic Development is requesting an extension of the project contract for the Butte County Growth Scenarios Project. As a result of an unidentified error in the original project timeline, the addition of three new project tasks, and the change in position/order of one project task, the Center is requesting the date for the,project task completion be modified according to the attached new timeline. Unidentified error in the original project timeline In the original project timeline; task 1 is identified as being completed on February 1.5, 2001. However, -task 1.3 of the scope of work is dependant upon the work being conducted by a course at CSU, Chico's Geography and Planning Department. This course is scheduled to be complete on May 18, 2001. Therefore, task 1.3 cannot be completed until at least the week following May 18, 2001. However, due to the extensive volume of narrative that must be edited and formatted (over 100 pages), the Center requests that our staff be given until June 8,'2001 to complete task 1. Additional Project Tasks Discussions with county staff after the completion of the project contract identified additional tasks (e.g. e-mail interviews, second public. meeting, web -site) not in the contract that should be conducted before the survey. Therefore, to accommodate these changes prior to the implementation of the survey, the timeline. Sincerely, Dan Ripke Director The California State University p.2 Califomia State University, Chico Chico, California 95929-0765 Center for Economic Development 530-8984598 Fax: 898-4734 5/23/2001 M. A. Meleka Butte County Principal Planner 7 County Center Dr Oroville, CA 95965 Dear M.A. Meleka, The Center for Economic Development is requesting an extension of the project contract for the Butte County Growth Scenarios Project. As a result of an unidentified error in the original project timeline, the addition of three new project tasks, and the change in position/order of one project task, the Center is requesting the date for the,project task completion be modified according to the attached new timeline. Unidentified error in the original project timeline In the original project timeline; task 1 is identified as being completed on February 1.5, 2001. However, -task 1.3 of the scope of work is dependant upon the work being conducted by a course at CSU, Chico's Geography and Planning Department. This course is scheduled to be complete on May 18, 2001. Therefore, task 1.3 cannot be completed until at least the week following May 18, 2001. However, due to the extensive volume of narrative that must be edited and formatted (over 100 pages), the Center requests that our staff be given until June 8,'2001 to complete task 1. Additional Project Tasks Discussions with county staff after the completion of the project contract identified additional tasks (e.g. e-mail interviews, second public. meeting, web -site) not in the contract that should be conducted before the survey. Therefore, to accommodate these changes prior to the implementation of the survey, the timeline. Sincerely, Dan Ripke Director The California State University p.2 I • • May 24 01 09:54a Center for Economic Dev. # 5308984734 The CSU, Chico Research Foundation will provide the countyof Butte with a final report including an Executive Summary of the Growth Analysis of Butte County and an electronic copy of the. telephone survey database on or before May30, 2001, assuming Foundation has county approval to proceed by January 2, 2001. Any delay beyond that date will result in at 'least two weeks delay in Foundation work. Tasks 1 through 5 are to be performed. by the CSU, Chico Research Foundation: TASK 1) 1N'F011JN1A-riO.,\- GATH'FRING 1.1 Organize Butte County into meaningful subregions for analytical purposes. 1.2 Inventory growth related -entities in I3utte County. . 1.3 Gather information on existing and emerging growth conditions (review general plans and other growth related documents on Butte. County resulting in a summary document). } Starting January_ 2, 200Fand ending June 8, 2001 2.1 The CSU, Chico Research Foundation will provide a trained facilitaiors:to lead up to four regional community meetings and two county -wide meetings in Butte County to gather necessary information to draft survey instrument for desired quality of life in Butte County. Starting January 2, 2001 and ending June 30, 2001 , The Survey Research.Center (SRC)'will complete the "Quality of Life" Indicators Telephone Survey with 500 residents of Butte County and prepare a detailed report of findings. More specifically;. the SRC will: 3.1 Conduct a literature review to identify quality of life indicators included in other similar studies and prepare a summary report of findings. 3.2 Work with Butte County staff to clearly'identify and prioritize research objectives. 3.3 Prepare a draft telephone (questionnaire that addresses the.research objectives. 3.4 _ Review and discuss the draft questionnaire with Butte County staff. Make necessary changes. 3.5 Program the draft questionnaire into CASES software for pretesting. Conduct a pretest on 25 to 30 randomly selected Butte County residents. 3.6 Consult with Butte County staff regarding recommended changes to the pretested telephone questionnaire. 3.7 Finalize changes on the telephone questionnaire in CASES software. 1S Purchase a random sample of Butte County residential telephone numbers from Survey Sampling, Inc. (SSI) 0 May 24 01 09:54a Center' for Economic Dev.. 5308984734 lg. ' y ® 3.9 Complete 500 interviews with Butte County Residents through random digit dialing (RDD). Up to seven (7) calls per case (telephone number). will be made to attempt to'complete an interview. . 3.10 Prepare a database for completed interviews and select appropriate statistical analyses for the data in consultation with Butte County staff, 3.11 Analyze the data and prepare a detailed draft report of findings. Consult with Butte County staff regarding key findings and planning implications. 3.12 Prepare.a final report of findings based on comments received from Butte County staff. 3.13 Furnish Butte County staff with a printed original of the final report, anelectronic copy of the report. Starting February 1, 2001 and ending August; 10; 2001. This timetable may be extended if Rutte County approvals take longer than 48 hours to 3.4 and 3.6 above. 4.F Issues to be addressed in this analysis may include: natural resources, economic and social aspects, Highway 70 growth pressures, and growth impact on the infrastructure in the four sub regions of Butte County. Starting January 1;.2001 and ending August 24, 2001' 5.1 Based upon the analysis of survey responses (Task 3) and the analysis of growth (Task 4) formulate three potential ,growth scenarios and evaluate the impact of these growth scenarios on population distribution and infrastructure capacity. Starting March 15, 2001 and ending October30, 2001 In order for CSU, Chico Research Foundation to complete this report, Butte County, Department of Development Services will !p ro'vide the CSU, Chico Research Foundation, Center for Economic Development, wi6five copies of the General Plan for Butte County and will assist with obtaining two copies of each incorporated city's general plan. (Incorporated cites: Biggs, Chico, Gridley, Oroville, and Paradise): Also, Butte County, Department of Development Services; and' each incorporated city will need to provide ;the CSU, Chico Research Foundation, Center for Economic Development, access to or electronic file copies, of the GIS files which created the general plans to be used to analyze undeveloped land by type'of land. The above items are needed by January 18, 2001. If these items are not received by this date, Foundation's work will be delayed. p.4 May 29.01 09:16a Center for Economic Dev. 5308984734 p.1 California State University Chico Chico, Califomia 95929-0165 Phone: `530 898.4598 FAX 530 898.4734D6vel� • • • !�` • • i. r .Fak. ,f To: M. A. Meleka i From: Dan Ripke , 1�• Fax: 538-7785 Pages: 2 , 'I Phone: (530)538-6572 k Date: 5/29/2004 Re: Article CC: ` 0 Urgent 0 For Review { 0 Please Comment O Please Reply • 0 Please Recycle • Comments: ; r � _ r r r _ t r • �a,. '"�r�e;:Re�o�ti. LOCAL & •STATE. Tuesday, May 29, 2001 3A s Otoville .balks at. Chico State stud articl atiy p p on r0ining out Thursday By KATHY BMW consists of five different phases begin- ed by e-mail. difference,' he said. could feed others MediaNM Group Hing with three public meetings "The rest of the information will Oroville City Administrator Ruben PARADISE —. Dining out in Ripke, director of the Center for come from focus groups and telephone Duran said the city was looking at the Paradise on Thursday could con- OROVILLE = Just six people attend- Economic Development• at Chico State surve s. trmtrte to the Meals on.Wheels ed the Butte County. Growth Scenarios about 75 people attended the first meet- Rossas also said he wanted the pro- posse coty of a t�yUD million investment Program, ; Prgject briefing at .the State Theater last ing several weeks ago in Chico. "We'll ject to take into consideration future "It will impact growth significantly in l' ;• Thirty -94 Paradise .Rid'in age ;,. week, and most who spoke weren't real be taking information from that meeting gzowth and the impact r anticipated Or"it willlel said Duran. ,fund-raiser, In hick o percent of thrilled with Chico .State University and this one and incorporating it into Lake Oroville recreation develop `Another complaint from the audience being involved in a growth study that questions, to ask on the survey," Ripke ment. r..- Proceeds from Thursdays' ; includes Oroville: said•ensen was that there are many people in business watt support the Paradise Coup Princi al Planner M:A. Mele- The main complaint that scenario vin ed that even a ma orrecreation con- Oroville who lan languages and would be at a or disadvaner r•whowever l Nicola ori Wheels program, report- tY P p Laid Paradise Hospice... ka explained thatsupervisbrs. requested planners heard was that Chico and like the one being developed by Lake tage because the surveys won't be con - ,Participating restaurants win' :the project be done by:the research faun- ' Orovikle are two entirelyseparate q�ro oftar customere.the chance to dation at Chico State.to determine .what of communities and thasurvey results�' Mohave that much ofville Recreation oanaimpact�on duThe p o ect teamcted in those agreed that it would t"pip»•i r a • "sweepstakes driiildng'for a' potential growth trends the county May, would probably .be skewed because it growth or employment trends. be MUM to get opinions from the at kis take`dravHle Beit and exppeepence in the eogring years• would be difficult to get a true cross -sec- . Jensen said the group would be look- Hmong population but did say the sur - or BaAodcera Rustling ; 171rou surreys an meetings, the tion of South Cour Ie to rtici- in backward at revious growth trends ve s would be available in Spazush. Ranch, : '; ", .; .. : group w' . determine .what areas of the ate. ty' people g pre radise Meals oft Wheels ;.:...would be P to get an idea of anticipated growth in ' Jyensen said •he was glad the people than 24,000 meats ; -county beat for. wth and You need to getout of the university the future. spoke; up and voiced their concerns. uu��Iulyy to.pdge restdants"ivvtro .. .then create scenariod'which would fol-.: thinking mode,' said former Oroville Oroville :attorney Bob Hewitt said This way we'll know better how to go ifrlable to •loin that trend. : is?:. Ci • ouncilmember Jim Rossas; . that would not give. an accurate picture .about doing the survey," he said. golia r :.,'pf p".iin3e)ii fol ..:. . K tys9 'ea.: Food, ie prepared `':'"'' ; is -':I of al sYs are life main crux of the : ' add' that to send surveys by e-mail because population . was bound. to Accordin to Jensen the next public @�e'Nutdtxi Pr! eft: These will bV'given to leaders . work be ridiculousbecause the majori . than e n Oroville once the recreation meetin w robabl be held sometimescleftatFeatlier;Rlv¢r`�. an :'professiofials-by`� mail; and local :•: of eo l m Oroville don't have a len rs in lace. g p Y iirdvdume•�s'aeliver ` citizens bytelephd get`their input':''niail:'.: :' '':':: pp and be hosted in Paradise of P'.'With the FERC relicensing and the G dley%Biggs. • and ideas bn how their would Like to see `:; : ;Warier Jensen, also of the Center for Downtown Business Association worts - ca Here ere the parttdpathg ',''.i growth take lace.:;:.,.,;:*.;-:::;;;. >: restaurants: •r; :�;,.. , .. • : p - EcOr►omic Developpmmeiu,' said only pro- : ing yery.Jtard to get, a tremendous. boost Ilathr Burns Is a r�Fotter for the .. t ..Aalsrf'(Mrden Restaruant, The cast of the project i$ g4I )000.and ^:`tessich4 and leaders would be contact- • . to our recreation, rt will certainly make a Biavilfe Nlpdt IsteC lBasldnry l;obbins, t3bndie s . �: s: > s c , �a: ;: ;;. • �'R•9 di v.,. fig ��ww y'un- � ti 1'•r r•. ='i An ;7s F •. - na nth to Ca `D D t ry rler al• . ta' ffl Detrtile's R u' 'h seta �% t. F- r 0 t �r� e� �c� a 8th iver.'H 'Cafeteria; a 1 rIJ :'S Mete usanville i moot 54:hoes ever 'a�:rr>�aeeta��;,t, ...��::-':? i... - ...., .. .. uat�ed: tau i3 ai, k Ge'.. ;. • .. SUSAIWILI $ `_,(AP ; , • : •' ,; .- ;.1.:: ` .:.... cCo�Y. rge P ) . A '" "It's not uncommon fol there on scene and hope to: slow the :'a61e stuff. The furniture can be NationalForest. I mi aria; Ka Is c%t asa' ul raging forest fire faired evacua to be forest foes in the area, but fire's advance overnight, using . replaced," A fire camp also was That blaze also''began Sun- -ch Chtrlese Cuistrie, . • tions of, 54 homes in Susanville' thin is the closest it's come to fire engines, dozers to. build a set .up at the Lassen County `day acid has srnrched fan acres ManroChill Boivt,�Meeho"s on Monday, 'charring • 3,500 town in the'35•years since I've fire line. chaparral of Restaurant, tl.. Ws Sports Bar: : acres and coating the town,with been' here," Merritt said. "It's Evacuees have been asked ' . ivent�Sunday night afterwhere svolung side of Lake Pillsburroyynthe about 35 arldCxGI;Nliss:Em1yaTeaRoom, .: soot -as firefighters worked to also the earliest we've had a check in at the Lassen High '.tarily-evacuating their homes. miles southeast of Ukiah. EMoori,Ciate,.iiesteurara,.Mountain keep'the blaze -from' major forest fire in those 35 School. in Susanville, where The number of people at that Forests keswoman Phebe kfxn Pt%�r-ReilLion Ptua'; a : .town. g jie Piiia;'Smokie Moun • years."Meiritt'said mandatory they were to tell officials how to camp was not immediately Brown said the fire ryas 30 per andSmdaHouse;•'''' The blaze started Sun- evacuations forced residents contact them. oval able- 'Me►1e`s Famtly'Dtner Spin ' '; day on private timberland after from 30 homes at River Roost By 10 p.m.,'.i5 people had' : Meanwhile, Firefighters bat mgcent contained o taint theofire ymay be fifiig Wh�efFieitaurih 'Su" ay :: being sparked bya man'shoot- mobile home park and 24 other arrived at the school. to spend' tied another forest fire about' extinguished by [tiesday. °! edFdr)ndra,'7eiiys Flee Dining.. ' . ing targets in the woods; :said" homes in the .area, People the• nicht on cots. Roger Bailey 250 miles southwest of .. The cause of 'that file is still g 'For.inaelritoimatton; calf the ;state Dept. of Forestry spokes- grabbed photos and pets and and -,his wife Jean took refuge Susanville in the Mendocino under investigation. iFeafher: IW-Heatth Foundation woman Wend Mcintosh. The •hiked �t t172;7,.t88>ri ;- Y up pickup trucks with there after they were forced to man' hasbeen cited' but his belongings as the fled the evacuate their home. name was not available' Mon- s "It was real smoky and '"' "' �"� ttt� '� �• .� _....... ttt� ..• .� .� Man aNegedly ; dais Cars traveling the Susanville scary," Roger Bailey said. "I vandalized cemetery : Se � �e to about a laude streets had to use their head- had tears on my cheeks. It's woe# of k%um _A o 1,+10 ...:In t:,.1•a_ ._ _... a..._. ., .. .. C: is • o-l7aa (s.zooi) SE0001-00008 Butte County Curt Josiassen County Supervisor, Chairperson Board Of Supervisors 25 County Center Dr Oroville CA 95965 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF'COMMERCE Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. Census Bureau Washington, DC 20233-0001 OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MAY 2 9 2001 OROVILLE. CALIFORNIA FECEOVEQ PLANNING DIVISION I am pleased to enclose Census 2000 data for your jurisdiction in the Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: Census 2000. These are the official Census 2000 population and housing counts as of April 1, 2000, for your jurisdiction (within the boundaries in effect on January 1, 2000). This product also provides information on population, families, households, and housing units. Portions of these and any additional Demographic Profiles, as well as subsequent Census 2000 products, are available on the Internet. A Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: Census 2000 is available for all states, counties, functioning minor civil divisions, places, American Indian and Alaska Native areas, the Hawaiian home lands, and municipios in Puerto Rico. These can be found at the American FactFinder Web site: <http://factfinder.census.gov/>. The U.S. Census Bureau will begin the release of more detailed information from Census 2000 early this summer. This set of tabulations for each state, which we call Summary File 1 or SF 1, will include total population counts for 63 races and the Hispanic or Latino population down to the census tract and block level; total population counts for selected American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and for many detailed race and Hispanic or Latino categories to the census tract level; and population and housing characteristics, such as age, sex, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, household relationship, group quarters population, household type, housing occupancy, and housing tenure. The American t FactFinder Web site will provide these general demographic data for census tracts in your community during the release of SF 1. Reports, files, and other tabulations from Census 2000 also will be available through various state agencies or universities participating in our State Data Center program, or through the many public and academic libraries, Census Information Centers, and other organizations that work with the Census Bureau to disseminate information. For a list of these organizations and how to obtain Census Bureau data from them, please visit the following Web site: <http://www.census.gov/mso/www/npr/custinfo.htnil>- If you have questions, please; feel free to telephone us on (301.) 457-4100. Sincerely, / 0e William G. Barron, Jr. Acting Director Enclosure UJO USCEN'SUSBUREAU Helping You Mak. Informed Decisions III 111111111111�IIII�I�I111111�III�IIfllll�llll�ll��ll�l8l�ll11 www.census.gov Table DP -1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000 Geographic Area: Butte County, California • [For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see text] • Subject Number Percent Subject Number Percent Total population .......................... 203,171 100.0 HISPANIC OR LATINO AND RACE Total population ......... :................ 203,171 100.0 SEX AND AGE Hispanic or Latino (of any race) ................ 21,339 10.5 Male ....................................... 99,546 49.0 Mexican.................................. 17,134 8.4 Female ...................................... 103,625 51.0 Puerto Rican............................... 391 0.2 Under 5 years ............................... 11,637 5.7 Cuban .................................... 127 0.1 5 to 9 years ................................. 13,409 6.6 Other Hispanic or Latino .................... 3,687 1.8 10 to 14 years ............................... 14,704 7.2 Not Hispanic or Latino ........................ 181,832 89.5 15 to 19 years ............................... 17,101 8.4 White alone................................ 162,564 80.0 20 to 24 years ............................... 19,648 9.7 RELATIONSHIP 25 to 34 years ............................... 23,087 11.4 Total population......................... 203,171 100.0 35 to 44 years .............................. 27,249 13.4 In households....................... ..... 197,327 97.1 45 to 54 years .............................. 26,809 13.2 Householder.............................. 79,566 39.2 55 to 59 years .............................. 9.527 4.7 Spouse .................................. 37,130 18.3 60 to 64 years .............................. 7,944 3.9 Child................... ............... •53,903 26.5 65 to 74 years .......................... ...:.. 15,207 7.5 Own child under 18 years................ 43,521 21.4 75 to 84 years ............................... 12,630 6.2 Other relatives............................. 8,697 4.3 85 years and over .......................... 4,219 2.1 Under 16 years ........................ 3,583 1.8 Median age (years) .................... ...... 35.8 (X) Nonrelatives ............................... 18,031 8.9 Unmarried partner ....................... 5,016 2.5 18 years and over ............................ 154,404 76.0 In group quarters............................. 5,844 2.9 Male ...................................... 74,247 36.5 Institutionalized population................... 1,630 0.8 Female .................................... 80,1.57 39.5 Noninstitutionalized population ............... 4,214 2.1 21 years and over ............................ 141,860 69.8 62 years and over ............................ . 36,728 18.1 HOUSEHOLD BY TYPE 65 years and over ............................ 32,056 15.8 Total households........................ 79,566 100.0 Male ...................................... 13,597 6.7 Family households (families)................... 49,386 62.1 Female .................................... 18,459 9.1 With own children under 18 years .......... 22,571 28.4 Married -couple family ....................... 37,130 46.7 RACE IWith own children under 18 years .......... 14,929 18.8 One race .................................... 195,248 96.1 Female householder, no husband present..... 8,879 11.2 White ..................................... 171,728 84.5 With own children under 18 years .......... 5,619 7.1 Black or African American ................... 2,816 1.4 Nonfamily households ........................ 30,180 37.9 American Indian and Alaska Native........... 3,866 1.9 Householder living alone .................... 21,636 27.2 Asian ..................................... 6,752 3.3 Householder 65 years and over............ 8,826 11.1 Asian Indian ............................. 511 0.3 Chinese ................................. 637 0.3 Households with Individuals under 18 years ..... 24,810 31.2 Filipino .................................. 500 0.2 Households with individuals 65 years and over .. 22,122 27.8 Japanese ................................ 611 0.3 Average household size....................... 2.48 N. Korean .................................. 181 0.1 Average family size......... 3.02 (X) Vietnamese ...... ................. 192 0.1 Other Asian' ............................ 4,120 2.0 HOUSING OCCUPANCY Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander.... 296 0.1 Total housing units...... .................. 85,523 100.0 Native Hawaiian .......................... 119 0.1 Occupied housing units ....................... 79,566 93.0 Guamanian or Chamorro .................. an or. 40 _ Vacant housing units.......................... 5,957 7.0 Samoan .................... 60 _ For seasonal, recreational, or Other Pacific Islander 2 ................... 77 occasional use ........................... 1,350 1.6 Some other race ........................... 9,790 4.8 Two or more races ........................... 7,923 3.9 Homeowner vacancy rate (percent)............. 2.1 {X) Rental vacancy rate (percent) .................. 5.2 (X) Race alone or In combination with one or more other races:' HOUSING TENURE White ...................................... 178,739 88.0 Occupied housing units................. 79,566 100.0 Black or African American ..................... 3,873 1.9 Owner -occupied housing units ...............:. 48,336 60.7 American Indian and Alaska Native ............. 7,271 3.6 Renter -occupied housing units..............'... 31,230 39.3 Asian ....................................... 8,349 4.1 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander...... 695 0.3 Average household size of owner -occupied units. 2.48 N Some other race ............................. 12,756 6.3 Average household size of renter -occupied units. 2.48 (X) - Represents zero or rounds to zero. (X) Not applicable. ' Other Asian alone, or two or more Asian categories. • 2 Other Pacific Islander alone, or two or more Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander categories. ' In combination with one or more of the other races listed. The six numbers may add to more than the total population and the six percentages may add to more than 100 percent because individuals may report more than one race. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. U.S. Census Bureau II�IIIIIIII�IIIn�I�IIIIII�IIII6III�I�III�IIaII�I�II�I� About the Profile • NOTE TO ALL DATA USERS To maintain confidentiality, the Census Bureau applies statistical procedures that introduce some uncertainty into data for small geographic areas. Data have not been adjusted for estimated net census coverage error based on the results of the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.). Census results contain nonsampling error. Researchers who create their own estimates using data provided by American FactFinder should cite the Census Bureau as the source of the original data only. SUBJECT DEFINITIONS Age —The age classification is based on the age of the person in complete years as of April 1, 2000. The age of the person usually was derived from their date of birth information. Average Family Size — A measure obtained by dividing the number of people in families by the total number of families (or family householders).. Average Household Size - A measure obtained by dividing the number of people in households by the total number of households (or householders). Average Household Size of Owner -Occupied Units — A measure obtained by dividing the number of people living in owner -occupied housing units by the number of owner -occupied housing units. Average Household Size of Renter -Occupied Units — A measure obtained by dividing the number of people living in renter -occupied housing units by the number of renter -occupied housing units. Child — A child includes a son or daughter by birth, a stepchild; or an adopted child of the householder, regardless of the child's age or marital status. Family Household (Family) —A family includes a householder and one or more people living in the same household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. All people in a household who are related to the householder are regarded as members of his or her family. A family household may, contain people not related to the householder, but those people are not included as part of the householder's family in census tabulations. Thus, the number of family households is equal to the number of families, but family households may include more members than do families. A household can contain only one family for purposes of census tabulations. Not all households contain families since a household may comprise a group of unrelated people or one person living alone. Female Householder, No Husband Present — A female maintaining a household with no husband of the householder present. Group Quarters Population — The group quarters population includes all people not living in households. Two general categories of people in group quarters are recognized: 1) the institutionalized population which includes people under formally authorized, supervised. care or custody in institutions at the time of enumeration (such as correctional institutions, nursing homes, and juvenile institutions) and 2) the noninstitutionalized population which includes all people who live in group quarters other"than institutions (such as college dormitories, military quarters, and group homes). Hispanic or Latino — People who identify with the terms "Hispanic" or "Latino" are those who classify themselves in one of the specific Hispanic or Latino categories listed on the questionnaire—"Mexican," "Puerto Rican," or "Cuban"—as well 'as those who indicate that they are "other Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino." Origin can be viewed as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of the person or the -person's parents or ancestors before their arrival in the United States. People who identify their origin as Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino maybe of any race. •Homeowner Vacancy Rate — The homeowner vacancy rate is the proportion of the homeowner housing inventory which is vacant for sale. it is computed by dividing the number of vacant units for sale only by the sum of owner -occupied units and vacant units that are for sale only, and then multiplying by 100. (For more ihformation, see "Vacant Housing Unit.") U.S. cemw 8" u A-1 91111111IIII1IIIIIIIII1IIIII111111IIIII1IIII1IIII1I approval. In addition.to the five race groups, the OMB also states that respondents should be offered the • option of selecting one or more races. If an individual could not provide a race response, the race or races of the householder or other household members were assigned by the computer using specific rules of precedence of household relationship. For example, if race was missing for a natural-born child in the household, then either the race or races of the householder, another natural-born child, or the spouse of the householder were assigned. If race was not reported for anyone in the household, the race or races ofa householder in a previously processed household were assigned. White — A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "White" or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish. Black or African American 7'__A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro," or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian. American Indian and Alaska Native A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment. It includes people who classify themselves as described below. American Indian— Includes people who indicate their race as "American Indian," entered the name of an Indian tribe, or report such entries as Canadian Indian, French -American Indian, or Spanish-American Indian. Alaska Native — Includes written responses of Eskimos, Aleuts, and Alaska Indians as well as entries such as Arctic:Slope, Inupiat, Yupik, Alutiiq, Egegik, and Pribilovian. The Alaska tribes are the Alaskan Athabaskan, Tlingit, and Haida. The information for Census 2000 is derived from the American Indian Detailed Tribal Classification List for the 1990 census and was expanded to list the individual Alaska Native Villages when provided as a written response for race. Asian — A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. It includes "Asian Indian," "Chinese," "Filipino," "Korean," "Japanese," "Vietnamese," and "Other Asian." Asian Indian — Includes people who indicate their race as "Asian Indian" or identify themselves as Bengalese, Bharat, Dravidian, East Indian, or Goanese. Chinese— Includes people who indicate their race as "Chinese" or who identify themselves as Cantonese, or Chinese American. In some census tabulations, written entries of Taiwanese are included with Chinese while in others they are shown separately. Filipino— Includes people who indicate their race as "Filipino" or who report entries such as Philipino, Philipine, or Filipino American. Japanese — Includes people who indicate their race as "Japanese" or who report entries such as Nipponese or Japanese American. Korean — Includes people who indicate their race as "Korean' or who provide a response of Korean American. Vietnamese — Includes people who indicate their race as "Vietnamese" or who provide a response of Vietnamese American. Cambodian Includes people who provide a response such as Cambodian or Cambodia. Hmong — Includes. people who provide a response such as Hmong, Laohmong, or Mong. U.S. e«uw ewftu A-3 Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional Use Housing Unit—. Seasonal, recreational, or occasional use •housing units include vacant units used or intended for use only in certain seasons, for weekends, or other occasional use throughout the year. Interval ownership units, sometimes called shared ownership or time- sharing condominiums are included in this category. (For more information, see "Vacant Housing -Unit.") ' Sex - Based on self -reporting of gender. Either male or female. Spouse —A person who is married to and living with the householder. This category includes people in formal marriages, as well as people in common-law marriages. Tenure —All occupied housing units are classified as either owner occupied or renter occupied. A housing unit is owner occupied if the owner or co-owner lives in the unit even if it is mortgaged or not fully paid for. All occupied housing units which are not owner occupied, whether they are rented for cash rent or occupied without payment of cash rent, are classified as renter occupied. Vacant Housing Unit — A housing unit is vacant if no one is living in it at the time of enumeration, unless its occupants are only temporarily absent. Units temporarily occupied at the time of enumeration entirely by people who have a usual residence elsewhere are also classified as vacant. (For more information, see "Housing Unit.") DERIVED MEASURES Average — See "Mean." Interpolation —Interpolation frequently is used in calculating medians based on interval data and in approximating standard errors from tables. Linear interpolation is used to estimate values of a function between two known values. This is the form of interpolation used to calculate median age. Mean — This measure represents an • arithmetic average of a set of values. It is derived by dividing the sum (or aggregate) of a group of numerical items by the total number of items in that group. For example, average family size is obtained by dividing the number of people in families by the total number of families (or family householders). (Additional information on means and aggregates is included in the separate explanations of many of the population and housing subjects.) Median — This measure represents the middle value (if n is odd) or the average of the two middle values (if n is even) in an ordered list of n data values. The median divides the total frequency distribution into two equal parts: one-half of the cases falling below the median and one-half above the median. (See also "Interpolation.") . Percentage —This measure is calculated by taking the number of items in a group possessing a characteristic.of interest and dividing by the total number of items in that group, and then multiplying by 100. Rate — This is a measure of occurrences in a given period of time divided by the possible number of occurrences during that period. Rates are sometimes presented as percentages. GEOGRAPHIC ACRONYMS ANVSA — Alaska Native village statistical area CDP — Census designated place CMSA — Consolidated metropolitan statistical area MSA — Metropolitan statistical area ® OTSA — Oklahoma tribal statistical area PMSA — Primary metropolitan statistical area U.S. Census Bureau A-5 Ap�;, Building Industry Association of Superior California "Building. Toward A Better Future" Mr. Curt Josiassen, Chairman Butte County Board of Supervisors 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Re: BUTTE COUNTY ALUC COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Dear Chairman Josiassen, As you know the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopted the 2000 Comprehensive Land Use Plan ((CLUP)) in December 2000. The county must bring their General Plan and Zoning into compliance with the CLUP within six months after adoption of the document. Our primary concern is with land located near the Chico Municipal Airport (CMA) that has been severely affected by this CLUP. Absent any formal action, by .the`Board of Supervisors, it is our understanding that the CLUP will supersede your General`,Plan and Zoning document's. We have also been told that the six month time period to bring planning documents into • compliance or override the CLUP does not begin until the printed document has been distributed fo1. . r review. We know that the document is now available in printed form for review and might extend the date for compliance or override from mid-June 2001 until mid-October 2001. The BIA recently discussed this issue at our Board of Directors meeting and would like to recommend to the Butte County Board of Supervisors that they consider overriding the CLUP on lands near the CMA. In properly and fairly revising or updating the CLUP we strongly support that land use near the CMA is considered with the.extension of the main runway by 1000' to the north. Additionally, input from the City, of Chico needs to be considered for inclusion in the plan. We appreciate your consideration of this request and are ready to discuss it further at this time especially if mid-June is the target date for complying with a flawed CLUP. Sinc ely r; Grea ? ebb, Chairman xt:,: '�. ' i. •v S, ., ;..« Y-}�,(j '"Jsi, ofo '{ �!'i ..E; +`..(_�i' ti [JL�`'ia.. "_.:._}i$i C.: 1;"t•:}4L :`'rQ Cc` Butte County Board of Supervisors LButte County.ALUG John Wacklock, C_AOButte County • .. , l . _ Tom Lando, City M anager/Chico North Valley Chapter 70 Declaration Drive, Suite 101, Chico, California 95973 530/899-1414 rAX 530/891-3690 GT`I OF Ctticz NNING_ COMMISSION Date Term Name Mailing Address Residence Business Aminted Ex r Victor Alvistur 100 Lockheed Avenue, 95973 343-0350 896-3009 12/98 1/03 Ross Bradford 1031 Village Lane, 95926 896-1825 342-5853 12/98 1/03 Jolene Francis 2025 Pillsbury Road, 95926 898-0111 891-5837 12100 1/05 . Kirk Monfort _ 614 W 41 Avenue , 95926 343-9401 898-6663 12/00 1/05 Craig Sanders 7 County Center Drive, 95965 _ 891-6174 538=7603 -12/00 .1/03 Sharon A. Stone 4 Stratford Way, 95973 891-8487 345-3494 12100 1/05 Nancy Wolfe 1265 Banning Park Drive, 95928 893-2090 899-5949 12198 1/03 1. Functions. Prepares and recommends for adoption by the Council a comprehensive, long-term general -plan, or -amendments, _ thereto, for the physical development of the City and of any land outside its boundaries which, in the commission's judgment, bears relation to the physical development of the City; and to include such elements in the general plan as recommended by the commission or required by the planrdng law of the state. Prepares and recommends to Council precise plana for implementation of the general plan. Performs duties in reference to zoning and subdivision matters as authorized by the Code or state laws. Performs other duties prescribed by the Council pertaining to planning. (CMC Sec. 2.52.020) . 2. ComposKion. Consists of seven members. The Community Development Director or his/her designee is an ex officio non-voting member. (CMC Sec. 2.52.030) Serve as alternate members of the Architectural Review Board when a member is absent. Alternate member appointed by Chair of Planning Commission when needed. (CMC Sec. 2.56.030) 3. Meetings, Currently meets monthly on the fust Thursday of.each month at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber Buddiing,.421 Main n Street. If a regular meeting fabs on a holiday, the meeting is held the following Thursday. Subsequent to the biennial appointment of new cornrnission members,. the commission sets weekday and a time for regular monthly meetings to beginno earlier than 6:00 p.m. (CMAC Sec. 2.52.050 and 2.52.060, and AP.&P #10.36).. Due to the amount of business coming before the Commission, meetings are also scheduled on the third Thursday of each month at 6:30 p.m. 4. her See Page 10 for general provisions. 9 V tr i� ,butt¢ Co LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION u ^ ''{T eT• 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-6571 FAX: (530) 53&7785 www.buttecounty.net/dds/ June 1, 2001 City of Chico Planning Commission 420 Main Street Chico, CA 95926 Re: General Plan Growth Area Analysis Honorable Chair and Commissioners: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) commends the City and Planning Commission for initiating the discussion on the City's land use needs to accommodate future growth. The City is taking a proactive stance by having this important public dialogue before a critical land use shortage occurs which would require decisions to be made under pressured • circumstances. As you are aware, the purpose of the adopted 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) is to guide decision makers in making sound land use decisions to ensure that development is compatible and consistent with long term protection of Chico's Airport. When formulating a . recommendation on growth areas, I strongly urge the Planning Commission to incorporate the policies and standards of the 20.00. Plan and make such recommendation consistent with these policies. The 2000 ALUCP utilizes the best available data regarding present and future operations at the airport, as well as existing and proposed land uses within the airport environs. The Plan takes into consideration air traffic volumes, airspace protection, flight patterns, noise, and safety considerations for pilots and persons on the ground. The Plan also utilizes the most current information from the City's Airport Master Plan, including the potential for runway expansion. The ALUC spent considerable time arriving at the final document. Public hearings/meetings spanned a 9 -month period. Throughout the public hearing process the ALUC made sure that all affected jurisdictions were notified of the process and had opportunityfor input. The ALUC made several changes to the plan to accommodate concerns raised by the City of Chico. For example, the ALUC responded to the City's request to lower the compatibility threshold in the C zones from 5 dwelling units per acre to 4 dwelling units per acre. The ALUC recognizes the City's desire to have a compact urban form and to provide for higher densities in the urban area. In support of these • desires, the C and C-2 zones provide that densities of 4 dwelling units or more are consistent with airport safety and operations. It should also be noted that after all of the public hearings, deliberations, and compromises, the Plan was unanimously adopted in a vote that included the Airport Manager of the. Chico Municipal Airport. On behalf of the Airport Land 'Use Commission I urge the Planning Commission to use the provisions of the 2000 ALUCP, as written, when recommending land use policy for.those areas within the airport . area of .influence. I would also like to 'extend an offer to meet with the Commission on an agendized item to discuss the provisions of the ALUCP and the aeronautic principles that guided the land use recommendations contained therein. Sincerely, Norm Rosene Chair, Butte County ALUC KAP1anning\ALUC\C0RRESP0\2001 Corresp\chicopc.wpd is is { COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT k DEPARTMENT PLANNING ITYo►CHICO 411 Main Street INC X872 P.O. Box 3420 Chico. CA 95927 June 1, 2001 (530) 895-4851 FAX (530) 895-4726 ATSS 459-4851 p ECE0ME 'JUN 5 2001 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING OMSION Mr. Dan Breedon, Senior Planner Butte. County Department of Development ServicesD E 7 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965 J U N 1 2 2001 Re: Request for Comments; Byrne Tentative Parcel Map, ISM 1-03 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Dear Mr. Breedon: I appreciate the opportunity you have provided to comment on this tentative map. As you know, Mr. Byrne's tentative map proposes four parcels of about an acre in. size each, and a 5+=acre remainder parcel. As proposed, this map is inconsistent with the City's Low Density Residential General Plan designation and the R1 Low Density Residential prezoning of the property, which provides for residential densities of 2.01 to 6 units per acre (up to 7 units per acre through the planned development process). This is an urbanizing area, and the prevailing lot size nearby south of Eaton Road tends to be half an acre. Once divided as proposed, this property would be .virtually impossible to further subdivide in the future to increase densities consistent with the City's General Plan and prezoning. In my opinion, one -acre lots are generally inappropriate in an urban setting, and this proposed map represents a waste of a diminishing supply of readily developable land within the urban area. In addition, the map proposes access from most of the lots .directly to Eaton Road, which is identified in .the City's General Plan as a major four -lane arterial. The General Plan describes such arterials as follows (p. 4-21): Major and Minor Arterials. The primary function of major arterials is to move large volumes of traffic between freeways and other arterials within Chico and to adjacent jurisdictions. Major arterials should provide four travel lanes, a raised or planted median, and bike lanes. On -street parking should not be provided.... Driveway access should be minimized consistent with the primary function of arterials to move through traffic. Bike lanes, landscaped pa&strips, sidewalks, and transit facilities are also accommodated within the right-of-way. (My emphasis.) Both the City and Butte County have made significant efforts over the years to ensure that Eaton Road is developed as planned by limiting direct access, and this map would clearly not advance that important and long-term goal. ra Made Prom Reefeled Paper s te£tr to Dan Breedon (TSM 01-03) 2001 Page 2 In addition, we anticipate that an intersection for a new roadway north to serve the CSA 87 North Chico Specific Plan area, as indicated in.the Chico General Plan's Circulation System diagram (Figure 43), will be constructed in close proximity to the project site. The presence of access driveways to Eaton Road here may significantly constrain the location and design of that intersection. Because of its inconsistency with the City's General Plan, we do not support approval of this tentative parcel map. Again; thank you for the chance to comment. If I can provide you with further comments or clarification, please do not hesitate to let me know.. Resp ctfully, Kim Seidler Planning Director cc: _ CM, DPW, ADPW, CDD To: 'Butte County iLUC @ 536-538-77 From: Stephen INin (707)598-'M78 Via eFal.com Pg v 3 96-14-81 96:98 RM, t, + F: \M7\LIPINS\LIPINS.004 �D EC 972-C','�dD , i ,,11 4i ............................................................ LL� BUTTE COUNTY (17ri(rin+t! Sitnuttan oYitltmt r)AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 107T11 C01VG1tES8 IST SLSS10N He R IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ; Mr. L1P[NSH'[ illtrotblCed the Yolt(lrirlg hill; Whiell was referred to the ® colluillttee oil A BILL To amend title 49, United States Code, to pre-erript State a lags requiring a certificate of approval or other form. of approval prior to the construction or . operation of certain aill)ort developiuent projects, and for other pur- poses. I Be it enacted by the Senate and Hause of Representa.- 2 t•ives of the United States of llrnerica in Congress assembled., 3 SECTION 1: SHORT TITLE. . 4 This Act niay be cited as the "End Gridlock at Our t 5 Nation's Critical 3irjiorts Act of 2001". ® June 7; 2001 (11:24 AM) FAV710607011060701.058 ,i (AMY FLU; \ a =-=-if rrm: srepnen )rwln uufi l acro ..Via erax.cm ry u J 00-19-01 oo: ie.ln F:\M7\LIPINS\LIPINS.004 . 4 . 2 1 SEC. 2. PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REQUIRING AP.. 2 PROVAL OF AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 3 PROJECTS. 4' (a) I_,� GLXER.U,.—Chapter 401 of .title 49, United., 5 Stites Code, is amended by adding at the end the. fol - 6 lourilig: 7 "§ 40129. Preemption of State laws requiring ap- 8 proval of airport development projects 9 "(a.) T -N Gri,—Nm �L.=No State, political subdivision of 10 a. State, or political authority. of at least 2 States mit.`• 11 enact or enforce a. law', regnalation, or 'Other provision hav- 12 ing the force and effect Of law that-7- 13 hat-13 "(1) requires it. certificate of approval or other 14 foini of approval prior to the construction or oper- 15 •.a.tion of an airport development pruject ata covered M ' airport if the prgject meets the standards established 17 by .the Secretary. of Transportation under section 18 47105(b)(3). whether or not the prgject is the sub - 19 jeet of a grant approved cinder chapter 471; or 20 "(`>) prohibits, conditions, . or otheni ise. re' gu- 21 lutes the direct application for, sir receipt or ecpendi- 22 ture. of, a &rrunt or other funds by the sponsor of a 23 covered airport. under chftpter 471 for'au airport de- -24 24 Velopinelit. project Flt a covered airport if the prgjee.t 25 meets the standards referred to in paragraph (1). .lune 7, 2001 (11:24 AM) . F:1V710607011060701.058 iu: mAw unmay mut, x e acv-aao rr rim: owMim Timm %m ium-owro via arm.wo ry ji J ea-i-t-vi oo:m m F: \ M'7 \LIPINSUIPINS.004 3 1 "(b) Covmi.ED a1.RPORr DEFINED.—In' this 'section., 2 the term 'covered airport' means an airport that each year 3 has at least .2 5 pereent of the . total minual boardings in 4 the United Status.". 5 (b) Co.N F owmLxa A.m1;:NDMEI NT.—The analysis for 6 such ehapter is amended by adding at the end the fol- 7 lowing, new item: "40129. 9. Preemption of State lays rcryuiriag Approval of ai11wrt (lecelupmeut projects.". Jure 7, 2001111:24 AM) F:\ nO607011060701.058 0 ✓ rr +BLITTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 w TO: Butte County ALUC ,,pp DATE: June 14, 2001 `►' . c%rhi elC�rTed 60M44'1�2)7 . FROM: Commissioner Grierson SUBJECT: Appointment By -The Airport Managers 1. The Airport Managers of Chico Municipal, Paradise, and Ranchaero met on June 6' at 3 pm at Ranchaero to appoint a new member to the Butte County Airport land Use Commission. 2. By unanimous vote, Alternate Commissioner Brian Baldridge was selected. 3. If you have any questions, please contact meat 879-3910. ECCE. E JUN 1 5 2001 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING 01VISION To; "Butte County FLUC \ @ 530-538-77 From: Stephen Irwin (707)598-0478 Via eFax.coa Pg • 0 v The California Aviation Alliance Sunday, June 17, 2001 ® ECE[WE JUN 1 8 2001 BUTTE COUNTY ' PI ANNINf, (11VISm Development Plan, EI Toro Airport Seen at Odds El Toro: Many say city approval of an Irvine Co. project calling for 2,553 houses near the former Marine base would fly in face of airfield proposal. By JEAN Los O. ✓ The Los Angeleseles (CA) Times 'A0 (,) c The city of Irvine is poised to approve more than 2,500 homes near a flight path for the proposed E1 Toro airport, part of a strategy many say is intended to block any airfield at the former Marine base. The housing project --on land visible to thousands of cars passing daily on the San Diego Freeway between Sand Canyon Avenue and Laguna Canyon Road --is incompatible with an airport, a state commission has told the city. But the City Council is expected to allow the large-scale development of the Irvine Co. land anyway. It would be the first new neighborhood built near the base site since the Marines left in July 1999_ The city of Irvine contends that a commercial airport will never open at the base, so homes, schools and child care centers should be allowed beneath or near such possible flight paths. Irvine and other south Orange County cities want E1 To transformed into a large urban park and have drafted an ordinance that airport foes hope to place on the March ballot: In the meantime, commercial development.closer to the base has been proceeding with the city of Irvine's blessing, including,rezoning portions of the Irvine Co.'s Spectrum business and technology park adjacent to the base to allow future homes and child care centers. The city also wants to annex land directly north of .the base for homes. "This is putting a development where an airport is not going to be," Irvine Councilman Chris Mears said of the Irvine Co.'s project, known as Planning Area 17, which will go to the city's Planning Commission on Thursday. "If we felt there was going to be an airport ever built at E1 Toro, we, of course, might have a different view," he said. "Weare not putting anyone at risk, because there will not be an airport there." Councilman Mike ward said the plan provides much-needed housing in his city. "We have a lot of businesses in Irvine, and if we don't build homes, the problem is going to get worse." The development would include homes,.l.l million square feet of office and retail space, a 17 -acre community park, a fire station and a school on 7.46 acres of rolling hills and grasslands. Tract maps for the new neighborhood will be considered Thursday, but a final vote won't be taken until next month. Grading can begin *if the Planning Commission approves the maps. Irvine began to encourage development around the base near the Santa Ana and San Diego freeways two years ago, spurred by incoming Councilman and_now Mayor Larry Agran._ The concept: Allow homes and schools in areas where building had been restricted for 56 years because of noise from :rilitary jets. Any new development, in turn, would produce more allies in the.city's battle against plans to convert E1 Toro's airfield into the second-largest commercial airport in Southern California. UC Irvine political science professor Mark Petracca, an airport foe, compared the strategy to "Saddam Hussein ringing little children around military installations.in the Gulf War as a disincentive to bomb." http: %/californiaaviation.org Page 1 of 3 To: 'Butte County HLUC @ 530-538-77 Fro®: Stephen Irwin (707)598-0478 Via eFax.com Pg 2/ 3 06-17-01 06:51 PM The California Aviation Alliance i The city of Lake Forest, which also has control over areas .near the base, has opted against approving new homes'and•schools there. "We don't feel -that that's wise, -.but that's what Irvine wants to do, so I can't criticize them," Lake Forest Mayor Kathryn McCullough said. "Every city has their own commitment to their citizens." ' The Airport Land Use Commission, a state -created panel that oversees.airport-area development, has continued to -restrict building on 14,000 acres around the base, citing the proposed airport. The limitations have remained"in place in areas once affected by noise from military jets and in potential crash zones. Irvine and Lake Forest sued the state commission last year but lost. Irvine has ' twice overridden the panel's warnings.agair_st building in the buffer zone. Doing so means the city accepts responsibility for paying .any damages for excessive noise or plane t crashes in the area should an airport be built. Pro -airport spokesman Bruce Nestande said Irvine's actions show that city officials are more.interested in rushing development around the base than in protecting future _ + residents from noise from an airport that the county still fully intends to build. "It shows their true colors," he 'said: In fact, designers of the new residential community did consider the presence of a. future airport --just in case. Pilots, Others'Question Proposed Flight Path A portion of the planning area would fall within,,a "high noise" zone left over from El Toro military days. Planners have placed houses outside that zone, but did leave within it the option of building child care centers, convalescent homes and hospitals by special permit. Orange County officials say that the area subject to greatest aircraft noise impacts will shrink in size after the new airport is built. One reason is that commercial planes are much quieter than military jets.'The county also wants planes to depart E1 Toro'to the north and east. Planes would arrive from the south, and, aircraft engines generally are quieter during descent. f However, a coalition of pilots and North County officials isn't sold on'the county's flight -path plan. ' It wants to qualify a measure for the March ballot that would force the county to have planes depart to the south. That would be safer°and more efficient and would affect t1 fewer,residents because planes would fly largely over permanent open space just south of the proposed development, supporters have said. t This past week, the Air Line Pilots Assn., the nation''z largest airline pilots union, called for the county to officially study such southern departure's. r The union has argued for six years that having planes leave to the north and east would be too dangerous because of nearby hills and conflicting flight paths for Los Angeles International and other airports. Orange County airport planners and the Irvine'•Co., however, have rejected takeoffs f to the south. Doing so would create. too much noise for 4,000 future homes in Irvine, til including these latest ones, county planners said last year. F Southern -Takeoff Plan Pushed by Its Designers Aeronautical engineer Charles Griffin, who helped design the southern -takeoff plan, } 1 said its creators met in reteent.months with the Irvine Co. to discuss the new initiative. 11 Though they didn't,expett to change the company's opposition; he said, organizers wanted to explain why they believe their airport plan would have the least impact.' The company wants to build 2,553 homes. Of that number, 2,030 would be in a high - noise zone with southern departures, according to the county. But the designers of the alternative plan reconfigured the flight path to keep those homes outside the zone, Griffin said. hft: Hcalifomiaaviation.o rg Page 2 of 3 , ° t To: "Butte County ALUC @ 530-538-77 From: Stephen Irwin (707)598-0478 Via eFax.com Pg 3/ 3 06-17-01 06:51 PM , The California Aviation Alliance "We're looking at [planes flying over] areas that now are undeveloped;" said Villa Park Councilman Robert E. McGowan, a former airline pilot and air-traffic controller who helped design the ballot measure. "Why should the county care more about people who'll be living in homes that aren't even built vet?" Planning for. Homes Irvine is ready to approve construction of 2,553 homes near the closed E1 Toro Marine base, in an area where building was restricted for 56 years because of military, jet noise. Source: City of Irvine Visit the California Aviation Alliance Airport Land Use Forum at: http://www.californiaaviation.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.ogi?conf=DCConfID7 htt Hcaliforniaaviation.org Page 3 of 3 X a OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL FILE REQUEST FOR LEGAL' SERVICES OP Date Submitted: June 22, 2001 Department: PLANNING From:�uyr�ac. A L lc C. Phone Number: Department Head Signature PLEASE INDICATE THE TYPE OF ASSISTANCE REQUESTED Opinion Request Briefly explain the issue: Recently the ALUC had a tie vote (ref: John Byrne application). The interpretation of the bylaws was not clear as to the outcome of this vote. Accordingly; we request that County Counsel review the following_ changes in the bylaws as follows:. 1. Definition of "Action." 2. Default decision. 3. Affirmative vote. .4. -Cite examples of how the recommended changes would facilitate the interpretation of the bylaws (or make it easier). Request for Ordinance/Resolution Briefly explain the nature of requested Ordinance/Resolution: Is there an existing Ordinance/Resolution: YES NO If yes, please attach or cite existing County Code provisions:. Other Briefly explain the assistance requested: PRIORITIZATION Indicate the priority of this request, taking into consideration any prior pending requests. Requests receiving a "high" priority will automatically take precedence over existing pending department projects, unless otherwise indicated. High _X_ Moderate Low Comments: C*'4WITYoFCH1Co COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING �411 Main Street INC. 1972 P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 (530) 895-4851 FAX (530) 895-4726. ATSS 459-4851 Butte County Airport.Land'Use Commission Attn: Craig Sanders, Senior Planner 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 9596573397 • C] C rlfi 1,5 If ®O� July 16, 2001 Subject: Airport Land Use Compatibility. Plan (ALUCP) Consistency, Foothill Park East Unit 4 Dear Craig, Thank you for your response to the above noted project. This project represents a single phase of the larger Foothill, Park East Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map previously approved by the Planning Commission in June of 1997 for which an environmental impact report was certified. At that time, the entire project including subsequent phasing was approved at an overall density of approximately 4.6 dwelling units per acre. In discussing your comments with the Planning Director and Principal Planner, it was determined that although the density for this single. phase is less than the minimum allowed by the ALUCP, it is consistent with the.overall plan of 4.6 dwelling -units per acre and therefore with the ALUCP. I trust that this will clarify our position regarding consistency of this project with the ALUCP. If.you should have any questions,. you may contact me at 895-4858. Sincerely, Jay Hanson Associate Planner SAJh\ALUC.letter:wpd ��� Made From Recycled paper 0 Airport Land Use Commission. P Date: - July 16, 2001 V i / BEAUTY PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEP p�.a3�-36 RX: ( ;3e3 f 7 ..M V JUL 2 3 2001 To: Responsible and Trustee AgencieseurrE coUN AIRPORT LAND USE COO MMISSION Subject: NOTICE OF INTENT - to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the John and Sharon Byrne Tentative Parcel Map (TSM 01-03) The Butte County Planning Division has completed an Initial Study, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), of potential environmentaF consequences anticipated in connection with the above-mentioned project, a copy of which is enclosed. This letter serves as a Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration to allow responsible and trustee agencies a 20 -day review period in accordance with Sections 15072 and 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines. ® 'Please review the enclosed Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. This review should focus on your agency's area of expertise and jurisdiction. Any comments must be sent to the above address prior to August 9, 2001. A Public Hearing has been scheduled for.August 9, 2001 before the Butte County Development Review Committee. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed environmental document, please contact this office between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Sincer" aniel C. Breedon Senior Planner, cc: John and Sharon Byrne Butte County Public Works Department, Land Development Division Butte County Environmental Health Department, Chico 'California Department of Forestry Air Qualityv Management District Airport Land Use Commission City of Chico I COPIES OF THIS AGENDA AVAILABLE FROM: City Manager's Office 411 Main Street Chico, California Telephone: (530) 895-4803 . www.ci.chico.ca.us AGENDA CITY OF CHICO AIRPORT COMMISSION ABED: 9/19/01 POSTED: 9/20/01 PRIOR TO: 5:00 p.m. AIRPORT TERMINAL CONFERENCE ROOM CHICO.MUNICIPAL. AIRPORT, 150 AIRPARK BOULEVARD ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING -- TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 -- 4:30 P.M. Items Not Appearing on Posted Agenda. This agenda was posted on the Council Chamber Building Bulletin Board at least 72 hours in advance of this meeting. For each item not appearing on the posted agenda upon which the Commission wishes to take action, other than merely acknowledging receipt of correspondence or other information, it must make one of the following determinations: (1) Determine b a two-thirds vote or a unanimous vote if less than two-thirds of the Y Y Board/Commission is present, that the need for action came to the attention of the City subsequent to the agenda being posted. (2) Determine that the item appeared on a posted agenda for a meeting occurring not more than 5 calendar days prior to this meeting, and the item was continued to this meeting. ROLL CALL. 2. CONSENT AGENDA All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. Resolutions and Minute Orders will be read by title only. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the Commission or persons in the audience request specific items to be removed from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda for separate discussion prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt the Consent Agenda. If any items are `removed from the Consent Agenda, the items will be considered at the beginning of the Regular Agenda.: 2.1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2001 The Commission has been provided with copies of minutes for its meeting held on August 28, 2001. 3. HEARINGS None. D SEP 24 2001 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION r- 4. REGULAR AGENDA . 4.1.. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT. AGENDA 4.2. - DISCUSSION OF THE COMMISSION'S GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN This item was continued for fizrther discussion from the Special Meeting of 9/13/01 for the Commission to discuss and adopt goals and objectives to guide future plans and development at the Airport. Copies of the Final Draft of the Airport Master Plan have previously been provided to Commissioners. 4.3. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION'S COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN At the Commission's 8/28/01 meeting, Chair Lucas requested that this item be placed on the agenda for discussion and a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Airport Land Use Commission's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Copies of the plan have.previously been provided to all Commissioners. 4.4. AIRPORT MANAGER UPDATES The Airport Manager will provide the Commission with an update on the impact of the Level IV • Security imposed at the Airport by FAA, and the current FAA restrictions. 4.5. ITEMS ADDED AFTER POSTING OF THE AGENDA 5. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR A member of the general public may address the Airport Commission on any matter not appearing on the agenda which is of interest to such person and which is within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Where a member of the general public seeks to address the Commission under Business From The Floor, the Commission may ask questions of such person, but may not discuss the matter unless and until the matter is included on a posted agenda at a subsequent meeting, or make one of the determinations listed on the first page of this agenda in the unnumbered section entitled "Items Not Appearing on Posted A eg nda". 6. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: The following reports and communication items are provided for the Commission's information. No action can be taken on any of the items unless -the Commission agrees to include them on a subsequent posted agenda. 6.1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/REZONE 00-01 AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 01-05 (BELLIN) - WEST SIDE OF MARAUDER STREET, NORTH OF THE CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT -� By tmemorandum 'dated 9/17/01, Senior Planner Sigona reports that although this project is not . f } �-5 withm.the-jutisd'iction of the Airport Commission; it is located in proximity to the Airport, and is + being forwarded to theCommission as an informational item. If the Commission wishes to provide �= t , 1 932 ' ►" Yi 1IIJU� 3TTUS V0121MI UMIWOMAA i • i comments to the City Council regarding. this ifem, they will need to do so prior to the City Council's meeting on 10/16/0.1 in which they will take final action'on the General Plan Amendment and Rezone. 6.2. ARTIST'S REQUEST TO DEDICATE AIRPORT SCULPTURE A copy of the Art Projects Coordinator's memorandum to the City Council is attached for the Commission's information. E 1 7. ADJOURNMENT: The Commission will adjourn to Tuesday, October 30, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at the Chico Municipal Center: i. 1 f Distribution: Agenda and Attachments (13): Commission - 5 City Manager Airport Manager AA Main City Attorney CDD Pl.Dir ACDD Public Review Binder Agenda Only (66): Clerk & Council - 8 News Media - 9 DPW ADPW-ENG ADPW-O&M ACA Barker MA -ES Herman Chief of Police Finance Director Fire Chief Station #3 Airport Field Supervisor A/C Industrial, Nick Buck Aero Union Corp., Vic Alvistur Allan, Ella Anagnos, Aris, Olympus Properties, Inc. Beachfront Deli, Pam.Wilson Bell -Carter Foods, Larry Burgoyne BIA, Jim Mann' Bi -Tech. Software, Kristi Bennett Brady's Moving and Storage, `Jeff Day - Butte County Administration, CAO Blacklock i t Butte County Development Services Butte County Fire, Chief Bill Sager Butte County Supervisor Dolan Butte County Supervisor Houx CDF Air Attack Base CEPCO, Bob Linscheid Chico Chamber of Commerce Fortress -Independence, Karl Hall Hardesty & Sons, Donald H. Brashears Herfi Aircraft, Retta Herfi Hertz Local Edition, Mark -Hyder ' League of Women Voters Mach 1, Paul Farsai Merit Medi -Trans, Inc., Stan Gungl Mooney Farms, Mary Mooney North Valley Pilot's Association Pacific Flight Services, Linda Patrick Paradise Town Manager,'Chuck Rough Schooler Flying Co., Harold, Schooler Traffic Control Tower, Karl Klemm Transfer Flow, Inc., Bill & Jeanne Gaines Valley Contractors Exchange, Inc. • Extra - 6 Post File D-90-2-2 (original) Other: Don Holtgrieve No. Cal. Planning & Research RO. Box 396 Forest Ranch, CA 95942 Ed Anderson P.O. Box 839 Chico, CA 95927 S: IKarenIAIRPOR71Agendasl_Distribution List as of 7-30-01. tivpd (Updated 1/30/01)