Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN (CSA NO.87) SIGNAGE. OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY OF BUTTE ° 0U TF 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3380 • ; PHONE (530) 538-7621 • o FAX (530) 538-6891 countycounsel@buttecounty.net ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL NEIL H. MCCABE SUSAN MHNASIAN • • CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY COUNSEL DAVID M. MCCLAIN ROBERT W. MACKENZIE BRUCE S. ALPERT DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL, r LESLYN K. SYREN March 7, 2000 Airport Land Use Commission Dear Commissioners.: _ !{ •. Mr. Tom Parilo has asked that this office explain to the Commission the content and location of the signs placed in .conformance with the North Chico Specific Plan•(NCSP). The role of this office is to give a legal opinion regarding whether the language and location of the signs comply with the NCSP. We believe that they do. ' Our office reviewed the language and found it fulfills the purpose• of warning residents and travelers about their proximity to airport activity, as defined in ,the NCSP. ,We also believe the signs' locations fulfill the` NCSP's requirements of notice to•residents and those traveling in the area. Very truly yours: SUSAN MINASIAN, ' Butte County Counsel E cc:.Board of Supervisors ,pl Tom Parilo, Director of Development Services f G:\SUSAN\ALUC.WPD t AIRPORT OVERFLIGHT ZONE Red r THIS AREA SUBJECT TO NORMAL AIRPORT Black RELATED ACTIVITY BASED UPON THE OVERFLIGHT OF AIRCRAFT TO AND FROM CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AND AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT THE AIRPORT 3'x4' ,I OVERFLIGHT A16 ; as 10 c� ar -ffaite.. Count ;. LA.ND. 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 June 28, 1999 Jane Dolan, Chair Board of Supervisors County of Butte 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Re: Installation of Airport Overflight Signs North Chico Specific Plan Dear Supervisor Dolan: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission has prepared sample airport overflight area signs that the Commission is recommending the Butte County Board of Supervisors install in the unincorporated area defined in the North Chico Specific Plan. It is highly recommended that this sign format be used. Commissioner Norman Rosene would like to preview a sign,mock up prior to sign fabrication. The Commission is also recommending signs be installed at locations designated on the attached map, which is in.conformance with the North Chico Specific Plan. A subcommittee' of Commissioners Rosene, Gerst and myself would like to review plans for -sign location prior to installation., Until such time as the signs are installed at the appropriate locations, development in the area should not be approved. The Commission urges the Board of Supervisors *to direct the Public Works Department to work with the Airport Land Use Commission subcommittee, prepare and install. these signs without delay. Please contact Paula Leasure, Principal Planner, or David Doody, Senior Planner, at 538- 7601, if you. have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely; ' Mr. Robert Hennigan, Chairman Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Attachment From LANDLOOK INVESTIGATIONS PHONE No. 916 898 9341 Ju1.09 1999 10:41AM P01 Jun-2g-99 1Os05' butit® counCy planning Earl SAR, 7785 P.02 ' Butte, -Count LAND Of' NATURAL WEAL III AND. BEAutY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ' 7 COUNTY CENTER DANE • onovILLL., CAr WonN1A 9590-9367 , ITLI.PWONF: (630) 69A•7601 FAX: (S30) x38.7785 June 28, 1999 Jane Dolan. Chair Board of Supervisors County of Butte 25 County Center Drive k Orovllle, CA 95965 , Re: installation of Airport Overflight Signs North Chico Specific Plan Dear Supervisor Dolan: The Butte,County Airport Larid Use Commission has prepared sample airport overflight area signs that the Commission is recommending the Butte County Board of Supervisors install in the unincorporated area defined in the North Chico Specific Plan. It is highly recommended that this sign format be used. Commissioner Norman Rosene WOL,Id like- to preview a sign mock up prior to sign fabrication. The Commission is also rccornmending . signs be installed at locations designated on the attached map, which is in conformance ` with the North Chico Specific Plan. A subcommittee of Commissioners Rosene, Gerst and myself would like to review plans for sign location prior to installation. = Until such time as the signs are installed at the appropriate locations, development in the area should not be approved: The Commission urges the Board of Supervisors to direct the Public Works Department to work with the Airport Land Use Commission subcommittee, prepare and install these signs without delay. Please contact Paula Leasure, Principal Planner, or David Doody, Senior Planner, at 536- 7601, if you have'Any questions regaiding this matter.. - • Sincerely,4 Mr. Robert Hennlg , Chairman \ ; Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Attachment 1 w. 3UL 0 91999 . . .• plyy,�,, -Oro EA9eg Ci9il�dNmia V 4 N w W"0&90190tAND OF n1ATURA1. WEAIiH' AN1 BEAUTY AIRPORT LANA USE COMMISSION 7 CnUNTY CENTEk ORIVe `• OROVILLt, CALIFORNIA, 9596S•3,197 TELE FHONF: (S30) 536-7601 FAX: (500) 638-771IS J:rino Dolan. Chair Board of Supervisors, County of Butte 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Re.: Installation of Airport Overflight Signs North Chico Specific Plan Dear Supervisor Dolan The Butte County Airport hand- Use Commission has preparod sample airport overflight area signs that the Commission is recommending the Butte County Board of Supervisors instpli in the Unincorporated area defined in the North Chico Specific Plan, It is ,highly recommended that this sign format be used. Commissioner Norman 'Rosene would like to preview a sign mock up prior to sign fabrication. The Commission is also recommending signs bo Installed at locations designated on the attached map, which is in conformance with the North Chico Specific Plan. A subcommittee -of Commis,sioners Rosen e, Gerst and ' myself would like to review plans for sign location prior to installation. Until such time as the signs are installed at the appropriate locations, development In the area should not bo approved. Tho Commission urgos tho Board of Supervisors to direct the Public Works Dcpartment to work with the- /Airport Lend Use (oOmmission subcommittee, prepare and install these signs without delay. Please contact 'Pauia LO,-)Suro, Principal .Planner,- or David Doody, Senior Pl inner, at 538- 7601, if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Mr, Robert I-lennig , Chsiirmah Rupe County Airport Land 1.13© Commission Attachment 'JUL 0 9 1999 ®rovad®D cwftla TOd WU90:0T 666ti 60'Tnf tiV26 868 9T6 'ON 3NOHd SN0Iid0l1S30NI A00-1QNUI woad I SIGN LOCATIONS • Sign locations are marked on existing pavement with an A. The A is about 12"-14" high and painted with yellow spray paint. • Key to sign locations dated 7/12/99. Sign number is listed on map dated the same. 1. This sign is to be located on the' north side of Keefer Road, just before 90° bend in road, and just east of mailbox for the parcel 3258 Keefer Road. It is located about 50 yards east of an existing "Neighborhood Watch" sign. 2. West side of Hicks Lane. Just north of small bridge. About .2 miles south of Keefer /Hicks intersection. 3. Just north of mailbox for 14154 Garner Lane, on the west side of Garner Lane. Less than .1 mile from intersection of Keefer and Garner. (Basically as originally located in the NCSP signage map.) 4. Just east of Felicidad on the south side of Keefer Road.. About 75' east of the Felicidad/Keefer intersection. 5. Sign #5 will be located at the entrance to the new road when it is built. 6. Just north of the intersection of Stone Valley Court and Garner Lane on the east side of Garner. 7.. Just south of Todd on the east side of Garner Lane. An alternate location would be . between Todd and Brett on the east side of Garner. 8. Across from the Kingdom Hall on the north side of Eaton. Just before gravel turn -out. c \ e7 •% t ` 2 3 i Ile chm I• `.� }} •� 0066 • --'' 1 Is is 01. s •, ,, AIRCRAFT OVERFLIGHT ZONE THIS AREA SUE ItCT TO N013E ANO a� APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF OTME# O13TUREANCE To O TO THE •OVERFLIGHT ZONE' SIGNS OVERFUGHT OF AIRCRAFT TO AND FROM CHICO MUNICIPAL AIAP011T• AHO TO AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT THE AIRPORT. OVERFLIGHT ZONE SIGNAGE Figure 7-2 " V North Chico Specific Plan -1Z-99 June 28, 1999 Mr. Tom Lando, City Manager City of Chico P. O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 ,�utie 160, 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 Re: Installationof Airport Overflight Signs Dear Mr. Lando: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission has prepared sample airport overflight area signs that the Commission is recommending the Butte County Board of Supervisors install in the unincorporated area. defined in the North Chico Specific Plan. The Commission requests the City of Chico also consider using this format for signage in the incorporated airport area. The Commission has appointed a sub -committee .of Commissioners Rosene, Gerst and myself who would be available to work with city staff in determining appropriate locations for sign installation. The Commission greatly appreciates the progressive position the city is taking by installing these signs in the newly developed areas in proximity to the airport. Please contact Paula Leasure, Principal Planner, or David Doody, Senior Planner, at 538-- 7601, to coordinate with. the Airport Land Use Commission sub -committee's work with City staff. Sincerely, , Mr. Robert Hennlgan, Chairman Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Attachment From LANDLOOK-INVESTIGATIONS PHONE No. 916 8989341 JUL 09 1999 10:42AM P02 Jun ->24-44 In n4 butto county planning 53V 538 7785 h.Cll - Halou � I _ if tAN0 UI• NA i V A A I ' W C A L I 1 fi Ar:o nrAUT) ti AIRPORT LAND USS COMMISSION i COUNTY C•ENTEQ OQ(VE • OAOVILLE. CAUrOANIA 06065 ,1307 TEIEPHONC: (650) 639.7601 FAX: (630) 63R•7711111, JLine 28,: 9999 Mr. Tom Lando, City Manager City of Chico P. 0. Box 3420 . Chico. CA 95927 Re: Installation.of Airport Overflight,Signs Dear Mr..Lando: The Butte, County' Airport Land Use Commission has prepared Sample -airport overflight. L re:.a siclnS'that the Colllillission is recommending thc% Butte County Board of Supervisors Install in the, unincorporated area defined in the North Chico Specific Plan. The Commission requests the City of Chico also consider using this format for signage in the ° incorporated airport 'area. . The Commission has appointed a sub -committee of Commissioners Rosone, Gerst and myself who would be available to work with city staff, in determining appropriate locations for sign installation. The Commission greatly appreciates the progressive position the city:is taking by installing these signs in the newly developed areas In pfoximity to`the airport. Please contact Paul) Leasure, Principal Planner, or David Doody, Senior Planner,. at 933 . 7601, to Coordinate with the Airport Land Use Commission sub -committee's work with City staff: Sincerely, A9ii / h Mr. Rol)Crt He i Chairman Butte County; Airport Land Use Commission Attachment SIGN LOCATIONS • Sign locations are marked on existing pavement with an A. The A is about 12"-14" high. and painted with yellow spray paint. • Key to sign locations dated 7/12/99. Sign number is listed on map dated the same. 1. This sign is to be located on the north side of Keefer Road, just before 90° bend in road, and just east of mailbox for the parcel 3258 Keefer Road. It is located about 50 yards east of an existing "Neighborhood Watch" sign. 2. West side of Hicks Lane. Just north of small bridge. About .2 miles south of Keefer /Hicks intersection. 3. Just north of mailbox for 14154 Garner Lane, on the west side of Garner Lane. Less than .1 mile from intersection of Keefer and Garner. (Basically as originally located in the NCSP signage map.) 4. Just east of Felicidad on the south side of Keefer Road. About 75' east of the Felicidad/Keefer intersection. 5. Sign 45 will be located at the entrance to the new road when it is built. 6: Just north of the intersection of Stone Valley Court and Garner Lane on the east side of Garner. T. Just south of Todd on the east side of Garner Lane. An alternate location would be between Todd and Brett on the east side of Garner. 8. Across from the Kingdom Hall on the north side of Eaton. Just before gravel turn -out. r � • �� r teao 2- 3 3ftw •. • j J • • f j{ ••• ........... •♦ ♦♦ 1l ; of LILL- • 1 v r--->A.0008 AIRCRAFT OVERFLIGHT ZONE THIS AREA SUBJECT TO NOISE AND sP - APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF OTHER DISTURBANCE RELATED TO THE •OVERFLIGHT 20NE' SIGNS OVERFLIGHT OF AIRCRAFT TO AND FROM CHICO MUNICIPAL AIgPOgT, AND TO AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT THE AIRPORT. . t OVERFLIGHT ZONE SIGNAGE Figure 7-2 r : North Chico Specific Plan • -7-[Z-99 Uv S r P0annina D@Udg9®n _� : �o� T ► sCL 6NV/- � cis h ec�. c;J.i T� e�1OW S v� a.� ►n Vs P - off-e.e_e� V_lo-�n" o� t, • iiy� ai'� �ojC.v r' /S �. G V e__ 0.N/ V�-eLV L--c'-VH 2 .f, a (`. + . a `.�'*♦ M a� C� il 0,v Let r a . � 'y �jc7`l�l�y_\, -� �r�2 �j,_1 � l�Y2ei��/ ' �Oc�C�•.mi ._ Ac- 1�(° - 4 ,. 1 t t•' � �- C'3r ITLksk g50 ` � ©1' . �J� vie ..v a.• \ ` e G GL v� (( o r. X o c' vL,)o -•�+ VA x� �' *~��� fie•"�n�,�O �t +�(/^�j ��V \�� . •- , - ,, � r `ala _ 1 C c�/o5S' . ti V vv \ Y V`e.. I j�/•�l ✓ l ��'v " l i�."�,( r �v 1 a i .. 1E �e- oma ti � l LL iy.e-- .;.I* *A AIRCRAFT HERFLIGHT THIS AREA SUBJECT NORMAL ZONE, AIRPORT TO RELATED ACTIVITY BASEDI UPON THE OVERFLIGHT OF AIRCRAFT TO AND FROM CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, AND AIRCRAFT AT THE OPERATIONS AIRPORT LL iy.e-- .;.I* *A o•V Tf • ' • o • e • e e e CSU N'�y SUSAN MINASIAN COUNTY COUNSEL ICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY OF BUTTE 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3380 PHONE (530) 538-7621 FAX (530)'538-6891 coun'tycounsel @buttecounty.net ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL NEIL H. MCCABE CHIEF DEPUTY. COUNTY COUNSEL DAVID M. MCCLAIN March 7, 2.000 Airport Land Use Commission Dear Commissioners: Mr. Tom Parilo has asked that this office explain` to the Commission the content and location -of the signs•placed in conformance with the North Chico Specific Plan '(NCSP). The role of this office is to give a legal opinion regarding whether the language•and location of the signs' comply with the NCSP. We believe that they do. -Ouroffice reviewed the language and found it fulfillsthe purpose of warning residents and travelers about their proximity to airport activity, as defined in the NCSP. We also believe the signs,. locations fulfill the NCSP's.requirements of notice 'to residents and those traveling in the area. a Very truly yours, y SUSAN MINASIAN, .'. f Butte County Counsel cc:'Board of Supervisors Tom Parilo, Director of Development Services 'G:\SUSAN\ALUC.WPD _ 11. AIRCRAFT OVERFLIGHT' M� m =1 � ■ MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION To: File From: Dave Doody, Associate Planner Subject: North Chico Specific Plan Airport Overflight Signs - Request for Funding to Install Signs Date: February 11, 2000 FILE BACKGROUND ALUC requested the Board of Supervisors to provide funding and authorize the reinstallation of Airport Overflight Signs in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport and the North Chico Specific Plan. The original signs were installed on July 23, 1998. Shortly thereafter, a sign was taken down without authorization, apparently a result of vandalism. The remaining signs were then removed to avoid further acts of vandalism. Since July, 1998, ALUC and the County Counsel have worked on an alternative design for the airport overflight signs. On May 19, 1999, ALUC adopted an alternative sign and recommended the Board of Supervisors provide funding and authorize the reinstallation of the signs. Altemative locations are also recommended by ALUC. ALUC recommends new locations because the signs will not be in front of an existing residence and will be located adjacent to vacant land near the original locations as specified by the North Chico Specific Plan. RESULT: This item was not agendized at the direction of the CAO. The signs are to be installed with out public hearing. It is unclear if the signs to be installed are those ALUC requested or the Board sub- committee drafted. J. _ BUTTE COUNTY ' `� , ' '; CLERK OF THE BOARD USE ONLY . ' ,. �d.OARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: AGENDA TRANSMITTAL r AGENDA ITEM: AGENDA TITLE: North Chico Specific Plan Overflight Signs -Request for Funding and Installation of Signs. DEPARTMENT: DATE: MEETING DATE REQUESTED: Development Services/Planning October 5, 1999 October 26, 1999 CONTACT: PHONE: REGULAR CONSENT X Dave Doody 7601 . , PUBLIC HEARING DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is requesting the Board of Supervisors to provide funding and authorize the reinstallation of Airport Overflight Signs in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport. The North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) requires that the Airport Overflight Signs be installed (Exhibit 7 he original signs were installed on July 23, 1998. Shortly thereafter, a sign was taken down without authorization, a4arently a result of vandalism. The remaining signs were then removed to avoid further acts of vandalism. S ince July, 1998, ALUC requested that the signs be reinstalled. The County Counsel's office was requested to r;;view an alternative design for the airport overflight signs. On May 19, 1999, ALUC endorsed an alternative sign message and recommended the Board of Supervisors provide funding and authorize.the reinstallation of the signs (:exhibit "C'' and "D"). Alternative locations are also recommended by ALUC. New locations were selected to avoid placement in front of existing residences in favor of locations, adjacent to vacant land. All signs would be placed v ithin the County road right-of-way. Exhibit "B" identifies the recommended locations. .-\. CTION REQUESTED: A. Approve the new signs for compliance with the intent of Section 7.6-4 of the NCSP. - B. Approve the locations for the signs as recommended by ALUC. C. Direct the Public Works Department to acquire eight (8).5' x 2.5' signs and install them at the locations noted in Exhibit "B." ` D. Authorize a Budget transfer in the amount of $4,OOO'from 690,010, ARpropriations for _ Contingencies to 480.001-553-030, Planning Interfund Road to pay for the purchase and installation of the signs. l _ ,GENDA ITEM SUBMITTALS REQUIRE THE ORIGINAL ANDYy �- NFORI G E Xr1.ANA !'ORY MEMORANDUMAN) OTHER BACKGROUND Budgetary Impact: Yes x No_ If yes, complete Budgetary Impact Worksheet on back E udget Transfer Requested: Yes _x No_. = Adm If yes, complete Budget Transfer Request Worksheet on back. Adm Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda deadline) �'• ill Proposal Require an Agreement: Yes No_x A/5's .auditor -Controller's Number (if r:•quired):_Forthcoming Yes Date County Counsel's Approval: Yes No ' V.'ill Proposal Require Additional Personnel: Yes No c Number of Permanent: Temp Extra Help rt, P c%ious limmi :kctimi Date: N.\ Additional Information Attached: Yes_ is scribe: Nlemurandrum ti -um ALUC, NCSP teNt and map regarding sign and locations AI.tJC: meeting tENhibit C) and Graphic of new sign (Exhibit D). K: ALUC\BOS..'vIEi'vf\AIF1026.WPD +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95955 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • September 27, 1999 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Butte County Board of Supervisors FROM: Robert Hennigan, Chairman, Butte County Airport Land Use Commission SUBJECT: North Chico Specific Plan- Airport Overflight Signs As you are aware, the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) requires the placement of advisory signs in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport. The NCSP indicates on Figure 7-2 that there are to be eight 5'x 2.5' signs. The signs were installed within the County right-of-way on July 23, 1998. Shortly thereafter, a sign was subsequently taken down without authorization apparently a result of vandalism. The remaining signs were then removed to avoid further acts of vandalism. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has voiced its objections to the removal of the signs. Since July, 1998, the ALUC held several hearings on an alternative design for the airport overflight signs. During these hearings, ALUC also proposed that several of the original sign locations, be moved. It was, agreed not to increase the number of signs and instead move some of the signs to new locations for better visibility. In consultation with County Counsel, on June 16, 1999, ALUC approved a sign alternative including the new locations (minutes attached). ALUC is requesting the Board of Supervisors to provide funding and authorize the reinstallation of the signs. Attached you will find the proposed alternative sign, a map showing where the signs are proposed to be relocated and a written notation describing where the signs are to be relocated. ALUC found the proposed alternative sign less ominous and consistent with the overflight advisory language of the NCSP. ALUC staff was directed to provide cost estimates for the new signs. Staff contacted several sources. The City of Chico Sign Shop provided cost estimates from $360 to $400 per sign. This did not include installation. The City estimate is for a sign printed on standard 2' x 4' sheet material. Also, the Department of Public Works can make Tx 3.75' signs for $143.50 each plus $100.00 per installation. An estimate was also obtained from Magoon Signs. The bid from Magoon Signs included 5' x 2.5', reflective lettering and reflective background. They estimated it would cost $370 per sign. With installation by Public Works, the total cost would be $470 per sign. These estimates were obtained for informational purposes. The Board of Supervisors may request staff conduct a competitive bid process and lower costs may be obtained. ALUC found the 2'x 4' sign as suggested by the City to be too small. ALUC would also likely find the County's Tx 3.75' sign to be too small as well. ALUC requests the Board of Supervisors reinstall the 5' x 2.5' sign based on the estimated cost of $470 per sign. Thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter. Please place this matter on the Board's agenda as soon as possible. SincereeljyJ `?' l UZ Z 07;��� iVlr. Norm Rosene, Vice Chariman for NIr. Robert Hennigan, Chairman Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Attachments A.aar.r'C'l.ez";s;o'su;.r'ru('crx • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission 0 NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN 7.6-3 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, and such related issues as are appropriate to fully inform such prospective home buyer or rental tenant. 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 access points into the Plan area, including Eaton Road, Garner Lane, Hicks Lane, New Arterial Road and Keefer Lane. Such signage shall be of such materials, size and design to be visible and readable from a moving vehicle. Figure 7-2 illustrates the concept. 7.6-5 The New Arterial Road and collector streets east of Gamer Lane shall be designated with aviation -related names as set forth in Butte County Code Chapter 32. 7.8 Principal Land Use Districts The following section summarizes the principal underlying land use districts within the NCSP area. The existing Butte County Zoning Ordinance has been followed closely ano modified, where necessary, to ensure that NCSP goals and policies are achieved while facilitating administration by county staff. Definitions and Conditions Terms used in this document shall have the same definitions as provided for in the Butte County. Code, unless otherwise defined herein. All regulations, design criteria, requirements, and similar details not set forth herein shall be those as contained in appropriate sections of the Butte County Code. Residential Development Regulations Within the Plan area there are two basic residential categories: Suburban Residential and Residential. The standards contained herein are .consistent with the County zoning standards 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 designation has three zone districts — R-1 (Low Density Residential), R-2 (Medium Density Residential), and R-3 (High Density Residential). Table 7-2 summarizes basic development regulations of each district. EXHIBIT A. 7-8 Development Regulations and Design Guidelines 4 •• 1 , ff,.......... '� � • •�_ per_ AIRCRAFT OVERFLIGHT ZONE THIS AAAA SUBJECT TO NOISE AMO ar APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF OTMER DISTURBANCE RELATED TO THE 'OVERFLIGHT ZONE' SIGNS OVERFUGHT Of AIRCRAFT TO AND FRO" CMICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT. ANO TO AIRCRAFT OPIUMNS AT THE AIRPORT. —tet• NEW LOCATIONS PROPOSED BY ALUC OVERFLIGHT ZONE SIGNAGE Figure 7-2 EXHIBIT� North Chico Specific Plan -7-iz-99 44 VI o G Ti v s �.re v� o k e c� v ✓� J L cl may. � S 1 l v� � .1 �. v� c .:.'� \ .,.: � '� `^ G� ✓� � e 1 �oc_c, -7-12--9 cl. Sin ►��wcbe✓ is ��sc� C) V-\ iMaP /9 11 5 s �, i -� �-� b e (� �-e �� CD '��e �v✓ 5102 b� " �s� be ✓e � o be�c5 i� ��ac_� a V -, C -1J � c, ✓ce o C.�1 �ocC, CA G `o CD Yc,- v c1 s Vn e X s N e levo uGci t..� S v� -Z, Wes ck L c;,v-\� ,Aov- ���+Gi i►n�-GV,-sec iOVA 3. Su sA- ►� v- �-L. vvt 11nox c�,i ! �{ VN �->,+ �, ✓, I �,1 des �vc �.`,, iv � ` - �- � 1 � c-, -, o kec�C� a C\. G c,- �eV, ice,,e./vGSI� 5i����� OIA CK� r s + ci e 1K ee ✓ IZo�C1 -��►cI c(c,J L<� �e � � � fie, � sec'�i �� , • Lj 0 cc, �c C--( a+ v -o V� e �• �-- s low Uc,\1 C� � C,, �.A p C4 1 + , OVA L ✓:JSS p vim\ �� v1 u� wo �1 --11 � ✓1 t✓t Vl � V1 p ✓ ��1 5 t U � O � � � � S . V �G I V �e C./ ✓ � � `_ 1 � ✓ V� - o`er 1 r J EXHIBIT C".1 COUNTY OF BUTTE ,• ., ,,� AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of June 16, 1999 l 3. Discussion of Airport Overflight Signage for the North ChicoDecibc P1 : Discussion item. The Commission will review and discuss the modified sign as prepared by Commissioner Rosene. (Item Continued from May 19, 1999) Commissioner Rosene suggested that the proposed sign adopted by ALUC, be sent to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation to proceed. Mr. Doody recommended that ALUC agree that the sign meets the provisions of the North Chico Specific Plan and have the Chairman write a letter of notification to the Board of Supervisors. Staff can put an'item on the Board agenda to authorize funding of new signs or the repainting of the existing signs. Ruben Martinez from the City of Chico sign shop, provided an estimate of $360 to $400 per sign for new.signs. Commissioner Rosene asked to participate on a committee on behalf of ALUC to examine the signs as they are completed, for final approval It was moved by Commissioner Rosene that ALUC write a letter to the Board of Supervisors skin them to find funding to have the signs placed as required by the 1994 North Chico Specific Plan and .to proceed with great haste and also to have a committee from ALUC. have a final loo k:at the final - version of the signs. ; Commissioner Gerst noted there have been changes made in the.proposed locations of some of the signs from what was specified by the. North Chico Specific Plan. He suggested the subcommittee also be involved in locating the signs to avoid more problems. ' Commissioner Rosene said the signs that were to be located at the end of Keefer Road should be moved in closer to the actual North Chico Specific Plan area..He agreed,to..an amendment to his motion, that the recommended locations from the committee for the signs be included in the letter and that the committee be able to work with Public Works in the actual siting of the signs. Commissioner Rosene said the City of Chico also plans to place some signs and the committee should work with the City also in siting the signs. Mr. Doody noted the cost estimate of $360 to $400 was for a 2'x 4'sign, but the NCSP requires a 2.5'x 5' sign. Commissioner Rosene thought T would be too narrow and it would be worth an increased cost to get -the signs right. Mr. Doody said staff would contact the City of Chico regarding the larger size Commissioner Rosene noted that traffic on county roads would be traveling faster and need the larger signs. The motion was seconded by Chairman Hennigan and carried unanimously. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 '.3 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 COUNTY OF BUTTE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ; Minutes of June 16, 1999 A- Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call :. . Present: Commissioners Hatley, Rosene, Gerst, Alternates Papadakis, Grierson, and Chairman Hennigan Absent: Commissioner Causey Also Present: David Doody, Senior Planner Laura Webster, ALUC Staff Chet Ward (Alternate) Donald Wallrich (Alternate) Nina Lambert (Commissioner) Nick Ellena, Chico Enterprise Record Diana Shuey, Secretary...: C. Approval of the Minutes: April 21, 1999, and May 19, 1999 April 21, 1999 _ The Commissioners had the following corrections and comments. It was noted that since Chairman Hennigan was absent from the meeting, his alternate Commissioner Wallrich was present and Vice Chairman Lambert conducted the meeting. John Papadakis, Alternate, was not present at the meeting of April 21, 1999. There was a request for the overheads used by Mr. Brody for his presentation of April 21 to be made available to the Commissioners. There was a request to have all staff reports included in the packets in order for the Commissioners to properly review the material and the projects. On Page 5, line 32, Commissioner Gerst did not vote on the motion. It was noted that good maps are very helpful. It was moved by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by Commissioner Rosene, and carried unanimously for approval of the minutes as corrected. May 19, 1999 The Commissioners had the following corrections and comments: On Page 3, Line 6, the property bought in 1963, wasn't zoned for development until 1978, 15 years after the owners purchased the property. It is not reasonable to maintain that the property was bought in expectation of being able to develop it. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - June 16 1999 - PaI XHTB,IT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 '3 24 25. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 n 0 It was moved by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by Commissioner Hailey and carried unanimously to continue this item to July 21, 1999, to allow for soil testing and possible feedback from the operator of the Paradise Airport. Chairman Hennigan noted that the staff report is exemplary and that perhaps it should be provided to potential purchasers with other information as part of the disclosure process. It was noted that the manager of the Paradise Airport should be provided with a copy of the staff report prior to the next meeting. Items Without Public Hearings: 2. Consideration of Legal Opinion: Discussion item. The Commission will discuss a written legal opinion from James A. Curtis, Attorney at Law, relative to the recently amended CLUP for the City of Chico Municipal Airport. This item was put on the agenda at the request of Chairman Hennigan. Mr. Doody presented the legal opinion from James A. Curtis. Commissioner Gerst recommended that the legal opinion be sent to Jay White of the. California Pilots Association. The Commission directed staff to provide Jay White with a copy of the legal opinion. 3. Discussion of Airport Overflight Signage for the North Chico Specific Plan: Discussion item. The Commission will review and discuss the modified sign as prepared by Commissioner Rosene. (Item Continued from May 19, 1999) Commissioner Rosene suggested that the proposed'sign adopted by ALUC, be sent to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation to proceed. Mr. Doody recommended that ALUC agree that the sign meets the provisions of the North Chico Specific Plan and have the Chairman write a letter of notification to the Board'of Supervisors. Staff can put an item on the Board agenda to authorize funding of new signs or the repainting of the existing signs. Ruben'Martinez from the City of Chico sign,shop, provided an estimate of $360 to $400 per sign for new signs. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - June 16, 1999 - Page 3 EXHOT ,n ~14 ; R ! _fix .:', = }• ` �' c r/ ^��/'/�c Nj 'E Y � f�fr ME- -� KE -EVER -_-�-_ -_ F� ? /i/ v � ,f.•: � o `%f� � t Yid j ' :,c. -:.� IV HICKS' E NE t, s V- f ti HASSET ,�T-nis P L .A mar is` O Zub -.1w-Upt to ao�se inpacts, , htover=f1-i- act1 i and- azards r %l ted____to.=the­otio_ peri r� -- o -h cozM=uni-ci1 airport ;;;;� L u G 4_ BUTTE COUNTY CLERK OF THE BOARD USE ONLY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: AGENDA TRANSMITTAL AGENDA ITEM: A GENDA TITLE: North Chico Specific Plan Overflight Signs - Request for Funding and Installation of Signs. DEPARTMENT: DATE: MEETING DATE REQUESTED: Development Services/Planning October 5, 1999 October 26, 1999 CONTACT: PHONE: REGULAR CONSENT X Dave Doody 7601 PUBLIC HEARING _DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is requesting the Board of Supervisors to provide funding and authorize the reinstallation of Airport Overflight Signs in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport. The North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) requires that the Airport Overflight Signs be installed (Exhibit "X'). T he original signs were installed on July 23, 1998. Shortly thereafter, a sign was taken down without authorization, a )parently a result of vandalism. The remaining signs were then removed to avoid further acts of vandalism. S ince July, 1998, ALUC requested that the signs be reinstalled. The County Counsel's office was requested to 1 -,-Mew an alternative design for the airport overflight signs. On May 19, 1999, ALUC endorsed an alternative sign message and recommended the Board of Supervisors provide funding and authorize the reinstallation of the signs (:'xhibit "C" and "D"). Alternative locations are also recommended by ALUC. New locations were selected to avoid placement in front of existing residences in favor of locations adjacent to vacant land. All signs would be placed v ithin the County road right-of-way. Exhibit `B" identifies the recommended locations. .AXTION REQUESTED: A. Approve the new signs for compliance with the intent of Section 7.6-4 of the NCSP. B. Approve the locations for the signs as recommended by ALUC. C. Direct the Public Works Department to acquire eight (8) 5' x 2.5' signs and install them at the locations noted in Exhibit "B." D. Authorize a Budget transfer in the amount of $4,000 from 690.010, Appropriations for Contingencies to 480.001-553-030, Planning Interfund Road to pay for the purchase and installation of the signs. .GENDA ITEM SUBMITTALS REQUIRE THE ORIGINAL AND NINE (9) COPIES ATTACH E,.vPLANATORY MEMORANDUMAND OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATIONAS NECESSARY P,udgetary Impact: Yes x No_ CAO OFFICE USE ONLY If yes, complete Budgetary Impact Worksheet on back G udget Transfer Requested: Yes_x No_ Administrative Office Review if yes, complete Budget Transfer Request Worksheet on back. Administrative Office Staff Contact Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda deadline) V ill Proposal Require an Agreement: Yes No x 4/5's Vote Required: Yes: No: auditor -Controller's Number (if r•:(luired):_Forthcoming Yes Date Received by Clerk of Board: OCT 1.3 1999 County Counsel's Approval: Yes No %Vill Proposal Require Additional Personnel: Yes No r Vumher of Permanent: Temp Extra Help t' ccious Board action Datc:_.NA :additional Information .attached: Yes_x No c scru)v: ivlcmuraneirum ti om ALUC, NCSP text and map regarding sign and locations (Exhibit A), map of new locations (Exhibit B), Minutes lune 1(i. 19'.9 ALUC meeting j:Nhibit C) and Graphic of new sign (Exhibit D). h:\,u.UC\BOS.\�tEi'vf\AIF1026.WPD • 0 +BU'li"`ICIE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95955 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • September 27, 1999 TO: Honorable Chair -and Members of the Butte County Board of Supervisors FROM: Robert Hennigan, Chairman, Butte County Airport Land Use Commission SUBJECT: North Chico Specific Plan Airport Overflight Signs As you are aware, the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) requires the placement of advisory signs in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport. The NCSP indicates on Figure 7-2 that there are to be eight 5'x 2.5' signs. The signs were installed within the County right-of-way on July 23, 1998. Shortly thereafter, a sign was subsequently taken down without authorization apparently a result of vandalism. The -remaining signs were then removed to avoid further acts of vandalism. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has voiced its objections to the removal of the signs. Since July, 1998, the ALUC held several hearings on an alternative design for the airport overflight signs. During these hearings, ALUC also proposed that several of the original sign locations be moved. It was agreed not to 'increase the of signs and instead move some of the signs to new locations for better visibility. In consultation with County Counsel, on June 16, 1999, ALUC approved a sign alternative including the new locations (minutes attached). ALUC is requesting the Board of Supervisors to provide funding and authorize the reinstallation of the signs. Attached you will find the proposed alternative sign, a map showing where the signs are proposed to be relocated and a written notation describing where the signs are to be relocated. ALUC found the proposed alternative sign less ominous and consistent with the overflight advisory language of the NCSP. ALUC staff was directed to provide cost estimates for the new signs. Staff contacted several sources. The City of Chico Sign Shop provided cost estimates from $360 to -$400 per sign. This did not include installation. The City estimate is for a sign printed on standard 2' x 4' sheet material. Also, the Department of Public Works can make Tx 3.75' signs for $143.50 each plus $100.00 per installation. An estimate was also obtained from Magoon Signs. The bid from Magoon Signs included 5' x 2.5', reflective lettering and reflective background. They estimated it would cost $370 per sign. With installation by Public Works, the total cost would be $470 per sign. These estimates were obtained for informational purposes. The Board of Supervisors may request staff conduct a competitive bid process and lower costs may be obtained. ALUC found the 2'x 4' sign as suggested by the City to be too small. ALUC would also likely find the County's Tx 3.75' sign to be too small as well. ALUC requests the Board of Supervisors reinstall the 5' x 2.5' sign based on the estimated cost of $470 per sign. Thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter. Please place this matter on the Board's agenda as soon as possible. Sincerely, k1r. Norm Rosene, Vice Chariman for N1r. Robert Hennioan, Chairman Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Attachments u.rc.�rrers c�cxxtrx • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN 7.6-3 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, and such related issues as are appropriate to fully inform such prospective home buyer or rental tenant. 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 access points into the Plan area, including Eaton Road, Garner Lane, Hicks Lane, New Arterial Road and Keefer Lane. Such signage shall be of such materials, size and design to be visible and readable from a moving vehicle. Figure 7-2 illustrates the concept. 7.6-5 The New Arterial Road and collector streets east of Gamer Lane shall be designated with aviation -related names as set forth in Butte County Code Chapter 32. 7.8 Principal Land Use Districts The following section summarizes the principal underlying land use districts within the NCSP area. The existing Butte County Zoning. Ordinance has been followed closely and modified, where necessary, to ensure that NCSP.goals and policies are achieved while facilitating administration by county staff. Definitions and Conditions Terms used in this document shall have the same definitions as provided for in the Butte County Code, unless otherwise defined herein. All regulations, design criteria, requirements, and similar details not set forth herein shall be those as contained in appropriate sections of the Butte County Code. Residential Development Regulations Within the Plan area there are two basic residential categories: Suburban Residential and Residential. The standards contained herein are consistent with the County zoning standards 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 designation has three zone districts — R-1 (Low Density Residential), R-2 (Medium Density Residential), and R-3 (High Density Residential). Table 7-2 summarizes basic development regulations of each district. EXHIBIT � 7-8. Development Regulations and Design Guidelines NIL • WAU �- 2 3 / , 1 r AIRCRAFT OVERFLIGHT ZONE THIS AAAAIUSdECT TO 1410111i AND ar APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF OTN[q plTUgSANC . gfLATEO TO THE 'OVERFLIGHT ZONE' SIGNS OVEAFUGHT OF AJIICAAFT TO AND FJ10Y CHICO MUNICIPAL AJAPORT, AND TO AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT THE AIRPORT. NEW LOCATIONS PROPOSED BY ALUC OVERFLIGHT ZONE SIGNAGE Figure 7-2 EXHIBIT�� North Chico Specific Plan V p C- C-1 1r\ 0 G,.re v% -A o_ \i k e v ✓\ cl ol L v1 I2--9 1. sC&I V-A e ; ,0C- �cd vin ..,�s� b� ✓e_e bead i� a .r�ac_� )cj J � � "ACA, 1 box � ✓ -t-�� (�CA,✓cc1 Z 5 8 G `o o �-- Y c.1 s c� e X s v1 N e k1oC,,i In unci yqov' v� LO )V e_vl-sec io vA c vvt , ► 11n�x ✓ �{ �I�s�c�1l� a5 ova , V..C,�--ec� r S� �-�In -s ►� c�, e. �, � K ee � .� Z�c�c1 , \�� � ✓ 4 to � �/ 5 eC TZ L: ✓� o i.J �D �- `. c cJ �-C ate" b6l VI cJ �- v\e_ V c, \ \ c � CA- , G vN a C-1 c, vt e \r G, o -v V-\ e, V'.; �. S ToaA �e�vac. Ve �c:C � �o b� low A- � �� � 0v-\ C-�CA. , Nle- VA O ✓ �V1, t G �' O ` F- - ILJ 1G I V✓� c✓cl, V, J C)"-% \ r Or EXHIBIT,- C...' COUNTY OF BUTTE , AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 1 A -V Minutes of June* lk 1999. 3. Discussion of Airport Overflight Signage for the North Chico Sgtdflc Man: Discussion item. The Commission will review and discuss the modified sign as prepared by Commissioner Rosene., (Item Continued from May 19, 1999) Commissioner Rosene suggested that the proposed sign adopted by ALUC, be sent to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation to proceed. Mr. Doody recommended that ALUC agree that the sign meets -the provisions of the North Chico Specific Plan and have the Chairman write ,aletter of notification to the Board of Supervisors. Staff can put an item on the Board agenda to authorize funding of new signs or the repainting of the existing signs. Ruben Martinez from the City of Chico sign shop, provided an estimate of $360 to $400 per sign for new signs. Commissioner Rosene asked to participate on a committee on behalf of ALUC to examine the signs as they are completed, for final approval. It was moved by Commissioner Rosene that ALUC write a letter to the Board of Supe' ng rylsors 4S113 I them to'find funding to have the signs placed as required by the 1994 North Chico Specific 'Plan and .to proceed with great haste and also to have a committee from ALUC have a final look at the final version of the signs.. Commissioner Gerst noted there have been changes made in the. proposed locations of some 9f,the signs from what was specified by the North Chico Specific Plan. He suggested the subcommittee also be involved in locating the signs to avoid more problems. Commissioner Rosene said the signs that were to be .located at the end of Keefer Road should be'. moved in closer to the actual North Chico Specific Plan area. He agreed,to..an. amendment to his motion, that the recommended locations from the committee for the signs be included in the letter and that the committee be able to work with Public Works in the actual siting of the signs. Commissioner Rosene said the City of Chico also plans to place some signs and the committee should work with the City also in siting the signs. Mr. Doody noted the cost estimate of $360 to $400 was for a 2'x 4'sign, but the NCSP requires a 2.5'x 5' sign. Commissioner Rosene thought 2' would be too narrow and it would be worth an increased cost to get the signs right. Mr. Doody said staff would contact the City of Chico regarding the larger size. Commissioner Rosene noted that traffic on county roads would be traveling faster and need the e larger signs. The motion was seconded by Chairman Hennigan and carried unanimously. Q X Y i K RI Via jj lk AF- ?' s rk This - - `'-- EATON 1 �'�a vtUPW tUbject \ A µ r\ 3 Oise:pa ct� over -f h�_ h t G o ,s _ g activity and hazarcl� w� ,�i ��� g�-�� °._ related -to -the op eration of unicipa1 ���rp®rtoi r Ac.,�I-J A L Gf ` s i I i This - - `'-- EATON 1 �'�a vtUPW tUbject \ A µ r\ 3 Oise:pa ct� over -f h�_ h t G o ,s _ g activity and hazarcl� w� ,�i ��� g�-�� °._ related -to -the op eration of unicipa1 ���rp®rtoi r Ac.,�I-J A L Gf 7- BUTTE COUNTY imp CLERK OF THE BOARD USE ONLY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: AGENDA TRANSMITTAL AGENDA ITEM: GENDA TITLE: North Chico Specific Plan Overflight Signs - Request for Funding and Installation of Signs. DEPARTMENT: DATE: MEETING DATE REQUESTED: Development Services/Planning October 5, 1999 October 26, 1999 CONTACT: PHONE: REGULAR CONSENT X Dave Doody 7601 PUBLIC HEARING DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is requesting the Board of Supervisors to provide funding and authorize the reinstallation of Airport Overflight Signs in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport. The North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) requires that the Airport Overflight Signs be installed (Exhibit "A!'). The original signs were installed on July 23, 1998. Shortly thereafter, a sign was taken down without authorization, apparently a result of vandalism. The remaining signs were then removed to avoid further acts of vandalism. Since July, 1998, ALUC requested that the signs be reinstalled. The County Counsel's office was requested to review an alternative design for the airport overflight signs. On May 19, 1999, ALUC endorsed an alternative sign message and recommended the Board of Supervisors provide funding and authorize the reinstallation of the signs (Exhibit "C" and "D"). Alternative locations are also recommended -by ALUC. New locations were selected to avoid placement in front of existing residences in favor of locations adjacent to vacant land. All signs would be placed v,•ithin the County road right-of-way. Exhibit `B" identifies the recommended locations. i ACTION REQUESTED: A. Approve the new signs for compliance with the intent of Section 7.6-4 of the NCSP. B. Approve the locations for the signs as recommended by ALUC. C. Direct the Public Works Department to acquire eight (8) 5' x 2.5' signs and install them at the locations noted in Exhibit "B." D. Authorize a Bud2e_a*sfe - - amount of $4,000 from 690.010, Appropriations for Contingencies o 480:001-553-03 ,. P1ann jag Interfund Road'to pay for the purchase and installation of the-si7gnfs. AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTALS REQUIRE THE ORIGINAL AND NINE (9) COPIES ATTACH EXPLANA TOR YMEMORAND UMAND OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATIONAS NECESSARY Budgetary Impact: Yes x No_ CAO OFFICE USE ONLY If yes, complete Budgetary Impact Worksheet on back Budget Transfer Requested: Yes_x No_ Administrative Office Review If yes, complete Budget Transfer Request Worksheet on back. Administrative Office Staff Contact ( Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda deadline) Will Proposal Require an Agreement: Yes No_x 4/5's Vote Required: Yes: Noh,"T 1 t4 Auditor -Controller's Number (if rcquired):_Forthcoming Yes Date Received by Clerk of Board: County Counsel's Approval: Yes No Will Proposal Require Additional Personnel: Yes No x Number of Permanent: Temp Extra Help ('— Previous Board Action Date:—NA Additional Information Attached: Yes _x No Describe: Memorandrum from ALUC, NCSP text and map regarding sign and locations (Exhibit A), map of new locations (Exhibit B), Minutes o,' June 16, 1999 ALUC meeting (Exhibit C) and Graphic of new sign (Exhibit D). K:\ALUC\130S.MEM\AIFI026.wPD +I[ U"I["`I E COUNTY A IRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95955 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • September 27, 1999 TO: Honorable Chair -and Members of the Butte County Board of Supervisors FROM: Robert Hennigan, Chairman, Butte County Airport Land Use Commission SUBJECT: North Chico Specific Plan Airport Overflight Signs As you are aware, the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) requires the placement of advisory signs in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport. The NCSP indicates on Figure 7-2'that there are to be eight 5'x 2.5' signs. The signs were installed within the County right-of-way on July 23, 1998. Shortly thereafter, a sign was subsequently taken down without authorization apparently a result of vandalism. The remaining signs were then removed to avoid further acts of vandalism. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has voiced its objections to the removal of the signs. Since July, 1998, the ALUC held several hearings on an alternative design for the airport overflight signs. During these hearings, ALUC also proposed that several of the original sign locations be moved. It was agreed not to increase the number of signs and instead move some of the signs to new locations for better visibility. In consultation with County Counsel, on June 16, 1999, ALUC approved a sign alternative including the new locations (minutes attached). ALUC is requesting the Board of Supervisors to provide funding and authorize the reinstallation of the signs. Attached you will find. the proposed alternative sign, a map showing where the signs are proposed to be relocated and a written notation describing where the signs are to be relocated. ALUC found the proposed alternative sign less ominous and consistent with the overflight advisory language of the NCSP. . ALUC staff was directed to provide cost estimates for the new signs. Staff contacted several sources. The City of Chico Sign Shop provided cost estimates from $360 to $400 per sign. This did not include installation. The City estimate is for a sign printed on standard 2' x 4' sheet material. Also, the Department of Public Works can make Tx 3.75' signs for $143.50 each plus $100.00 per installation. An estimate was also obtained from Magoon Signs. The bid from Magoon Signs included 5' x 2.5', reflective lettering and reflective background. They estimated it would cost $370 per sign. With installation by Public Works, the total cost would be $470 per sign. These estimates were obtained for informational purposes. The Board of Supervisors may request staff conduct a competitive bid process and lower costs may be obtained. ALUC found the 2'x 4' sign as suggested by the City to be too small. ALUC would also likely find the County's Tx 3.75' sign to be too small as well. ALUC requests the Board of Supervisors reinstall the 5' x 2.5' sign based on the estimated cost of $470 per sign. Thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter. Please place this matter on the Board's agenda as soon as possible. Sincerely, Mr. Norm Rosene, Vice Chariman for Mr. Robert Hennigan, Chairman Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Attachments K`l4LUCV.ETTERSISICNCNIC.LTR • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN 7.6-3 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, and such related issues as are appropriate to fully inform such prospective home buyer or rental tenant. 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 access points -into the Plan area, including Eaton Road, Garner Lane, Hicks Lane, New Arterial Road and Keefer Lane. Such signage shall be of such materials, size and design to be visible and readable from a moving vehicle. Figure 7-2 illustrates the concept. 7.6-5 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. 7.8 Principal Land Use Districts The following section summarizes the principal underlying land use districts within the NCSP area. The existing Butte County Zoning Ordinance has been followed closely and modified, where necessary, to ensure that NCSP goals and policies are achieved while facilitating administration by county staff. Definitions and Conditions Terms used in this document shall have the same definitions as provided for in the Butte County. Code, unless otherwise defined herein. All regulations, design criteria, requirements, and similar details not set forth herein shall be those as contained in appropriate sections of the Butte County Code. Residential Development Regulations Within the Plan area there are two basic residential categories: Suburban Residential and Residential. The standards contained herein are consistent with the County zoning standards 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 designation has three zone districts — R-1 (Low Density Residential), R-2 (Medium Density Residential), and R-3 (High Density Residential). Table 7-2 summarizes basic development regulations of each district. a 7-8 Development Regulations and Design Guidelines w to .� • •-f•. • t sw _ ✓•...•, iii I • .' .1 AIRCRAFT OVERFLIGHT ZONE THIS AREA SUBJECT TO NOISE AND ar APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF OTHER DISTURBANCE RELATED TO THE 'OVERFLIGHT ZONE' SIGNS OVERFLIGHT OF AIRCRAFT TO AND FROM CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT. AND TO AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT THE AIRPORT. ®o NEW LOCATIONS PROPOSED BY ALUC OVERFLIGHT ZONE SIGNAGE Figure 7-2 EXHIBIT "~ North Chico 'S eci is Plan VI \(-<f av\ci �00V\�(fa v 9 VA V, ,A we -S C� VI\ Vt& a C, V-IV\1\, c k Je' Woov- \/\ o0ci . L,3, L/j e, -s s 18 C- C) k C- k V- Z- les V\, V'- lv� VIVA C., jqp�-q iA L/I 2 C:;\ L"I c) , I 6-0 y �\/-IcA s V-IV\1\, c k Je' Woov- \/\ o0ci . L,3, L/j e, -s s 18 C- C) k C- k V- Z- les V'- it VIVA C., jqp�-q iA L/I C:;\ L"I I 1,v , I 00 COUNTY OF BUTTE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of June 16, 1999 Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Present: Commissioners Hatley, Rosene, Gerst, Alternates Papadakis, Grierson, and Chairman Hennigan Absent: Commissioner Causey Also Present: David Doody, Senior Planner -Laura Webster, ALUC, Staff . Chet Ward (Alternate) Donald Wallrich (Alternate) Nina Lambert (Commissioner) Nick Ellena, Chico Enterprise Record Diana Shuey, Secretary. C. Approval of the Minutes: April 21,1999, and May 19,1999 April 21, 1999 _ The Commissioners had the following corrections and comments.: It was noted that since Chairman Hennigan was absent from the meeting, his alternate Commissioner Wallrich was present and Vice Chairman Lambert conducted the meeting. John Papadakis, Alternate, was not present at the meeting of April 21, 1999. There was a request for the overheads used by Mr. Brody for his presentation of April 21 to be made available to the Commissioners. There was a request to have all staff reports included in the packets in order for the Commissioners to properly review the material and the projects: On Page 5, line 32, Commissioner Gerst did not vote on the motion. It was noted that good maps are very helpful.-.- It was moved by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by Commissioner Rosene, and carried unanimously for approval of the minutes as corrected. May 19, 1999 The Commissioners had the following corrections and comments: On Page 3, Line 6, the property bought in 1963, wasn't zoned for development until 1978, 15 years after the owners purchased the property. It is not reasonable to maintain that the property was bought in expectation of being able to develop it. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - June 16 1999 - Pae 1. EXI�� N On Page 3, Line 43, it should be made clear that there has always been a total of eight signs. There were not two extra signs, but rather two signs that were moved because they had been located too far from the airport. Those two signs were'not extra signs; since the total required number of signs has always been eight. On Page 5, Line 21, it should be clarified that there are two regulations regarding airspace --a general regulation for obstructions more than 200 ft. high that covers all airspace and a specific regulation called Part 77 that covers horizontal surfaces of airports. It was moved by Commissioner Gerst, seconded by Alternate Papadakis and carried unanimously for approval of the minutes as corrected. D. Acceptance of the Agenda The agenda was accepted by consensus, noting that comments on the Chico Master Plan could be discussed along with the Monthly Status Report. E. BUSINESS ITEMS: 1. ALUC File No. A99-06 (County of Butte - CuseoBird Tentative Parcel Map TPM 99-15) on APN 055-250-033.035.037 &120: Tentative Parcel Map and Lot Line Adjustment involving 4 existing parcels 'of 20, 37, 40 and 40 acres in size resulting in the creation of two additional parcels in a configuration of one 36 acre parcel and five 20 acre parcels. The property is zoned FR -20 (Foothill Recreational, 20 acre minimum). The project site is located in the SE 1/4 of Section 34, T22N, R3E off both Sandpiper Lane and Round Valley Road, approximately 1.5 miles southwest of Clark Road, south of Paradise. Laura Webster summarized the staff report. Mr. Doody said the project has been determined to be incomplete since more soil tests are needed. The Town of Paradise has no concerns as long as the parcels are at least 20 acres in size. The lot configuration may change depending on the results of the perc tests or in response to the conditions. If there is a significant change in the map, the project will be brought back before ALUC. There was discussion and agreement that the airport operator should be notified of projects adjacent to the airport. HEARING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC No one was present to speak. HEARING.CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC ,ButteCont Airport Land Use Commission minutes - June 16, 1999 - Page 2 a_ TI 2 It was moved by Commissioner Grierson, seconded byCommissioner Hatley and carried unanimously 3 to continue this item to July 21, 1999, to allow for soil testing and possible feedback from the 4 operator of the Paradise Airport. 5 6 Chairman Hennigan noted that the staff report is exemplary and that perhaps it should be provided 7 to potential purchasers with other information as part of the disclosure process. = It was noted that the manager of the Paradise Airport should be provided with a copy of the'staff report prior to the next meeting. Items Without Public Hearings: ,- 2. Consideration of Legal Opinion: Discussion item. The Commission will discuss a written legal opinion from James A. Curtis, Attorney at Law, relative to the recently amended CLUP for the City of Chico Municipal Airport. This item was put on the agenda at -the request of Chairman Hennigan. Mr. Doody presented the legal opinion from James A. Curtis. Commissioner Gerst recommended that the legal opinion be sent to Jay White of the California Pilots Association. The Commission directed staff to provide Jay White with a copy of the legal opinion. 3. Discussion of Airport Overflight Signage for the North Chico Specific Plan: Discussion item., The Commission will review and discuss the modified sign as prepared by Commissioner Rosene. (Item Continued from May 19, 1999) Commissioner Rosene suggested that the proposed sign adopted by ALUC, be sent to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation to proceed. Mr. Doody recommended that ALUC agree that the sign meets'the provisions of the North Chico Specific Plan and have the Chairmanwrite a letter of notification to the Board of Supervisors. Staff can put an item on the Board agenda to authorize funding of new signs or the repainting of the existing signs. Ruben Martinez from the City of Chico sign shop, provided an estimate of $360 to $400 per sign for new signs. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - June 16, 1999 - Page 3 Commissioner Rosene asked to participate on a committee on behalf of ALUC to examine the signs as. they are completed, for final approval It was moved by Commissioner Rosene that ALUC write a letter to the Board of Supervisors asking them to find funding to have the signs placed as required by the 1994 North Chico Specific Plan and to proceed with great haste and also to have a committee from ALUC have a final look, at the final version of the signs.:. Commissioner Gerst noted there have been changes made in the proposed locations of some of,the signs from what was specified by the North Chico Specific Plan. He suggested the subcommittee also be involved in locating the signs to avoid more problems. Commissioner Rosene said the signs that were to be located at the end of Keefer Road should be moved in closer to the actual North Chico Specific Plan area. He agreed, to an, amendment to his motion, that the recommended locations from the committee for the signs be included intheletter and that the committee be able to work with Public Works' in the actual siting of the signs. Commissioner Rosene said the City of Chico also plans to place some signs and. the committee should work with the City also in siting the signs. Mr. Doody noted the cost estimate of $360 to $400 was for a 2'x 4'sign, but the NCSP requires a 2.5'x 5' sign. Commissioner Rosene thought 2' would be too narrow and it would be worth an increased cost•to get the signs right. Mr. Doody said staff would contact the City of Chico regarding the larger size.. . Commissioner Rosene noted that traffic on county roads would be traveling faster and need the larger signs. The motion was seconded by Chairman Hennigan and carried unanimously. 4. Discussion of Establishing an ALUC Fee Schedule: Discu S pp item. The Commission will review and consider fee information prepared by staff 'I.UC may set a hearing to formally recommend the new fee schedule to the Board of:Supervisors. (Item continued from March 17, 1999) Mr. Doody explained that county staff work on ALUC projects is not tracked so there is no data available for evaluating -project planning costs. The work done by Pacific Municipal Consultants is tracked on a project level. The Dept. of Development Services Principal Analyst recommended that a fee survev be conducted by staff. It should take about two months to oreoare. l Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - June 16, 1999 - Page 4 EXHIBIT � L -p -nn-, ` ll �`'_. •. .,. ,. ..�L-F,.,"-/�'....w�'�'; n.... -+..w. �.....-.fT."a, .. .:-"'}^Z:3 "': "SSSS 'r' _ � .. � .. p • p. i •f CHER IT kf .. Ir ati 4S 1 < This �I t r,- ...,�._. _ �... iii' '.'"-1 �xr - �AT0N - 4ve-a-, i s Subject to . i isw _mpacts, over_-f1lr ht activ't and hazards ��- __a related - �.� -to the open ption b1colMunicip airp®rtes tj L L4 C, rV EXHIBIT � L -p -nn-, ` ll �`'_. •. .,. ,. ..�L-F,.,"-/�'....w�'�'; n.... -+..w. �.....-.fT."a, .. .:-"'}^Z:3 "': "SSSS 'r' _ � .. � .. p • p. i •f CHER IT kf .. Ir ati 4S 1 < This �I t r,- ...,�._. _ �... iii' '.'"-1 �xr - �AT0N - 4ve-a-, i s Subject to . i isw _mpacts, over_-f1lr ht activ't and hazards ��- __a related - �.� -to the open ption b1colMunicip airp®rtes tj L L4 C, BUTTE COUNTY 0 CLERK OF THE BOARD USE ONLY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: I 1AGENDA TRANSMITTAL AGENDA ITEM: I ,A GENDA TITLE: North Chico Specific Plan Overflight Signs - Request for Funding and Installation of Signs. DEPARTMENT: DATE: MEETING DATE REQUESTED: Development Services/Planning October 5, 1999 October 26, 1999 CONTACT: PHONE: REGULAR CONSENT X Dave Doody 7601 PUBLIC HEARING DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is requesting the Board of Supervisors to provide funding i and authorize the reinstallation of Airport Overflight Signs in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport. The North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) requires that the Airport Overflight Signs be installed (Exhibit "N'). The original signs were installed on July 23, 1998. Shortly thereafter, a sign was taken down without authorization, j apparently a result of vandalism. The remaining signs were then removed to avoid further acts of vandalism. Since July, 1998, ALUC requested that the signs be reinstalled. The County Counsel's office was requested to review an alternative design for the airport overflight signs. On May 19, 1999, ALUC endorsed an alternative sign message and recommended the Board of Supervisors provide funding and authorize the reinstallation of the signs (.-xhibit "C" and "D"). Alternative locations are also recommended by ALUC. New locations were selected to avoid placement in front of existing residences in favor of locations adjacent to vacant land. All signs would be placed within the County road right-of-way. Exhibit `B" identifies the recommended locations. ACTION REQUESTED: A. Approve the new signs for compliance with the intent of Section 7.6-4 of the NCSP. B. Approve the locations for the signs as recommended by ALUC. C. Direct the Public Works Department to acquire eight (8) 5' x 2.5' signs and install them at the locations noted in Exhibit "B." D. Authorize a Budget transfer in the amount of $4,000 from 690,010, Appropriations for . Contingencies to 480.001-553-030, Planning Interfund Road to pay for the purchase and installation of the signs. AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTALS REQUIRE THE ORIGINAL AND NINE (9) COPIES ATTACH EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUMAND OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATIONAS NECESSARY Budgetary Impact: Yesx No_ CAO OFFICE USE ONLY If yes, complete Budgetary Impact Worksheet on back B udget Transfer Requested: Yes _x No_ Administrative Office Review If yes, complete Budget Transfer Request Worksheet on back. Administrative Office Staff Contact Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda deadline) V,111Require an Agreement: Yes No x 4/5's Vote Required: Yes: No: ..Proposal Auditor -Controller's Number (if rcquired):_Forthcoming Yes Date Received by Clerk of Board: OCI 1-3 1999 County Counsel's Approval: Yes No 1Vill Proposal Require Additional Personnel: Yes No r Number of Permanent: Temp Extra Help i P evious Board Action Date: NA Additional Information Attached: Yes_x No Dvscribe: Memorandrum from ALUC, NCSP text and map regarding sign and locations (Exhibit A), map of new locations (Exhibit B), Minutes o ..lune Ib; 1 `JJ`J HLUk- meeting i,t.Xn101L k-) anu vraplll; ui new 51gll kr,xluvu L). n:wl.ut,u3ua.rvinivivurivco.wru +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95955 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • September 27, 1999 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Butte County Board of Supervisors FROM: Robert Hennigan, Chairman, Butte County Airport Land Use Commission SUBJECT: North Chico Specific Plan Airport Overflight Signs As you are aware, the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) requires the placement of advisory signs in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport. The NCSP indicates on Figure 7-2 that there are to be eight 5'x 2.5' signs. The signs were installed within the County right-of-way on July 23, 1998. Shortly thereafter, a sign was subsequently taken down without authorization apparently a result of vandalism. The remaining signs were then removed to avoid further acts of vandalism. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has voiced its objections to the removal of the signs. Since July, 1998, the ALUC held several hearings on an alternative design for the airport overflight signs. During these hearings, ALUC also proposed that several of the original sign locations be moved. It was agreed not to increase the number of signs and instead move some of the signs to new locations for better visibility. In consultation with County Counsel, on June 16, 1999, ALUC approved a sign alternative including the new locations (minutes attached). ALUC is requesting the Board of Supervisors to provide: funding and authorize the reinstallation of the signs. Attached you will find the proposed alternative sign, a map showing where the signs are proposed to be relocated and a written notation describing where the signs are to be relocated. ALUC found the proposed alternative sign less ominous and consistent with the overflight advisory language of the NCSP. ALUC staff was directed to provide cost estimates for the new signs. Staff contacted several sources. The City of Chico Sign Shop provided cost estimates from $360 to $400 per sign. This did not include installation. The City estimate is for a sign printed on standard 2'x 4' sheet material. Also, the Department of Public Works can make Tx 3.75' signs for $143.50 each plus $100.00 per installation. An estimate was also obtained from Magoon Signs. The bid from Magoon Signs included 5' x 2.5', reflective lettering and reflective background. They estimated it would cost $370 per sign. With installation by Public Works, the total cost would be $470 per sign. These estimates were obtained for informational purposes. The Board of Supervisors may request staff conduct a competitive bid process and lower costs may be obtained. ALUC found the 2' x 4' sign as suggested by the City to be too small. ALUC would also likely find the County's Tx 3.75' sign to be too small as well. ALUC requests the Board of Supervisors reinstall the 5' x 2.5' sign based on the estimated cost of $470 per sign. Thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter. Please place this matter on the Board's agenda as soon as possible. Sincerely, G ��U�%ttil Mr. Norm Rosene, Vice Chariman for Mr. Robert Hennigan, Chairman Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Attachments K'.-IL.CCI1.£TTERSI.SIG.,VCHIC.LTR • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN 7.6-3 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, and such related issues as are appropriate to fully inform such prospective home buyer or rental tenant. 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 access. points into the Plan area, including ,Eaton Road, Garner Lane, Hicks Lane, New Arterial Road and Keefer Lane. Such signage shall be of such materials, size and design to be visible and readable from a moving vehicle. Figure 7-2 illustrates the concept. 7.6-5 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. 7.8 Principal Land Use Districts The following section summarizes the principal underlying land use districts within the NCSP area. The existing Butte County Zoning Ordinance has been followed closely and modified, where necessary, to ensure that NCSP goals and policies are achieved while facilitating administration by county staff.- Definitions taff. Definitions and Conditions Terms used in this document shall have the same definitions as provided for in the Butte County Code, unless otherwise definedherein. All regulations, design criteria, requirements, and similar details not set foith.herein shall be those as contained in aDDrooriate sections of the Butte County Code. Residential Development Regulations Within the Plan area there are two basic residential categories: Suburban Residential and Residential. The standards contained herein are consistent with the County zoning standards 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 designation has three zone districts — R-1 (Low Density Residential), R-2 (Medium Density Residential), and R-3 (High Density Residential).. Table 7-2 summarizes basic development regulations of each district. EXHIBIT A 7-8 Development Regulations and Design Guidelines =r-Z_LS r AIRCRAFT OVERFLIGHT ZONE I j _ THIS AREA SUS.IECT TO NOISE AND OTHER OISTURSAHCE RELATED TO THE Ar OVERFLIGHT OR AIRCRA/T TO AHD FROM CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, AHO TO AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT THE AIRPORT. ��l APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF 'OVERFLIGHT ZONE' SIGNS -�• NEW LOCATIONS PROPOSED BY ALUC OVERFLIGHT ZONE SIGNAGE Figure 7-2 EXHIBIT 'S North Chico Speci is Plan www rw_ -7-1Z-99 S I VA o L cr. 0 s ckv-e. v� o: e k e cv VA c,,,j e- \,-A evv-�- A it �Z' (� VlI 1311 11 avAc1 oo v4ca <,J � TV �'e�i0� S vo.y a1 ✓1t �. s� c S � ►� �� ►� � wt b e ✓. i �s �.1 s �c� . o v� in�G V 0 s �- be V-� J o b e,,, c5 i �., V- C5 C c8 a) cl � � JtASV ecsA- o v\A1 ,;1 box .✓ -t-�e c, ✓cam- 3 2S> 8. G-- 2 o c, -a low � d , hoc,- Yc�,ds Ne��l�1oo✓ood. t,JC�- �c� z, West- 5 1 e o Su(s A-- o V- -t-IIN (:D V�.A �o -4 . Z m ► e -Ce H t c l� s i'�n •�-e � SeG � o � yic,V- C-) V -VA I I V, ,v �1C,1� c7T AV,v)eL -.C^ Cn l/j r tA,1 I ` v1 tc ,- S r c l v ✓1 o V'\ c\ Cmc✓VA e,�, �3C�-s cc, �y C(5 0 V, V\0- •/ ��c��-ej �csP sIs VVIC', `� . Sit � �.s �-- �-� � � I � c � c� o�ci o ►� •-f - t� e, r \fie ✓. 4 VI V-seCTl v✓k vx V'CU c,.� �/� e v\ e\ C-1C/A f-- %4': -7S�sA- To8A cvv, i4m e. A low %�.-j ee: v--\ k o&A- av-�,8 '�3>v-e At pVA tk e, e, , eVICl6 VIA J tXHIBIT -n COUNTY OF BUTTE. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of June 16, 1999 3. Discussion of Airport Overflight Signage for the North Chico Specific Plan: Discussion item. The Commission will review and discuss the modified sign --as prepared by Commissioner Rosene. (Item Continued from May 19, 1999) Commissioner Rosene suggested that the proposed sign adopted by ALUC, be sent to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation to proceed. Mr. Doody recommended that ALUC agree that the sign meets the provisions of the North Chico Specific Plan and have the Chairman write a.letter of notification to the Board of Supervisors. Staff can put an item on the Board agenda to authorize funding of new signs or the repainting of the existing signs. Ruben Martinez from the City of Chico sign shop, provided an estimate of $360 to $400 per sign for new signs. Commissioner Rosene asked to participate on a committee on behalf of ALUC to examine the signs as they are completed, for final approval _ .. It was moved by Commissioner Rosene that ALUC write a letter to the Board of Supervisorsslcng them to find funding to have the signs placed as required by the 1994 North Chico Specific Plan -and .to proceed with great haste and also to have a committee from ALUC have a final look -at the final version of the signs. - ' Commissioner Gerst noted there have been changes made in the.proposed locations of some of the signs from what was specified by the North Chico Specific Plan. He s1.uggested the subcommittee ::,.... o be involved in locating the signs to avoid more problems. _ 4 _ Commissioner Rosene said the signs that were to be located at the end of Keefer Road should be moved in closer to the actual North Chino Specific Plan area. ;He•agreed,to.an ameq#m ,nt to his motion, that the recommended locations from the committee for the signs be included in the letter and that the committee be able to work with Public Works in the actual siting of the signs. Commissioner Rosene said the City of Chico also plans to place some signs and the committee should work with the City also in siting the signs. Mr. Doody noted the cost estimate of $360 to $400 was for a 2'x 4'sign, but the NCSP requires a 2.5'x 5' sign. Commissioner Rosene thought 2' would be too narrow and it would be worth an increased cost to get the signs right. Mr. Doody said staff would contact the City of Chico regarding the larger size. . Commissioner Rosene noted that traffic on county roads would be traveling faster and need the larger signs. The motion was seconded by Chairman Hennigan and carried unanimously. H 1� PKS •. EXHIBIT n �.,, _ ...*r.�� gam_ v - :�"•: 9 C - F l his -_ "ATO N > • _ ;� p(re-a-is subject t { y; �nOisimpacts,e �.� OverAight activit andhazardsz related-tw-- the o ere'l'on . x bico-Municipal rport,-,-- BUTTE COUNTY • • CLERK OF THE BOARD USE ONLY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: i,AGENDA TRANSMITTAL AGENDA ITEM: AGENDA TITLE: North Chico Specific Plan Overflight Signs - Request for Funding and Installation of Signs. DEPARTMENT: DATE: MEETING DATE REQUESTED: Development Services/Planning October 5, 1999 October 26, 1999 ICONTACT: PHONE: REGULAR CONSENT X Dave Doody 7601 PUBLIC HEARING DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is requesting the Board of Supervisors to provide funding and authorize the reinstallation of Airport Overflight Signs in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport. The North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) requires that the Airport Overflight Signs be installed (Exhibit "X'). i The original signs were installed on July 23, 1998. Shortly thereafter, a sign was taken down without authorization, apparently a result of vandalism. The remaining signs were then removed to avoid further acts of vandalism. i i Since July, 1998, ALUC requested that the signs be reinstalled. The County Counsel's office was requested to review an alternative design for the airport overflight signs. On May 19, 1999, ALUC endorsed an alternative sign message and recommended the Board of Supervisors provide funding and authorize the reinstallation of the signs (:!-xhibit "C" and "D"). Alternative locations are also recommended by ALUC. New locations were selected to avoid placement in front of existing residences in favor of locations adjacent to vacant land. All signs would be placed within the County road right-of-way. Exhibit `B" identifies the recommended locations. i ACTION REQUESTED: A. Approve the new signs for compliance with the intent of Section 7.6-4 of the NCSP. B. Approve the locations for the signs as recommended by ALUC. C. Direct the Public Works Department to acquire eight (8) 5' x 2.5' signs and install them at the locations noted in Exhibit "B." D. Authorize a Budget transfer in the amount of $4,000 from 690.010, Appropriations for . Contingencies to 480.001-553-030. Planning Interfund Road to pay for the purchase and installation of the signs. AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTALS REQUIRE THE ORIGINAL AND NINE (9) COPIES ATTACH EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUMAND OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATIONAS NECESSARY I Budgetary Impact: Yes r No CAO OFFICE USE ONLY If ves, complete Budgetary Impact Worksheet on back Budget Transfer Requested: Yes_s No_ Administrative Office Review if yes, complete Budget Transfer Request Worksheet on back. Administrative Office Staff Contact ."Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda deadline) i krill Proposal Require an Agreement: Yes No—x 4/5's Vote Required: Yes: No: i Auditor -Controller's Number (if required):_Forthcoming_Yes Date Received by Clerk of Board: e C T ' 1 3 1999 County Counsel's Approval: Yes No 1Vill Proposal Require Additional Personnel: Yes No r Number of Permanent: Temp Extra Help P •evious Board Action Date:—NA Additional Information Attached: Yes_z No 1 . Drscribe: Memorandrum from ALUC, NCSP text and map regarding sign and locations (Exhibit A), map of new locations (Exhibit B), Minutes o June 16, 1999 ALUC meeting (Exhibit C) and Graphic of new sign (Exhibit D). K:WLUC\B0s.MEM\AIFt026.wPD +BU`lIV`1ClE cCOUNR Y AIRPORT LAND ?,SE COMMISSION • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95955 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • September 27, 1999 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Butte County Board of Supervisors FROM: Robert Hennigan, Chairman, Butte County Airport Land Use Commission SUBJECT: North Chico Specific Plan Airport Overflight Signs As you are aware, the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) requires the placement of advisory signs in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport. The NCSP indicates on Figure 7-2 that there are to be eight 5'x 2.5' signs. The signs were installed within the County right-of-way on July 23, 1998. Shortly thereafter, a sign was subsequently taken down without authorization apparently a result of vandalism. The remaining signs were then removed to avoid further acts of vandalism. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has voiced its objections to the removal of the signs. Since July, 1998, the ALUC held several hearings on an alternative design for the airport overflight signs. During these hearings, ALUC also proposed that several of the original sign locations be moved. It was agreed not to increase the number of signs and instead move some of the signs to new locations for better visibility. In consultation with County Counsel, on June 16, 1999, ALUC approved a sign alternative including the new locations (minutes attached). ALUC is requesting the Board of Supervisors to provide. funding and -authorize the reinstallation of the signs. Attached you will find the proposed alternative sign, a map showing where the signs are proposed to be relocated and a written notation describing where the signs are to be relocated. ALUC found the proposed alternative sign less ominous and consistent with the overflight advisory language of the NCSP. ALUC staff was directed to provide cost estimates for the new signs. Staff contacted several sources. The City of Chico Sign Shop provided cost estimates from $360 to $400 per sign. This did not include installation. The City estimate is for a sign printed on standard 2'x 4' sheet material. Also, the Department of Public Works can make 3' x 3.75' signs for $143.50 each plus $100.00 per installation. An estimate was also obtained from Magoon Signs. The bid from Magoon Signs included 5' x 2.5', reflective lettering and reflective background. They estimated it would cost $370 per sign. With installation by Public Works, the totalcost would be $470 per sign. These estimates were obtained for informational purposes. The Board of Supervisors may request staff conduct a competitive bid process and lower costs may be obtained. ALUC found the 2'x 4' sign as suggested by the City to be too small. ALUC would also likely find the County's 3' x 3.75' sign to be too small as well. ALUC requests the Board of Supervisors reinstall the 5' x 2.5' sign based on the estimated cost of $470 per sign. Thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter. Please place this matter on the Board's agenda as soon as possible. Sincerely, Mr. Norm Rosene, Vice Chariman for Mr. Robert Hennigan, Chairman Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Attachments K.t4UCILE7TERSLSIG.NC'HIC'.LTR • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN 7:6-3 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, and such related issues as are appropriate to fully inform such prospective home buyer or rental tenant. 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 access points into the Plan area, including Eaton Road, Gamer Lane, Hicks Lane, New Arterial Road and Keefer Lane. Such signage shall be of such materials, size and design to be visible and readable from a moving vehicle. Figure 7-2 illustrates the concept. 7.6-5 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. 7.8 Principal Land Use Districts The following section summarizes the principal underlying land use districts within the NCSP area. The existing Butte County Zoning Ordinance has been followed closely and modified, where necessary, to ensure that NCSP goals and policies are achieved while facilitating administration by county staff. Definitions and Conditions Terms used in this document shall have the same definitions as provided for in the Butte County Code, unless otherwise defined herein. All regulations, design criteria, requirements, and similar details not set forth herein shall be those as contained in appropriate sections of the Butte County Code. Residential Development Regulations Within the Plan area there are two basic residential categories: Suburban Residential and Residential. The standards contained herein are consistent with the County zoning standards 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 designation has three zone districts — R-1 (Low Density Residential), R-2 (Medium Density Residential), and R-3 (High Density Residential). Table 7-2 summarizes basic development regulations of each district. EXHIBIT � 7-8 Development Regulations and Design Guidelines _ Mel= J 2 - 3 , J • P 1 • t ♦ 1 • • '••..% r s •, ,. oof 4p AIRCRAFT OVERFLIGHT ZONE THIS AREA SUS.JECT TO MOIfE AND I:r APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF OTHER OISTURSANCE RELATcO TO THE 'OVERFLIGHT ZONE' SIGNS OVERFUGHT OF AIRCRAFT TO ANO FROM CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, ANO TO AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT THE AIRPORT. tet• NEW LOCATIONS PROPOSED BY ALUC I - OVERFLIGHT ZONE SIGNAGE Figure 7-2 EXHIBIT North Chico Specific Plan 99 i tee- o°. be�c1 iV's oac_( a )cl JtASV ecsA- O� vAc-,,t l ibox ✓ t-�� VL ►o�� 1-� d G b c-, �-N vx c ,sem �J�.��.�-.�- ,A O V� "C /X O T j inA c, i 1 �� ✓ 1 CU � �D O . Z w\ ►les iv,\�e-v'Sevl av\ 6 y4cf a k..j 1 � s VIC', J I StUe vVNe- --- �e 0Lc�, vkS ciaTe.c� -j- 2-9 cl, S4 V %--kA&A �s ��s.:�ec� ova w�a d G`��r ► 1� SG Vv\ tee- o°. be�c1 iV's oac_( a )cl JtASV ecsA- O� vAc-,,t l ibox ✓ t-�� ►o�� 1-� d G b c-, �-N vx c L.) cl.1�.. s •� Z, WesAr e o ,A O V� "C /X O T j inA c, i 1 �� ✓ 1 CU � �D O . Z w\ ►les iv,\�e-v'Sevl �. e, V\ StUe vVNe- • o [<-e c VAC CC,VA e `, r �. Siff ��,5� �T' �� � I CiC�0.CL O ►� �+� �, , A v -�- 7S 1 was f- o--��►�c i v -a wcd �..� In e v\Ip�-� �� o J�5(=AC-in,OV1 U� . i CA, ,-A o e. �c� 5 s d� o C-) VNt!, V,� �. SyToaA cvv--� -RA e A, c0-�e_-,rv-\cVe- 0 c -c., 0 Vl\ L,-) 0 k-', A -L.) ee- OVA Ike- t� csSiCSe o� �co, e, 8 , f � c: vc)ss -�ro w1 -f -1x e- K n cls ,,vt Oen �►- �D e tv ✓ C c ✓ C.". J EXHIBIT COUNTY OF BUTTE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of June 16, .1999 ,t;? 3. Discussion of Airport Overflight Signage for the North Chico Specific Plan: Discussion item. The Commission will review and discuss the modified sip' -as prepared by Commissioner Rosene. (Item Continued from May 19, 1999) Commissioner Rosene suggested that the proposed sign adopted by ALUC, be sent to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation to proceed. Mr. Doody recommended that ALUC agree that the sign meets the provisions of the North Chico Specific Plan and have the Chairman write a letter of notification to the Board of Supervisors. Staff can put an item on the Board agenda to authorize funding of new signs or the repainting of the E existing signs. Ruben Martinez from the City of Chico"sign' shop, provided an estimate of $360 to $400 per sign for new signs. Commissioner Rosene asked to participate on a committee on behalf of ALUC to examine the signs as. they are completed, for final approval It was moved by Commissioner Rosene that ALUC write a letter to the Board of Supervisors asking them to find funding to have the signs placed as required by the 1994 North Chico Specific Plan and to proceed with great haste and also to have a committee from ALUC have a final look, at, the. final version of the signs... Commissioner Gerst noted there have been changes made in the.proposed locations of some of the signs from what was specified by the North Chico Specific Plan. He. suggested the subcommittee also be involved in locating the signs to avoid more problems. ' Commissioner Rosene said the signs that were to be located at the end of Keefer Road should be moved in closer to the actual North Chico Specific Plan area..He.agreed ta,an amendment to his motion, that the recommended locations from the committee for the signs be included in the letter and that the committee be able to work with Public Works in the actual siting of the signs. ;,r... Commissioner Rosene said the City of Chico also plans to place some signs and the committee should work with the City also in siting the signs. Mr. Doody noted the cost estimate of $360 to $400 was for a 2'x 4'sign, but the NCSP requires a 2.5'x 5' sign. Commissioner Rosene thought 2' would be too narrow and it would be worth.an increased cost to get the signs right. Mr. Doody said staff would contact the City of Chico regarding the larger size. . Commissioner Rosene noted that traffic on county roads would be traveling faster and need the larger signs. The motion was seconded by Chairman Hennigan and carried unanimously. /. - �: + ���� ?r •� .k• -Q,. V, s •i Y'r �e��' 'i "sl N"".t '�1nf� K �Y �� .y�3 i. ti '� t t ; "W -"' /'' z33's,gQ, r�• t; , .� "t z� `� f �,��. �'�, t, a � ,, C..� ' �. a,}r �'�t??' �, s }t',. - hltc..at. s tMxz .r„•r-..w,«:��,.$...3 ,z.,, • 'ii�J � �: •, ��i ,�t ri. _ ,,�; t } _ r .ash tt-t^ !?,',S � r �{$ , . ,. Nti;�.. a .�'�.c s. ::. �^%• «;.sz��^f:r,'z «fz����..�.�- ` �`?'� � it }�, � r- >5..v:.............5.,,,.an_... n ,r_ .3:::2,µ.:s•„ �`t 1 + "1 c c' '", ?•'sA f F h �• ♦?u yj,A,�. .G t t^^�.L' ....,..,y�•"'y_ .[f%t•':i."• ,y ,;.y. `+'4 �' fj':c: C ii y Serif wC::••."Sl'W:GSF�Y57^" 'if;i• .. '< " j. 7- � �., '�• . , u. ''... `'•^•:fir; , • ,. ?'`} ' F - % [� ''� ';'t> • ;,fr �� 1 ,a" i - � •.e' .., ^'r.'�i�t�'�.'r;�"`J;s..'s-",3==a,.z:r??i:,'f`�.,�'ra':.7 �S � ''h -•w+ ,s?• y., w-�-.r .�...c. ���i�,d � ;-r:.:yyi,," s '`'_ N^sr-' .t . �. r L.,.y�5�, 3 _ �' !� aA_` ti _a i",:�:..' G, x,. 'zP:Y• t` i., � /MS" .. fill S. S}, �t �a-4. ,/' 3 Rfil::1�••''',YS•f�.7< y�'�»'$'."yZ,���y,,, ` �"��s ! r ra ,h t.. t:f? q' ��ner.� , ti= , ` `s t ., �' ,� � ��t� � � •'- ' r"it .:'� •r�'t5`: ��' �', .-cc, .:ays,Tr,3����ri �%M!'�.µ: � � . x � b�si {d •` ° d, � s: r � �:':,,. : :at J ?,' v ,� r�' 1, £..::.c9',.s.n�^c.,�`.s „� �'' ;' / \ i% !..r 3... Iti. : lit. .._ :+ r T � + "� J{�., •s'e t yr. j ='� 't w �: �ryv :C � •«��Z�r/�.= .f»`.�^'. •'Yy,>;' ri h � �.. t'NtV ..;r, �tij. 5r s r' )- � �sxs, ,:�s i `•"�:s,..s•;... .+•�. t.. _ h ..�.P ; : 'i. .h Rxx' � 'Jp '; .� nth h�r��N`.: L� Sit%. Jry�,. • Y '�y`� +� � '�,�. j��'yi. „rJ••� �, �.tf , .,��gg�� �'t�'Y�..ta;"� �+1-11n, ._�%,�sr•al jn�'+r4� ` ° F -n+ { 4 �� „ 'ftp { jy' ;' �•x s:s�i� �"s tk f 6 r sem, ,�.;,%_'"�'� •}}�/r���y t L' ac p `'' - , �y% - ;�P 1*' Il % t 1 d, .^"..µrAJs-n.;..,' •�. yl� '•� 1 y F f �. Mf L- - �' a• 'ri4i� afG�t �`a.�..,f J�T� •x.a..� •� ,.a.`�� ' 7n.V :! 'd :.+t .. � , t-;, �,r�C..',., rc;::::[ .�.. -a:�' � -'s„�. ,...�,� ...ri. ,.a'-�•„e ..x5i^;-�'� �:•. i"si:x„z;��sz....•�£z::s:�t� �i •rs1' ..5. .. .. � tt ' �N as< F ;a "'" r3?rz i is �� -a? x F•":s si �cr «, ���`r" _ Ile _n ,x x 'iaz.• ~ r r.t' ��.^••�rs :i+•`ss�e�•.. , f�,"" .%. ��,�: lf '� i.� «,.���a�?G�.t??' s t� �J Y j• �•�S�r �' rS r v ]s^' s- s .3;: ;x s�x"r a�•'�i' 7' �r ,�,.G. "" '". N . .. t, ' s�a; �„ Y s •r•, a { si � � # S a� �-+f?, . s�` � ,sa. d fr^ "y =s"""' �: ':,:zr......�i, y;x;rrat=ytc�:'rr {.s �' e ~ ..t. .L r. { j f +C`Y,., a �, , c. ,.ci g .:. ' • =tt.�C�,f/,' s .. sv •ur ,3 f 3~ « ` ,r � <. s'x ,�Y ' .� 's ,..�-'" r �: �i:' '��fc-�^^is;Y ,s .. • .a����..'ri y s a� i X •.•sci.T .."" ',�„az' .y«r"isx i tFf �r�`'.. 7 .tZ r' Y t �' rs�'`V i•.�'sz G" zw '.�.:.%iii: !�' .x' � , .. r^Ms,�tst �, c • � ii�"ir' Y' t c � �a..d��rr'rvs 'tz't� - .. im .. '.ASK 'fi•.'µ }�: ,.. �^�r'3'i a y3 {�� �'�... � � ,T ,.t 't'' i `'Y it £"1 . .. ti' �, r � •t � 7 #�, .' "'y=��"'7s t'•.,t.C..s �^k. �` l�?�, . r;_ ,r��:� �': r 4 �: s t w y, y' .x+ 2, a L 1 ,�,'�� y.�� ,c •� K f ;�< ,s,�..-:-t:.., '�r'z �•� ,;.it �i. � � t 'x f ,,,.'}.. � s„t. -.;, w 1 �: � "�y�sa: .ier '-rS' �•'�}S s�;t.��s'f�•.,,r„°.iz,.;-�� f-r����� � r. i 4�%-'r�li �^r. f,x z"' � '�..<�.;� to '��< #:•, s �r, .t r.'3 r.£'��,,�.::s• .s.;•:�j.::�x+;-a..,,. �sr,£ .. �!�. 4� .int ���+. G '"f .n ��it f t. ♦! J ti'i ��-f � � �SS � J' b 1r S: a;����S�xcf���.c' -'� B t4'1.f, i,. •�+J' {Sr Y 1". U: s' w'a .. , ' H���s r; f .c - r 3 t r" ,n 3 .. $ i A6,C s •S:�' Y S _ �^7F.iL f Y..., at ti.i - '• ,c�� - .�"' �Sa h; M?L r w.f'� i.r `<a -JC � '.s ?�fC .s�.'� ' � r �,f>�%T}s}y-•_€- � �t 't, �'.^�? .�it", e d � F �, , s'] f'•ii` ��.... Qa- } - 7` .. s^ ir3 � { S�•'�Gt� i't t J:vJ rt�� . < _ 3^ .. �' .a •?e ti`'x } •�" {�. '� . 'r LS Z i { syr tzY r a �j ] f51 f�'fy 'fc s�'w 2 ,�: ictJ f .: .,� i, ,fi r. 6 Y.:#1 • �o.t4 I ASSETf%, r s - t _ . t%ii. A . .. : Ct C s 'r. �'� � sr• - nc rck' "� s�t'� ..'x n L ._ . x ':a�.^.'t > L.;' ;•F,' � Stt .T Alt IT .. d�..,� ry�. a...Y;-.i �i�`�.i�y`e-�t. �,� �2\'�• .r/` .. t Jai , ; rx ',(�. ��x.� �+^f � ;s � .. • ' �.j��''�`•' S! ,' S x%22., tbi S' �7 y' �'- i �: 9 � t ' i f f i t�]r, `� -.. ` i ice• 'it: •'6 1` � tb �� : �'� �' •„ `yr f -. _ ,� �` fi � i » • � X � .� , , -1 - . � ,S. ' Ci 4� {+ h }j 'L � `��] 6i FJ�. � ♦ v �4^r .. .. .. ��_ .r � -.. � �„ . ...�� �F i C, `y"ear' 1 `4 .-y�•K � rc wG1„,. µ •�] � �r .S] ,� .v= t i, kr.- C• � are�!Js` O f1)a � - n r� - � yr J�'Gtr T� , 3s Fysijd%•,,/' fir✓ +•w 4 `' f .. m "-w EATON �, 1,G�-�,.r^- -+ `�O,r �S`.;w� �;y�, .z.� '�„�.s.. iL'F- ss "• �� 7 ,`�;f:,,3, °~L- ► � r ` 1 dh V ry °` \ ....•;;, < �.. La 1 :.s, � [ ' St t . f ^^'-L'ars<.'.u.-4 - - •i a. ] w,7`I 1 •T . .. s u � L ias3 '2^'. vi;vi C ; �J•. �! s7 �. 1'�t � sem.. .w x:;;, ., 33 .'C - : i i 1e' + . � .:'�y.O . .�.. "r a p , • `�' `• 4C_�. j(' +` ..i .• s i. s✓ '% f ,t ` - noi wim h-OY7 Ity LO v r_�d � I � d azar_71C re iatN �� AR � a N� ed to+;.the .-op.er�t�on stt� ,r.� w .. :� OG t; ,�4 t7 zr` i.. ,of cox4•¢Mun�:cipa1-�rp=ort AvfT��t�,�r#; -"�•. ! )3�'•' r! ,amu �' '+ c ar ,•Q - ; .. .rEq!cr� - ^'c'-"":."'�J��r•.•"--". �'�.�.��t �, ` trc '�' k i. � � � 1, � rs'' W.L'` .. � 4r- �Ywa_.,i1L:Mb...... +. � s".",fl. 1. t •�` Ir!i��.t _. o:.n. o �.�. r s � - ?uA4t'Nwr�-:. ,�,�''� .. .. L (.,f BUTTE COUNTY • ALrLERK OF THE BOARD USE ONLY 'BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: AGENDA TRANSMITTAL AGENDA rrEM: I' A GENDA TITLE: North Chico Specific Plan Overflight Signs - Request for Funding and Installation of Signs. DEPARTMENT: DATE: MEETING DATE REQUESTED: Development Services/Planning October 5, 1999 October 26, 1999 CONTACT: PHONE: REGULAR CONSENT X ' Dave Doody 7601 PUBLIC HEARING DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is requesting the Board of Supervisors to provide funding i and authorize the reinstallation of Airport Overflight Signs in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport. The North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) requires that the Airport Overflight Signs be installed (Exhibit "N'). The original signs were installed on July 23, 1998. Shortly thereafter, a sign was taken down without authorization, a-pparently a result of vandalism. The remaining signs were then removed to avoid further acts of vandalism. Since July, 1998, ALUC requested that the signs be reinstalled. The County Counsel's office was requested to review an alternative design for the airport overflight signs. On May 19, 1999, ALUC endorsed an alternative sign message and recommended the Board of Supervisors provide funding and authorize the reinstallation of the signs. (:Exhibit "C" and "D"). Alternative locations are also recommended by ALUC. New locations were selected to avoid placement in front of existing residences in favor of locations adjacent to vacant land. All signs would be placed within the County road right-of-way. Exhibit `B" identifies the recommended locations. I ACTION REQUESTED: A. Approve the new signs for compliance with the intent of Section 7.6-4 of the NCSP. I B. Approve the locations for the signs as recommended by ALUC. i C. Direct the Public Works Department to acquire eight (8) 5' x 2.5' signs and install them at the locations noted in Exhibit `B." D. Authorize a Budget transfer in the amount of $4,000 from 690.010, Appropriations for . Contingencies to 480.001-553-030, Planning Interfund Road to pay for the purchase and installation of the signs. AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTALS REQUIRE THE ORIGINAL AND NINE (9) COPIES ATTACH EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUMAND OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATIONAS NECESSARY Budgetary Impact: Yes x No CAO OFFICE USE ONLY If yes, complete Budgetary Impact Worksheet on back Budget Transfer Requested: Yes_x No_ Administrative Office Review If yes, complete Budget Transfer Request Worksheet on back. Administrative Office Staff Contact .'Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda deadline) iWill Proposal Require an Agreement: Yes No x 4/5's Vote Required: Yes: No: Auditor -Controller's Number (if required):_ Forthcoming_ Yes Date Received by Clerk of Board: 0 C T 1 1999 County Counsel's Approval: Yes No i NVill Proposal Require Additional Personnel: Yes No r • Number of Permanent: Temp Extra Help P -evious Board Action Date: NA Additional Information Attached: Yes_a No Describe: Memorandrum from ALUC, NCSP text and map regarding sign and locations (Exhibit A), map of new. locations (Exhibit B), Minutes o 'June 16, 1999 ALUC meeting (Exhibit C) and Graphic of new sign (Exhibit D). K:\ALUC\B0s.MEM\AIF1026.wPD +BUV1CT E COUP AIRPORT LAND U?E COMMISSION • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95955 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • September 27, 1999 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Butte County Board of Supervisors FROM: Robert Hennigan, Chairman, Butte County Airport Land Use Commission SUBJECT: North Chico Specific Plan Airport Overflight Signs As you are aware, the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) requires the placement of advisory signs in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport. The NCSP indicates on Figure 7-2 that there are to be eight 5'x 2.5' signs. The signs were installed within the County right-of-way on July 23, 1998. Shortly thereafter, a sign was subsequently taken- down akendown without authorization apparently a result of vandalism. The remaining signs were then removed to avoid further acts of vandalism. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has voiced its objections to the removal of the signs. Since July, 1998, the ALUC held several hearings on an alternative design for the airport overflight signs. During these hearings, ALUC,also proposed that several of the original sign locations be moved. It was agreed not to increase the number of signs and instead move some of the signs to new locations for better visibility. In consultation with County Counsel, on June 16, 1999, ALUC approved a sign alternative including the new locations (minutes attached). ALUC is requesting the Board of Supervisors to provide. funding and authorize the reinstallation of the signs. Attached you will find the proposed alternative sign, a map showing where the signs are proposed to be relocated and a written notation describing where the signs are to be relocated. ALUC found the proposed alternative sign less ominous and consistent with the overflight advisory language of the NCSP. ALUC staff was directed to provide cost estimates for the new signs. Staff contacted several sources. The City of Chico Sign Shop provided cost estimates from $360 to $400 per sign. This did not include installation. The City estimate is for a sign printed on standard 2'x 4' sheet material. Also, the Department of Public Works can make 3' x 3.75' signs for $143.50 each plus $100.00 per installation. An estimate was also obtained from Magoon Signs. The bid from Magoon Signs included 5' x 2.5', reflective lettering and reflective background. They estimated it would cost $370 per sign. With installation by Public Works, the total cost would be $470 per sign. These estimates were obtained for informational purposes. The Board of Supervisors may request staff conduct a competitive bid process and lower costs maybe obtained. ALUC found the 2'x 4' sign as suggested by the City to be too small. ALUC would also likely find the County's 3' x 3.75' sign to be too small as well. ALUC requests the Board of Supervisors reinstall the 5' x 2.5' sign based on the estimated cost of $470 per sign. Thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter. Please place this matter on the Board's agenda as soon as possible. Sincerely, Mr. Norm Rosene, Vice Chariman for Mr. Robert Hennigan, Chairman Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Attachments k' IaLDC'LETTERS67GrVC'H/C'.LTR • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN 7:6-3 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, and such related issues as are appropriate to fully inform such prospective home buyer or rental tenant. 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 access points into the Plan area, including Eaton Road, Garner Lane, Hicks Lane, New Arterial Road and Keefer Lane. Such signage shall be of such materials, size and design to be visible and readable from a moving vehicle. Figure 7-2 illustrates the concept. 7.6-5 The New Arterial Road and collector streets east of Gamer Lane shall be designated with aviation -related names as set forth in Butte County Code Chapter 32. 7.8 Principal Land Use Districts The following section summarizes the principal underlying land use districts within the NCSP area. The existing Butte County Zoning Ordinance has been followed closely and modified, where necessary, to ensure that, NCSP goals and policies are achieved while facilitating administration by county staff. Definitions and Conditions Terms used in this document shall have the same definitions as provided for in the Butte County Code, unless otherwise defined herein. All regulations, design criteria, requirements, and similar details not set forth herein shall be those as contained in appropriate sections of the Butte County Code. Residential Development Regulations Within the Plan area there are two basic residential categories: Suburban Residential and Residential. The standards contained herein are consistentwith the County zoning standards 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 designation has three zone districts — R-1 (Low Density Residential), R-2 (Medium Density Residential), and R-3 (High Density Residential). Table 7-2 summarizes basic development regulations of each district. EXHIBIT � 7-8 Development Regulations and Design Guidelines • • 2 3 ' ' • .1 • / .�. pfd_ s • , AIRCRAFT OVERFLIGHT ZONE T1119 AREA SUS,IECT TO N0,3 AN0 sr APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF OTHEROIfTURSANCE IIELATEO To THE 'OVERFLIGHT ZONE' SIGNS VEOOMRUOMTOPARCATO OTYOCC MUMICIPAt AIRCRAFT OPERATION$ AT THE AIRPORT. NEW LOCATIONS PROPOSED BY ALUC I • OVERFLIGHT ZONE SIGNAGE Figure 7-2 EXHIBIT North Chico Specific Plan -7- 1 Z- 99 -- �j ►c� vt (, OLS Ttic� �� S ��e. v� o � kec� v� . s, J \j e- VSA e. .: `� G< ✓t T1^ •� � t s � 1c�c � �- I Z - 1 �{ � � l� a\l\cl �Ck� y4cf a Li v c., S tc wt b e✓ ► s sc� o v� vv�Cl, +A^ " mss% be rme- J IG be�� i� V'oact aVtcl �. �LASV e�s� off. ��;1 bJx C -C> \I-- ke- c�✓cC� C7 ycvUS li 5T G� e XS v1 1�i e �n Ivo �/ c�ock („� v v Z, Wes'- s ► c� o �- I-� cic s La^c : Sys A - p t/ Ov,,.,(� � In � 1 I ^,� � vc� � 1 k� � 1 U � �o O � . Z m1 �cs -so ���� ff U� ��e�eV / N1C�cS t I VI\ V" 5 e VI C, V- VN e -V, w e SA- S t Cil C-1 A v. vi e- �/ 1�-. G v1 C' c " G LI / vl �c r C. l c_:1 ✓1 o � rc\ G G VA e. C4,S���iiy as ova ,,.\c�il.y �cls. SCP, r A b �� ✓ t ✓i �-e, msec �t �;✓� , 59 S5.. �_� 1.1 low l.�ca � a+ �v\ +v o, vice. vx e L--.) v�o wcs In e v\- i sAC. bu I'o C,C,V- V-\��� 0C -a c� i,JO iG low pVA C- e c`.5 - S cue o C-_ Nl- v< e -1 t ►'t o O v/ � Y1 5 l G e. lit S (- C"./ e- 1 +Lxf V\ -0`�- J tXHIBIT .. COUNTY OF BUTTE . AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of June 16, 1999 _ti;?: c 3. Discussion of Airport Overflight Signage for the North Chico Specific Plan: Discussion item. The Commission will review and discuss the modified sigh -as prepared by Commissioner Rosene. (Item Continued from May 19, 1999) Commissioner Rosene suggested that the proposed sign adopted by ALUC, be sent to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation to proceed. Mr. Doody recommended that ALUC agree that the sign meets the provisions of the North Chico Specific Plan and have the Chairman write a letter of notification to the Board of Supervisors. Staff `w�ati can put an item on the Board agenda to authorize funding of new signs or the repainting of the fr existing signs. Ruben Martinez from the City of Chico'sign shop, provided an estimate of $360 to $400 per sign for new signs. Commissioner Rosene asked to participate on a committee on behalf of ALUC to examine the signs as they are completed, for final approval It was moved by Commissioner Rosene that ALUC write a letter to the Board of Supervisors.sking them to find funding to have the signs placed as required by the 1994 North Chico Specific Plan and .to proceed with great haste and also to have a committee from ALUC have a final lookaat, the. final version of the signs. - Commissioner Gerst noted there have been changes made in the.proposed locations of some of the signs from what was specified by the North Chico Specific Plan He suggested the subcornmitiee also be involved in locatingthe signs gns to avoid more problems. Commissioner Rosene said the signs that were to be located at the end of Keefer Road should`be moved in closer to the actual North Chico Speck Plan area. ,He agreed,to, an amendment to his motion, that the recommended locations from the committee for the signs be included in the letter and that the committee be able to work with Public Works in the actual siting of the signs. Commissioner Rosene said the City of Chico also plans to place some signs and the committee should work with the City also in siting the signs. Mr. Doody noted the cost estimate of $360 to $400 was for a 2'x 4' sign, but the NCSP requires a 2.5'x 5' sign. Commissioner Rosene thought 2' would be too narrow and it would be worth an increased cost to get the signs right. Mr. Doody said staff would contact the City of Chico regarding the larger size. . Commissioner Rosene noted that traffic on county roads would be traveling faster and need the larger signs. The motion was seconded by Chairman Hennigan and carried unanimously. EXHIBIT �,D i r ats� "Al MEEFE M - CK5e y� i {1 - a i A NER t h ®���`: 99 q; - This EAToR I Lve-a-, i s ` Su '^ b ect to al.,,, nols-e-lmpa-c ry over-fll= _ gilt activlt --and"mm- �--m maw hazardsz of - -J =the o era tl orelatedto 1coMunlc�pal Ino trpr #CIO'✓ j H L (-4 C, -bg ill BUTTE COUNTY BOARD USE ONLY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 7MEETING DATE: AGENDA TRANSMITTAL AGENDA ITEM: A GENDA TITLE: North Chico Specific Plan Overflight Signs - Request for Funding and Installation of Signs. DEPARTMENT: DATE: MEETING DATE REQUESTED: Development Services/Planning October 5, 1999 October 26, 1999 i CONTACT: PHONE: REGULAR CONSENT X _ Dave Doody 7601 PUBLIC HEARING { D EPARTMENT SUMMARY: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is requesting the Board of Supervisors to provide funding and authorize the reinstallation of Airport Overflight Signs in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport. The North i Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) requires that the Airport Overflight Signs be installed (Exhibit "X'). The original signs were installed on July 23, 1998. Shortly thereafter, a sign was taken down without authorization, a-pparently a result of vandalism. The remaining signs were then removed to avoid further acts of vandalism. Since July, 1998, ALUC requested that the signs be reinstalled. The County Counsel's office was requested to review an alternative design for the airport overflight signs. On May 19, 1999, ALUC endorsed an alternative sign message and recommended the Board of Supervisors provide funding and authorize the reinstallation of the signs (!-xhibit "C" and "D"). Alternative locations are also recommended by ALUC. New locations were selected to avoid placement in.front of existing residences in favor of locations adjacent to vacant land. All signs would be placed within the County road right-of-way. Exhibit `B" identifies the recommended locations. 1 ACTION REQUESTED: A. Approve the new signs for compliance with the intent of Section 7.6-4 of the NCSP. B. Approve the locations for the signs as recommended by ALUC. C. Direct the Public Works Department to acquire eight (8) 5' x 2.5' signs and install them at the locations noted in Exhibit "B." D. Authorize a Budget transfer in the amount of $4,000 from 690.010, Appropriations for Contingencies to 480.001-553-030, Planning Interfund Road to pay for the purchase and installation of the signs. AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTALS REQUIRE THE ORIGINAL AND NINE (9) COPIES ATTACH EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUMAND OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATIONAS NECESSARY' iBudgetary Impact: Yes x No CAO OFFICE USE ONLY If ves, complete Budgetary Impact Worksheet on back { Budget Transfer Requested: Yes_e No_ Administrative Office Review If yes, complete Budget Transfer Request Worksheet on back. Administrative Office Stats Contact { 'Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda deadline) V, ill Proposal Require an Agreement: Yes No—x 4/5's Vote Required: Yes: No: Auditor -Controller's Number (if OCT 13 1999 required):_Forthcoming_Yes Date Received by Clerk of Board: County Counsel's Approval: Yes No Will Proposal Require Additional Personnel: Yes No x Number of Permanent: Temp Extra Help l' evious Board Action Date: NA Additional information Attached: Yes_a No D,•scribe: Memorandrum from ALUC, NCSP text and map regarding sign and locations (Exhibit A), map of new locations (Exhibit B), Minutes o lune 16, 1999 ALUC meeting (Exhibit Q and Graphic of new sign (Exhibit D). K:ALUCB0S.MEMAIFl026.wPD +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND UTE COMMISSION • 7 County Center Drive, oroville, CA 95955 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 9 September 27, 1999 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Butte County Board of Supervisors FROM: I Robert Hennigan, Chairman, Butte County Airport Land Use Commission SUBJECT: North Chico Specific Plan Airport Overflight Signs As you are aware, the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) requires the placement of advisory signs in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport. The NCSP indicates on Figure 7-2 that there are to be eight 5' x 2.5' signs. The signs were installed within the County right-of-way on July 23, 1998. Shortly thereafter, a sign was subsequently taken down without authorization apparently a result of vandalism. The remaining signs were then removed to avoid further acts of vandalism. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has voiced its objections 'to the removal of the signs. Since July, 1998, the ALUC held several hearings on an alternative design for the airport overflight signs. During these hearings, ALUC also proposed that several of the original sign locations be moved. It was agreed not to increase the number of signs and instead move some of the signs to new locations for better visibility. In consultation with County Counsel, on June 16, 1999, ALUC approved a sign alternative including the new locations (minutes attached). ALUC is requesting the Board of Supervisors to provide. funding and authorize the reinstallation of the signs. Attached you will find the proposed alternative sign, a map showing where the signs are proposed to be relocated and a written notation describing where the signs are to be relocated. ALUC found the proposed alternative sign less ominous and consistent with the overflight advisory language of the NCSP. ALUC staff was directed to provide cost estimates for the new signs Staff contacted several sources. The City of Chico Sign Shop provided cost estimates from $360 to $400 per sign. This did not include installation. The City estimate is for a sign printed on standard 2' x 4' sheet material. Also, the Department of Public Works can make Tx 3.75' signs for $143.50 each plus $100.00 per installation. An estimate was also obtained from Magoon Signs. The bid from Magoon Signs included T x 2.5', reflective lettering and reflective background. They estimated it would cost $370 per sign. With installation by Public Works, the total cost would be $470 per sign. These estimates were obtained for informational purposes. The Board of Supervisors may request staff conduct a competitive bid process and lower costs may be obtained. ALUC found the 2'x 4' sign as suggested by the City to be too small. ALUC would also likely find the County's Tx 3.75' sign to be too small as well. ALUC requests the Board of Supervisors reinstall the 5' x 2.5' sign based on the estimated cost of $470 per sign. Thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter. Please place this matter on the Board's agenda as soon as possible. Sincerely, Mr. Norm Rosene, Vice Chariman for Mr. Robert Hennigan, Chairman Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Attachments K,aLI.-CILETTERSLSIG.VCHIC.LTR • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission *. NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN 7.6-3 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, and such related issues as are appropriate to fully inform such prospective home buyer or rental tenant. 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 access points into the Plan area, including Eaton Road, Garner Lane, Hicks Lane, New Arterial Road and Keefer Lane. Such signage shall be of such materials, size and design to be visible and readable from . a moving vehicle. Figure 7-2 illustrates the concept. 7.6-5 The New Arterial Road and collector streets east of Gamer Lane shall be designated with aviation -related names as set forth in Butte County Code Chapter 32. 7.8 Principal Land Use Districts The following section summarizes the principal underlying land use districts within the NCSP area. The existing Butte County Zoning. Ordinance has been followed closely anq modified, where, necessary, to ensure that NCSP goals and policies are achieved while facilitating administration by county staff.- Definitions taff. Definitions and Conditions Terms used in this document shall have the same definitions as provided for in the Butte County Code, unless otherwise defined herein. All regulations, design criteria, requirements, and similar details not set forth herein shall be those as contained in appropriate sections of the Butte County Code. Residential Development Regulations Within the Plan area there are two basic residential categories: Suburban Residential and Residential. The standards contained herein are consistent with the County zoning standards 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 designation has three zone districts — R-1 (Low Density Residential), R-2 (Medium Density Residential), and R-3 (High Density Residential). Table 7-2 summarizes basic.development regulations of each district. EXHIBIT _A 7-8 Development Regulations and Design Guidelines a i • •1•• .ASF � -\ / • .- / _ �•1�Is e 1 • I , I QQ • \ r� AIRCRAFT OVERFLIGHT ZONE THIS AREA SUSdECT TO NOISE AMO ar APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF OTHaR OISTURSANCE pELATEO TO THE 'OVERFLIGHT ZONE' SIGNS OVERFUGHT OF AIRCRAFT TO ANO iROY CHICO YUNICDA� AIpFORT, ANO f0 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT THE A APORT. —'�� NEW LOCATIONS PROPOSED BY ALUC I . OVERFLIGHT ZONE SIGNAGE Figure 7-2 EXHIBIT North Chico Specific Plan �- tZ- 99 U V" ck, ✓ -A 13 av\d ai h�ed u i VkA yellOu s ✓�,Y a� �� , S 4 VA k.cv `b e✓ s s c` O v% iMG ..5i vVIN .. s -i- Ipe t� ✓e_Cie be v -\a .1 V -N o ad a) Cl ecSA- Ot kAA bJx e - Cc 3 Z 0 �0C- A G bC)' �- Yc�,vcAs e cLs�- o C �� eX�s�� Ne���nloo✓1�ood ���� s� -� west- S ► c- c) l i k c A- yj O✓ In O Tj innG, 11 LO V, . ZC�, Nkc�c "s t • Iql S�CAe— UT' C�\I-VNe-V` U t/1 i (/1i1 ! �� S TVu �"✓1 / v1 TC �� S, C.'c. f l v ✓� C> V, Vl\ --eel , r I �• S � ��5�- Wit' e 1 c;r CAO CL p ►.� �{'� \Ge ✓ 4 ✓1�SE',C T1 �✓� G � �-C Cl Q+ +vc. v,c-e= 47--> -{-�\ vx e- L VN cc- Vi G) V\ e, A ✓� ve� OVA c- c,V-V, , e- VA o'Vll 5 l G P CJ E✓1 J tXHIBIT COUNTY OF BUTTE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of June 16, 1999 3. Discussion of Airport Overilight Signg;e for the North Chico Snec�S`: Discussion item. The Commission will review and discuss the modified sign `as prepared by Commissioner Rosene. (Item Continued from May 19, 1999) Commissioner Rosene suggested that the proposed sign adopted by ALUC, be sent to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation to proceed. Mr. Doody recommended that ALUC agree that the sign meets the provisions of the North Chico Specific Plan and have the Chairman write a letter of notification to the Board of Supervisors. Staff ;+ can put an item on the Board agenda to authorize funding of new signs or the repainting of the existing signs. Ruben Martinez from the City of Chico sign shop, provided an estimate of $360.to $400 per sign for new signs. Commissioner Rosene asked to participate on a committee on behalf of ALUC to examine the signs as they are completed, for final approvalC. It was moved by Commissioner Rosene that ALUC write a letter to. the Board of Supervisors asking them to find funding to have the signs placed as required by the 1994 North Chico Specific Plan and to proceed with great haste and also to have a committee from ALUC -have a final look at the.final - version of the signs. - - Commissioner Gerst noted there have been changes made in the.proposed locations of some of the signs from what was specified by the North Chico Specific Plan. He suggested the subcommitte_ e also be involved in locating the signs to avoid more problems. ' Commissioner Rosene said the signs that were to be located at the end of Keefer Road should be moved in closer to the actual North Chico Specific Plan area. oe,agreed to_an amendment to his motion, that the recommended locations from the committee for the signs be included in the letter and that the committee be able to work with Public Works in the actual siting of the signs. Commissioner Rosene said the City of Chico also plans to place some signs and the.committee should work with the City also in siting the signs. Mr. Doody noted the cost estimate of $360 to $400 was for a 2'x 4'sign, but the NCSP requires a 2.5'x 5' sign. Commissioner Rosene thought 2' would be too narrow and it would be worth an increased cost to get the signs right. Mr. Doody said staff would contact the City of Chico regarding the larger size. . Commissioner Rosene noted that traffic on county roads would be traveling faster and need the larger signs. The motion was seconded by Chairman Hennigan and carried unanimously. rI nCrx r 9r user t $T�+ ar�sr q r r 700 AKE ,✓� F Y Y /ice !l 'x :.�� - > �Y'- �`,Y., »�..w...w.... „w+ a _ �, -> �. „j, i s> .c• t� � YY:a - 7 ,./ t �Y ,c .� .. � .Y „T r '• �bY'"'"4ry �.e .t �'i{ �' Tii^A�itfi {,. .'[ 3'<....,yt YCy a '44 r 3 T F - - - -..�__ ,�` \/, y. � � ✓ ,ter � , AEE F E UR rs c� x HER EY ASIL 9 Ad!& tA This MTOM ' -•moi `. ^L': .x.,, :.. �4 7 a rea; l itublect to not- f over fl�igFitactivity S ��. ands _R. hazard � tel _ _ `fir••-• - _- _ a gated-t_, the -op er do _ 'of bh-'cd Munic!airpal ®rt L L4 C�_ BUTTE COUNTY • 112kCLERK OF THE BOARD USE ONLY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: 7 !'AGENDA TRANSMITTAL AGENDA ITEM: A GENDA TITLE: North Chico Specific Plan Overflight Signs - Request for Funding and Installation of Signs. DEPARTMENT: DATE: MEETING DATE REQUESTED: Development Services/Planning October 5, 1999 October 26, 1999 I CONTACT: PHONE: REGULAR CONSENT X Dave Doody 7601 PUBLIC HEARING DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is requesting the Board of Supervisors to provide funding i and authorize the reinstallation of Airport Overflight Signs in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport. The North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) requires that the Airport Overflight Signs be installed (Exhibit "X'). The original signs were installed on July 23, 1998. Shortly thereafter, a sign was taken down without authorization, a-pparently a result of vandalism. The remaining, signs were then removed to avoid further acts of vandalism. i Since July, 1998, ALUC requested that the signs be reinstalled. The County Counsel's office was requested to review an alternative design for the airport overflight signs. On May 19, 1999, ALUC endorsed an alternative sign message and recommended the Board of Supervisors provide funding and authorize the reinstallation of the signs (Exhibit "C" and "D"). Alternative locations are also recommended by ALUC. New locations were selected to avoid placement in front of existing residences in favor of locations adjacent to vacant land. All signs would be placed within the County road right-of-way. Exhibit `B" identifies the recommended locations. I ACTION REQUESTED: A. Approve the new signs for compliance with the intent of Section 7.6-4 of the NCSP. i B. Approve the locations for the signs as recommended by ALUC. C. Direct the Public Works Department to acquire eight (8) 5' x 2.5' signs and install them at the locations noted in Exhibit "B." 1 D. Authorize a Budget transfer in the amount of $4,000 from 690,010, Appropriations for Contingencies to 480.001-553-030, Planning Interfund Road to pay for the purchase and installation of the signs. AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTALS REQUIRE THE ORIGINAL AND NINE (9) COPIES ATTACH EXPLANATOR YMEMORANDUMAND OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATIONAS NECESSARY Budgetary Impact: Yes x No_ CAO OFFICE USE ONLY If complete Budgetary Impact Worksheet on back ,yes, Budget Transfer Requested: Yes_x No_ Administrative Office Review If yes, complete Budget Transfer Request Worksheet on back. Administrative Office. Staff Contact :'Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda deadline) iWill Proposal Require an Agreement: Yes No—x 4/5's Vote Required: Yes: No: Auditor -Controller's Number (if required):_Forthcoming _Yes Date Received by Clerk of Board: 0 C i 13 1999 County Counsel's Approval: Yes No Will Proposal Require Additional Personnel: Yes No c Number of Permanent: Temp Extra Help P -evious board Action Date:_NA Additional Information Attached: Yes_a No Describe: Memorandrum from ALUC, NCSP text and map regarding sign and locations (Exhibit A), map of new locations (Exhibit B), Minutes o.' June 16, 1999 ALUC meeting (Exhibit C) and Graphic of new sign (Exhibit D). K:wLUC\130s.MEM\AIFt026.wPD +BUV]IV`ICE COUN19Y AIRPORT LAND UTE COMMISSION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95955 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • September 27, 1999 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Butte.County Board of Supervisors FROM: Robert Hennigan, Chairman, Butte County Airport Land Use Commission . SUBJECT: North Chico Specific Plan Airport Overflight Signs As you are aware, the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) requires .the placement of advisory signs in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport. The NCSP indicates on Figure 7-2 that there are to be eight 5'x 2.5' signs. The signs were installed within the County right-of-way on July 23, 1998. Shortly thereafter, a sign was subsequently taken down without authorization apparently a result of vandalism. The remaining signs were then removed to avoid, further acts of vandalism. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has voiced its objections to the removal of the signs. Since July, 1998, the ALUC held several hearings on an alternative design for the airport overflight signs. During these hearings, ALUC also proposed that several of the original sign locations be moved. It was agreed not to increase the number of signs and instead move some of the signs to new locations for better visibility. In consultation with County Counsel, on June 16, 1999, ALUC approved a sign alternative including the new locations (minutes attached). ALUC is requesting the Board of Supervisors to provide... funding and authorize the reinstallation of the signs. Attached you will find the proposed alternative sign, a map showing where the signs are proposed to be relocated and a written notation describing where the signs are to be relocated. ALUC found the proposed alternative sign less ominous and consistent with the overflight advisory language of the NCSP. ALUC staff was directed to provide cost estimates for the new signs. Staff contacted several sources. The City of Chico Sign Shop provided cost estimates from $360 to $400 per sign. This did not include installation. The City estimate is for a sign printed on standard 2'x 4' sheet material. Also, the Department of Public Works can make 3' x 3.75' signs for $143.50 each plus $100.00 per installation. An estimate was also obtained from Magoon Signs. The bid from Magoon Signs included 5'x2.5', reflective lettering and reflective background. They estimated it would cost $370 per sign. With installation by Public Works, the total cost would be $470 per sign. These estimates were obtained for informational purposes. The Board of Supervisors may request staff conduct a competitive bid process and lower costs maybe obtained. ALUC found the 2'x 4' sign as suggested by the City to be too small. ALUC would also likely find the County's 3' x 3.75' sign to be too small as well. ALUC requests the Board of Supervisors reinstall the 5' x 2.5' sign based on the estimated cost of $470 per sign. Thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter. Please place this matter on the Board's agenda as soon as possible. Sincerely, Mr. Norm Rosene, Vice Chariman for Mr. Robert Hennigan, Chairman Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Attachments K. t4L(,C'U_E'TT6RStSIGNC'HIC'.LTR • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN 7.6-3 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, and such related issues as are appropriate to fully inform such prospective home buyer or rental tenant. Enhanced disclosure may be modeled on Butte County Code, µ Chapter 35 Protection of Agricultural Land. 7.6-4 "Overflight Zone" road signage shall be installed at key access points into the Plan area, including Eaton Road, Garner Lane, Hicks Lane, New Arterial Road and Keefer Lane. Such signage shall be of such materials, size and design to be visible and readable from a moving vehicle. Figure 7-2 illustrates the concept. 7.6-5 The New Arterial Road and collector streets east of Gamer Lane shall be designated with aviation -related names as set forth in Butte County Code Chapter 32. 7.8 Principal Land Use Districts The following section summarizes the principal underlying land use districts within the NCSP area. The existing Butte County Zoning Ordinance has been followed closely and modified, where necessary, to ensure that NCSP goals and policies are achieved while facilitating administration by county staff: Definitions and Conditions Terms used in this document shall have the same definitions as provided for in the Butte County Code, unless otherwise defined herein. All regulations,. design criteria, requirements, and similar details not set forth herein shall be those as contained in appropriate sections of the Butte County Code. Residential Development Regulations Within the Plan area there are two basic residential categories: Suburban Residential and Residential. The standards contained herein are consistent with the County zoning standards 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 designation has three zone districts — R-1 (Low Density Residential), R-2 (Medium Density Residential), and R-3 (High Density Residential). Table 7-2 summarizes basic development regulations of each district. EXHIBIT � 7-8 Development Regulations and Design Guidelines r .a• u•o ' `s Awa -� 2 Cm- 3 •. r .. 1 � 8 I AIRCRAFT OVERFLIGHT ZONE THIS AREA SUOJECT TO NOISE ANO ar .APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF OTHER aST11Rs1►NCE REUTEO To THE -OVERFLIGHT ZONE' SIGNS OVERFLIGHT Of AIRCRAFT TO ANO FROM CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT. ANO TO AIRCAAFT OPERATIONS AT THE AIRPORT. NEW LOCATIONS PROPOSED BY ALUC I , OVERFLIGHT ZONE SIGNAGE Figure 7-2 EXHIBIT North Chico Specific Plan Lc�crLA-,V��NS 711 1.5 �s� be rme o bead i� ,r C) a )C J � � 20Ca I's c, V-\ e xk s v� N e Woo ✓ z, Wesi-, s ► c' c) IA ck 5 L-av\c o v- (:s> 5 inn c. i l ✓ ; G� E� 1�� �D o . Z wit les S C) L", v %<c>_ e -Cc N t c k S IV,\ - e�SeCG cvl C:, \r V !q G. l/j ril �c V, C, CC. fl L+ ✓j L e- v,\ e. �'\ \ �..: �� GC ✓� e 13 �� �cc o �vk c�a��.c� - IZ-`� 1. .. X15 oVI\ 711 1.5 �s� be rme o bead i� ,r C) a )C J � � 20Ca I's c, V-\ e xk s v� N e Woo ✓ z, Wesi-, s ► c' c) IA ck 5 L-av\c o v- (:s> 5 inn c. i l ✓ ; G� E� 1�� �D o . Z wit les S C) L", v %<c>_ e -Cc N t c k S IV,\ - e�SeCG cvl C:, \r V !q G. l/j ril �c V, C, CC. fl L+ ✓j o ✓A cl G C,,. - „.-o,, C> V, ,\wily vn - /Q c s s'� �a�'e- rr 5 �� ci e d Kee .i I;�c>c-8 � b o u -f- � S �: -. ea.s f-.... o � : fi�._.e: ��l►.� � cls. c�. t VIN sex s� s *mss L',.e- II , 1/ o L,3 � e.. k^ ' i” �C� ► S A . u 1'. I o Ca� ��o✓1 V c \ \ e� C -A- , a V*\ C-1 G\I- Vk e V, Gl�v\��� -l. T -L&-<.+ ToaA c.::>v \ -R-\ e e -o S �- s ^��. o Gtck / vie-v� l_Gv\ e , doe low ee- V-\ avk8 'v?>v'e"At OVA tkC- .e0..S-� S1Csle c>•f cl�a c-- \.,-vtevY , 4CM e v1o%r4-L, 5t'cJe- oS- Ec,\vl "AS J tHIBIT COUNTY OF BUTTE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of June 16, 1999 3. Discussion of AiMgrt Overflight Signnga for the North Chico S2WAC P1 Discussion item. The Commission will review and discuss the modified sign `as prepared by Commissioner Rosene. (Item Continued from May 19, 1999) Commissioner Rosene suggested that the proposed sign adopted by ALUC, be sent to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation to proceed. Mr. Doody recommended that ALUC agree that the sign meets the provisions of the North Chico .z: Specific Plan and have the Chairman write a letter of notification to the Board of Supervisors. Staff can put an item on the Board agenda to authorize funding of new signs or the repainting of the existing signs. Ruben Martinez from the City of Chico sign shop, provided an estimate of $360 to is 5 imp $400 per sign for new signs. Commissioner Rosene asked to participate on a committee on behalf of ALUC to examine the signs as they are completed, for final approval It was moved by Commissioner Rosene that ALUC write a letter to the Board of Supervisors asking them to find funding to have the signs placed as required by the 1994 North Chico Specific Plan and ~ . to proceed with great haste and also to have a committee from ALUC -have a final look- at. the.final - version of the signs. Commissioner Gerst noted there have been changes made in the.proposed locations of some of the signs from what was specified by the North Chico Specific Plan He suggested the subcommit_.tee also be involved in locating the signs to avoid more problems. ' Commissioner Rosene said the signs that were to be located at the end of Keefer Road should be . moved in closer to the actual North Chico Specific Plan area. He•agrepd,to_an amendment to his motion, that the recommended locations from the committee for the signs be included in the letter and that the committee be able to work with Public Works in the actual siting of the signs. Commissioner Rosene said the City of Chico also plans to place some signs and the committee should work with the City also in siting the signs. Mr. Doody noted the cost estimate of $360 to $400 was for a 2'x 4'sign, but the NCSP requires a 2.5'x 5' sign. Commissioner Rosene thought 2' wouki be too narrow and it would be worth an increased cost to get the signs right. Mr. Doody said staff would contact the City of Chico regarding the larger size. . Commissioner Rosene noted that traffic on county roads would be traveling faster and need the larger signs. The motion was seconded by Chairman Hennigan and carried unanimously. 11 I % EXHOT ,0 KEEFER l rk� e This �--'�'� _ .ATON area. is subject to noise impacts, over-fli ht actlVlt g and hazards x related to the o erattlon-- o�,Ch1c® Munrlci a1lirport,.- - - -- p - , 1� 1 AcpPt_o_- Cl 5/19191 L L4 C, AcpPt_o_- Cl 5/19191 L L4 C, BUTTE COUNTY ' LERK OF THE BOARD USE ONLY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: AGENDA TRANSMITTAL AGENDA ITEM: f 1 AGENDA TITLE: North Chico Specific Plan Overflight Signs - Request for Funding and Installation of Signs. DEPARTMENT: DATE: MEETING DATE REQUESTED: Development Services/Planning October 5, 1999 October 26, 1999 ICONTACT: PHONE: REGULAR CONSENT X Dave Doody 7601 PUBLIC HEARING _DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is requesting the Board of Supervisors to provide funding and authorize the reinstallation of Airport Overflight Signs in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport. The North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) requires that the Airport Overflight Signs be installed (Exhibit "X'). The original signs were installed on July 23, 1998. Shortly thereafter, a sign was taken down without authorization, j apparently a result of vandalism. The remaining signs were then removed to avoid further acts of vandalism. i Since July, 1998, ALUC requested that the signs be reinstalled. The County Counsel's office was requested to review an alternative design for the airport overflight signs. On May 19, 1999, ALUC endorsed an alternative sign message and recommended the Board of Supervisors provide funding and authorize the reinstallation of the signs (Exhibit "C" and "D"). Alternative locations are also recommended by ALUC. New locations were selected to avoid placement in front of existing residences in favor of locations adjacent to vacant land. All signs would be placed within the County road right-of-way. Exhibit `B" identifies the recommended locations. i ACTION REQUESTED: A. Approve the new signs for compliance with the intent of Section 7.6-4 of the NCSP. j. B. Approve the locations for the signs as recommended by ALUC. C. Direct the Public Works Department to acquire eight (8) 5' x 2.5' signs and install them at the locations noted in Exhibit "B." D. Authorize a Budget transfer in the amount of $4,000 from 690,010, Appropriations for Contingencies to 480.001-553-030, Planning Interfund Road to pay for the purchase and installation of the signs. AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTALS REQUIRE THE ORIGINAL AND NINE (9) COPIES ATTACH i EXPLANATOR YMEMORANDUMAND OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATIONAS NECESSARY Budgetary Impact: Yes x No_ CAO OFFICE USE ONLY If ves, complete Budgetary Impact Worksheet on back B udget Transfer Requested: Yes_x No_ Administrative Office Review If yes, complete Budget Transfer Request Worksheet on back. Administrative Office Staff Contact Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda deadline) iV,111 Proposal Require an Agreement: Yes No—x 4/5's Vote Required: Yes: No: Auditor -Controller's Number (if required):_Forthcoming Yes Date Received by Clerk of Board: 0 C T 13 1999 County Counsel's Approval: Yes No Will Proposal Require Additional Personnel: Yes No x Number of Permanent: Temp Extra Help i P evious Board Action Date:_NA Additional Information Attached: Yes_x No D,.scribe: Memorandrum from ALUC, NCSP text and map regarding sign and locations (Exhibit A), map of new locations (Exhibit B), Minutes o lune 16, 1999 ALUC meeting (Exhibit C) and Graphic of new sign (Exhibit D). K:wLUe\B0s.MEMwIFl026.wPD 1.. ►lE�`�"'1<`'I� cC® AIRPORT LAND UlE COMMISSION ►- • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95955 e (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • September 27, 1999 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Butte County Board of Supervisors FROM: Robert Hennigan, Chairman, Butte County Airport Land Use Commission SUBJECT: North Chico Specific Plan Airport Overflight Signs As you are aware, the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) requires the placement of advisory signs in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport. The NCSP indicates on Figure 7-2 that there are to be eight 5'x 2.5' signs. The signs were installed within the County right-of-way on July 23, 1998. Shortly thereafter, a sign was subsequently taker' down without authorization apparently a result of vandalism. The remaining signs were then removed to avoid further acts of vandalism. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has voiced its objections *to the removal of the signs. Since July, 1998, the ALUC held several hearings on an alternative design for the airport overflight signs. During these hearings, ALUC also proposed that several of the original sign locations be moved. It was agreed not to increase the number of signs and instead move some of the signs to new locations for better visibility. In consultation with County Counsel, on June 16, 1999, ALUC approved a sign alternative including the new locations (minutes attached). ALUC is requesting the Board of Supervisors to provide:. funding and authorize the reinstallation of the signs. Attached you will find the proposed alternative sign, a map showing where the signs are proposed to be relocated and a written notation describing where the signs are to be relocated. ALUC found the proposed alternative sign less ominous and consistent with the overflight advisory language of the NCSP. ALUC staff was directed to provide cost estimates for the new signs. Staff contacted several sources. The City of Chico Sign Shop provided cost estimates from $360 to $400 per sign. This did not include installation. The City estimate is for a sign printed on standard 2'x 4' sheet material. Also, the Department of Public Works can make 3' x 3.75' signs for $143.50 each plus $100.00 per installation. An estimate was also obtained from Magoon Signs. The bid from Magoon Signs included 5' x 2.5', reflective lettering and reflective background. They estimated it would cost $370 per sign. With installation by Public Works, the total cost would be $470 per sign. These estimates were obtained for informational purposes. The Board of Supervisors may request staff conduct a competitive bid process and lower costs maybe obtained. ALUC found the 2'x 4' sign as suggested by the City to be too small. ALUC would also likely find the County's 3' x 3.75' sign to be too small as well. ALUC requests the Board of Supervisors reinstall the 5' x 2.5' sign based on the estimated cost of $470 per sign. Thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter. Please place this matter on the Board's agenda as soon as possible. Sincerely, Mr. Norm Rosene, Vice Chariman for Mr. Robert Hennigan, Chairman Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Attachments K.tdLl%C'ILETTERSti'IG.,VC'HK'.LTR • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN 7.6-3 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, and such related issues as are appropriate to fully inform such prospective home buyer or rental tenant. 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 access points into the Plan area, including Eaton Road, Garner Lane, Hicks Lane, New Arterial Road and Keefer Lane. Such signage shall be of such materials, size and design to be visible and readable from a moving vehicle. Figure 7-2 illustrates the concept. 7.6-5 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. 7.8 Principal Land Use Districts The following section summarizes the principal underlying land use districts within the NCSP area. The existing Butte County Zoning Ordinance has been followed closely and modified, where necessary, to ensure that NCSP, goals and policies are achieved while facilitating administration by county staff. Definitions and Conditions Terms used in this document shall have the same definitions as provided for in the Butte County Code, unless otherwise defined herein. All regulations, design criteria, requirements, and similar details not set forth herein shall be those as contained in appropriate sections of the Butte County Code. " Residential Development Regulations Within the Plan area there are two basic residential categories: Suburban Residential and Residential. The standards contained herein are consistent with the County zoning standards 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 designation has three zone districts — R-1 (Low Density Residential), R-2 (Medium Density Residential), and R-3 (High Density Residential). Table 7-2 summarizes basic development regulations of each district. EXHIBIT 7-8 Development Regulations and Design Guidelines a � •' Iia �,., 's 2 3 ' ,. r i • 1 II. - AIRCRAFT OVERFUGNT ZONE THIS AREA SUBJECT TO NOISE ANO ar APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF OTHER DISTURBANCE REUTEO TO THE 'OVERFLIGHT ZONE' SIGNS OVERFIJOHT Of AIRCRAFT TO AND FROM CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, AND TO AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT THE AIRPORT- NEW LOCATIONS PROPOSED BY ALUC I OVERFLIGHT ZONE SIGNAGE Figure 7-2 EXHIBIT North Chico Sp-eci flc Plan �. C f 5 I` V LT%; (0LC-\, v I-AClIv-e. v..i.o_✓ 1,cec1 v+� J a\l\cl �oo Y\�Cf iz� t -j -!Sp v -c" l poo . Ke �N -j I Z= 9 C S ►� �.c we b e � i s � `s . c� : o v\ Vt& J beet .1V ,�oo18 a kCj � � V\,A C�l;1 box ✓ -t-►�e bo t-- CL S{ o Vl\ e X C, Z , W e iA c k s (^ v1 e ; �oV- tAbo,+ .Z�►les I v-\ �e- v- sec. �c �. e, ✓ V\ e- VN C�'_ U k,1 s A- } j�Ue Gk�v���/ arc\ C> V, ,\cam ;nI a OVA mssma loc-c �( a+ e i s bc.c ;o c� A S�- in o v' p � � �.� ) V-\ T1'o ✓1 I, C. �o v, C, Cvo- VN V, �. S� s� s� •.�-t-11 0 -� To8A -vv- I e C—{ckVv\e-V� LLG\Ae , +V,,e- oov-A-ti 5 t'6e v1 1[ J Q 1 V ve ✓ C,�. V/ J tXHIBIT -C COUNTY OF BUTTE :. ...,..,.ttO AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of June 16, 1999 3. Discussion of AiMgrt Overflight Signage for the North Chico SgWfic Plan: Discussion item. The Commission will review and discuss the modified sign as prepared by Commissioner Rosene. (Item Continued from May 19, 1999) Commissioner Rosene suggested that the proposed sign adopted by ALUC, be sent to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation to proceed. Mr. Doody recommended that ALUC agree that the sign meets the provisions of the North Chico Specific Plan and have the Chairman write a letter of notification to the Board of Supervisors. Staff can put an item on the Board agenda to authorize funding of new signs or the repainting of the existing signs. Ruben Martinez from the City of Chico sign shop, provided an estimate of $360 to $400 per sign for new signs. Commissioner Rosene asked to participate on a committee on behalf of ALUC to examine the signs as they are completed, for final approval <1i irf' i i C. It was moved by Commissioner Rosene that ALUC write a letter to the Board of Supervisors asking them to find funding to have the signs placed as required by the 1994 North Chico Specific Plan and to proceed with great haste and also to have a committee from ALUC have a final look: at. the final version of the signs. Commissioner Gerst noted there have been changes made in the.proposed locations of some of the signs from what was specified by the North Chico Specific Plan. He suggested the subcommittee also be involved in locating the signs to avoid more problems. Commissioner Rosene said the signs that were to be located at the end of Keefer Road should be moved in closer to the actual North Chico Specific Plan area. He agreed,ta_an amendment to his motion, that the recommended locations from the committee for the signs be included in the letter and that the committee be able to work with Public Works in the actual siting of the signs. Commissioner Rosene said the City of Chico also plans to place some signs and the.committee should work with the City also in siting the signs. Mr. Doody noted the cost estimate of $360 to $400 was for a 2'x 4'sign, but the NCSP requires a 2.5'x 5' sign. Commissioner Rosene thought 2' would be too narrow and it would be worth an increased cost to get the signs right. Mr. Doody said staff would contact the City of Chico regarding the larger size. . Commissioner Rosene noted that traffic on county roads would be traveling faster and need the larger signs. The motion was seconded by Chairman Hennigan and carried unanimously. r Y EXHIBIT ,0 RA,tv ey Y, _ 1 111i t _ • y . e..z-- ";z-'"%-.x"�'"'rxa "'� +a � , � ' 14 s. � y !�^^' 3 t^^� 4 � tt ^•x�.,.r�...,, ..1) 'F,t ,: , �. t - _ c r: .,r�.�'•'t^ . .r sSgS%,. S' .lf,.�j....s.G S -� ri'S ..� ; , .� it ' 4 �".. /..CL'1G�>'rt.tt5"%%SY:.•."..,...., ,,,C.y� "� WK- ? /ti s:,h`•sz �rsktz n- � � - ! •' 4 , , ��t:.1'!'. `ri! C' :�%Y.,L �'iJC/ �� �.a[n 'rY.?' - i z .. !77=7 ! E � .�'vix rc., •yz�- sr"rr^? e:.:^a^��3-'`'.,y s y�� 5 •'...� .. '•-x-- .tt r� a<�� zz - z Fx ,'c "xrls 15 •a ".9 tti -+ fir` `+^,.'""- _"jTA y •�... �i /1. r J SIC ...... may, n E E■ LJ o C t S1� ter,.: Ell 51 ° fes✓ ` o �� i �>: s r Y std; NN ASSE • ., Y 'k. ; .. . t.. e ry i tom'` • � � .._ .. t; � � .i .. �� .. .. ... 4-, . oo y ..a9 9 t ... ' • r[I r_ is A NS, k'r are � � � ,=3,�t� =. ,:.,. .,,,�„•,� .� ; ,,, � lii° 1 t yrs• O 7G 'xa r i, • U sou T tt to 11 /uzy� . z +... ., y no_mpacts rp - oyer-=fll- hactivity g � e. . G" x,Y,.u',/�^ x-" -�sx� ms's 'zair3r- � s. � , �i✓�?c�"�'' �'' z x i rz ax sus >� "a ag 'C. and azard. - hs t YT? c a1ry nrt ri£ -s' �1 Y c e elated to the- o ert�on p ;a Y f hicW-Municopal qtr �®rCe� p ]BUTTE COUNTY • CLERK OF THE BOARD USE ONLY BOAR OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: AGENDA TRANSMITTAL AGENDA ITEM: AGENDA TITLE: North Chico Specific Plan Overflight Signs - Request for Funding and Installation of Signs. DEPARTMENT: DATE: MEETING DATE REQUESTED: Development Services/Planning October 5, 1999 October 26, 1999 i CONTACT: PHONE: REGULAR CONSENT X Dave Doody 7601 PUBLIC HEARING DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is requesting the Board of Supervisors to provide funding and authorize the reinstallation of Airport Overflight Signs in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport. The North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) requires that the Airport Overflight Signs be installed (Exhibit "A"). The original signs were installed on July 23, 1998. Shortly thereafter, a sign was taken down without authorization, apparently a result of vandalism. The remaining signs were then removed to avoid further acts of vandalism. Since July, 1998, ALUC requested that the signs be reinstalled. The County Counsel's office was requested to review an alternative design for the airport overflight signs. On May 19, 1999, ALUC endorsed an alternative sign message and recommended the Board of Supervisors provide funding and authorize the reinstallation of the signs (:exhibit "C" and "D"). Alternative locations are also recommended by ALUC. New locations were selected to avoid placement in front of existing residences in favor of locations adjacent to vacant land. All signs would be placed within the County road right-of-way. Exhibit `B" identifies the recommended locations. ACTION REQUESTED: A. Approve the new signs for compliance with the intent of Section 7.6-4 of the NCSP. B. Approve the locations for the signs as recommended by ALUC. C. Direct the Public Works Department to acquire eight (8) 5' x 2.5' signs and install them at the locations noted in Exhibit "B." D. Authorize a Budget transfer in the amount of $4,000 from 690.010, Appropriations for . Contingencies to 480.001-553-030, Planning Interfund Road to pay for the purchase and installation of the signs. AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTALS REQUIRE THE ORIGINAL AND NINE (9) COPIES ATTACH EXPLANATORYMEMORANDUMAND OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATIONAS NECESSARY iBudgetary Impact: Yes x No_ CAO OFFICE USE ONLY If yes, complete Budgetary Impact Worksheet on back B udget Transfer Requested: YesNo Administrative Office Review _x If yes, complete Budget Transfer Request Worksheet on back. Administrative Office Staff Contact Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda deadline) Will Proposal Require an Agreement: Yes No x 4/5's Vote Required: Yes: No: Auditor -Controller's Number (if required):_Fortheoming_Yes Date Received by Clerk of Board: 0 C T 13 1999 County Counsel's Approval: Yes No iWill Proposal Require Additional Personnel: Yes No x Number of Permanent: Temp Extra Help P evious board Action Date:—NA Additional Information Attached: Yes_x No Coscribe: Memorandrum from ALUC, NCSP text and map regarding sign and locations (Exhibit A), map of new locations (Exhibit B), Minutes o ' June 16, 1999 ALUC meeting (Exhibit C) and Graphic of new sign (Exhibit D). K:\ALUC\B0S.MEM\AIFl026.wPD • • +BUTT E COUNTY AIRPORT LAND. USE COMMISSION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95955 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • . September 27, 1999 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Butte County Board of Supervisors FROM: . Robert Hennigan, Chairman, Butte County Airport Land Use Commission SUBJECT: North Chico Specific Plan Airport Overflight Signs As you are aware, the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) requires the placement of advisory signs in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport. The NCSP indicates on Figure 7-2 that there are to be eight 5' x 2.5' signs. The signs were installed within the County right-of-way on July 23, 1998. Shortly thereafter, a sign was subsequently taken down without authorization apparently a result of vandalism. The remaining signs were then removed to avoid further acts of vandalism. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has voiced its objections 'to the removal of the signs. Since July, 1998, the ALUC held several hearings on an alternative design for the airport overflight signs. During these hearings, ALUC also proposed that several of the original sign locations be moved. It was agreed not to increase the number of signs and instead move some of the signs to new locations for better visibility. In consultation with County Counsel, on June 16, 1999, ALUC approved a sign alternative including the new locations (minutes attached). ALUC is requesting the Board of Supervisors to provide. funding and authorize the reinstallation of the signs. Attached you will find the proposed alternative sign, a map showing where the signs are proposed to be relocated and a written notation describing where the signs are to be relocated. ALUC found the proposed alternative sign less ominous and consistent with the overflight advisory language of the NCSP. ALUC staff was directed to provide cost estimates for the new signs. Staff contacted several sources. The City of Chico Sign Shop provided cost estimates from $360 to $400 per sign. This did not include installation. The City estimate is for a sign printed on standard 2'x 4' sheet material. Also, the Department of Public Works can make 3' x 3.75' signs for $143.50 each plus $100.00 per installation. An estimate was also obtained from Magoon Signs. The bid from Magoon Signs included 5' x 25, reflective lettering and reflective background. They estimated it would cost $370 per sign. With installation by Public Works, the total cost would be $470 per sign. These estimates were obtained for informational purposes. The Board of Supervisors may request staff conduct a competitive bid process and lower costs may be obtained. ALUC found the 2'x 4' sign as suggested by the City to be too small. ALUC would also likely find the County's 3' x 3.75' sign to be too small as well. ALUC requests the Board of Supervisors reinstall the 5' x 2.5' sign based on the estimated cost of $470 per sign. Thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter. Please place this matter on the Board's agenda as soon as possible. Sincerely, Mr. Norm Rosene, Vice Chariman for Mr. Robert Hennigan, Chairman Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Attachments K.i-tWOLE77ER86IGNCHICUR • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN 7.6-3 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, and such related issues as are appropriate to fully inform such prospective home buyer or rental tenant. 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 access points into the Plan area, including Eaton Road, Garner Lane, Hicks Lane, New Arterial Road and Keefer Lane. Such signage shall be of such materials, size and design to be visible and readable from a moving vehicle. Figure 7-2 illustrates the concept. 7.6-5 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. 7.8 Principal Land Use Districts The following section summarizes the principal underlying.land use districts within the NCSP area. The existing Butte County Zoning Ordinance has been followed closely ano modified, where necessary, to ensure that NCSP goals and policies are achieved while facilitating administration by county staff. Definitions and Conditions Terms used in this document shall have the same definitions as provided for in the Butte County Code, unless otherwise defined herein. All regulations, design criteria, requirements, and similar details not set forth herein shall be those as contained in appropriate sections of the Butte County Code. Residential Development Regulations Within the Plan area there are two basic residential categories: Suburban Residential and Residential. The standards contained herein are consistent with the County zoning standards 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 designation has three zone districts — R-1 (Low Density Residential), R-2 (Medium Density Residential), and R-3 (High Density Residential). Table 7-2 summarizes basic development regulations of each district. EXHIBIT . A. 7-8 Development Regulations and Design Guidelines •' If•• ftp - - •ms 1' • • 3 � :2 �a A Alm C / - / ' 00 • `.• Aar / •• I • 4 • • • 6D`�/ • dF • • I AIRCRAFT OVEAFUGMT ZONE fi THIS AREA SUBJECT TO NOISE ANO ar APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF OTHER DIST It 0 To TME •OVERFLIGHT ZONE' SIGNS OVQgf1,lONT OF AIRCRAFT TO ANO FROM CMICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, ANO TO AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT THE AIRPORT. —��• NEW LOCATIONS PROPOSED BY ALUC I ' OVE.RFLIG.HT ZONE SIGNAGE Figure 7-2 EXHIBIT North Chico Specific Plan U �� Lc) J c� vl O C: lZ OVA J L 13 • i 1 I a��oo C1 h e c.J V V\ y e 1� O t -j SI,J(D �. a 1 ✓� L V A -C:) sc S v V` cwt b e✓. is k s .c� o w�G . VI 0✓ A e T�_Y e(,s� o v,A�, 1 box ✓ -t-�,� i f Z, West- s C- o 1� k cic . Z e-Cees o lec�C� i � /v C S � 5 �� o'a�v\,-1 a ,D `/ p ►� �i- j. ec C I Glcc C! Li I\ee �'✓ 4 ✓1�SeCT t o✓A e v\AVcl,V\Le 4 - vxe L -j j' -�-+ %- U cAC i..� e' >n 1' l S i,t 1 VI �c V" 5 C-C-Tl"O ✓1 C -A- , a.VI e,r . i O vx �c�5� S G)�� v VIC A �-e,,rv\c. 0c -c v1 �oe- ee� p ✓A V\, e v � ` - ` L -i- � V1pv/�V� 5tc.1e O` E� J EXHIBIT -n COUNTY OF BUTM AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of June 16, 1999 3. Discussion of Airport Overflight Signage for the North Chico S Wfic Plan: . Discussion item. The Commission will review and discuss the modified sign `as prepared by Commissioner Rosene. (Item Continued from May 19, 1999) Commissioner Rosene suggested that the proposed sign adopted by ALUC, be sent to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation to proceed. Mr. Doody recommended that ALUC agree that the sign meets the provisions of the North Chico Specific Plan and have the Chairman write a letter of notification to the Board of Supervisors. Staff can put an item on the Board agenda to authorize funding of new signs or the repainting of the existing signs. Ruben Martinez from the City of Chico sign shop, provided an estimate of $360 to $400 per sign for new signs. Commissioner Rosene asked to participate on a committee on behalf of ALUC to examine the signs as they are completed, for final approvaL It was moved by Commissioner Rosene that ALUC write a letter to the Board of Supervisors_aslrittg them to find funding to have the signs placed as required by the 1994 North Chico Specific Plan and to proceed with great haste and also to have a committee from ALUC -have a final look. at. the final - version of the signs. Commissioner Gerst noted there have been changes made in the.proposed locations of some of the signs from what was specified by the North Chico Specific Plan. He suggested, the subcommittee also be involved in locating signs the si ' = to avoid more problems. Commissioner Rosene said the signs that were to be located at the end of Keefer Road should be moved in closer to the actual North Chico Specific Plan area. .He.agreed to,an amendment to his motion, that the recommended locations from the committee for the signs be included in the letter and r that the committee be able to work with Public Works in the actual siting ofthe signs. . Commissioner Rosene said the City of Chico also plans to place some signs and the committee should work with the City also in siting the signs. Mr. Doody noted the cost estimate of $360 to $400 was for a 2'x 4'sign, but the NCSP requires a 2.5'x 5' sign. Commissioner Rosene thought T would be too narrow and it would be worth an increased cost to get the signs right. Mr. Doody said staff would contact the City of Chico regarding the larger size. . Commissioner Rosene noted that traffic on county roads would be traveling faster and need the larger signs. The motion was seconded by Chairman Hennigan and carried unanimously. 0 { 9 _— •- _ten. �e ��. ., -- Y 01, Sr h �CKS v y r, CiARN E R u V i Thi l n EATON a Subject to -Ig A3 noise impacts, � oveir-mfil-ght activit y 4 hazards an e� ted -to theoper:ttio_ �- of Chico Municipa1 airport,,,, 7N- 71- AIRCRIAT OVERFLIGHT ZONE q :E AIRCRAFT OVERFLIGHT VTHIS 'AREA SUBJECT jj-j- -VIUI)t I-V-10 MRL'M'SUBJECI TO"NIOIS & AANDoOTHERtPISTURBA C-NDIOTHER,DISTUR8AW65REOTEb,4o THEOVERFLIGHT 'RELAlEDt0TH5,bv IAT 40 FR OM -OR- -,T CH1,00MU N,101-PAL&O J,'i; PALAIR ' RUT, V .�TO:",A-IRCRAPT;O�tR,ATIONS';- �`.,CHIOO MUNICI- NAND':T,O,AIRC'RAF,T'- OPERO'I'&S,- AT-1HEVA10' THE AIRPORT Title: Title: Date: Date: Description: Description: S "Z hfa a� end ji q, �et Page 1 Flo, M -, Oft AM 140 ON tll V- �,V t®r 71- AIRCRIAT OVERFLIGHT ZONE q :E AIRCRAFT OVERFLIGHT VTHIS 'AREA SUBJECT jj-j- -VIUI)t I-V-10 MRL'M'SUBJECI TO"NIOIS & AANDoOTHERtPISTURBA C-NDIOTHER,DISTUR8AW65REOTEb,4o THEOVERFLIGHT 'RELAlEDt0TH5,bv IAT 40 FR OM -OR- -,T CH1,00MU N,101-PAL&O J,'i; PALAIR ' RUT, V .�TO:",A-IRCRAPT;O�tR,ATIONS';- �`.,CHIOO MUNICI- NAND':T,O,AIRC'RAF,T'- OPERO'I'&S,- AT-1HEVA10' THE AIRPORT Title: Title: Date: Date: Description: Description: S "Z hfa a� end ji q, �et Page 1 8. Update on North Chico Specific Plan Signage Mr., Parilo told the Commission that the C.S.A. 87 funding source that provides for traffic and drainage fees were used as start up funding to, install the signs. Three subdivisions have been approved. Each required a contribution toward the NCSP Airport notification signage program. One map was filed requiring payment of the fee. With the initial payment of funds, the Public Works Department was contacted to build the signs and install them. Public Works suggested purchasing all the signs needed and installing them all at once, because the unit cost would be less. They then identified C.S.A. 87 funds as the appropriate funding source. Future projects would replenish funds used for the initial building and installation. The signs were.ordered, and were subsequently installed on July 23, 1998. However, as installation was taking place, several calls came into the Department, raising concerns regarding property value being lower with the installation of those signs. On July 29, 1998, a Public Works employee reported that one sign had been pushed over, apparently as an act of vandalism. Then, Public Works was contacted to discuss the overall issue of how they maintain the signs, the funding for reinstallation, and how would it be funded. There are currently no funds earmarked for this purpose. Because of the unanswered funding issue, the action taken at the time was to remove the signs until a reliable funding program could be developed. Several issues have come up regarding the signs; 1. How were the signs installed? Because they are in the County right-of-way, they install them in the ground without cement, in the event a car should hit them. 2. Who can install the signs? Because of liability and standards used in the placement of signs, only County Workers can install the signs in the right-of-way. 3. Who will pay for the signs? Payment of the signs comes from people who develop property within the North Chico Specific Plan Area. So, as land is developed, conditions are applied, a fee will be paid, and those funds will replenish the account where they originally took them, from. Normally, a note would be placed on the map that they will make payment of a proportional share of the cost of the signs upon recordation of the map. The initial funds for construction and installation were received this way. The money paid Commissioner Koch asked why our signs are not becoming Public Works signs. once installation has taken place, because `any other sign 'installed by the County or by a developer become the ownership .of the Department.of Public Works. The Department of Public Works pays for them somehow, or it would come out of their normal budget. = Mr. Parilo said that some subdivisions formed CSAs to maintain their 'roads. Anything concerning those roads, such as, traffic controlsigns would normally be funded through that revenue source as well. On other county maintained roads the County uses the road fund to maintain traffic and road signs. County road signs are different from warnings or notices regarding airport operations. These signs, are not a requirement of the Streets and Highways'Code. The source for.the airport signage is the North Chico Specific Plan. Commissioner Rosene asked how many.signsthey,installed and how many were_ removed? Mr. Parilo said that they installed eight. signs and that they knocked over one, and the seven remaining signs were removed: Commissioner Rosene believes that they should punish the people or person responsible for vandalizing the signs, and they should not have removed the signs. Comm issioner.Koch said he is the Risk Manager for the City of Chico; and that Steve Musselman is the Risk Manager for the County. He said that the City, and the County are, self-insured. He mentioned that they both have the money at.their disposal in those self-insured funds to replace damaged vehicles, damaged signs, and damaged public property. He feels that the signs should be up, and if they knock them down, they should notify Steve Musselman, and he would take care of it through those funds. Commissioner Koch stated that if there was a significant loss incurred in the North Chico Specific Plan Area, you could bet the County's self-insurance fund is going to respond because there is no money otherwise. Mr. Parilo said there needs to be a reliable funding: source identified. At which time the County would repair, restore, or provide the proper maintenance required for those signs. Commissioner Koch asked what the C.S.A. 87 Traffic fees were used for,. Mr. Parilo said that they were associated with the road ways'. Another option was to have the signs installed on private property, and require that the developers of the private property provide for the ongoing maintenance of those signs. He said that a comprehensive fee schedule is not currently in place to deal with flooding, traffic, parks, fire stations and other improvements required by the North Chico Specific Plan. Chairman Hennigan mentioned that we are still subdividing land and selling lots. Brian Baldridge asked whose decision it was to remove the signs? Mr. Parilo said the Public Works Department in concert with the Department of Development Services. I , Commissioner Papadakis asked about increasing the developer's fee to cover any replacement costs: Mr. Parilo said that there was nothing wrong with establishing a fee, but they have not established a fee at this time. The only fees that a developer currently pays relative to the North Chico Specific Plan deal with traffic and drainage. However, the fees that the developers are paying, at this time will.. have to increase significantly to cover actual costs. Every subdivision that goes forward enters an agreement that once the final fees are adopted, they will pay whatever that amount is. Chairman Hennigan said that we had a condition that is not being mitigated. Mr. Parilo said the Airport Land Use Commission previously expressed concern that lots are being sold, and that the signs should be up. There needs to be a way of installing all of the signs at once. The system was in place to purchase and install the signs, but there are no ongoing funds available to cover repair or reinstallation as it is required. Commissioner Koch asked why the debit account that is set'up cannot continue to be used towards the purchase and installation of the signs. The signs could be reinstalled, and whatever maintenance that occurs could be debited against' that account. As more development occurs out there, it would help pay back the traffic account. Chairman Hennigan questioned that only County employees can put up signs, and that no one has ever been contracted to install them? Mr. Parilo said in the County right-of-way. Brian Baldridge asked Mr. Parilo if there is a mechanism for a nonprofit organization wanting to, make a donation to order and install a complete set' of. replacement ' - F-,�.;�• Y .. .moi• t .. �-. signs? Mr. Parilo said he would like to think so, but they have not really looked into it at this time. He said there would have to be an- agreement with the Board of Supervisors to accept funds for that purpose. He would look into 'it. Commissioner Koch said.that most public agencies had donations,' Iegacies and bequest procedures, that-is'either up to Chief Administrative Officer or the Governing Board to accept the money. Brian Baldridge said we could work on that. K:W LUC\PROJ ECT.MEMW CSP.TP Sr , .. ., `'. c) 1 Q ' 03 ,. oq +BUTTE COUN Y AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEM TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: ALUC Staff DATE: October 17, 1999 ITEM: Progress report on North Chico Specific Plan Airport Overflight Signs FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of October 20, 1999 SUMMARY: Item 3 of the Monthly Status Report states that the revised Airport Overflight sign has been referred to the Board's office to be agendized for action. Staff referred a packet to the Board Clerk with a request to hear this item on October 26, 1999. On today's date, staff was contacted by the County Counsel's office. The County Counsel indicated that the item had been "pulled" at the request of CAO John Blacklock and Chair Dolan. One of the main reasons was that the Board's agenda for October 26, 1999, was too*crowded. The item will be rescheduled in November, however, an exact date was not given. In the development of an alternative overflight sign as required by the North Chico Specific Plan, Supervisor Houx and Chair Dolan worked with County Counsel and a citizens's group to prepare an acceptable notification sign. Attached you will find the text of the proposed sign, as endorsed by the Board of Supervisors sub- committee. It is a message -only sign. A • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 10%19%99 10:58FA% 530 538,6891 'BUTTE COINn COUNSEL PLANNING 0001 AIRCRAFT OVER Ll HT ZONE ao. - J THIS AREA SUBJECT TO NORMAL AIRPORT RELATED ACTIVITY BASED UPONTHE OVERFLIGHT OF AIRCRAFT TO AND FROM. CHICO MiJNICIPAL AIRPORT AND AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT THE AIRPORT Planning Dividon PoSt.jV Fax Note 7671 Date _.tom 2 To N1 X-I Fmm ComeP Ca: Phone a Phone A 6 i i Fen � � , S F8X tl - , • i BUTTE COUNTY • LERK OF THE BOARD USE ONLY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: AGENDA TRANSMITTAL AGENDA ITEM: AGENDA TITLE: North Chico Specific Plan Overflight Signs - Request for Funding and Installation of Signs. DEPARTMENT: DATE: MEETING DATE REQUESTED: Development Services/Planning October 5, 1999 October 26, 1999 CONTACT: PHONE: REGULAR CONSENT X Dave Doody 7601 PUBLIC HEARING DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is requesting the Board of Supervisors to provide funding and authorize the reinstallation of Airport Overflight Signs in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport. The North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) requires that the Airport Overflight Signs be installed (Exhibit "N'). The original signs were installed on July 23, 1998. Shortly thereafter, a sign was taken down without authorization, apparently a result of vandalism. The remaining signs were then removed to avoid further acts of vandalism. Since July, 1998, ALUC requested that the signs be reinstalled. The County Counsel's office was requested to review an alternative design for the airport overflight signs. On May 19, 1999, ALUC endorsed an alternative sign message and recommended the Board of Supervisors provide funding and authorize the reinstallation of the signs I (:Exhibit "C" and "D"). Alternative locations are also recommended by ALUC. New locations were selected to avoid placement in front of existing residences in favor of locations adjacent to vacant land. All signs would be placed within the County road right-of-way. Exhibit `B" identifies the recommended locations. I ACTION REQUESTED: A. Approve the new signs for compliance with the intent of Section 7.6-4 of the NCSP. i B. Approve the locations for the signs as recommended by ALUC. i C. Direct the Public Works Department to acquire eight (8) 5' x 2.5' signs and install them at the locations noted in Exhibit "B." D. Authorize a Budget transfer in the amount of $4,000 from 690.010, Appropriations for Contingencies to 480.001-553-030, Planning Interfund Road to pay for the purchase and installation of the signs. AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTALS REQUIRE THE ORIGINAL AND NINE (9) COPIES ATTACH EXPLANA TORY MEMORANDUMAND OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATIONAS NECESSARY iBudgetary Impact: Yes x No CAO OFFICE USE ONLY If ves, complete Budgetary Impact Worksheet on back Budget Transfer Requested: Yes_x No_ Administrative Office Review If yes, complete Budget Transfer Request Worksheet on back. Administrative Office Stats Contact 'Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda deadline) 'Will Proposal Require an Agreement: Yes No—x 4/5's Vote Required: Yes: No: Auditor -Controller's Number (if required):_Forthcoming_Yes Date Received by Clerk of Board: County Counsel's Approval: Yes No Will Proposal Require Additional Personnel: Yes No x Number of Permanent: Temp Extra Help P -evious Board Action Date:_NA Additional Information Attached: Yes_a No Doscribe: Memorandrum from ALUC, NCSP text and map regarding sign and locations (Exhibit A), map of new locations (Exhibit B), Minutes o.' June 16, 1999 ALUC meeting (Exhibit Q and Graphic of new sign (Exhibit D). K:\AL.UC\B0s.MEM\AIFl026.wPD ` F ! • .c^ ; T .- � � . . ,fir �. c- F'• n ` T • � .. � !. ` + fir` �`•, �...- � ; - 40 o +BurrE COUNTAIRPORT T ]FANO USE COMMISSION • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95955 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 - September 27, 1999 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Butte County Board of Supervisors FROM: Robert Hennigan, Chairman, Butte County Airport Land Use Commission SUBJECT: North Chico Specific Plan Airport Overflight Signs As you are aware, the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) requires the placement of advisory signs in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport. The NCSP indicates on Figure 7-2 that there are to be eight 5' x 2.5' signs. The signs were installed within the County right-of-way on July 23, 1998. Shortly thereafter, a sign was subsequently taken down without authorization apparently a result of vandalism. The remaining signs were then removed to avoid further acts of vandalism. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has voiced its objections to the removal of the signs. Since July, 1998, the ALUC held several hearings on an alternative design for the airport overflight signs. During these hearings, ALUC also proposed that several of the original sign locations be moved. It was agreed not to increase the number of signs and instead move some of the signs to new locations for better visibility. In consultation with County Counsel, on June 16, 1999, ALUC approved a sign alternative including the new locations (minutes attached). ALUC is requesting the Board of Supervisors to provide, funding and authorize the reinstallation of the signs. Attached you will find the proposed alternative sign, a map showing where the signs are proposed to be relocated and a written notation describing where the signs are to be relocated. ALUC found the proposed alternative sign less ominous and consistent with the overflight advisory language of the NCSP. ALUC staff was directed to provide cost estimates for the new signs. Staff contacted several sources. The City of Chico Sign Shop provided cost estimates from $360 to $400 per sign. This did not include installation. The City estimate is for a sign printed on standard 2'x 4' sheet material. Also, the Department of Public Works can make 3' x 3.75' signs for $143.50 each plus $100.00 per installation. An estimate wasalso obtained from Magoon Signs. The bid from Magoon Signs included 5' x 2.5', reflective lettering and reflective background. They estimated it would cost $370 per sign. With installation by Public Works,. the total cost would be $470 per sign. These estimates were obtained for informational purposes. The Board of Supervisors may request staff conduct a competitive bid process and lower costs may be obtained. ALUC found the 2'x 4' sign as suggested by the City to be too small. ALUC would also likely find the County's 3' x 3.75' sign to be too small as well. ALUC requests the Board of Supervisors reinstall the 5' x 2.5' sign based on the estimated cost of $470 per sign. Thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter. Please place this matter on the Board's agenda as soon as possible. Sincerely, Mr. Norm Rosene, Vice Chariman for Mr. Robert Hennigan, Chairman Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Attachments kt4LI.,cILfrreRS�SIGIVCHIC.LiR • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN 7.6-3 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, and such related issues as are appropriate to fully inform such prospective home buyer or rental tenant. 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 access points into the Plan area, including Eaton Road, Garner Lane, Hicks Lane, New Arterial Road and Keefer Lane. Such signage shall be of such materials, size and design to be visible and readable from a moving vehicle. Figure 7-2 illustrates the concept. 7.6-5 The New Arterial Road and collector streets east of Gamer Lane shall be designated with aviation -related names as set forth in Butte County Code. Chapter 32. 7.8 Principal Land Use 'Districts The following section summarizes the principal underlying land use districts within the NCSP area. The existing Butte County Zoning Ordinance has been followed closely and modified, where necessary,. to ensure that NCSP goals and policies are achieved while facilitating administration by county staff. Definitions and Conditions. Terms used in this document shall have the same definitions as provided for in the Butte County Code, unless otherwise defined herein. All regulations, design criteria, requirements, and similar details not set forth herein shall be those as contained in appropriate sections of the Butte County Code. Residential Development Regulations Within the Plan area there are two basic residential categories: Suburban Residential and Residential. The standards contained herein are consistent with the County zoning standards 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 designation has three zone districts — R-1 (Low Density Residential), R-2 (Medium Density Residential), and R-3 (High Density Residential). Table 7-2 summarizes basic development regulations of each district. EXHIBIT A- 7-8 Development Regulations and Design Guidelines . q 3 O \ � • 1 r AIRCRAFT OVEAFUGHT ZONE TNI! AREA SUBJECT TO NOISE ANO sr OTHER p$TLIR01►NCE RELATED TO TN! OVQRPLJONT OI AIRCRAFT f0 ANO fgOY CNICO YUNICIIAL AIRPORT. AMO TO AIRCRAFT OPERATION$ AT_T1/E AIRPORT. R / � I Chm "J ............ II bft .1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF 'OVERFLIGHT ZONE' SIGNS -�� NEW LOCATIONS PROPOSED BY ALUC OVERFLIGHT ZONE SIGNAGE Figure 7-2 EXHIBIT North Chico Specific Plan —7-1Z— 99 U — S vi L S G�v�CS ( o C- IvX C7✓� e...1 1 1 �oo 'ec� c.J T� L ...: 1 `� c� ✓� e i1 13II a\ i'eii0� 5 v, a1 ✓�'t , I V-, C)C-c'IFN v.s dc"-�e -7- d ck,�eCA sc&, e , +A^ e- v\. �s� be rme_ o° be„�cl i:�, Nroaet a ) Cl J � � v\,A box -t- � C - ✓cc 32 S K� t 1 L ,-o f 10 C- G 0O ,A l 5 y t� c( e X s N e ,WOO VA ood t,.} C, Z, Wes;- s i c� c- o - iA k ck s L_ SLAB A- ii� n --e- v- s e G T n vl S t CA - CA c7 �� c� • o kec ✓ G✓8 C-tG✓tee✓ C3�s,c.�i� 5 0✓, VA C,�-��i VVI C, A 6ouT 7 �S, f _ L �Ce� ✓ 4 v1rt� Sec �✓� 1occJc(j a+ V,O C-,� L-3 V e V\- �- s . bu l' s- V1 . i C., - C,, �A o V -x -fie. -7. ST'o8A e, S , ( e. O Gt CAL v%e- OVA e_ �- �� v10 ✓+fin 5 � c� e o� E � � �-n S J tXHIBIT COUNTY OF BUTTE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of June 16, 1999 3. Discussion of Airport Overflight Sign„fe for the North Chico Specific► PIAn: Discussion item. The Commission will review and discuss the modified sign `as prepared by Commissioner Rosene. (Item Continued from May 19, 1999) Commissioner Rosene suggested that the proposed sign adopted by ALUC, be sent to the Board of Supervisors .with a recommendation to proceed. Mr. Doody recommended that ALUC agree that the sign meets the provisions of the North Chico Specific Plan and have the Chairman write a letter of notification to the Board of Supervisors. Staff can put an item on the Board agenda to authorize funding of new signs or the repainting of the ' Pza existing signs. Ruben Martinez from the City of Chico'sign shop, provided an.estimate of $360 to $400 per sign for new signs. Commissioner Rosene asked to participate on a committee on behalf of ALUC to examine the signs as they are completed, for final approval. It was moved by Commissioner Rosene that ALUC write a letter to the Board of Supervisors them to find funding to have the signs placed as required by the 1994 North Chico Specific Plan and . to proceed with great haste and also to have a committee from ALUC have a final look: at the. final version of the signs. Commissioner Gerst noted there have been changes made in the. proposed locations of some of the signs from what was specified by the North Chico Specific Plan. He suggested the subcommittee also be involved in locating the signs to avoid more problems. ... ' , •:;..'.' Commissioner Rosene said the signs that were to be located at the end of Keefer Road should be moved in closer to the actual North Chico Specific Plan area..He_agreed,ta_an amendment to his motion, that the recommended locations from the committee for the signs be included in the letter and that the committee be able to work with Public Works in the actual siting of the signs. Commissioner Rosene said the City of Chico also plans to place some signs and the committee should work with the City also in siting the signs. Mr. Doody noted the cost estimate of $360 to $400 was for a 2' x 4'sign, but the NCSP requires a 2.5'x 5' sign. Commissioner Rosene thought 2' would be too narrow and it would be worth an increased cost to get the signs right. Mr. Doody said staff would contact the City of Chico regarding the larger size. . Commissioner Rosene noted that traffic on county roads would be traveling faster and need the larger signs. The motion was seconded by Chairman Hennigan and carried unanimously. • EXHIBIT O ///l��\ { . � � } f - t 's . �s::sw'e�.:'t-�s:'x.4;�, •».�z.�s..�...'�'z ., sz:��py����=sa'SS�'??11�� L i.r-�' !i .. -.� l i - S.'♦. 7.f.:".,:.�.•.X..�.-....ww:.:"!.:.."".,'..5.... .��.:�,�ti,�, .y „n:f.'.1 � Jr � .�. - Y• ♦ x+• 'W F t 1. ;�^9^ s'„„,-. 'S;Lw:r,.0 { '- n -.� .. i •. :, a • n 1' u i u�t Y, ,n. "3'^G"' '.".'Y- S .fir rF„ -... ,- L✓' F ..: '• _ rl S •:, .... .`. L :."t f t dtd�"' �". S. 's70.Y.S::.f4»..� s�✓sfCsF "'3•' .; �'�.7?'/•.,S ;i - r . It ..Y t'.� lir` " �} 4 x :7" ' 'tX �•`sie`s:3:s%%y ,'� fs^.•N {:•.L9 •i•Y. >>�.f ��+:. J'E Via, rs .- .i „� , r, -c_z• i � Srsz, �'� ""yr .. ,; y. � +l�� {„ .,,. j r♦! M .,. tf ?. � f,`' 'rr k-..� ,� .ii/. ",. S' t J+-'!�S/� ,!4".•,.L. '� �S�s.,4,,,ti....,�,F,�h ✓��^T.,�.�' � . �. �. ,.r °' .`SrF1 � i"' :i1,.a , YL. f ,� .............. -^�F. f1fC'.G�'ki�- d 1 7 - � 4 ( � ` , � �, i � ''"•a�."fz.� ',�.ty,sSK a... yA f � �' .Y ��'� ;;fix""': ��•.- � ..�-i•"'.""".a•:c: � wy ^•, .: • s •s� �:�'.F � a j _ aw,a .i_:..�,...'�� «,�.�, s,�s� T �_ � : � s��� � �� � ✓ �1, _ � '� "-.�iyf.! si'„•� .s � ate, , W v.�. _:��"�, .`,.,>�� _ �� .. ""`- a � �r ��,n' •,..r;'�, •::•-'Gr;C-„...: d s'' ..�. '�.,,,,c f�.ss4 sy;s: wy s r r »sssz �s'� ,�� �.:", ' " - �. .rte'• � ,�. _c..y'•- �z'.s. ,f�'sr 'M-9 �' 4�3.•t-Y'"• K • - 'h 5... EEFER /` - .a}'t' ;i -�. �' - 4 6 - .'Y1t .,✓ ^ �. ��,r F.' z!•�s�^..:S;.sx^,•:.r^sr "af'Y.x� �<� ,�'���0 -� R a 4..�. L �.ssf.. F 'aYi3 t,.zr'Y„G,Ff '1" ' ^ •}ra, .r s'.t.^,»'� 1 �' 4 �._p :L�� •� '� ` � � �''-:,�,F��.Y'Y��H�” fT}'��..��x£.w�t�' a,� +� � � '• . ''y, �, . x { [� `s-s,�..... x •�",'..�.��"sc ��a.•�sazyNwx.� `"i` •. Art C.K����r �r � x'a a s..: r ;� • ' F'tr {,t.y,c �� } �•�_: fir- r in GRASSET .. y�..%���x�.k� �• ii +.'� j� .. i , t f sY �� 1� 1`{S1 ` ��Y .y/ .. AOftk .. . • t V. This ®0 -- 6l i s'Sub -0>< b° •'�' .: ;-� `! t �`� amu.. n- ." ��d•-c noise-impacts x Fy _ .oer--fh tactivtty G. E�, c �_.-. �•--""•'- +.�.,.� r,, J%9.z � "� .,r ..i. �,,, f • of � � {.,a:s,.i; :.. •"s,,,s...�^.,.;'"ter 'y"• di"' .z.4,k'y"irn"aazx ftal �a_ _ h aza rd ii relatedto theme o er��tto-Mun _ - - - 'icWJni-. _. Y _c,1pal purport: �} a, _ • _ 111 -- .:.�--�+.` s*�-•.. .±w.•_ _ '�...ti-.......•.... z......,.. _ - _ ami.._... _....+r.."-"-^--.-..�...._.+,...'".`"'"_. Leasure, Paula, From: Dolan, Jane Sent: Friday, August 06, 1999 4:42 PM ' To: Leasure, Paula Subject: RE: Chico Airport Overflight Signs Paula, I did receive the letter. I had been aware that the Commission was vigorously working on a sign design and locations both from communications from County counsel and because I read Commission agendas and sometimes the minutes. I forwarded the letter to both the CAO and the County Counsel for either appropriate action or placement on the Board of Supervisors agenda. I'll double-check, but my recollection is this letter came last week, which is not the middle, but the end of July. Is this adequate information for you to give to the Commission? Jane --Original Message— From: Leasure, Paula Sent: Friday, August 06, 1999 2:19 PM To: Dolan, Jane Subject: Chico Airport Overflight Signs Jane, - The Airport Land Use Commission directed me to send you, as Chair of the Board, a letter which included a work up for a proposed airport overflight sign and directions as to where the Commission believed the Chico Airport overflight signs should be located. This letter was sent about the middle of July. The Commission requested the. Board of Supervisors approve the proposed sign format as well as the sign locations and that the Board direct the Public Works Department to put up the signs in the North Chico Specific Plan area. The Commission has directed me to provide them with an -update on the progress being made toward signage in the NCSP area. I realize that any request should have been sent to John Blacklock, but the ALUC was very specific in their direction that it was to go specifically to you. Sorry for any inconvenience. Paula Leasure Post -it® Fax Note 7671 Date pa°gest / To From Co./Dept. Co. Phone # Phone # Fax11,3730 I Fax# • e 1 ►BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION + e • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 i (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 0 AGENDA ITEM. - E. 3. TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: ALUC Staff V"j- DATE: June 7, 1999 ITEM:' Discussion of Airport Overflight Signage for the North Chico Specific Plan: Continued discussion of the aircraft overflight sign as proposed by Commissioner Rosene. (Item Continued from May 19, 1999) - FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of June 16, 1999 STAFF COMMENT:, At the May 16, 1999, ALUC meeting, the Commission discussed the location and. design of the aircraft overflight sign as proposed by County Counsel. ALUC agreed to put the signs in the same locations as ,specified by -the North Chico `Specific Plan. Commissioner Rosene requested . a continuance on this matter so that he could consult with a graphic artist and return to the next ALUC meeting with a revised sign. Staff is in receipt of the new sign. A copy has been forward to the County Counsel's office for review and comment.. ' At the time of preparation of this report; the Counsel's office did not have any m , comment available. - It is anticipated that Counsel may be able to comment in time for the June 16, 1999, ALUC meeting. Attached is a rough draft of the final design concept for the sign. The County Counsel's office has the . finished original. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the revised overflight hazard sign and direct staff to forward this recommendation to the Board with a request that the signs be funded and installed. � �� �� �� • � - ..r�J�c oho �z�.��� �6? 110 alyp_161� �"�'` • u County,* Airport Lan se Commissi n IL I - L'=rFlu_ `^ D _ 7-1 3 -✓1 �:ax'r r. {` � �'- t�•' � s..�tra, � _.fY/�+ . , ,y, ., • r c �✓�iy.. ayll� � •�, •is m ti — � F'�W—•+.---�'^^-«--.'r`_ — :c'.�. n,� r'.lt:� .I► �' �^�—` ,Y�T -v- ' �: f r _ r �{ '• a f •r 4 R � �` � - c i �� •yam �,v}Z iy & "m�,vi/.w.- '~ ;a � 1 �. �'1r.t. '� .�--.—�� � � � .. _.. � ♦J ��":eFr" .C,.L '�Ti F owl act ns '�. � n�".Yc -.. aw .,l,y.S•;r��'S: - N<- / /1/i -_.L'' �., w � ��� .YY cC��'�1.'�C",'>< ^j.,� ��.` �' x. -jay dt+?� f F• � / t�«_ „t.. .,,:� w Y �: ,'. Vr• a reap_ � s suaject to n -a i --se tm-IYai er l I -I h'try -� and refiftiedtazztl �f I�Ch�ce Mu x �.k !Is, +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND US COMMISSION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • AGENDA ITEM E TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: ALUC Staff DATE: April 14, 1999 ITEM: Discussion of Airport Overflight Signage for the North Chico Specific Plan: The Commission will review and discuss the letter prepared by the Butte County Assistant County Counsel relative to the locatioli*of the aircraft overflight Signage required by the North Chico Specific Plan Also to be discussed is the proposed design and' graphics of the sign itself. CONTINUED krrEn (From March 17,,.1999) FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of April 21, 1999 STAFF COMMENT: Attached is a status report from Neil McCabe, Butte County Assistant County Counsel on the signs within the North Chico Specific Plan. The ALUC is requested to review the sign graphics and proposed locations. The County Counsel's office believes that a good faith compromise has been reached in this design and location.' K:\DOCUMENTTLANNINGWLUC\MEETINGSk4-21-99.MTG\ITEM -6.WPD " 7-4 - 1141 /, . i /.� � • i���,...�ijy /Ii rJ_C-rip `/�''�,( /J, .` L� •Butte County •Ai ort Land Use Comm ell 9n i` ............... ............... ........... . . . . . . . . .... MON W -M WIN EEFER' -i possm"f1. sm .5 M M 60-11 M; 05 ,174r -r TJi WN IN, NMI 2 R X-gti m11Q.1-INEW s, RION IM ✓ ffi , ga. gME,fiff�%', g RtMffi�l` Irg gg 043 �g N1144:0 -, li I's E �g ". MBER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w4 -MM? IA lmg r lllag .......... I NR ..... ..... ON, aw a 'wen E ME tM ME , vgg rg RONNIE - EAMOM iIMMIS WINES @011 WA W_ WOO Irm ORM Ml wo M � AIRCRAFT � O AHT REA EF ICKS . IER Proposed Sign Locations a, p �'� Th is �f, • • subject°� i f to'noiseti F/f' impacts7a, aJl16 ♦r� G.� NIru.7} relaters o...t h o er�ations�of thi thlcoliNwnici41 pal Airport aridfrorn"r aircraft o erfii •w Me I. 11/17/98 13:47 FAX 530 538 6891 Bta COUNTY COUNSEL DEV SERVICES ®002/002 OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY OF BUTTE �• 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE •8 oROVR-LE. CALIFORNIA 95965-3380 • PHONE (530) 538-7621 ° • ° oK FAX (530) 538-6891 ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL ° ° NEILXMCCABH CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEX, ' SUSAN MINASUiN _ DAVID M. MCCLAIN + courrri Cou Am. ROBERT W.14ACKENM BRUCE S. ALPERT November 17, 1.998 T VIA FACSIMILE _. 898-9341 Mr. Robert Hennigan Commissioner Airport Land Use Commission ' i 5130 Anita Road Chico, CA 95973, Dear Mr- Hennigan: Mr. Blacklock is out of town and has asked me to"respond to your letter with' the North Chico of October 28, 1998. Specific Plan and the I have familiarized myself Mitigation Measure which requires the aircraft. overflight notification signs. I* have scheduled a meeting-with Supervisors Houx and Dolan to discuss. the resolving this. I will call you by December:4, 1998 and let you know involved in compliance with the North Chico time table and other issues Specific Plan Mitigation Measure. - Very. truly yours, SUSAN MINASIAN, r Butte County Counsel ' (hennigan-ltr) ` +BU'1CT E COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • AGENDA ITEM - E.2. TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: ALUC Staff DATE: November 6, 1998 WrerITMOT-111:Mine =61 Zwelinnrlz? =-411150;17614 •1 FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of November 18, 1998 During the ALUC's October 21, 1998 meeting, the Commission directed staff to request that the Butte County Administrative Officer, Director of Development Services, Director of Public Works and County Counsel attend this month's ALUC meeting to present the action plan that has been developed to date to facilitate re -installation of CSA 87 Aircraft Overflight Notification Signs. A letter of request was prepared for the Chairman's signature and distributed to each of the noted individuals on October 28, 1998. It is staffs understanding that most of the officials whose attendance was requested have previously scheduled meetings and/or events which conflict with the timing of this month's ALUC meeting. Therefore, only staff from the County Counsel's office is expected to attend. In another related item, the Chico City/Airport Manager, Thomas Lando, sent correspondence (see attached letter dated October 29, 1998) to the Board of Supervisors on behalf of the Chico Airport Commission requesting re -installation of the CSA 87 Aircraft Overflight Notification Signs at the earliest possible date. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 1 Oct -30-98 04:06P butte county planning is � � 530 538 7785 UE;1'ICF OF THE - CITY .MAti'AOILAk CITYcxCFifCp� P. -hi 92 j IM I) :Puce. C+.:W7 1:130'. A! -',S 4 .y 4SCr D-90- I /Chrono October 29,199S Board of Supervisors County of Butte 25 County Center Dri V e Oroville, CA 95965 RF.: Request for Installation of Airpor, Overflight Lone Signing-'`orth Chive Specific Plan Area. Honorable Chair and Board illembers: When the North Chico Specific Plan was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in Pvtarch, 1995, the Board also approved a series oi' mitigation and implementation measures designed to Protect the operations of the Chico &1unicipal Airport. included in these tat Section 7.6 of the Plan-) �,as the requirement that "overflight zone" signs he installed at key access points into the Phan area, particularlv.ort Eaton Road, Garner Lane, hicks Lane and Keefer Road. The signs were to be constructed and installed in such a manner as to he visible and readable From a moving vehicle. Luring its review of the North Chico Specific. Plata prior to Board approval.. the.Cit)• of Chico Airport Commission supported and recon:trended the installation of such signs as a mitigation measure, and continues to do so today. It recently came to the Commission's attention that such signs Frere constructed and installed this past August, and then removed atter the Countv had received a number of complaints regarding the signs and after another sign was vandalized. Because these signs are important for the protection of the Chico Municipal Airport. and required by the North Chico Spec itic Plan, the Airport Commission requests that the Hoard of Supervisors take appropriate action to have these sins reinstalled at the earliest possible date. Thank you for your attention to this request. Sincere Thomas .I.`Lando City,Airpert Ma"naver c: Airport Commission; ALUC P.O1 ?N OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 411 Main Street CITYorCHICO P.O. Box 3420 INC. 1872 Chico, CA 95927 (530) 895-4800 FAX (530) 895-4825 ATSS 459-4800 D-90-1/Chrono Board of Supervisors County of Butte 25 County Center Drive Oroville; CA 95965 0; October 29, 1998 2/D, tiesr> RE: Request for Installation of Airport Overflight Zone Signing - North Chico Specific Plan Area. Honorable Chair and Board Members: When the North Chico Specific Plan was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in March, 1995, the Board also approved a series of mitigation and implementation measures designed to protect the operations of the Chico Municipal Airport. Included in these (at Section 7.6 of the Plan) was the requirement that "overflight zone" signs be' installed at key access points into the Plan area, particularly on Eaton Road, Garner Lane, Hicks Lane and Keefer Road. The signs were to be constructed and installed in such a manner as to be visible and readable from a moving vehicle: During its review of the North Chico Specific Plan prior to Board approval, the City of Chico Airport Commission supported and recommended the installation of such signs. as a mitigation measure, and continues to do so today. It recently came to the Commission's attention that such signs were constructed and installed this past August, and then removed after the County had received a number of complaints regarding the signs and after another sign was vandalized. Because these signs are important for the protection of the Chico Municipal Airport, and required by the North Chico Specific Plan, the Airport Commission requests that the Board of Supervisors take. appropriate action to have these signs reinstalled at the earliest possible date. Thank you for your attention to this request. c: Airport Commission; ALUC Sincere _ Tho as an .... City/Airport Manager , (aa Made From Recycled Paper Y 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 areas that may be subject to hydrologic alterations resulting from fills, excavation, or drainage improvements. 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 materials or 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 NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN 7.6-3 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, and such related issues as are appropriate to fully inform such prospective home buyer or rental tenant. Enhanced disclosure may be modeled on Butte County Code,. Chapter 35 Protection of Agricultural Land. 7.6-4 "Overflight Zones' road signage, shall be installed at key access points into the Plan area, including Eaton Road, Garner Lane, Hicks Lane, New Arterial Road and Keefer Lane. Such signage shall be of such ma_ tercels, size and desigp_to be visible and readable from a moving vehicle. Figure 7-2 illustrates the concept. 7.6-5 The New Arterial Road and collector streets east of Gamer Lane shall be designated with aviation -related names as set forth in Butte County Code Chapter 32. 7.8 Principal Land Use Districts The following section summarizes the principal underlying land use districts within the NCSP area. The existing Butte County Zoning Ordinance has been followed closely and modified, where necessary, to ensure that NCSP goals and policies are achieved while facilitating administration by county staff. Definitions and Conditions Terms used in this document shall have the same definitions as provided for in the Butte County Code, unless otherwise defined herein. All regulations, design criteria, requirements, and similar details not set forth herein shall be those as contained in appropriate sections of the Butte County Code. Residential Development Regulations Within the Plan area there are two basic residential categories: Suburban Residential and Residential. The standards contained herein are consistent with the County zoning standards 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 designation has three zone districts — R-1 (Low Density Residential), R-2 (Medium Density Residential), and R-3 (High Density Residential). Table 7-2 summarizes basic development regulations of each district. 7-8 Development Regulations and Design Guidelines AIRCRAFT OVERFLIGHT ZONE t, APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THIS AR q�s E -CT TO ED/ 0 T 'OVERFLIGHT ZONE' SIGNS OTNESTURB E R TEO/ 0 T OVE GMT Of RCR TO l}f4D f OM CM}(:O YUNIQ PALQ2RPOj �AN. TO CRAFT OPERATI AT E PORT. OVERFLIGHT ZONE SIGNAGE Figure 7-2 North Chico Specific Plan Alternate Koch said that once the west side of the airport is developed, it will adversely affect their ability to fly directly over that area. The City of Chico will be looking into this issue as it arises. Chairman Hennigan said that a minor flight track might have to be included in the 1999 CLUP to accommodate Chico Aerial Applicator's. Ms. Leasure recommended that a copy of the letter going to Chico Airport Commission be sent to Shutt Moen Associates. There was a consensus of the Commission to send a letter to the Chico Airport Commission requesting input regarding the level of protection desired to accommodate Chico Aerial Applicator's continued operations, with copies going to Chico Aerial- Applicator's and Shutt Moen Associates. F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT Ms. Leasure updated the Commission on the status of the contract and grant agreement with Caltrans. She told the Commission that the contract has been signed by the County Administrative Officer, and sent back to the State for the appropriate signatures. It will also need to be signed by the County Auditor, and the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors when it is returned to the ALUC. Ms. Webster said she is currently in the process of collecting data, reports, and materials for. Shutt Moen Associates. As soon as the contract has been signed, the documents necessary to start the CLUP update will be given to Shutt Moen Associates. Chairman Hennigan asked ALUC Staff if the request and letter to the Board of Supervisors regarding the signage was discussed at the Board of Supervisors meeting on October 13, 1998. Ms. Leasure said she did not attend the meeting, but she does not believe that it was discussed. However, she believes that the Board directed it to the County Administrative Officer, the Department of Development Services, the Department of Public Works, and County Counsel to try and resolve the issue. Ms. Webster said that her discussions with the Board Clerk are reflected in the Monthly Status Report. It was her understanding that the above mentioned departments were asked to develop a course of action and present it -to the Board at a future meeting. Commissioner Rosene asked if the Chico Airport Commission has written a letter to the Board of Supervisors urging the Supervisors to direct re -installation of the Aircraft Overflight Notification Signs for the North Chico Specific Plan. He asked if a letter could be written requesting that they do so, because it is their airport that the ALUC is trying to protect. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 13 ■ Chairman Hennigan agreed that a letter should be written to the Chico Airport Commission. Commissioner Rosene asked if staff had any ideas for expediting this? Ms. Leasure suggested a letter to each of the departments it was referred to, noting that ALUC would like a response by its November 18, 1998 meeting. Alternate Baldridge asked what departments this item was directed to? Ms. Leasure said the Butte County Department of Public Works, the .Department of Development Services, the County Administrative Officer, and County Counsel. Alternate Koch suggested requesting that the head of each of the above listed departments attend the ALUC's November 18, 1998 meeting, and ask them to present their plan of action to the Commission. Chairman Hennigan agreed that they should be asked to attend the meeting. Alternate Koch suggested that the request be written in a positive manner. Alternate Baldridge asked for a follow-up report on the status of the County Ordinance update with regards to Ranchaero Airport and the clear zones. Chairman Hennigan responded to Alternate Baldridge's question, clarifying that there are two ordinances that are supposed to be in progress. ■ The obstruction clearance at all airports being maintained ■ Towers Ms. Leasure mentioned to the Commission that the draft report on the Tower Ordinance has been prepared and was submitted to Mr. Thomas Parilo, the Director of Development Services, for his review approximately one week ago. Ms. Webster responded that the clear zone ordinance is in the process of being analyzed'by County Counsel. Chairman Hennigan suggested that staff ask County Counsel how they are coming along with proposed modifications to the ordinance. Chairman Hennigan also questioned how much of Mr. Parilo's 19.25 hours staff time was spent on the C.S.A. 87 Sign Re -installation item. He does believe that the ALUC should be billed for his work on that item, but that it should be billed to the people who are creating the problem. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 14 0 CHICO AIRPORT WARNING SIGNS (NCSP) 1. On July 23, 1998 signs were installed at locations identified in NCSP. 2. Shortly after installation we started receiving calls voicing concern about signs and the potential for lowering property values. 3. On July 29, 1998'.a Public Works employee reported one of the signs had been, apparently, pushed over. 4. Brian discussed with Public Works about funding for long term maintenance and re -installation of the signs. 5. Since that question could not be answered, it was agreed that removal and safe keeping of the signs was the most prudent course of action until questions about long term maintenance could be answered. 6. How are signs installed? They are installed' in the ground without cement or other holding - material. This provides a safety margin. If the signs are hit by a car they give way easier. 7. Who can erect signs in the County right-of-way? Because of liability and standards used in the placement of signs only county workers can install signs in the right-of-way. 8. Who pays for the signs? Payment for these signs come from persons who develop property in the NCSP area. A note is typically placed on the map that payment of a proportional share of the cost of the signs will be made upon recordation of the map. 9. How many maps have this condition on the map? To date 3 maps have this condition with one satisfying the condition. Bill Trouty paid $200.00 toward the cost of the signs when his map was recorded. His was a 4 parcel split. The Hay and Liptrap projects also have this condition on their maps. 10. Where does the money the developers pay to satisfy the sign -condition go? It goes into the CSA 87 Drainage and Traffic Impact Trust account. This is where the money came from to purchase and install the original signs. 11. Where will long term funding come from to finance ongoing maintenance costs? If enough money is collected from developers, perhaps the interest can sustain the long term funding needs. (This could pose 218 problems.) i VEHICLE con §21375'.. ' —644= Div. 11 3 iv.41. —606-. determined by the Department of Transportation, ° would cause it to be_ mulgated by the Department of Transports confused with an official traffip control device: . ;. Added Ch. 472, Stets. 1976. Effective Jeauary 1, 1977, t or.highway..:.:: .. ; :•,,,_ :-•.::. (b) Any traffic signal controller that is newly Freeway Sign: "to and Public Postsecondary ` ; _ department of Transportation or a local auth. : be of a standard traffic signal communice Educational institutions .... .... communications.. 21375. (a) The Department of Transportation shall place and maintain, 'fit Amended Ch. 1297, State. 1994• Effective January 1,199 or cause to be placed and maintained,.. • directional signs on freeways indicating the location of the freeway off ramp which may be used to reach a }' ` ` € `�' Article 3• Offenses Relating to public -or private postsecondary'education institution having an enrollment =baktal Traffk Cont%I S/gna/s Of either 1,000 or more full-time students "or the equivalent in part-time students; at the request of the institution. No signs shall be erected pursuant ` kms'` ` ' 21450: _ Whenever:.traffic is controlled. by o 1'1`,. ` to this subdivision until the department has received donations from private owing different colored lights or colored ligh 'a time or in eoinbinatio , n, only the eolOra gr sources covering the costa of erecting the signs. (b) The Department of Transportation shall place and maintain, or cause ay except for pedestrian control signals, an to be placed and maintained, freeway directional signs for any institution : d,.apply to drivers of vehicles sad pedestrian. y;'Amended Ch. 415, Stats: 198L Effective 7anuery.1,1962 described in subdivision (a) for which" freeway -directional signs had previously been erected and which has, on or after January 1, 1980, moved Circular Green or Green Arrow .- . to another Iodation, if that move -was' done to contribute to the improvement 21451. (a) A driver facing a circular green of the -institution,: as determined by the department. Freeway directional ugh or turn right or left or make a U-turn ' erected' signs pursuant to this subdivision shall be at no cost to the _..�., _.. : Any. driver, iacluding� one turnutg, shall y `` and to` estrians lawfull' •within.th (c) Subdivision (a) applies to.a public or private postsecondary institution is eswalk. which. 9pated-within two miles of the freeway in a major metropolitan ), A driver facing.a green arrow signal, ob sreS; within foul miles of the, freeway in an urban area, or'within five miles th another indication, shall eater the int Of the'freeway in a r lfid area Sulidivisioa (b) applies to:a public or private movement indicated by that green arrow: or postsecoadary`educati?- institution which has moved to 'a location which is Perini by tted other indications shown at the sai within'tlie distances specified in this subdivision. '` arrow may also make a U-turn unless F AddeCOL 635, Stats 1990. Effective Jeauary 1. 199L :' yield• the right-of-wayto other traffic and t ' ' ., • r ;Article 2: Official'Traffic Control Devices' intersection Or an achacen�� alk: '(t!) estnan facing a ' n sign , _.. . { Un/lonn Standards :- ::.: :. ; .' ` `. ::;;; =.... ::.. _ otherwise directed by a pedestrian control s , 21400: The Department of Transportation shall, atter consultation with "agencies 1458; may proceed across the roadway with' alk r but shall yield the right -of --way to local and public hearings,- adopt rules -and regulations -prescribing uniform. standards ,and specifications for all official traffic control devices "=section at -the time that signal is first sho,' `d) A facing a green arrow tt placed pursuant to.this code, including, but. not lini ted.to, stop signs, yield gns, railroad w right=of way. sign: ft, ei arning approach signs, pedestrian by a pedestrian control signal as'provic street aame'signs, lines and'markings on the— d' and crossing ester the roadway. Amended Ch. 415, state. 1981. Effective January 1,198: `stock sed ursuaat to Section 21864. p}e: p" 'Th' I)epsctzlieat of Transportation shall, atter notice and public hearing, Clncular Yellow or Yellow Arrow:,:,-.,:, determine' and publicize ,the specifications for . uniform types` of warning 21452:: {a) A driver facinga steady circ signs,, lights, and devicesto be placed upon'a highway'by any person engaged is; by that signal, warned that the relat in performing work which interferes with or endangers the safe movement of a red indication will be shown immedie iraffiF -n that highway. o - ,that ).,A pedestrian facing a steady circular ye Only, those si li hts and devices as are rovided for in this section B�� e p eaa otherwise. b y a pedestrian c ahall-be placed upon a highway. to. warn traffic of'work ,which is being i by that on 21456, is, signal, warned that performed on the highway sa the roadway and shall not enter the road Any control devices or markings installed upon traffic barriers on or after 'Amended Ch. 256, Stats. 1966. Effective January 1,198 January 1, 1984, shall conform to the uniform standards and specifications r Red or Red Arrow required by. this seetion... >; Amended Ch. 291,. State:968 1. Effective January 1,1954.: -. ;.:: ;,•.- . , 45 3. ' (a) A driver facing a steady circula ' .. h s r - = COillerrnity to UnHonn Standards line, bu giarked,t if none, before enteri aid's' of the intersection or, if none,�hen before 21401.. .(a) Ezcspt,as provided in Section 21874,'only those official tiaff'ic remain. stopped until ;an indica on to coatir'oI"&v;iees'tliat conform to the uniform standards' and specifications tiµ. :nt of Transportation; would cause :it: t control device. o::; -i': leJanuary1.:1m.. Public Postsecondary' it of Transportation shall place and maigl maintained,••directional `ign ss on freev eeway off ramp which may be' used to 'res Y education institution having an enrollil me students or the equivalent in part-! astitution. No signs shall be erected purgi lartment has received donations from pri+ acting the signs. .. !-.,3 3portation shall place and maintain, or i4 Teeway directional signs for any institu, for which freeway:. directional signs rich has, on or atter January 1, 1980, nib e was done to contribute to the improvei ed by the department. Freeway directia is subdivision' Shallbe at no cost to:; a public or private postsecondary institut les of the freewa' in a Ymajor.metropoli eew�y in an urba. n area, 'or within five air 3ubdiviaion.(b)'applies to :a public or prig ition which has:'moved to 'a location whitj i this subdivision. January 1, i99L tial Traffic Control Devices ransportation shall, after consultation w igs, adopt rules and regulations prescribi ations for all official traffic control devil luding, but,not limited to, stop signs, yi4 .ion signs, railroad warning approach sigi u•kings on the 'roadway, and stock crossi 21364... ration shall, after notice and public heariu )ecifications for uniform types of warn aced upon a highway by any person engag =res with or endangers the safe movement devices as are provided for in this recti ty to warn traffic of work which is beh ga installed upon traffic barriers on or after :o the uniform standards and specifications' ve January 1, 1984. fards :d in Section 21374, only those'official traffic. the uniform standards and specifications : Diva 11 605-.1 §21460 promulgated by the Department of Transportation shall be' placed. upon a street or highway. 7 L :' .'Il YI.. ::.: C fir• (b) Any traffic y signal controller that is new metalled or � 11 the Department of Transportation or a local authority. atter Jaauary.:-1.11996, shall be of a standard traffic signal communication protocol capable af•two- way communications.-,- Amended ommunications -,-Amended Ch. 1297, Stats. 199d. Effective January 1, 1M. Article 3. ..Offen" Relating to Traffic -Devices Official TMMC Conirol ftna/s ^ '.. . 21450:Whenever,. c ;4 controlled.,by'offcial iii fi conti,61. gneae showing different colored lights, or colored lighted. arrows; sucoeesively, one at a time;'or iri coinbinatioa; only the' colors green, yellow, and redallbe used,.except for pedestrian control signals and those. to eliall;in °este and apply toh. driveis'.ofvehiclee and pedestrians as provided in this:chater. Amended C 415, stat% 198E EB:eetive aaauery•'1,.19s2. ' _ : ' � ° • _ .. `�:"• •`' "_ aClrcular Green or Green Arrow 21451. (a) A driver facing a circular green._signal shall prof eed-ettaight through or turn right or left or make a U-turn unless a sign prohibits - turn. Any driver; including one . , 'shall yield the =lghtrof: wajro :oilier 'i turning traffic and to'pedestrians: ln .o awfully iwithiri: the `intersectioor: an :adjaoen crosswalk. .,...:..:.: .'_....;.:; ._:_.., WA driver fa ::'' :a'�.Zisr�q_; cmg.a.green arrow.signal,.shown alone.pr in. coin on i LJ/ with `another indication; "shall eaten the . intersection movement indicated by. that green . arrow, or.other . movem.. t `is permitted by other indications shown stills same time: `A Avenfac ng a left green arrow may also make a,U-turn pnless 'probfl)itedby" a sign. A driver shall yield the'right-of-way to other"traffic and to pedestrians lawfiilly�with n the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk::.;,;' (c) A pedestrian facing a circular green signal, unless prohibited •by sign. or otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal -as provided in Section 21456; may'proceed across.the roadway. within any marked'or unmarked. crosswalk, but shall yield the right-of-way to vehicles lawfully wit iiiri .the* intersection at the time'that signal is fust shown. :; ;:<<;? •; :. (d).A pedestrian facing a green arrow turn . signal, : unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in Section 21456, shall not enter the roadway. Amended Ch. 413, Stats. 199L Effective January 1,1982 Circular Yellow or Yellow Arrow 21452. (a) A driver facing a steady circular .yellow or yellow arrow signal is, by that signal, -warned that the related green movement is ending or that a red indication will be shown immediately thereafter. (b) .A pedestrian facing a steady circular yellow or a yellow arrow signal, unless .otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in Section 21456, is, by that signal, warned that there is insufficient time to cross the roadway and shall sot enter the roadway. Amended Ch. 266, State. 1986. Effective January 1, 1987. Circular Red or Red Arnow 21453. (a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall, stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the'near aide of the intersection or, if none, then before 'entering the intersection; and shall remain stopped until an indication •to.proceed. is: .shown, except as '`•':.=.r .._r..�� ros is..`�'�r%t;11 _._..._,I%,.±��'.�•s.�'..Le.fit[:i3�.xr.�.#" TreN k Control`Wlgh"y=CO/1ad�t/Ct�011r amort I ui<afi9, is.t+i fewat3vro Pca. . �."��'en.i�.::i_►{s�:.�_�1�_l�`Y~'�OY:�=�i`ii��=��at?�C•a`�1_�a"wi;!��:v.fi����n� 51'� .. :and !"mSection'21100. o -`o p,i' tiiie'::code; •respectide ,. the f. 4". representative of thA�� Aldi ent of 1ranapo tar'i '1ooal' uth`orf respect to highways'tirider`'their'respectjve; juxiedictiope i ccluding taut - limited to; persons contracting to- perform construction, `maintenance, or repair of a highway, may, with the approval-of:the,depertme It"601oca1 authority; as the can may.:be, and while engaged•in:the:performance,of that work, restrict -the use, of,>and..regulate, the..movement;of.traffic through�or around, the affected area;whenev_er the•traffc would:endanger tbe:safety.pf workers or the. worhi:would,interfere 'with_or:•endange><,the:,movement.of traffic through the area. Traffic may be�regulated:.by.warning.signs,,-lights, appropriate..control devices, or; by a :person; or ,persons�ooatrolling ;and directing the flow of traffic:' (b) -It is unlawfulto-disobey`the instiuctiona okk.1..person controlling and directing traffic pursuant to subdivision (a). ­ (c) lL `:i:;;'i'•'ll:: ;f• :.:S7fC {.i ' i.i.V:. (c) It is unlawful to fail! to: comply with'the.'directioi hs of warning -signs, lights, or.otiler control devices provided for'thefegulation'of traffic'pursuant to subdivision (a). `" - •ii)--. :cs ..,_:i':.'::+.lF';C'.:j r1. LT Added'Ch.,748,8tete:mi' EffectiveJanuary1,1987:%:V''!M W—E-3 CrossWa/ks Near $clioo%s� ; ``- = "> 21368, Whenever.a marked~pedestrian Jcrosewalk.has been. established in a roadway:contiguous:to.a, school buildingor the groundathereof,:it•shall be painted or marked in yellow as shall. be all the ' marked : pedestrian crosswalks at an intersection incase any one of the vrosswalks is required to . be marked in yellow. Other established marked pedestrian`crosswalks :may be painted or marked in yellow if either (a) the nearest point of the crosswalk is not more than 600 feet from a school building or theFgrounds thereof, or (b) the nearestpoint of the crosswalk isnot more than` 2;800 feet from'a school building or. the grounds, -thereof, there are no intervening crosswalks'other than those contiguous to the school grounds, and it appears that the facts and circumstances require special painting or marking of the crosswalks for the protection and safety'of persons attending -'the,`.. L There shall. be painted -or marked inyellow on each side. of the. lanes leading to' all yellow • marked crosswalks the following' words, "SWW- SCHOOL IMG," except that such words shall'not pe painted or;marked in any lane leading 'to 'a crosswalk at an intersection controlled by: stop signs; traffic signals or yield right-of-way signs. A crosswalk Shall'not be painted or marked yellow at any location other than as required or permitted in this section. Amended Ch. 282, Stata. 1976. Effective January 1, 1977.....;, Speed Signs Retitled - .. 21389. All -speed"restriction signs.m place''ori : anuary 1,:1960,``are hereby ratified and confirmed and shall establish the applicable prima-facie speed limit unless and .until changed pursuant'to .engiaeeruig' and.`traffic surveys provided for by this code. Added Ch. 1817, Stab. 1969. Effective September 18, M9. i Regulation of TrafBa: Construction Zone 21370. The Department "'of '1Yansportatiori,'}'or' its.; duly' authorized {•.. . _ •n=_6o3--. §218700:1' And'xeQulate the'.Movement'"of�^trati`c-upon i�nylughway'intersecting.the "prgject:,at.or.'near;the,:place o� nteraection-whenever'such work interferes with, endangers: the safe`movement'of `traff c through,the. work.:?: " `Amended.Ch:,646, Stata. 1974. Effective January_1,1976. I. IWgintens . be i4ct. v/tles �{2137Qi1,•KThe" Department of -Transportation, in,cooperation with•the Departtriont;.of>:California::,Highway:Patrol,-shall study -the feasibility., of performing nonemergency: maintenance work activities upon state highways during;low-volume:traffic.hours.:The study shall at a minimum consider the a' criteria:+••.::..; ,. - . () Motorist safety. { .. •. . (b) Worker, safety: , • ; .',,,:(c):=iWorking.conditions.::.',:.:,: ,:... . !-.;;,(d), Coat of performing.themork. � Cost of delayd:to-the motorists. ,vU. pon•completion-of the: study, the, department: shall.develop a highway lane: ,closure -4 policy and ':procedure.: 'and %.report 1ta -findings Nand 'recommendations to the Legislature: on or before March, 31i.-1988. ­.-AddedCh. 631, Stata. 1987. Effective January 1, -1988. ' Guidelines for--Tra lc Control Devices Near Schools ' 21372.' i 'I.. The :Department.: of Transportation and local • authorities shall, witH'respect to }iighways under their respective jurisdictions, establish and promulgate warrants .to ,be ,used. as .guidelines., for the placement of traffic controTdevices.`near schools fo"' . e. purpose of protecting students going to .and from, school. Such devices`may include flashing signals.. Such warrants shall • be based upon, but need not be limited to, the following items: pedestrian volumes, vehicle volumes, width of the roadway, physical terrain, speed of vehicle traffic, horizontal and vertical alignment of the roadway, the distance to existing traffic control. devices, proximity to the school, and the degree ofourban or rural environment of.the area.::; Amended Ch. 646, State. 1974.,Effective January 1, 1975. . School Board Request. for Traffic Control Devices '' 21373: ' °,The governing board ',of, any school district may request the appropriate. city,! county, .city and county or state' agency to. install traffic control devices in accordance with the warrants established pursuant to Section 21372. Within 90 days thereafter, the city, county, city and county or state agency involved shall undertake an engineering and traffic survey. to determine whether the requested crossing protection meets the warrants established pursuant to Section 21372. The city, county, city and county,, or state agency involved may require the requesting school district to pay an amount not to. exceed 50 percent of the cost of the survey: If it is determined that such'requesied protection is' warranted, it shall be installed by the city, county; city and county or state agency involved. - Amended Ch. 1061, State. 1969. Effective November 10, 1969. Directional. Markings for. Tourists .. 21374. A local authority may mark or paint the surface of any street or highway under its jurisdiction; or of any state highway; with the approval of the Department of Transportation, with lines, arrows, or other suitable symbols for.. the purpose of..directing visitors and tourists to local points of intesesC:No•such'-marking.shall- be of a color or. coeumratioa.which, as r*' FOR STREETS AND HIGHWAYS Simply stated, uniformity means treating similar situations in the same \( way. The use of uniform traffic control devices does not, in itself, constitute uniformity. A standard device used where it is not appropriate is as objectionable as a nonstandard device; in fact, this may be worse, in that such misuse may result in disrespect at those locations where the device is needed. roC.:'C♦♦ r•:i'�' ^. tE' ..•,t.s ?�SL,i� of � y f v S nN%42X::ia? C.. 1A-3 Responsibility for Traffic Control Devices The responsibility for traffic control devices rests with, a multitude of governmental jurisdictions. In virtually all States, traffic control devices placed and,maintained by State and local officials are required by statute to conform to a State Manual which shall be in substantial conformance with this Manual. Many Federal agencies have regulations requiring standards in conformance with this Manual for their control device applications. The Uniform Vehicle Code has the following provision in Section 15-104 for the adoption of a uniform manual: "The (State Highway Agency) shall adopt a manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic -control devices consistent withthe provisions of this act for use upon highways within this State. Such uniform system shall correlate with and so far as possible conform to the system set forth in the most recent edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, and other standards issued or endorsed by the Federal Highway Administrator." Under authority' granted by Congress in, 1966, the Secretary of Transportation has decreed that traffic control devices on all streets and highways in each State shall be in substantial conformance with standards issued or endorsed by the Federal Highway Administrator. 1A-3.1 . Placement Authority Traffic control devices shall be palced only by the authority of a public body or official having jurisdiction, for the purpose of regulating, warning, or guiding traffic. No traffic control device or its support shall bear any advertizing or commercial message, or any other message that is not essential to traffic control. Any unauthorized sign placed on the highway right-of-way by a private organization or individual constitutes a public nuisance. All unofficial and nonessential signs should be removed. With proper authority being given, construction contractors and public utility companies are permitted to erect construction and maintenance signs at work sites to protect the public, equipment, and workmen, provided that such signs conform to the standards of this Manual. IA -3 Rev. 12183 „. ✓ adiF' t Jran 00 �� a�..• r a U All traffic islands shall be installed by the authority of the public body or official having jurisdiction. For those islands that are elements of street and highway design and are included in the design of the street or highway, no specific authority is required. All regulatory devices, if they are to be enforced, need to be backed by applicable laws, ordinances, or regulations. Effective traffic control depends not only on appropriate application of devices, but on reasonable enforcement of regulations as well. Standards in this Manual are based on that concept. 1A-4 Engineering Study Required The decision to use a particular device at a particular location should be made on the basis of an engineering study of the location. Thus, while this Manual provides standards for design and application of traffic control devices, the Manual is not a substitute for engineering judgment. It is the intent that the provisions of this Manual be standards for traffic control devices installation, but not a legal requirement for installation. Qualified engineers are needed to exercise the engineering judgement inherent in the selection of traffic control devices, just as they are needed to locate and design the roads and streets which the devices complement. Jurisdictions with responsibility for traffic control, that do not have qualified engineers on their staffs, should seek assistance from the State highway department, their county, a nearby large city, or a traffic consultant. 1A=5 Meanings of "Shall,” "Should" and "May" In the Manual sections dealing with the design and application of traffic control devices, the words "shall," "should" and "may" are used to describe specific conditions concerning these devices. To clarify the meanings intended in this Manual by the use of these words, the following definitions apply: 1. SHALL—A mandatory condition. Where certain requirements in the design or application of the device are described with the "shall" stipulation, it is mandatory when an installation is made that these requirements be met. 2. SHOULD—An advisory condition. Where the word "should" is used, it is considered to be advisable usage, recommended but not mandatory. 3. MAY—A permissive condition. No requirement for design or application is intended. 1A-4 Rev. 12183 -�f` `� .L `, * � K �'? ' ` � � _ ;' . . .. 1. 4l��PlJ O�►�1ss .7—i'l�Yw Y ,S ct LAND.",0-F' NATU RAL W E A L T H- AND BEAUTY 17 a , r~ AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX:' (530) 538-7785 October 28, 1998 l Mr. John Blacklock, Chief Administrative Officer- r a S County of,Butte 25 County Center Drive . . .. Oroville, CA 95966 ` Subject: Request for County Staff Attendance and Presentation.. of,' Information 'at the . November 18, 1998 Meeting of the Airport Land Use Commission .^ _ Dear Mr. Blacklock: As you are aware, the.Butte County Airport. Land, Use Commission_ submitted -correspondence to the Butte County Board of Supervisors on September 16, 1998, -requesting that the Board direct County Public Works Department staff to immediately re -install the aircraft overflight notification signs for the North Chico Specific Plan Area which•were removed in August of this year. . } The ALUC's correspondence was distributed to the Board with the packet that was prepared for their _ October 13, 1998 meeting. It is the ALUC's understanding that rather than discussing or taking any; action•in response to the correspondence, the issue was referred to your office, the Public Works Director, the Director of, Development Services and County Counsel to develop a plan that will facilitate re -installation of the signs and address long-term maintenance. Because the signs were•required as a mitigation measure as part aof the Board's 1995 approval"of the North Chico Specific Plan, and an increasing number.of residences are being constructed within the Plan Area, it is essential that the signsbe re=installed as soon as possible.- Therefore. the ALUC ' is requesting that all members of the project team designated by.the Board to develop an action plan to resolve this issue attend the ALUC's regular meeting at 9:00 a.m. on November 18. 1998, to . present the course of action and implementation schedule that has been developed to date. The ALUC considers the resolution of this issue to be a matter of extreme importance and looks, forward to the presentation by County staff and Counsel. ' Sincerely, Robert Hennigan, Chairman Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ' cc: - Tom Parilo, Director of Development Services . - Mike Crump, Director of Public Works Neil McCabe,`County Counsel's Office October 26, 1998 City of Chico Airport Commission P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 Butte Count 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 Subject: Submittal of Correspondence to the Butte County Board of Supervisors Urging the Immediate Re -Installation of Aircraft Overflight Notification Signs within the North Chico Specific Plan Area Honorable Chair and Commissioners: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is requesting that your Commission submit written correspondence to the Butte County Board Supervisors urging that agency to direct the immediate re -installation of aircraft overflight notification signs within the North Chico Specific Plan Area. These signs were identified as a mitigation measure within the referenced Specific Plan and associated Environmental Impact Report which was approved by the Board on March 28, 1995. (See attached correspondence from the ALUC to the Board dated September 16, 1998). Since May of 1998, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission has been formally requesting that the County construct and install the signs. In response to the ALUC's efforts, a total of 8 signs were constructed and installed in August of this year. Less than two weeks after their installation, one of the signs was reportedly "vandalized" or pushed over. Rather than repairing the affected sign, the Butte County Public Works Department removed all of the signs. The explanation given for the removal was to prevent damage to the remaining signs. At this time, the County has not responded to the ALUC's request for immediate re -installation of the signs. Therefore, we are asking that your Commission submit a similar request to the Board of Supervisors in order to heighten their awareness regarding the importance of dealing with this issue in a prompt and effective manner. Your action and support is necessary to ensure that identified mitigation measures are implemented before even more residential development occurs. Thank you for your consideration and assistance in protecting existing and future operations at the Chico Municipal Airport. Sincerely, Robert Hennigan, Chairman Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Butte court, tq LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH- AND BEAUTY t AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE. CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 September 16, 1998 Butte County Board of Supervisors 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 SL-BJECr: REQL'•EST FOR RE-lLN-sTAL .ATIONi OF Ov-ERFLiGFiT ZONE SIGNAGE WrTHLi THE NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN AREA Honorable Chair and Board Members: As part of the March 28 1995 adoption of the North Chico Specific Plan, which passed with a 5 to 0 vote by your Board, a number of mitigation rimplementation measures were adopted as part of the Plan and reflected in the associated Environmental Impact Report to ensure the long-term compatibility of the Chico Municipal Airport with adjacent development. . Chapter 7, Section 7.6 on pages 7-6 and 7-7 of the Specific Plan lists the mitigation/implementation measures designed to `'ensure protection of Chico Municipal Airport Operations.' The adopted measures include: 7.6-1 Avigation easements shall be required for all lands within the Plan area. r 7.6-2 Noise attenuation features shall be incorporated into new construction. 7.6-3 Enhanced disclosure measures shall be developed and implemented to alert prospective home buyers and rental tenants as to the proximity of the Chico 11vhtnicipal Airport. the existence of avigation easements. the existing and projected future overjlight and noise levels. and such related issues as appropriate to fully inform such prospective homebuyer or rental tenant. Enhanced disclosure may be modeled on Butte County Code, Chapter 3.i Protection of Agricultural Land. 7.6-4 "Overflight Zone" Road signage shall be installed at key access points into the Pkm area fncludi ng Eaton Road Garner Larne. Hicks Lame. New Arterial Road. and Keefer Lane. Stich signage shall be o{such materials. size and design to be visible and readable from a moving vehicle. Board of Supervisors September 16, 1998 Page 2 7.6-5 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. In May of 1998, the Airport Land Use Commission noted to Development Services Department staff that subdivision maps were being recorded and homes being built within the Specific Plan area, yet the signs required in measure 7.6 -4,% -ere not being installed After searching for an appropriate funding source, the signs were constructed and installed in August. Within two weeks of the signs' installation, County staff received a number of complaints and one of the signs was allegedly knocked down Rather than re-mstalling the affected sign, the ALUC w -as dismayed to learn that all, of the signs had been removed. It is the ALUC's position that the signs are absolutely necessary to ensure protection of Chico !!Municipal Airport operations and are also a required mitigation measure adopted unanimously by your Board. Because there is likely to be some objection or resistance to the signs from property owners, it is imperative that the signs be re -installed and maintained before even more lots are created and sold. Section 21002.1 (b) of the Public Resources Code states that: "Each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so. Section 21081.6 (a) (1) of the Public Resources Code further supports an agency's responsibility to ensure the implementation of mitigation measures that it adopts: "The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation....... " Ile ALUC is requesting that the Board of Supenisors direct Public Works Department staff to re -install the signs immediately and that the County establish appropriate funds to ensure that the signs are appropriately maintained in the future. Thank you for your consideration and assistance. Sincerely, Robert Hennigan, Chairman Butte County Airport Land Use Commission COUNTY OF BUTTE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of September 16, 1998 5. Consideration of the California Pilot's Association Offer of Legal Intervention to Force the County of Butte to Reinstall the Signs Required as Mitigation for the North Chico Specific Plan` (C.S.A. 87) Mr. Parilo said that there had not been much change since his report last month. However, the North Valley Pilot's Association has offered to put funds aside to provide for the long-term maintenance and replacement of the signs, but he was not sure if their offer could be accepted. He has spoken with County Counsel and the County Administrator regarding the reinstallation of the signs. There are several issues that need to be resolved in order for the signs to be reinstalled: 1. Can they be legally installed in the County right-of-way 2. Identification of a reliable funding source. Mr. Parilo said that depending on the Commission's action, this could become a closed session topic with the Board of Supervisors. The sign requirement is a mitigation measure and policy within the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP). There are two ways to carry out these mitigation measures: 1. The County can arrange to have the signs installed; 2. The signs can be installed one at a time, as development occurs. Mr. Parilo said the Board of Supervisors could direct that the signs be placed within the locations under the NCSP, and right-of-way. However, there are two ways that the signs can be reinstalled if they cannot go in the County right-of-way: 1. Development on private property; 2. The County can acquire lands outside the County right-of-way. Commissioner Rosene brought up that the North Chico Specific Plan stipulates that the signs be in place. He also said that this should have been done when the plan went into effect. Mr. Parilo recommended that the Commission notify the Board of Supervisors, and ask them to implement the provisions of the Specific Plan. Alternate Papadakis felt that along with the letter to the Board, the minutes to the CSA 87 meeting should be reviewed. He stated that the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to have the signs installed during this meeting, and should be reminded of their actions. It was moved by Commissioner Rosene, seconded by Alternate Papadakis, to write a letter to the Board of Supervisors reminding them of the mitigation factors for CSA 87, and ask them to implement the signage that was involved, in an expeditious manner. The motion passed by the following vote: ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of September 16, 1998 ■ Page 1 ■ AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Alternates Koch, Papadakis, and Chairman Hennigan NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Hatley and Causey ABSTAIN: None i ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of September 16, 1998 ■ Page 2 ■ September 16, 1998 Butte County Board of Supervisors 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 �uite �ii 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 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR RE -INSTALLATION OF OVERFLIGHT ZONE SIGNAGE WITHIN THE NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN AREA Honorable Chair and Board Members: As part of the March 28 1995 adoption of the North Chico Specific Plan, which passed with a 5 to 0 vote by your Board, a number of mitigation/implementation measures were adopted as part of the Plan and reflected in the associated Environmental Impact Report to ensure the long-term compatibility of the Chico Municipal Airport with adjacent development. Chapter 7, Section 7.6 on pages 7-6 and 7-7 of the Specific Plan lists the mitigation/implementation measures designed to "ensure protection of Chico Municipal Airport Operations." The adopted measures include: 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. 7.6-3 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 avigatton easements, the existing and projected future overflight and noise levels, and such related issues as appropriate to fully inform such prospective homebuyer or rental tenant. Enhanced disclosure maybe modeled on Butte County Code, Chapter 35 Protection of Agricultural Land. 7.6-4 "Overflight Zone" Road signage shall be installed at key access points into the. Plan area including Eaton Road, Garner Lane, Hicks Lane, New Arterial Road, and Keefer Lane. Such signage shall be of such materials, size and design to be visible and readable from a moving vehicle. Board of Supervisors September 16, 1998 Page 2 1] 7.6-5 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. In May of 1998, the Airport Land Use Commission noted to Development Services Department staff that subdivision maps were being recorded and homes being built within the Specific Plan area, yet the signs required in measure 7.64 were not being installed. After searching for an appropriate funding source, the signs were constructed and installed in August. Within two weeks of the signs' installation, County staff received a number of complaints and one of the signs was allegedly knocked down. Rather than re -installing the affected sign, the ALUC was dismayed to learn that all of the signs had been removed. It is the ALUC's position that the signs are absolutely necessary to ensure protection of Chico Municipal Airport operations and are also a required mitigation measure adopted unanimously by your Board. Because there is likely to be some objection or resistance to the signs from property owners, it is imperative that the signs be re -installed and maintained before even more lots are created and sold. Section 21002.1 (b) of the Public Resources Code states that: "Each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so. " Section 21081.6 (a) (1) of the Public Resources Code further supports an agency's responsibility to ensure the implementation of mitigation measures that it adopts: "The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or.c'onditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation....... " The ALUC is requesting that the Board of Supervisors direct Public Works Department staff to re -install the signs immediately and that the County establish appropriate funds toensure that the signs, are appropriately maintained in the future. Thank you for your consideration and assistance. Sincerely, Robert Hennigan, Chairman Butte County Airport Land Use Commission r BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT ][ate US OOMMgSSION r ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965 ■ (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 ■ REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers 25 County Center Drive, Oroville California COMPLETE PACKET Date/Time: September 16, 1998 - 9:00 a.m. BINDER AGENDA ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: August 19, 1998 D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA (Committee members or staff may request additions, deletions, or changes in the Agenda order) E. BUSINESS ITEMS: Items with Public Hearings rlA 047-250-141: The Commission will review and discuss the minimum lot size requirement which was effective within the Butte County SR (Suburban Residential) zoning district when the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan was prepared and suggest modifications to the referenced condition, if necessary. Items without Public Hearings 2. Discussion and Possible Clarification of the Commission's August 19 1998 Recommendation to the Board of S upervisors regarding application of Butte County's Proposed Flexible Lot Size Ordinance within the Airport Planning Areas: During the August 19, 1998 meeting, the ALUC was given the opportunity to comment on Butte County's proposed Flexible Lot Ordinance. The Commission recommended that the ordinance not be applied within the Airport Planning Areas until after the updated CLUP has been adopted and the ALUC has the opportunity to reconsider the ordinance and its application within the Airport Planning Areas at that time. Commissioner Gerst would like to clarify the recommendation with the Commission as he feels it did not accurately reflect the intent of his motion. ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ 1 - 3. '' Discussion of Standard O retina Procedures for the Airport Land Use Gommiccion 111�oe Chairman Hennigan will present materials and suggested procedures for the Commission's consideration. _ 4. Report on the Status of the CLUP Update: Staff will provide the Commission with an update on the status of work program refinements, contract execution and the anticipated timing of the first COnsultant/ALUC Meeting. 5. Consideration-& the, CAI ifornia-Pilot's'Association •Offer of Legai'Intervention,to* Force 1 e ounty o Butte to Reinstall the Signs Require%+ �s Mitigation for the SpeciN^'- ^'-' .: fic Plan (CSA 871 This item was placed on the agenda at�tFie-request of Chairman Hennigan. ,A 6,. - Discussion of City of Chico Response to Commissioner Rosene's August 18. 1998 . Correspondence* This item was placed on the. agenda at the request of Commissioner Rosene. F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT G. CORRESPONDENCE H y PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA ' (Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by State Law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda) ' I• ADJOURNMENT ,. . ._ Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in`the Commission proceeding is requested to contact Paula • -Leasure at (916) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you. 'Any person may address the Commission during the "Business From the Floor" segment of the Agenda. , "Copies of the Agenda documents relative to and Agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of $.08 Per page. - ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ ;Olft,' • 8e Update on North Chico Specific Plan Signage Mr. Parilo. told the Commission that the C.S.A. 87 funding source that provides for traffic and drainage fees were used as start up funding to install the signs..- Three. subdivisions have been approved. Each required a contribution toward the NCSP Airport notification signage program. One map was filed requiring payment of the fee. With the initial payment of funds, the Public Works Department was contacted to build the signs and install them. Public Works suggested purchasing all the signs needed and installing them all at once, because the unit cost would be less. They then identified C.S.A. 87 funds as the appropriate funding source. Future projects would replenish funds used for the initial building and installation. The signs were ordered, and were subsequently installed on July 23, 1998. However, as installation was taking place, several calls came into ' the Department, raising concerns regarding property value being. lower with the installation of those signs. On July .29,' 1998, a Public Works employee reported that one sign had been pushed over, apparently as an act of vandalism. Then, Public Works was contacted to discuss the overall issue of how they maintain the signs, the funding for reinstallation, and how would it be funded. There are currently no funds earmarked for this purpose. Because of the unanswered funding issue, the action taken at the time was to remove the signs until a reliable funding program could be developed. Several issues Have come up regarding the signs; 1. How were the signs installed? Because they are, in the County right-of-way, they install them in the ground without cement, in the event a car should hit them. 2. Who can install the signs? f.. Because of liability and standards used in the .placement of signs, only County Workers can install the signs in the right-of-way. 3. Who will pay for the signs? Payment of the signs comes from people who develop.property within the North Chico Specific Plan Area. So, as land is developed, conditions are applied, a fee will be paid, and. those.funds will . replenish the account where they originally took them from. Normally, a note would be placed on the map that they will make payment of a proportional share of the cost of the signs upon recordation of the map. The initial funds for construction and installation were received this way. The money paid would then go into the C.S.A. 87 account. There are no funds set aside to reinstall • or maintain the signs. 7 - i • Commissioner Koch asked why our signs are not becoming Public Works signs 1 once installation has taken place, because any other sign installed by the'County or by a developer become the ownership of the Department of Public Works. The Department of Public Works pays for them somehow, or it would come out of their normal budget. Mr. Parilo said that some subdivisions formed CSAs to maintain their roads. Anything concerning those roads, such as, traffic control signs would normally be funded through that revenue source as well. On other county maintained roads the County uses the road fund to maintain traffic and road signs. County road signs are different from warnings or notices regarding airport operations. These signs are not a requirement of the Streets and Highways Code. The source for the airport signage,is the North Chico Specific Plan. Commissioner Rosene asked how many signs they installed and how- many were removed? Mr. Parilo said that they installed eight signs and that they knocked over one, and the seven remaining signs were removed. Commissioner Rosene believes that they should punish the people or person responsible for vandalizing the signs, and they should not have removed the signs. Commissioner Koch said he is the Risk Manager for the City of Chico, and that Steve Musselman is the Risk Manager for the County. He said that the City, and ' the County are self-insured. He mentioned that they both have the money at their disposal in those self-insured funds to replace damaged vehicles, damaged signs, and damaged public property. He feels that the signs should be up, and if they knock them down, they should notify Steve Musselman, and he would take care of it through those funds. Commissioner Koch stated that if there was a significant loss incurred in the North Chico Specific Plan Area, you could bet the County's self-insurance fund is going to respond because there is no money otherwise. Mr. Parilo said there needs to be a reliable funding source identified. At which time i the County would repair, restore, or provide the proper maintenance required for those signs. Commissioner Koch asked what the C.S.A. 87 Traffic fees were used for. Mr. Parilo said that they were associated with the road ways. Another option was to have the signs installed on private property, and require that the developers of the private property provide for'the ongoing maintenance of those signs. He said that a comprehensive fee .schedule is not currently in place to deal with flooding, traffic; ' parks, fire stations and other improvements' required by the' North Chico • Specific Plan. Chairman Hennigan mentioned that we are still subdividing land and selling lots. Brian Baldridge asked whose decision it was to remove the signs? Mr. Parilo said the Public Works Department in concert with the Department of Development Services. Commissioner Papadakis asked about increasing the developer's fee to cover any replacement` costs. Mr. Parilo said that there was nothing wrong with establishing a fee, but they have not established a fee at this time. The only fees that a developer currently pays relative to the North Chico Specific Plan deal with traffic and drainage. However, the fees that the developers are paying at this time will have to increase significantly to cover actual costs. Every subdivision that goes forward enters an agreement that once the final fees are adopted, they will pay whatever that amount is. Chairman Hennigan said that we had a condition that is not being mitigated. Mr. Parilo said the Airport Land Use Commission previously expressed concern that lots are being sold, and that the signs should be up. There needs to be a way of installing all of the signs at once. The system was in place to purchase and install the signs, but there are no ongoing funds available to cover repair or reinstallation as it is required. Commissioner Koch asked why the debit account that is set up cannot continue to be used towards the purchase and installation of the signs. The signs could be reinstalled, and .whatever maintenance that occurs could be debited against that . account. As. more development occurs out there, it would help payback the traffic account:' Chairman Hennigan questioned that only'County employees can put up signs, and , that no one has ever been contracted to install them? - Mr. Parilo said in the County right-of-way. Brian Baldridge asked Mr. Parilo if there is a mechanism for a nonprofit organization wanting to make a donation to order and install a complete set of replacement signs? Mr. Parilo said he would like to think so, but they have not really looked into it at this time. He said there would have to be an agreement with the Board of Supervisors to accept funds for that purpose. He would look into it. , ,i 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 210: 03,'0 q 0 - cod SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA COUNTY OF BUTTE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of August 19, 1998 8. Update on North Chico Specific Plan Signage Mr. Parilo advised.the Commission that the C.S.A. 87 funding source that provides for traffic and drainage fees were used to install signs notifying existing and potential residents about airport operations and potential impacts. The signs were ordered, and then installed on July 23, 1998. However, as installation was taking place the County received several calls, raising concerns regarding the effect of the signs on property values. On July 29, 1998, a Public Works employee reported that one of the signs had been pushed over, apparently by vandalism. Then, Public Works was contacted to discuss the overall issue of how they maintain the signs and funding for reinstallation. Currently, there is no money within the C.S.A. 87 account, and no other funds available to earmark for this purpose. Because of the unanswered funding issue, the action taken was to remove the signs until a program for long term maintenance could be developed, and the question of funding could be answered. There were questions as to how the signs were installed, who could install them and who has to pay for the signs. Mr. Parilo said because they are in the County right-of-way, they are installed in the ground without cement, in the event that a car should hit them, and for liability and standards used in the placement of signs, only County Workers can install the signs in the right-of-way. Payment of the signs comes from people who develop property within the North Chico Specific Plan Area. So, as land is developed, conditions are applied, a fee is paid, and those funds go to creating and installing the signs. There is no fund for maintenance. Commissioner Koch asked why the airport signs are not becoming Public Works signs once installation has taken place. Other signs installed by the County or by a developer become the ownership of the Department of Public Works. The Department of Public Works pays for them somehow, or it comes out of their normal budget. Mr. Parilo said that this was a requiremerit of the Specific Plan. It is not a requirement of the Streets and Highways Code that these signs be installed. The source for the requirement is different. Commissioner Rosene asked how many signs they installed and how many have they removed ? Mr. Parilo said that eight signs were installed. One was knocked over and the other seven remaining signs were removed. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of August 19, 1998 ■ Page 1 ■ :2 h � • 1 Commissioner Rosene believes that the people or person responsible for vandalizing the signs should 2 be punished, and the signs should not have been removed. 3 4 Commissioner Koch said he is the Risk Manager for the City of Chico, and that Steve Musselman 5 is the Risk Manager for the County. He said that the City and the County are self-insured. He 6 mentioned. that they both have the money at their disposal in those self-insured funds to replace 7 damaged vehicles, damaged signs, and damaged public property. He feels that the signs should'be 8 up, and if they are knocked down, Steve Musselman should be notified, and he could take care of it 9 through those funds. 10 11 Mr. Parilo said there needs to be a normal funding source identified. At which time the County would 12 repair, restore, or provide the proper maintenance required for those signs. Mr. Parilo also said 13 another option was to have the signs installed on private property, and require that the developers of 14 the private property provide for the ongoing maintenance of those signs. 15 16 Brian Baldridge asked who's decision it was to remove the signs? 17 18 Mr. Parilo said the Public Works Department. 19 20 Commissioner Papadakis asked about increasing the developer's fee to cover any replacement costs. 21 22 Mr. Parilo said that there was nothing wrong with establishing a fee, but a fee has not been 23 established at this time. 24 25 Chairman Hennigan said that we have a condition that is not being mitigated. 26 27 Mr. Parilo said the Planning Commission expressed that some lots are being sold and the signs should 28 be up, but there needs to be a way of installing all of the signs at once. The Board put a system in 29 place to purchase and install the signs, but there are no ongoing funds available for repair or. 30 reinstallation. 31 32 Commissioner Koch asked why the debit account that is setup can not continue to be used towards 33 the purchase and installation of the signs. The signs could be reinstalled, and whatever maintenance 34 that occurs could be debited against that account. As more development occurs out there, it would 35 help pay back that traffic -account. 36 37 Chairman Hennigan questioned why only County employees can put up signs? 38 39 Mr. Parilo said because the signs are within the County right-of-way. 40 41 Brian Baldridge asked Mr. Parilo if there is a mechanism for a nonprofit organization to make a 42 donation to pay for the installation of a complete set of replacement signs? 43 44 Mr. Parilo said he would like to think so, but it hasn't really been looked into at this time. He said 45 there would have to be some kind of agreement with the Board of Supervisors to accept those kinds 46 of funds. He would look into it. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of August 19, 1998 ■ Page 2 ■ 1 Commissioner Koch said that most public agencies have donations, legacies and bequest procedures, 2 that let either the Chief Administrative Officer or the Governing Board accept the money. 3 4 Brian Baldridge said we could work on that. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of August 19, 1998.m Page 3 0 +BTFE CGU 1l 1l • WXI ,1 I0 411 iii� 0 ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 ■ REGULAR MEETING NOTICE OF THE COMMISSION Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California DateiTime: §t-1'9- 1998'- 9:00-a.m._+ SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA BUSINESS ITEMS �odate. on North -Chico Suecific Plan Signe• A brief oral report by Tom Parilo regarding status of airport notification signs located in the North Chico Specific Plan area. (This request was received August 11, 1998 and could not have been included in the regular agenda which had already been posted. It will take a 213 vote of the total Commission to determine that a need for immediate action exists, If Z3 of the Commission is not present, a unanimous vote of those present is required.) CAny disabled person needing special,accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact. Paula Leasure at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you. *Any person may address the Commission during the "Business From the Floor" segment of the Agenda. *Copies of the Agenda documents relative to an Agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of $.08 per page. RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte ALUC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chairman at the appropriate time. 2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for "Public Comment" on the agenda. The Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until a meeting at which the matter can be put on the agenda. 3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon recognition by the Chair. 4. After receiving recognition, please stand and state your name and address before making your presentation, so that the Clerk may take down this information. 5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the Commission (original and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to the __.. Commission and made available for public inspection. Posting Locations: Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case \• K:WLUC\MEETINGSWUG19.098WGENADD.WPD ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ ,=, 1 1 11 It 4' 1 1 1 1 1 1 IIA! 1 III$] ' I' 111014 wFurallim.uI Ms. Webster noted that no proposals have been received as yet although one is expected by the deadline of 4:00 p.m. today. She said five funis were sent the RFP and that if there are no responses, the firms will be contacted as to the reason they did not respond. She noted that Christa Engle of Caltrans was pleased with the RFP. Ms. Leasure said the RFP was written along the lines of those of other counties. She said staff could extend the deadline. There was consensus that staff should extend the deadline for responses to the RFP if necessary. Commissioners Gerst and Rosene volunteered to be members of the sub -committee to review proposals for preparation of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT Regarding the Visalia workshop, there was consensus to direct staff to prepare a letter for the Chairman's signature to the Pilot's Association thanking Brian Baldridge for providing transportation to the workshop. Ms. Webster reported on items of interest at the Visalia workshop. Regarding Item #11, it was noted that the paragraph about Ranchaero Airport is incorrect in that the . General Plan for Chico in relation to the Ranchaero airport was found to be consistent and therefore only legislative actions need ALUC review. f Ms. Leasure reported that the signs noticing the Chico Municipal Airport required by the North Chico Specific Plan should be installed sometime in Jul and their locations are designated P y in the North Chico Specific Plan. She noted that the ALUC comments on cellular towers were submitted to Planning staff, which is working on the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Gerst said the requirements for painting and lights on cellular towers are inconsistent. Ms. Leasure said the consistency of requirements for cellular towers could be discussed at a Planning staff meeting. G. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA t Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - July _I5, 1998^ Page 6 2/0 : 03 O y BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES June 17, 1998 Mr. Parilo reported on the status of signage for the North Chico Specific Plan. He said the money for the signs will come from the ALUC/Planning Division budget although reimbursement may be possible from developers. He said no funds have yet been generated by the NCSP and yet lots are being developed and there are no signs up as yet. Commissioner Rosene requested that the signs be placed in highly visible locations. (#4) ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION + • Department of Development Services • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 959% • (916) 5*7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 • MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: ALUC Staff SUBJECT: Monthly Status Report DATE: For the Meeting of June 17, 1998 1. Status of Caltrans Grant for CLUP Preparation - On May 19, 1998, the Butte County ALUC received written notification from the Department of Transportation Aeronautics Program, that the California Transportation Commission (CTC) approved the allocation of an additional $40,000 to the Butte County ALUC from the California Aid to Airports Program. This supplemental allocation, together with the earlier allocation of $41,000 is intended to assist with -funding updates to the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plans (CLUP) for all four public use airports within the County. - The combined allocation of $81,000 is considered by the CTC and Caltrans to be up to 90% of the total project cost. Therefore, the match for the total grant amount is 10% of the total project cost or $9,000. This can be a cash match, an "in kind" match, or some combination of both.. Although the precise project cost will not be known until proposals are submitted by qualified consultants and a firm is selected, the grant funding that has been approved is expected to be adequate for a majority of the total project. According to previous information provided by the Department of Transportation, the allocated funds are not released as a lump sum. They are released as a reimbursement for monies which the ALUC pays to the consultant, less the 10% county match and a 10% -Holdback until the project is completed. Since the funds can only be released in the form Of a reimbursement, it is likely that the '98-'99 annual budget for the Butte County ALUC will need to be modified in some fashion to ensure that'adequate funding is available for up front project costs. In order to complete the grant agreement process, an authorized official of the sponsor identified by minute order or resolution must sign and return an executed copy of the Public Entity's Acceptance of the Allocation for Additional Funds on or before June 18, 1998. The necessary resolution will be presented to the Board of Supervisors for approval at their regular meeting ori June 9, 1998 to ensure that acceptance of the funds is completed well in advance of the deadline. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 2. Status of the RFP for CLUP Preparation - At the time of this report (June 1, 1998), ALUC 1 staff has not received written comments from the Department of Transportation Aeronautics Program regarding that agency's suggestions for changes to the Draft RFP for preparation of the CLUP for all public use airports within the County. The Draft RFP was originally submitted to Caltrans for their authorization on May 6, 1998. Prior to and following ALUC's regular meeting on May 20th, staff has kept in close contact with Christa Engle of the Aeronautics Program to help expedite completion of that agency's response. The last estimate from Caltrans for the submittal of formal comments was June 5, 1998. Following the receipt of Caltrans' comments on both the Draft RFP and Airport Layout Plans for the Chico Municipal Airport, Paradise Skypark Airport and Ranchaero Airport, staff will finalize the RFP and distribute it to a list of qualified consultants. The tentative due date for proposal submittal is one month following the release of the RFP. 3. Airport Land Use Workshop (Visalia - June 25, 1998) - An Airport Land Use Workshop sponsored by the California Pilots Association will be conducted on Friday, June 25, 1998, between 9:00 A.M. AND 3:00 P.M. in Visalia (see attached flyer). Presentations will be given by experienced land use planners and specialists from the Caltrans Aeronautics Program. The focus of the workshop will be the practical creation and implementation of Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plans. This is an excellent educational opportunity for all ALUC members, particularly in light of our upcoming CLUP preparation process. There is also a possibility that the Northern California Pilots Association may be able to provide air transportation to the event. Advanced registration is required for the workshop. Interested parties should contact Chairman Hennigan at (work) 891-1862 or by (fax) 898- 9341. This workshop notice has also been distributed to appropriate officials and agency staffs at Butte County, all cities within the county, and the Chico Airport Commission. 4:- North Chico Speck Plan Signage. ,The North Chico Specific Plan requires the installation of 8 signs that are 5' by 2'/' in size. The Butte County Public Works Department does not prepare signs of the size required. However they do prepare signs that are 36" x 45" in size. Planning. staff is checking with County Counsel to see if an amendment to the Specific Plan is required in order to amend the sign size. The signs cost $143.50 each plus $100.00 per installation if all are made and installed at the same time. The total cost of preparing and installing the signs is $1,964. The Development Services Department is making arrangements for Public Works Department to install signs in the near future. The signs are to read: . AIRCRAFT OVERFLIGHT ZONE This area is subject to noise impacts and safety hazards related to the operations of the Chico Municipal Airport and from aircraft overflight. 5. ALUC Staff Time Accounting - Pay periods 09 and 10 (4/18/98 through 5/15/98). Total hours dedicated to work on ALUC.issues by individual staff members. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • Tom Parilo 4.0 hours Paula Leasure 13.25 hours Laura Webster 37.5 hours 4/8/98 through 5/15/98 � C 9 ) Paula Atterberry 18.0 hours 6. Ranchaero Airport - The Moorehead's have signed the agreement with the Ranchaero Airport. However, Gary Griggs, Ranchaero Airport owner has not yet signed. Mr. Griggs wanted to be assured by Cal -Trans that the restriction to flight operations would be lifted. Subsequently, Jim Michaels, required detailed drawings of the encroachment area prior to lifting restrictions. Mr. Griggs is having professional drawings prepared. After submission to Cal -Transit is anticipated that the restrictions will be lifted. 7. Preparation of Draft County Ordinance -.ALUC Staff is in the process of making revisions to the County Ordinance as it applies to airports in Butte County. During a detailed review of the current ordinance, staff determined that there were several questions that needed to be answered. Staff also needs to meet with county counsel. The draft ordinance may be ready for the Commission to review at the July meeting. 8. Chico Master Plan Technical Advisory Committee - Craig Sanders has been appointed as the Butte County Department of Development Services - Planning Division representative. 9. Cell Tower Ordinance - Preparation of the draft ordinance is underway by.the Planning Division. It is expected that the draft ordinance will be scheduled for hearing before the Planning Commission sometime this summer. ALUC will have the opportunity to review and comment on the draft ordinance. 10.. Follow -UD on Letters to Citv of Chico and the Federal Aviation Administration - At the January 21, 1998 meeting the Commission directed staff to send a letter to the City ;of Chico requesting them not to represent the FAR PART 150 Noise Study as an ALUC adopted document and to send a separate letter notifying the FAA also that the document was not adopted by ALUC. Staff prepared the letters as directed and did not request a response. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 3 i v�e- s Swt'LA t 7, 1 qq 9 Commissioner Rosene said the project has been through so many changes that ALUC should review the project again at some point. The land could be used in such a way as to enhance the airport. Alternate Koch said the City of Chico managers position is that nothing should happen until the CLUP is complete. , Commissioner Gerst was in favor of waiting until the CLUP is complete. He mentioned that air tankers fly low over the property at 200 feet. Chairman Hennigan said the air tankers fly over the property for practice runs and to jettison their loads and Aero Union engineers experiment with drops from new tanks. Mi r Parilo noted the North Chico Specific Plan has assigned certain densities to properties which might apply pressure for approval on the Board of Supervisors. Alternate Koch asked if George Kammerer had received notice of today's meeting. Mr. Parilo said that Mr. Kammerer was supposed to have been notified of today's meeting. ^hairman Hennigan recommended that the Board of Supervisors review the requirements needed to over- Ve ALUC findings and remind them of the need for a super majority vote. The Board should also refer to Exhibit A of the North Chico Specific Plan which is the scatter map used for accidents which indicates accidents over this piece of property. It was moved by Commissioner Gerst, seconded by Commissioner Rosene to send a letter to the Board of Supervisors from Mr. Parilo, requesting the Board not take any action until the CLUP and the Master Plan for the airport are updated. Also, ALUC would like an opportunity to review and comment before a final decision is made by the Board if they decide to take action on the project, and that they review the requirements for them to overrule the ALUC's findings. G. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT Ms. Webster said the CAO has been designated as the person to sign the agreement with Caltrans for the Caltrans Grant for CLUP preparation. (#1) She said Caltrans comments on.the RFP and airport layout plans were received. -The RFP was updated and returned to Caltrans. The RFP has been distributed to a list of consultants whose responses are due by July 15. Alternate Koch asked if the Commissioners can have copies of the RFP. . Parilo said copies of the RFP can be provided to the Commissioners. ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES May 20, 1998 Commissioner Rosene asked about the status of development in CSA 87 and signage about the airport. Mr. Parilo said signage is required for development in CSA 87, and is to be installed upon recordation of the final maps. Previously lots have been sold, which did not have the benefit of signage. Mr. Rosene said that at the previous Chico Aviation Commission meeting, members of the public living near Keefer Road objected to airplane noise. Although they signed avigation easements they are ready to form a group to combat the airport. If the signs could be installed at least new people would be aware of the airport. Chairman Hennigan said ALUC discussed the signs previously. He asked what progress was made on getting the signs put up. Mr. Parilo said apparently the size of the signs created a difficulty in terms of costs. It was thought that all the signs could be ordered when the first sign is to be installed, which will be triggered by the first map ready to record. Chairman Hennigan said the public education portion of CSA 87 should be implemented. The mitigations are actually supposed to be completed. He asked Mr. Parilo to report back on the status of signage at the next meeting. Mr. Parilo said he would check on the County's ability to front the cost of the signs. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - May 20, 1998 -.Page 1 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 1997 VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. CounIX Service Area #87 (North Chico Specific Plan)_ Discussion of the funding mechanism to pay for aircraft overflight signs in the North Chico Specific Plan Area. Information will be provided by Craig Sanders, Senior Planner, Department of Development Services, Planning Division. Mr. Sanders said that according to the Department of Public Works, signs would cost approximately $230 each, including installation, for a total cost of approximately $1760, which would be $0.63 per home if pro- rated among 2,803 residences at the time of building permits, which could be charged along with other fees which are collected at that time. One solution would be to ask the first two subdivisions to install the signs, and provide reimbursement if they wish. Commissioner Franklin said the whole point of installation of the signs is to install them for notification purposes before people buy lots and build homes. There will also be maintenance costs for signs which are damaged or destroyed. Mr. Sanders noted problems which might exist for funding, due to Proposition 218. He said the signs will be 3 x 5 feet metal signs on wooden 4 x 4 posts, warning people of the impacts associated with the airport in the vicinity. Commissioner Franklin said that installation of the signs is a condition of approval of the Specific Plan Area, so the first developer could be charged for the installation, since the amount of money is not huge. The $0.63 charge could be used for maintenance. There was a question as to what action the Commission should take regarding signage. Ms. Leasure suggested that the Commission make a recommendation to Planning staff. Mr. Sanders said that if the recommendation is to charge the first person the full amount, and then offer a reimbursement over the build -out period, it would still be up to the Board of Supervisors to adopt an Ordinance for funding of improvements for the CSA. Alternate Koch asked if CSA 87 is still collecting tax money. Ms. Leasure said CSA 87 monies were only for planning purposes and not such items as signage. An expansion of powers would be necessary to collect money for other purposes. It was moved by Alternate Koch and seconded by Commmissioner Hennigan, that since signs are a condition of approval, the North Chico Specific Plan should not be implemented until the signs are installed, which means the County should install the signs before approving building permits in the NCSP area, and then have a fee schedule for reimbursement to the County. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - January 15, 1997 Commissioner Lambert suggested the cost could be distributed among more than one of the first developers. Mr. Sanders was in favor of one funding source for installation of all signs at the same time. Alternate Koch felt the signs should be installed by the County prior to approval of any development since it is a condition of the Specific Plan. There is supposed to be a fee schedule created to recover monies for implementation of the Specific Plan. The County could figure out a method of reimbursement. Commissioner Franklin said the cost of installing signs is so low that a developer would gladly pay the cost in order to begin development. Commissioner Lambert was in favor of the money coming from developers within the Specific Plan area, rather than having the County front the money. The County might as well front the money for roads and everything else. It would be better to charge the first developers. Alternate Koch revised the motion: that the County install all the signs from whatever funding source is deemed appropriate, and then obtain reimbursement in an appropriate form from the developers within the NCSP area. Mr. Sanders said the first developers would probably not be concerned with reimbursement for such a small amount of money. Chairman Gerst said the signs need to go up prior to development. Commissioner Campbell suggested amending the motion that the County either install the signs or require the developer to install them prior to development. Alternate Koch said development might occur over several years, and the purpose is to have the notification in place before development occurs. The amendment was not accepted,'and Alternate Koch repeated that the motion is for the County to install the signs and recover the costs in an appropriate manner. Commissioner Franklin added: "prior to approval of any subdivisions." Mr. Sanders said installation of signs could be a condition of approval. The amendment that installation of signs would be a condition of approval, was acceptable to Alternate Koch, who made the motion, and Commissioner Hennigan, who seconded the motion. Chairman Gerst said the main concern of ALUC is that the signs get installed and Planning staff should work out whatever mechanism is necessary for accomplishment. The motion was voted upon and unanimously carried. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - January 15, 1997 2