The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOROVILLE HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER HELIPORTDate: To: From: Subject: CITY OF OROVILLE � lIuMACe.MtnntngComf� APTER OFFICE MEMORAND[1 March 2, 1987 MAR 2 1987 Dave Hironimus, Associate Planner i+awomk Mary Ann Imbiorski, Planning Technician Oroville Hospital & Medical Center Heliport Attached for your records is the Notice of Landing Area Proposal proposed by the Oroville Hospital and Medical Center. The approach and departure paths have been changed since ALUC approved the heli- port in October of 1984. Please let me know if there is a problem. Oroville Hospital 2767 Olive Highway Oroville, Ca. 95965 PLANNING COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 PHONE: 534-4601 November 6, 1984 Re: Heliport: Gentlemen: At the regular meeting of the Airport Land Use Commission held October 22, 1984, your request for a heliport to trans- port the sick and injured to and from Oroville Hospital and Medical Center, was approved. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this department. Sincerely, B. A. Kircher Director of Planning David R. Hironimus Associate Planner DRH:lr it_ :D NOV 03W4 JOSEPH P, DI RUSCIO ..l LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY PLANNING COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 PHONE: 534-4601 November 6, 1984 Re: Heliport: Gentlemen: At the regular meeting of the Airport Land Use Commission held October 22, 1984, your request for a heliport to trans- port the sick and injured to and from Oroville Hospital and Medical Center, was approved. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this department. Sincerely, B. A. Kircher Director of Planning David R. Hironimus Associate Planner DRH:lr it_ :D NOV 03W4 JOSEPH P, DI RUSCIO * U S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980-315-491 241 ` Form Approved. OMB No. 04•ROO94 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION NOTICE OF LANDING AREA PROPOSAL M ESTABLISHMENT OR ACTIVATION 1 ❑ ALTERATION } C1 DEACTIVATION OR ABANDONMENT J ❑ CHANGE OF STATUS ❑ AIRPORT OFff HELIPORT ❑ SEAPLANE BASE NAME OF PROPONENT, INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION Oroville Hospital ADDRESS (No., Street, City, State, Zip Code) 2767 Olive Highway, Oroville, Ca. 95966 A. LOCATION OF LANDING AREA 1. NEAREST CITY OR TOWN Oroville GA . 2. COUNTY Butte. 3. STATE 4. CA. DISTANCE 8 DIRECTION OROTOWNAREST CITY S. NAME OF LANDING AREA Oroville Hospital 6. LATITUDE 39` 30' 28'. 17. LONGITUDE 121a 32 38.. 8. ELEVATION MILESDIRECTION 246 .00 1 Mi. West B. PURPOSE TYPE USE TYPE LOCALITIES IF CHANGE OF STATUS OR ALTERATION, CONSTRUCTION DATES ❑ pueLlc X PRIVATE OWNERSHIP ❑ PUBLIC SERVED Greater Sac. DESCRIBE CHANGE. TO Est. BEGIN!BEGAN 8/11/86 EST. COMPLETION 9/29/86 ❑ PERSONAL pi PRIVATE Valley REF. AS ABOVE FROM LANDING FROM LANDING D. LANDING AREA DATA C. OTHER LANDING AREAS 1' EXISTING (1l any) PROPOSED AREA AREA M/,GHETIC RUNWAY(S) BEARING CF OR SEALAHE(S) • Oroville Airport West 4.5 111 •0: MZ . N LENGTH 0 C OR OF RUNWAYS) SEALANE(S) IN FEET . Hw O: Z O< WIDTH (L_jSEALANE(S) OF RUNWAY(S) OR IN FEET IL as UJ UJ MAGNETIC BEARING OF PRIMARY LANDING DIRECTION TYPE (Concrete, OF RUNWAY SURFACE Asphalt, Gccss, Etc.I . 2. DIMENSIONS TAKEOFF OF LANDING AND AREA IN FEET O 80 1 x 80 1 E. OBSTRUCTIONS ORCT. FROM LANDING AREA 01ST. FROM LANDING AREA TYPE HEIGHT LABO OVE NG AREA F DIMENSIONS O AREA OF TOUCHDOWN IN FEET / 1 70 Power Poles J MAGNETIC W INGRESS DIRECTION OF EGRESS ROUTES wxyYYy�yT70 loop -n1 1V NJ TYPE (Ta,l, OF SURFACE .00ltap, etc) Asphalt & Lines 24'i West 220' D 3. �+ ALL SCR TION F LIGMTI 11 ony) surface Floods DIRECTION OF 9 ° PREVAILING 170 WIND F. OPERATIONAL DATA PRESENT (if est. indicate by letter "E") ANTICIPATED 5 YRS. HENCE 1. EST. OR ACTUAL NO. BASED ACFT. AIRPORTS MULTIENGINE SINGLE-ENGINE G. NOISE CONSIDERATIONS DRCT. FROM LANDING DIST. FROM LANDING HELIPORTS UNDER 3500 LBS. MGW one None IDENTIFICATION OVER 3500 LBS. MGW None None 2. AVERAGE NO. MONTHLY LANDINGS AIR CARRIER AREA AREA Hosplta —6 -u-t Apartment Complex lSorth 220' GENERAL AVIATION to Convalescent Comp. N.E. 400' OTHER ,M.w.., yt.de,• oc.) Subdivision Apartment Complex West N.W. 250' 5501 3. ARE IFR OPERATIONS ANTICIPATED TYPE ❑ NO 29 YES WITHIN 10 YEARS 14AVAID: N.D.B. H. APPLICATION FOR AIRPORT LICENSING Ind. Complex N.W. 400' ❑ HAS BEEN MADE ❑ NOT REQUIRED ❑ COUNTY SWILL BE MADE IX STATE ❑ MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY I. CERTIFICATION: l hereby certify that all of the above statements a by me are true cppplete to the best of my knowledge. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON FILING THIS NOTICE (Type SIGWAT (In i 1 or print) Dan J. Cook, Principal Engineer Cook Associates, Oroville, Ca. �' ATE OFSI ATURE '1_9_#_ TELEPHONE NO. (Precede with area code) 1916-533-6457 FAA FORM 7480.1 (1.77) .: �1 �� ..'i �� %tib •�,� P •v0 � , � �m o 11 Mat, Ma Lin 0 � � III' :, 'O�V� ��;�� - �• , ' "'• �` � • ® QS1 � � fit, �• �, .v. � ' 0P - zY�3a �e� �. 1�e '�O � ,� � ��j ■I a p';�Qovno � . � ,� �?� // . ,6i••,,�ae•.. ,..ems _ . ..• '. �� - NO VM 10 WS . • �1 .� is ; C I NO"$ TRO® .. .O 81 • 11 �9A 1 1 �= ? ✓�' SHE EE! illll•11:� � ,170 111 111:1 ,11: � — HIM �� IIIIf(111= • � • OROVILLE HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER December 1, 1986 List Of helicopters which will be utilizing this heliport: Enloe Hospital - Chico, Ca. (891-7371) Make: A Star 350 B Manuf: Aero Spatiale Weight: 4,000 lbs. Length: 42.6 ft. Davis Hospital - Davis, Ca. (1-800-862-5422) Make: Alouette III Manuf: Aero Spatiale Weight: 4,850 lbs. Length: 38 ft. CHP - Sacramento (322-9717) Make: Bell 206 L-3 Long Ranger Manuf: Bell Weight: 4,300 lbs. Length: 42.6 ft. Bay Area (Cal Star 1-800-252-5050) Make: Bk 117 Twin Engine Manuf: M.B.B. (West German Company) Weight: 7,200 lbs. Length: 43 ft. qEGHTH EUROPEAN ROTORCRAFTIORUM Paper No 9.6 HELICOPTER NOISE CERTIFICATION AND SENSITIVITY STUDIES �. ALONG THE PROCEDURAL LINES OF THE NEW ICAO ` ANNEX 16 / CHAPTER 8 REGULATIONS W. SPLETTSTOSSER, H. HELLER DFVLR TECHNICAL ACOUSTICS DIVISION, GERMANY V. KL?SPPEL MBB DREHFLUGLER UND VERKEHR, GERMANY August 31 through September 3, 1982 1 AIX-EN-PROVENCE, FRANCE ASSOCIATION AERONAUTIQUE ET ASTRONAUTIQUE DE FRANCE HELICOPTERDISE CERTIFICATION AND S ITIVITY STUDIES ALONVrHE PROCEDURAL LINES OF NEW ICAO ANNEX 16 / CHAPTER 8 REGULATIONS W. Splettstosser* and H. Heller** DFVLR Technical Acoustics Division, Braunschweig V. Kloppel* MBB-Drehflugler and Verkehr, Munchen Abstract This paper discusses the noise -measurement experience gained in' the application of the new ICAO Annex 16 / Chapter 8 helicopter noise certification Standard as well as results from recent noise sensitivity studies on two modern -design helicopters. The measure- ment procedure, the data acquisition and reduction as well as the' applied correction procedures are briefly described. Effective Per- ceived Noise Levels (EPNL) and other noise descriptors are evaluat- ed and related. to the present ICAO noise limits. The reproducibi- lity of noise data is demonstrated for one helicopter. The sensi- tivity of EPNL on variations in test airspeed, rotorspeed, air- craft weight and flight altitude are shown and the need for a source -noise correction is emphasized. 1. Introduction In November 19.81, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) introduced an "International Standard" on the noise certi- fication of helicopters; as developed and proposed by Working - Group B of the ICAO -Committee on Aircraft Noise (CAN). The perti- nent rules, regulations and specification of this Standard are laid down in Chapter 8 and Appendix 4 of ANNEX 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation [1). New helicopters, as of this date, are required to comply -with certain noise -rules, whereby their noise under specified flight- and operational conditions is not to exceed a weight -dependent noise -limit. In preparation for this new Standard, a fair, number of helicopters were tested for their noise characteristics through the efforts of research -establishments and national aviation authorities as well. as some manufacturers, and the ensuing noise data were taken as the basis for setting appropriate noise limits. Accordingly, a great number of modern civil helicopters are able to comply with the current rules. On account of the rather recent introduction the Standard is presently only applicable to new helicopters and from a certain future date also to derivatives. Thus, there are two major areas of interest in the context of heli- copter noise certification, namely (1) to gain actual field -test - experience in the acquisition,.reduction and evaluation of heli- copter noise data along the procedural lines of the present ANNEX 16 Chapter 8 specifications,.and (2) to test. the sensitivity of the certification procedure -the selected noise metric ".Effective * Research Scientist ** Division Head 9.6-1 i ,Perceived Noise LeveO in particular - on vari9s operational and flight-, as well as aircraft -specific design parameters. In the following - after a brief description of the new Certifi- cation Standard'- noise data for two modern helicopters will be presented and assessed against the current noise -limits, and the effect of changing flight -speed, rotor -rotational speed, take -off mass and flight altitude on the noise metric EPNL be demonstrat- ed. Certain conclusions will be drawn on possible improvements and on current areas of uncertainty in the scheme, based not on ly on the measurement of a (limited) number of test helicopters, but also on experience obtained in field -measurements for noise - certification purposes in the course of over 300 propeller -driv- en aeroplane noise -tests as conducted by the DFVLR Technical Acoustics Division / Braunschweig. 2. Helicopter Noise Certification Standard - ANNEX 16 Chapter 8/ Appendix 4 The helicopter noise certification Standard spells out the ref- erence noise measurement points and flight procedures, the noise - evaluation measures, - adjustments,. -validities and -limits, as well as certain trade-offs. 2.1 Reference Noise Measurement Points and Reference Flight_ Procedures The helicopter to be noise tested is required to conduct a series of (a) take -offs, (b) level overflights, and (c) landing -approaches. In each case, the craft must fly over the noise measurement -sta- tion which consists of a centrally located microphone - the flight path reference point (C) - and two additional microphones (L and R), symmetrically displaced 150 m to both sides of the flight path as shown in Figure 1 (L = left-hand microphone, R = right- hand -microphone with respect to the flight direction). The -reference flight procedures shall be established with maximum certificated take -off mass, with stabilized rotor speed at the highest normal -operating RPM, and with stabilized airspeeds of V (the best rate of climb speed) for take -off and approach, and ofy 0.9 VH (the maximum speed in level flight at power not exceeding maximum continuous power) for overflight, respectively. For take -off (Fig.1-a) the helicopter shall be stabilized at the maximum take -off power and at the -best rate climb along a path. starting from the rotation -point located 500 m forward of the flight path reference point (C), at 20 m above the ground. For leveZ overfZight (Fig. 1-b) the helicopter must be in cruise ponfiguration and stabilized in level flight overhead the flight path reference point at a height of 150 m. For landing approach (Fig. 1-c) the helicopter shall be stabiliz- ed in its "landing 'configuratiori ' (e:g: ',landing -gear 'down)' -and' fol= lowing a 6° approach path passing overhead the flight path refer- ence point at a height of 120 m. These specified flight procedures also 'define the -reference flight paths which shall be used*for correction purposes to bring.the measured data.to reference conditions. 9 A-? M Fig. 1 Is Noise Certification Flight - test Procedures and Refer- ence Flight -paths for 1 (a) Take -off -L (b) Overflight and T E (c) Landing Approach f is 0T c) LANDING 2.2 Noise Evaluation Measure a) =AK*FF ROTATION POINT OVERFLIGHT Since the overf light noise signature. of a helicopter varies strong- ly with time, both in intensity and spectral content, there was a need to select a single -number noise -descriptor for the subjec- tive response to aircraft noise. A very appropriate descriptor, or noise evaluation measure, - at least for the time being - is the "Effective Perceived Noise Level, EPNL" in units of EPNdB, as. described in ANNEX 16'/ Appendix 4 (1) which. is a good measure of the annoyance caused by accounting for maximum overflight in- tensity, tonal content and the subjectively perceived noise -dura- tion of the noise -signal. 2.3 Noise Data Adjustment In addition to the reference flight paths for the three test pro- cedures, certain atmospheric reference conditions are defined. Since all reference conditions hardly ever occur simultaneously, certain test -windows -are allowed, as listed in Table T. Adjustments of data, if outside the above test -windows, must be conducted by the noise -certification applicant, and can be conduct- ed - if he so desires - if inside the test -windows. The adjust- ments, as presently mandatory, in the ANNEX, pertain to atmospher- ic sound attenuation in case the temperature/humidity difrers- from reference conditions and/or the distance from the helicop- ter to the microphone is affected due to a -deviation of the ac-. tual flight path from the reference flight -path. Also, the true airspeed in the presence'of head or tailwind enters the.correc= tion process in terms of over -ground -speed for the "Duration - Correction" -adjustment. I 9.6-3 • 1 = I. REF. CONDITION JPERMISSIBt EST WINDOW ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS ATMOSPH. PRESSURE 1013 h Pa not defined AMBIENT TEMPERATURE* 25 •C (ISA+10) 2• to 35 •C•• LATERAL FLIGHT PATH 150 alternatively t 5• from vertical RELATIVE HUMIDITY• 70% 20 • to 95 1 •• WIND SPEED* 0 km/h up to 19 km/h HELICOPTER MASS max.certificated up to 5 km/h mass for take -off crosswind at flyover FLIGHT AND/OR OPERATIONAL CONDITIUNS VERTICAL FLIGHT 0 m t 10 m PATH DEVIATION LATERAL FLIGHT PATH 0 t 5• from vertical DEVIATION AIRSPEED DEVIATION 0 km/h t 9 km/h HELICOPTER MASS max.certificated mass for take -off - 10 % to + 51 or landing ROTOR RPM 100 1 t 1 • measured 10 m above ground level •• excluding conditions with sound attenuation rate .,. more than 12 dB/100 m for 8 kHz C/3 -octave banDd _ _- Table I Reference and Permissible,Test Conditions No source -noise correction is presently required, in contrast to the noise certification procedure for propeller -aircraft. The source noise, however, is definitely affected by operational and atmospheric parameters - for example through the main -rotor ad- vancing blade tip Mach -number.. Test results to illustrate this pronounced effect will be presented in section 4. The' -ANNEX states, that "test -conditions and procedures shall be closely similar to reference conditions", without being too spe- cific on how much deviation after all is acceptable (Chapter 8: Section 8.7.3). However, adjustments and/or corrections of'test- towards-reference-conditions shall not exceed .4 EPNdB on take -off, or 2 EPNdB on overflight or approach (Chapter 8: Section 8.7.4). Thus, in a strict sense, the airspeed could conceivably differ by much more than ±9 km/h from the reference air speed, as long as corrections - not too.well defined as they presently are - are less than A EPNdB for the take -off procedure, -for example. Very little information on the effect of various operational and flight parameters on the final EPN -level is at hand, and there- fore future.adjustments to the.permissible test -windows (in terms. of a widening or narrowing) cannot be excluded. One major objec= o tive of the test reported under section -this paper -is -spe- cifically directed towards understanding and quantifying said influences. 2.4 Test Result Validity. Each test -flight produces one EPN -level at each of the three mi- corphones. ANNEX requires to arithmetically average the 3 EPNL- n r A velues to arrive at one flight-characterist c EPN -level. ANNEX further states t, aa minimum of 6 valid t flights (for each. procedure) are to conducted, the EPNL-va ues of which are fur- ther averaged to obtain (in a statistical sense) the mean, and the standard deviation of the mean, to establish a 90 % confi- dence -limit not to exceed ±1.5 EPNdB. Statistical evaluation of aircraft noise is usually hampered by the extremely small number of available data points. To obtain 6 valid flight -noise levels for 3 different flight -procedures is a lengthy and time-consuming undertaking, and to request many more data points in order to improve the statistical confidence in aircraft noise testing, is simply not feasible. Now, in the problem at hand, one assumes, that the 6 (EPNL-) values are part of a normally distributed sample -population, where - unfortunately - the true mean, u, and the -.true standard -devia- tion, a, is not known. Known is only a measured mean x and stan- dard deviation s, based on 6 sample points. In order to be "90 % sure" (i.e. have a 90 % confidence -level or, alternatively, to accept a 10 % error -probability), that* the measured arithmetic average of the 6 data points lies within 1.5 dB of the true mean, one may employ the Student -distribution (t -distribution), which takes into account the actual sample -size for any desired confi- dence level or error -probability. Fig. 2 illustrates the widening and flattening of the "normal" -distribution when having substan- tially less than infinite— .4 00% CONFIDENCE to ly many data points for the LEVEL `0 M. 0O case of a 90 % confidence :. ^� level. Since the ANNEX � '3 i ��; specifies the confidence .2 \ limit up =lx- µ to be e- - qual or less than 1.5 dB, one may derive the maxi - .1 y mum permissible standard �Q(t)� N=6 .. ' Ii� deviation s as function of the sample size (i.e. 0 -3 -2 ! -1 0 1 1 2 3 u.t number of valid, data -pro - I -=-1.64c--{ I •ducing, test flights) to j---±2.02a—�j obtain a up S 1 .5 dB. Fig. 3 shows the results, Fig. 2 Normal Distribution (4(u)) indicating that for the for an Infinitely Large Sample case of interest, i.e. (N= -) and t -Distribution N= 6, the standard devia- (Y(t)) for a Sample Consist- tion of the data sample ing of N-_ 6 Data Points and could be as large as 1.82 Corresponding Confidence dB, a number rather readi- Ranges in.Terms of Multiples ly achievable in typical of the Standard Deviation a tests. to Obtain a 90% -confidence Level 2.5 Maximum Permissible Effective Perceived Noise Levels The maximum permissible (not to be exceeded) noise levels in terms of the Effective Perceived Noise Level, EPNL for the three test procedures (take -off, overflight and approach), -are shown in Fig. 4. The measured, properly corrected and averaged final EPNL value for each individual test procedure is then assessed against the noise 9.6-5 d 2 X in C S 0 of 0 v c 0 in f r_l _0 EPNDB EPNL a APPROACH TAKE -OFF OVERFLIGHT IV 10 10" 10' KG MASS (M) Number of Flyovers Fig. 4 Helicopter Noise Limits (Sample Size, N) (ANNEX 16 / Chapter 8 ) Fig. 3 Permissible Standard De- viation to Achieve 90%-. Confidence Level not Ex- ceeding ±1'.5 dB limit as a function of the helicopter -mass, specified as maximum certificated take -off or landing mass. 3. Certification Noise Measurements 3.1 Test Helicopters Tests were conducted in strict compliance with current regulations of Chapter 8 / Appendix 4 to obtain "noise -certification levels", on two modern -design helicopters, namely a MBB BO 105 and a MBS */ Kawasaki BK 117. These helicopters - photographs appear in Fig. S- have the specifications listed in Table II. .i Fig. 5 Test Helicopters BO 105 and BK 117 3.2 Test Procedural Aspects Tests were conducted at the Braunschweig Airport (EDVE). The test site terrain was flat and covered with short-cut grass. The flight-. path.ground track was oriented from East to West parallel to the concrete runway. Visual cues (2m x 10m orange coloured ribbons) served to mark the flight -path center -line and to define the rota - 9.6-6 HELICOPTER MODEL BO 105 BK 117 MANUFACTURER MBB MBB/KAWASAKI MAX.C.T.O. WEIGHT (kg) 2300 2850 NBR. OF ENGINES 2 2 TAKE -OFF POWER (kW) 2 x 298 2 x 404 MAX. CONT. POWER (kW) 2 x 287 2 x 404. MAX. HORIZONTAL SPEED (km/h) 233 257 NEVER EXCEED SPEED (km/h) 268 277 BEST RATE OF CLIMB SPEED (km/hl 117 120 BEST RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 7 9 NBR. OF MAIN ROTOR BLADES 4 4 ROTOR DIAM. (m) 9.82 11.0 ROTOR SPEED RPM (100%) 424 383 BLADE TIP SPEED (m/s) 218 221 on point for take- . JW . For landing -ap- proach tests a visual ,approach slope indica- tor was set at the pres- cribed 6° slope. Half -inch -condenser mi- crophones (BrUel&Kjaer type 4166) were,mount- ed for grazing sound - incidence 1.2m above ground. Flight paths were tracked by means of 2 kino-theodolites (Askania) with an accu- racy of ± 0.3 m and three- dimensional coordinates provided for each 1/2 second time interval. For correction purposes the helicopter position ISA, sea level along the flight path Table II Test Helicopters Specifications must'be related to the noise as recorded at the various measurement stations through time, synchronization. This was accomplished by the kino-theodolite"system transmitting synchronization -signals with the photograph sequence frequency. .. Atmospheric data were measured close to the.measurement array 10 m above ground level. Noise related operational Indicated Airspeed) were engineer on board, and - of the cockpit instrument run. 3.3 Results data of the helicopter (Rotor -RPM, Torque, recorded ad-hoc by the accompaning test - in addition - documented by a photograph panel taken at the midpoint of each test The acoustic certification data for the BO.105 and the BK 117 he- licopters are shown in Table III, together with several other noise TEST AIRCRAFT NUMBER or EPNLsuP NOISE LIMIT NOISE EXCESS PNLTM OASPL(max) LA(max) EPNL - LA(max) PROCEDURE FLIGHTS (EPNdB) (EPNdB) (EPNdB) (TPNdB) (dB) (dB(A)) (dB) BO 105 8. 89.110.2 90.6 -1.5 89.9 83.2 76.7 12.4 TAKE -OFF �BK 117) '6 88.810.8 91.5 -2.7 85.3 79.8 72.1 16.4 BO 105 6 90.410.2 89.6 +0.8 93.0 84.9 79.9 10.5 OVERFLIGHT CBK 117) 6 92.510.4 90.5 +2.0 91.6 87.9 78.9 13.6 . BO 105 4 90.610.9 91.6 -1.0 90.8 83.2 78.6 12.0 APPROACH (BK 117 6 1 90.210.9 92.5 -2.3 90.8_ 78.0 1 12.2 Table III Noise Certification Data and Other Noise- Metrics metrics. The following comments are in order: Both helicopters can easily comply with the noise limits for take -off and.approach, '9.6-7 while showing excess-0ise for the overflight t t procedure. Trade-off rules in bo Tli cases, however, make the aircraft to fullfil ANNEX 16 requirements. Staying within the prescribed con- fidence -level limits of ±1.5 dB in general field practice also seems to be no problem, since up ranges from 0.2 dB to 0.9 dB at most. It should be.noted that only 4 valid flights were evaluated for the BO 105 / approach procedure. Table III also shows a column with the difference in level of EPNL and LA(max). For rough estimates an additive factor of 13 dB is frequently employed to determine EP14L from a measured maximum A - weighted overflight level in aircraft noise assessment. The appro- priate listing in Table III shows these differences to range from about 10 to 16 dB, with a mean of 12.9 dB and a standard deviation of ±2.1 dB. A comparison of the BO 105 data with results of earlier measurements, partly obtained within the framework of ICAO -CAN cooperation through DFVLR/BMV (Germany) and TSC/FAA (USA) is shown in Table IV. FLIGHT PROCEDURE EPNL (EPNdB) E EPNL (MAX.) DFVLR DFVLR TSC/FAA (1981) (1978) (1978) TAKEOFF 89.1 88.4 89.1 0.7 LEVEL FLYOVER 90.4 89.6 88.4 2.0 LANDING APPROACH 90.6 90.9 91.7 1.1 Table IV Comparison of Effective Perceiv- ed Noise Levels of the BO 105 Helicopter Obtained Through Dif- ferent Tests, Test -sites, and Measurement -groups The agreement of the properly corrected EPN - levels is very satis- factory, considering that the measurements were in fact conducted by different laborato- ries at different lo- cations (USA and Ger - many) and at different times (viz. different atmospheric conditions) The maximum deviation of 2 dB surprisingly occurs for the over- flight procedure, while for take -off and approach the maximum dif- ference reduces to about 1 dB. Regarding only the DFVLR-results obtained on the identical helicopter, the agreement (i.e. repro- ducibility) is better than 1 dB for each of the three flight -pro- cedures. Flight test experience has also shown, that the lateral deviation tolerance from the reference flight path track seems rather tight. Fig. 6 shows both ground plane tracks and altitude profiles for the kd f h ICLICDPTER S-117 TAKEOFF FLIDil-Nb.:iwl IME:11: 6: 0 DAIS : 05/0540 iMN PLANE TRAa .� I .N ALTIlUOE PROFILE \ i _ �• • � DIS10a AL" MMIRELIK AMI to e -off proce ure o t e BK 117 -helicopter in several test flights (including those' that were ultimately not taken for further evaluation) . Lat- eral deviation•sometimes ex- ceeds the tolerable 5° -from - the -vertical over.the impor- ..tant part. of the f light,path ., Thus it seems particularly Fig. .6 Take -off Flight Path Tracks (Lateral Deviations at En- larged Scale) difficult for t pilot, to maintain the r erence flight path in the presence of�nd, especially during tHWtake-off procedure. No well defined correction -procedure within the EPNL-computation is at hand, such that a widening of the tolerance, e.g. up to ±10D from the vertical has been suggested, causing probably very little effect on the final results, since a three -microphone -average is taken. 4. Noise Sensitivity Studies Correction of noise data towards reference conditions, on the one hand, and the definition of.tolerable test -windows,- on the other hand, require an understanding of the sensitivity of the various noise -metrics, the EPNL in particular, on flight-, configuration-, and operational parameters. Appropriate studies were conducted em- ploying one or both test-helicopter(s). 4.1 Effect of Flight Altitude Level flyovers at 0.8 VH were at different flight -altitudes pear in Fig. 7 together with EPNL W 0 conducted with the BO 105 helicopter between 75m and 300m. Results ap- several suggested correction -schemes, i.e..(a) the "inverse - LEVEL FLYOVER •� MOTEL •� O so 105 DATA �• — • — INVERSE SODARE LAM — — INVERSE DISTANCE LAM AMNEI 16 DISTANCE CORRECTION 7s 1 s 100 . 300 . 700 FLIGHT ALTITUDE Fig. 7 Flight Altitude Effect on EPNL square -distance -law" (-6 dB per doubling of distance), (b) the "in- verse -distance -law" (-3 dB per doubling of- distance), f-distance), and (c) the ANNEX 16 distance cor- rection which combines the "inverse -square - distance -law" for sphe- rical spreading and the ."inverse -distance -law" for the adjustment of the "Duration -Correc- tion", yielding a rela- tion similar to the "inverse -distance -law". The diagram shows the expected decrease in the EPN -level with in- creasing flight altitude, and demonstrates the ability of the ANNEX 16 distance correction procedure to correct the basic 150 m data over a wide range of flight altitudes. 4.2 Effect of Aircraft Weight Several experiments on the -BO 105 helicopter with drastically re- duced flight -weight were conducted to check that particular influ- ence on the EPN -level during take -off, overflight and approach. Table t1 lists the changes in level, when the weight is lowered from, the maximum certificated take -off weight of 2300 kg to 18.00•kg. In all cases the effect is very minute, exhibiting no discernible effect for the overflight -procedure, and an effect on the order of 1 dB for the two other procedures, with the lower levels pertain-. ing to the lower weight. 9.6-9 FLIGHT PROCEDURE WEIGHT (kg) EPNL ±Up (EPNdB) TAKE-0FF 2300 89.1±0.2 1800 88.0±0.2 OVERFLIGHT (-BVH1 2300 89.0±0.1 1800 89.110.1 APPROACH 2300 90.610.6 ' 1800 89.310.3 Table V Weight Effect on Effec- tive Perceived Noise Level (BO 105 Test Heli- copter) 4.3 Effect oi#light Speed For the case ofhorizontal over- flight at 150m.altitude, the effect of the flight -speed on EPNL was investigated ori both test helicopters. Fig. 8 shows the result. The sensitivity, curves indicate an exponential increase with flight speed for both helicopters; the "certifi- cation -speed" of 0.9 VH is indi- cated in each case. The shape of the curve seems to be typical for modern helicopters with high advancing -blade -tip Mach -numbers. Especially in the blade -tip Mach -number range between 0.8 and 0.9 the growing influence of impulsive noise -components, such as "thick- ness -noise" and "high-speed impulsive noise is evident. Compres- sibility effects - then occuring —cause significant changes in both the noise -level and the directivity characteristic. This ef- fect becomes more obvious, if EPN -levels are plotted vs. advancing - blade -tip Mach -number (Fig. -9). EPN( EPNL 0 LEVEL FLYOVER AT 150m ALT. 0 90-105 90% VM o ex -m BO V05 10 BK -M 80 80 100 120 Ms 14 TRUE AIRSPEED Fig. 8 Flight -speed Effect on EPNL The tests on the BK 117 were conducted for an ini- tial aircraft configura- tion exhibiting high tail rotor loading at maximum level flight speed. This effect is assumed to be, one of the main reasons for the steep slope of flyover -noise versus speed during the first tests. On the final production con- figuration the tail rotor has been deloaded by in- creasing the endplates' incidence angle, which is expected to decrease the noise intensity at high. level -flight speeds. 4.4 Effect of Rotor Rotational Speed and Forward Velocity Maintaining rotor rotational speed (in terms of percent nominal speed) but -varying forward speed and plotting the resulting EPN - levels vs. advancing blade -tip Mach -number indicates a character- istic noise -sensitivity curve for each rotor rotational speed: Thus, the 95% -RPM curve appears in the Mach -number range of about 0.75 and 0.80, while the 102 % curve appears in the 0.80 to 0.85 Mach -number range, causing 3 EPNdB higher levels for otherwise identical flight speeds (Fig. 10). Accordingly, the Chapter -8 -required flight test speed of 0.9 VH could be achieved with rotor -speeds from 95 % to 102 % with cor- 9.6-10 EPI —.700 .750 .800 .ow ADVANCING BLADE TIP MACH -NUMBER Fig. 9 Mach -number Effect on EPNL for keeping within bounds the acoustic ground. - sponding level changes 3 EPNdB. Thus, ANNEX 16 allows RPM -toleran- ces of ±1 % only, to- lerating in this case approximately 0.5 EPNdB variations.' 5. Concluding Remarks The current noise -cer- tification procedure for helicopters, as laid down as a Standard in ANNEX 16/Chapter 8 is a fairly well-founded step towards regulat- ing helicopter -noise annoyance it causes on the Although the Standard rather precisely regulates the test and data - reduction procedures, there are still some uncertainties that po-. tentially affect the final Effective Perceived Noise Level. Some tolerances -. it seems - could be -loosened, e.g. that.for.test- weight (since weight -changes of up to 20 % have shown a relative- ly small effect on EPNL), or that for lateral flight -path devia- tion (which represent an unjustified burden on the pilot), or the _ altitude tolerance for level overflight (since accurate corrections are readily available); others should perhaps be narrowed such as . that for the rotor -rotational speed in combination with the flight - speed, or appropriate source -noise corrections 10o should be made mandatory; BO -105 however no accurate correc- LEVEL FLYOVER tion scheme for advancing EPNdB AT 150m ALT. blade -tip Mach -number is available at present* (as - there is non for the tem- EPNL 90 100°% RPM � � perature-effects on source- �90i.V„ noise, for that matter), and more basic research in this area is needed on many 80%V" more helicopters, espec- ially on those operating 80700 .750 .800 .850 at near sonic blade -tip speeds and those that are ADVANCING BLADE TIP MACH -NUMBER prone'to generate impul- sive noise. Fig. 10 Effect --of- Rotor Rotational Speed and.Foreward Velocity on EPNL * It should be mentioned that even for the relatively "easy case" of propeller -noise there -is no accurate helical -blade -tip. -Mach-. number correction available, and helicopter aeroacoustics is still more complicated. 9.6-11 Other areas of unce&inty, not only in helic*er noise- certification,'but in aircraft noise research quite in general, pertain to the reliability and reproducibility of noise data when obtained by either different and independently operating measurement crews during the very same, identical overflight event, or when obtained, even with the same crew, at different times and/or locations on the same aircraft..Matters become still more complicated, if an acoustical change is to be investi- gated, such as an alternate rotor -blade geometry on a particular helicopter. Here, the statist:.cal validity and the accuracy achievable in field-tests must be well understood and accou- ted for. Another area of concern relates to the effect of ground - reflection, when an acoustic signal bounces off the ground be- fore reaching the microphone at 1.2 m above the surface, and in- terferes with.the direct wave. The problem is well known - but far from being solved - also in propeller aircraft noise re- search and/or certification. Noise -regulations, in a sense, are a motivator for the manufac- turer to design and build a quiet product. However - since it is the manufacturer's obligation to prove compliance with the noise regulations, he must put substantial.—and time-consuming - effort into the development of advanced rotorcraft noise tech- nology, with.the consequential need to generate sufficiently accurate physical models for noise prediction, to develop noise - orientated design principles and to provide techniques for the assessment of the economic impact of such designs. Thus, in- troduction and enforcement of noise regulation must take both the manufacturer's technical possibilities, and the public's desire for a quiet environment into account and must therefore try to balance these perhaps somewhat conflicting aspects. Aerospace vehicle noise certification - development, introduction and application - is a continuing process and is likely to require adjustments when in the course of time more experience is gained by all concerned. References [1j International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO): "Environmental Protection", ANNEX 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Volume I'Aircraft Noise' First Edition - 1981, Montreal, Canada 9.6-12 HELICOPTER NOISE LEVEL MEASURED IN ICAO FLIGHT CONDITIONS EPN clg 105 100 95 90 85 80. FLYOVER AT 0.,9 VH - ALTITUDE 1 50 m + CH 47 C MODIFIED ICAO NOISE LIMIT PROPOSED AT CAN1 MEETING MI 8 + WG 13 UH6� + S 64 lOg 109 BELL 212 �' S 65 +.'i• B 234 LR A + WG 30 � S61 SA 315 B � g 11 + * SA 321 F BELL 47 G .F g0 105 + S76 AS 332 Production SA 330 G AS 332 Proto rOO' " H 500 C 1 (FAA) SA 3G5 N II SA 341 G AS 355 M1 2 SA 330 J `4. 1-1 300' r. SA 342 SA 365 C BELL 206 L I AS 350 ORIGINAL ICAO NOISE LIMIT -M 1 6 A + I I 4000 6000 8000 10000 Kg 800 1000 2000 3000 5000 7000 9000 20000 30000 •MASS 0 0 HELICOPTER NOISE LEVEL MEASURED IN ICAO FLIGHT CONDITIONS EPN dB 100 i*j 90• 851 TAKE - OFF AT VY AND BEST RATE OF CLIMB MODIFIED ICAO NOISE LIMIT PROPOSED AT CANT MEETING ' SA 321 F SA 330 J B 234 Ln + =} +S61 +S65 SA 315 B X �AS 360 SA 330 G SA 341 r X A 109 + WG 30 -y AS 332 Proto A 109 + +• U 60A BELL 212 SA 342 y I + NOISE LIMIT + B 11 ORIGINAL ICAO AS 350 \ AS 332 Production H 500 C BELL.20G L BO 105 WG 13 S76 SA 365 N i AS 355 000 1000 3000 5000 2000 4000 7000 9000 6000 0000 10000 --,--- 20000 30000 Kg 40000 MASS 0 E HELICOPTER NOISE LEVEL MEASURED IN ICAO FLIGHT CONDITIONS EPN dB 1051 fiI1I#Z 951 901 85 1 APPROACH AT VY SLOPE 6° MI G A MODIFIED ICAO NOISE LIMIT +,.0 - PROPOSED AT CANT MEETING + CFI 47 C' �B234 LR f WG 13 M12 BELL 212' + MI 8 .!. SA 365 C I / * S G5 + S 64 SA 342 1 �.��/++ WG 30 + SA 321 F SA315B 4-AS3 109 / :K \-}.SG1 .�� +S7G AS 350; ; + AS 332 Production BELL 47 G BO 105 't -BK 117 \ S (FAAA 330 ) \ SA 3G5 N AS 332 rcr� H 500 C /. BELL 206 L SA 330 J (Proto) SA 341 G ORIGINAL ICAO NOISE LIMIT �I 800 1000 2000 3000 5000 7000 9000 20000 40�bK9 4000 6000 '8000 10000 30000 MASS • A.P.a 13-26-41 & 65 Nnxt;'Oroville Hospital Jouo 85070, OWNER'S CERTIFICATE: (1()(Wa) Oroville Hospital, a non profit corporation as Owners) Ind_ Butte County Title Company as Trustee(s) under Deed(s) of Trust, dated, Feb. 14, 1973 'and recorded, Feb. 16, 1973 in Book' 1817 Official Records, at Page 256 , do hereby certify that (AXX91)(We are) the only parties having any record title interest in the Real Property Subdivided, and W (We) hereby consent to.the preparation and and recordation of the Parcel Map being c6ncurrently•cecorded in Book JOS of Maps at Page _4!L_ in accordance with Section 20-110 of the Butte County Subdivision Ordinanc am er as n, rest ant DoganLpaldal, Administrator STATS of CALIrORNZA ) COUNTY or...$VLCg...... jss On this .•,17th .,day of December ,1n the year1985,... before me,, Janet Gale Fiore ...... a Notary Public, State of California,duly sworn,•peraonally•appeared. R: D: Chamberlain and .Dothan Daldal • , personallyknownto me (or.proved•to.me•on.the.basls•of•sattsfactory•evidence), to be the person. s whose names.$r%ubscribed to the within Instrument and ack- nowledged to me that AhaA. executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal In the County of..ApXte the day and year this certificate first above written, �/� r:AT, SEAL .. !ate/.�:-M..YY.«-i:.Y`: j.� "NET GALE FIORE •Nc) ry Public, State of California r• ,Pf -••!F:IC - CALIFORNIA My c fission expires..44gg.1..19W .. C'•?E COUNTY My comm. ezplres JUN 1, 1986 2767 Olive Hlsbwuy, "WHO, CA 95%5 CI-ERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' CERTIFICATE: ..i. hereby acknowledge the receipt of satisfactory security in'the Auditor's estimated amount of $ to insure payment of taxes which are a lien but not yet payable. Date December 1985 Martin J. Nichols Clerk of the Board of Supervisors COUNTY AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE: I hereby certify that there are no liens of -unpaid County or Special District Taxes against any of the lands shown on the accompanying Parcel Map, except taxes which are a lien but not yet payable. Taxes or Special Assessments which are a lien but not yyet payable, I eatimate•to be in the amount of $ deposit of +Mich is hereby acknowledged. Dated this day of December ;19 85 JAMES JOHANSEN, Butte County Auditor 1-1% by: 9pputy 0 • OROVILLE HOSPITAL BOUNDARY LINE M3DIFICATION PARCEL 1.(North Parcel upon which the Hospital is located) All that portion of the East one-half of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 19 North, Range 4 East, M.D.B. & M., City of Oroville, County of Butte, State of California, described as follows: BEGINNING at the Northeast corner of the East half of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 19 North, Range 4 East, M.D.B. be M., (said beginning point marked with a bolt with a 2 inch square top) thence South 0°05' West along the'Easterly line of above described Section 17, a distance of 409.22 feet to a point; thence South 80°58125" West to a point that lies on the Northerly projection of the plane of an existing firewall 139.67 feet; thence South 09°05'35" East through and past said firewall 200.00 feet to a point thence; South 70°54'01" West 508.99 feet to a point thence Westerly to a point on Westerly line of the above described East half of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 17, also being .the Easterly line of that "Central View Subdivision" recorded in Book 18 of Maps at pages 17 and 18 of Butte County Records; 68.17 feet; thence North 00071 East along the Easterly line of that Central View Subdivision a distance of 782.27 feet to the Northwest corner of the above described East half of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 17; thence North 880571 30" East, 654.5 feet to the point of beginning, containing 9.948 acres more or less. E ESSIp L r� No. 13062 Revised 10/24/85 CA 85070 J�grF Or E OROVILLE HOSPITAL BOUNDARY LINE MDDIFICATION PARCEL 2 (South Parcel upon which the Medical -Office Buildings are located) All that portion of the East one-half of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 19 North, Range 4 East, M.D.B. & M., City of Oroville, County of Butte, State of California, described as follows: BEGINNING at the Northeast corner of the East half of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 19 North, Range 4 East, M.D.B. & M. (said beginning point marked with a bolt with a 2 inch square top) thence South 0005' West along the Easterly line of above described Section 17, a distance of 409.22 feet to the true point of beginning for the parcel of land described herein; thence from said point of beginning South 80°58125" West to a point that lies on the Northerly projection of the plane of an existing firewall 139.67 feet; thence South 09005135" East through and past said firewall 200.00 feet to a point thence; South 70054101" West 508.99 feet to a point; thence South 51025" East 383.34 feet; thence South 38035' West 250.0 feet to a point on the Northeasterly line of Olive highway as described in deed to the County of Butte recorded May 5, 1950 in Book 288 of Official Records of Butte County, page 175; thence South 51025100" East along the Northeasterly line of Olive Highway a distance of 100.09 feet to a point that bears North 51°25'00" West 60.20 feet from the South line of the Northeast quarter of said Section 17; thence North 38 35'00" East 250.0 feet; thence South 51025100" East a distance of 266.39 feet to a point on the Easterly line of said Section 17; that bears North 0005100" East 60.03 feet from the East quarter corner of said Section 17; thence North 0005100" East along said Easterly line to the true point of beginning 853.52 feet and containing 5.635 acres more or less. Revised 10/24/85 CA 85070 Q�........... No. 13062 En fP �!�TF OF OROVILLE HOSPITAL BOUNDARY LINE MJDIFICATION PARCEL 3 (Additional Right of Way at Entrance) A portion of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter and a portion of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 17, Township 19 North, Range 4 East, M.D.B. do M., and more particularly described as follows: The Westerly 15.21 feet of the following described parcel of land: BEGINNING at the point of intersection of the Northeasterly line of the Olive Highway with the East line.of•said Section 17, which point is South 0005' West along said East line a distance of 259.41 'feet from the East quarter corner of said Section.17; thence along the'Northeasterly line of said Olive Highway North 51025' West, a distance of 465.21 feet; thence leaving said Northeasterly line North 380'35' East a distance' of 250 feet, thence parallel with the Northeasterly line of Olive Highway, South 51025' East, a distance of 266.39 feet to the East line of said Section 17, thence along said East line South 0°051 West a distance of 319.44 feet to the point of beginning. Revised 10/24/85 CA 85070 U ll1 0, t r. No. 13062 \�lF OF CP,1.lE��.= � .. A. 7 CHICO OFFICE PARADISE OFFICE 181 E. FIFTH STREET • P.O. BOX 3037 O C P.O. BOX 490.6440 SKYWAY TELEPHONE 894.2612 TELEPHONE 8778282 CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95927 / � � _ � �� ^ � PARADISE, CALIFORNIA 95989 MAIN OFFICE 1835 ROBINSON STREET • P.O. BOX 811 TELEPHONE 533.2414 CODE(916) OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965 PARCEL MAP ELEANOR BECKER County Recorder County of Butte RAY MARTIN MANAGER IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO: OROVILLE ORDER NO. 133703 PARADISE ORDER NO. CHICO ORDER NO. December 18, 1985 From an examination of the Official Records of the County of Butte, State of California, relative to the following described pr-operty: Parcels 1 and 2 as shown•on that certain Parcel Map of a portion of the S.E. quarter of the N.E. quarter of Sec. 17, T.17N., R.4E, M.D.B.& M. Oroville Title Company hereby certifies that it appears from said records that Oroville Hospital and Butte County Title Company, are the only parties necessary to sign the Map referred to above. OROVILLE TITLE COMPANY BY: Title Officer tlg 0 %RD OF DIRECTORS RGEC. CARTER. JR. :LAUDE WILSON ORNA S. BUTLER /IRGINIA L. BING (BETH H. GROWDON —.I TO F !nM 1d.e.. u s SAME AS ABOVE ME 0 7 9 C,FFIC;AL NEC:rF:C:. FiI:'TE COUNTY-<;s.t.::. F.C'.I,P0S f.E.QUE f:' :. MOVIUE TITLE M Su I lead FEE -9 Zos1 J I SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE Corporation Grant Deed THIS FORM FURNISHED BY TICOR TITLE INSURERS The undersigned grantor(s) declare(s): Documentary transfer tax is 8 NONE (X) computed on full value of property conveyed, or ( ) computed on full value less value of liens and encumbrances remaining at time of sale. ( ) Unincorporated area: (X) City of Oroville , and FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which i hereb acknowledged, OROVILLE HOSPITAL, who acquired tit�e asY MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL OF OROVILLE a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California hereby GRANTS to OROVILLE HOSPITAL, a nonprofit corporation the following described real property in the City of Oroville County of Butte , State of California: SEE ATTACHED HERETO. THE PURPOSE OF THIS DEED IS TO CHANGE THE NAME OF MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL OF OROVILLE '' : TO OROVILLE HOSPITAL ONLY. In Witness Whereof, said corporation has caused its corporate name and seal to be affixed hereto and this instru ment to be executed by it. president and Secretary thereunto duly authorized. ..RECORDING REQUESTED BY Dated: April 1-3. 1984 •OROVILLE TITLE COMPANY STATE OF CALIFORNIA } SS. OrdEnY No. 120983 AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO By 1 On April 25, 1984 before me, the under. OROVILLE HOSPITAL ee.:.. 2767 Olive Highway Oroville, Ca. 95965 L J —.I TO F !nM 1d.e.. u s SAME AS ABOVE ME 0 7 9 C,FFIC;AL NEC:rF:C:. FiI:'TE COUNTY-<;s.t.::. F.C'.I,P0S f.E.QUE f:' :. MOVIUE TITLE M Su I lead FEE -9 Zos1 J I SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE Corporation Grant Deed THIS FORM FURNISHED BY TICOR TITLE INSURERS The undersigned grantor(s) declare(s): Documentary transfer tax is 8 NONE (X) computed on full value of property conveyed, or ( ) computed on full value less value of liens and encumbrances remaining at time of sale. ( ) Unincorporated area: (X) City of Oroville , and FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which i hereb acknowledged, OROVILLE HOSPITAL, who acquired tit�e asY MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL OF OROVILLE a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California hereby GRANTS to OROVILLE HOSPITAL, a nonprofit corporation the following described real property in the City of Oroville County of Butte , State of California: SEE ATTACHED HERETO. THE PURPOSE OF THIS DEED IS TO CHANGE THE NAME OF MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL OF OROVILLE '' : TO OROVILLE HOSPITAL ONLY. In Witness Whereof, said corporation has caused its corporate name and seal to be affixed hereto and this instru ment to be executed by it. president and Secretary thereunto duly authorized. Dated: April 1-3. 1984 OROVILL'•'HOSPITAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA } SS. COUNTY OF Bucca By ,Z�_• On April 25, 1984 before me, the under. t�� '47L President signed, a Notary Public in and for said Slate. personally appeared Secretary Franklin M. Murphy, M.D. known to me to be thePresident, and Thomas D. Tunnell known to me to be the Secretary of the Corporation Ilist executed he within Instrument• known to me to be the persons who executed the within Instrument on behalf of the Corporation therein named, and acknowledged to me That such Corporation executed the within Inslru ment pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its board of directors. h `"�';� OM -ILIAL J,, M!'s T I•:ci rU---.':,cR Not:.f.i 0Ub_iC CALIFOuraln WITNESS my hand and official seal. -� �': `:'• EJTIf C00P �aL h:y cornrn. c:tpims SEP 44, 1064 Signalu ' (This area for official notarial seen Title Order MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE . ::iia+, . J�I`� .a.... .. rc........... � • ..... _ 0 �4&ST�:b":-itVJ��'t,�`.".RJ'cCti1S:4S'.`.r{S'r��...:ttL}e'�9433k�rd:ld�3i6�i1!?��JA4�lhf=�"L�{E"s'i'r�=•->` BEGIN14ING at the Northeast corner of the East half of the Southeast quarter of -the Northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 19 North, Range 4 East, M.D.B. & M., (said beginning point marked with a bolt with a 2 inch square top) thence South 00 05' West along the Easterly line of above describr-d Section 17, a distance of 409.22 feet to the true point of beginning for the parcel of land described herein; thence from said point of beginning South 800 53' 25t1 ilest along the Southerly edge of a concrete bloc.; firewall and the Easterly and Westerly prolongation of its alignment a ®: distance of 266.59 feet; thence South 90 05' 35" East, 41.63 feet; thonce South 800 51' 10" West along the Southerly edge of a concrete buildin;; :irld the Easterly and Westerly prolongation of its alignment a distance of ';03.3: feet to a point on Westerly line of the East half of the Southeast gtlar•t:c:r of the Northeast quarter of said Section 17, also being the Easterly line of that "Central View Subdivision" recorded in Book 18 of Maes at palres 17 and 18 of Butte County Records; thence South 00 07' 4 -lest along the Easterly Linc of said Central View Subdivision a'distance of 237.89 feet more or lc:: to point that bears North 000 07' 00" East 265.0 feet from the Southerly comer of Lot 1 of said "Central View Subdivision"'thence Last a distance of t;`;.17 (continued) ++ nt 6 ti. $ 1 �.t r�,'rL (�'r,,ti{a i r . �t• _Zi a 1 VP. 7 r . ItC i, r{ I. ,(.•7,'}'�'[ r'�' 1•: ,.-0 �`t�t:lK t��}•��f l�f, A '. •A�� i. YJ I The land referred to herein is described as follows: All that certain real property situate in the City of Oroville, County of Butte, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL 1: All that portion of the East one-half of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 19 North, Range 4 East, M.D.B. & M., City of Ordville, County of Butte, State of California, described as follows: BEGINNING at the Northeast corner of the East half of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter. of Section 17, Township 19 North, Range 4 East, M.D.B. & M., (said beginning point marked with a bolt with a 2 inch square top) thence South 00 05' West along the Easterly line of above described Section 17,,a distance of 409.22 feet to a point; thence South 800 58' 25" West along the Southerly edge of a concrete block firewall and the -Easterly and.Flesterly prolongation of its alignment a distance of 266.59 feet; thence South 90 05' 35" East, 41.63 feet; thence South 800 51' 10" West along the Southerly edge of a concrete building and the Easterly and Westerly prolongation of its alignment a distance of 403.33 feet to a point on Westerly line of the above described East half of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 17, also being the Easterly line of that "Central View Subdivision" recorded in Book 18 of Maps at pages 17 and 18 of Butte County Records; thence North 00 07' East along the Easterly line of that Central VieW Subdivision a distance of 544.38 feet to the Nor�hwest corner of the above described East half of the I Southeast quarter of -the Northeast quarter of Section 17; thence North 880 57' 30" East, 654.5 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL 2; a All that portion of the East one-half of the Southeast.quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 19 North, Range 4 East, M.D.9. yf,, & M., City.of Oroville, County of Butte, State of California, described C) as follows: BEGIN14ING at the Northeast corner of the East half of the Southeast quarter of -the Northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 19 North, Range 4 East, M.D.B. & M., (said beginning point marked with a bolt with a 2 inch square top) thence South 00 05' West along the Easterly line of above describr-d Section 17, a distance of 409.22 feet to the true point of beginning for the parcel of land described herein; thence from said point of beginning South 800 53' 25t1 ilest along the Southerly edge of a concrete bloc.; firewall and the Easterly and Westerly prolongation of its alignment a ®: distance of 266.59 feet; thence South 90 05' 35" East, 41.63 feet; thonce South 800 51' 10" West along the Southerly edge of a concrete buildin;; :irld the Easterly and Westerly prolongation of its alignment a distance of ';03.3: feet to a point on Westerly line of the East half of the Southeast gtlar•t:c:r of the Northeast quarter of said Section 17, also being the Easterly line of that "Central View Subdivision" recorded in Book 18 of Maes at palres 17 and 18 of Butte County Records; thence South 00 07' 4 -lest along the Easterly Linc of said Central View Subdivision a'distance of 237.89 feet more or lc:: to point that bears North 000 07' 00" East 265.0 feet from the Southerly comer of Lot 1 of said "Central View Subdivision"'thence Last a distance of t;`;.17 (continued) ++ nt 6 ti. $ 1 �.t r�,'rL (�'r,,ti{a i r . �t• _Zi a 1 VP. 7 r . ItC i, r{ I. ,(.•7,'}'�'[ r'�' 1•: ,.-0 �`t�t:lK t��}•��f l�f, A '. •A�� i. YJ I -feet; thence South 510 25" West 383.27 feet; thence South 380 35' West 250. feat to a point on the Northeasterly line of Olive Highway as describ•�d in deed to the County of Butte recorded May 5, 1950 in Bool< 288 of Official Records of Butte County, page 175; thence South 510 25' 00" East along the Northeasterly line of Olive Highway a distance of 100.09 feet to a point ttfat bears North 510 25' 00" West 60.20 feet from the South line of the Northeast quarter of said Section -17; thence North 380 35' 00" East 250.0 feet; thence South 510 25" 00" East a distance of 266.39 feet to a point ® on the Easterly line of said Section 17; that bears North 00 05' 00" East 60.03 feet from the East quarter corner of said Section 17; thence North 00 05' 00" East along said Easterly line to the true point of beginning. PARCEL 3: A portion -..of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter and a portion of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 17,.Township 19 North, Range 9 East, M.D.B. & M., and more particularly described as follows: The Westerly 15.21 feet of the following described parcel of land: BEGINNING at the point of interesection of the Northeasterly line of the Olive Highway with the East line o.f said Section 17, which point is South 0' 05' [-lest along said East line a distance of 259.91 feet from the East quarter corner of said Section 17; thence along the Northeasterly line of said Olive Highway North 510 25' West, a distance of 965.21 feet; thence leaving said Northeasterly line North 380 35' East a distance of 250 feet;thence parallel with the Northeasterly line of Olive Highway, ®Southe 510 25' East, a distance of 266.39 feet to the East line of said Section 17, thence along said East line South 00 05' West a distance of 319.99 feet to the point of beginning. 0 . CITY OF OROVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION GUIDE A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent(s): Orovillm Hospital &-Medical Center ��_�_�____�_________________ � .Qq_Cook Associates 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponeit(s): __ __________ ..... .......... .... .... ..... .... ..... ... .... ..... ..... ______-___...... Wh1l-2azk'-&venuc '________________________ � ___________________________-D --'�.______________________ � ____________________________________________________________________ 3. Name of Proposal/Project Description: lax. medical __..... .... emexgerxcies...................... z........ _____________________ 4. Guide Prepared by: ^5. Date Prepared: l2��______-______-___________ 6. Determination: B. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? / ^/ YES MAYBE NO 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) � YES_____ MAYBE _____ NO 3, Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? / YES ___�_ MAYBE __v�_ NO _____ 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? / YES_____ MAYBE C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS / �'_ See attached sheets. No discussion. D. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: 1. We find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 2. We find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment there will be no significant effect, in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheets have been added to the project, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. / 3. We find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. CITY OF OROVILLE DATE: _________________________ BY: _________________________________ ` ^ E. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers on attached sheets. YES MAYBE NO 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in / geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or, / over-covering of the soil?� ___ ... ..... ... C. Change in topography, or ground surface relief ' features? .� d. The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature?, ___ ___ ~/ ___ e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? fl Changes in deposition or erosion pf, beach sands, or changes in siltation, depositions or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream, or bed of the ocean, or any bay, inlet or � lake? � g. Exposure of people or property to geologic--- eologichazards hazardssuch as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, / ground failure, or similar hazards? � 2. AIR. Will the proposal result'in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of / ambient air quality? ..... ..... ..... _v_ b. The creation of objectionable odors? ... .... .... / C. Alteration of air movement, moisture or- rtemperature, temperature,or any change in climate, 'either- itherlocally locallyor regionally? _�/ 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements in either marine or fresh , / waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, y or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood / waters? ^ 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: ' YES MAYBE NO d. Change in the amount of surface water in any / water body? ___ ___ e. Discharge into surface water, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature dissolved oxygen or , , / turbidity? ___ _..... f. Alteration to the direction or rate of flow of / ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an acquifer by cuts or excavations? . h Substantial reduction in the amount of water / otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related / hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? ___ 4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of species of plants (including trees, shrubs, / grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, / or endangered species of plants? ___ ___ _/ C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? ___ ___ _�V/_ d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? / 5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, / fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, / or endangered species of animal? ___ ___ c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or / movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife / habitat? � 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: ' 5 YES MAYBE NO / a. Increases in area noise levels? .... .... .... b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? / ..... .... _ 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? ___ 8. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in substantial alteration of the present or planned � land use of an area? 9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural / resource?� __..... b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource'?v/ ___ .... ..... _ 10. RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal result in: a. A risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation) in the event of / an accident or upset condition? _,/ b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan, or an emergency evacuation plan? / 11. POPULATION. Will the Proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? / ~ 12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? ___ ___ / _v` 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular traffic? / � b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? ~/ C. Substantial impact upon existing transoortation ' systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation, / or movement of people and/or gobds? � e. Alterations to waterborne, rail, or air 5 ~ YES MAYBE NO / traffic? ... .... .... . , f Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles \ / bicyclists, or pedestrians? 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas? / a. Fire protection? ..... ..... ..... _^` b. Police protection? .... ..... ..... _'� _'_ / C. Schools? v/ / d. Parks or recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including / roads? '^ / f. Other governmental services? 15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: / a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require development of new , / sources of energy? ___ _"/ 16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? ` a. Power or natural gas? ___ ..... ..... ... / _�� b. Communications systems? .... ..... ..... c. Water?�� ___ ___ __.... d. Sewer / or septic tank? ..... ..... .... ___ _°/ e. Storm water drainage? � � f. Solid waste and disposal? ___ 17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a. - Creation of any health hazard or potential health / hazard, excluding mental health? _�' b. Exposure of people -to potential health hazards? / 6 0 18. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of eristing recreational opportunities? 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES. 'a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 7 YES MAYBE NO / � ..... ..... .... / ..... .... .... � / � / ___ ___ ___ / � ___ ___ ___ / .LAND O.F N.ATURAL .WEALTH AND BEAUTY PLANNING COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLF, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 PHONE: 534-4601 Oroville Hospital November. 6, 1984 2767 Olive Highway Oroville, Ca. 95965 Re: Heliport: Gentlemen: At the regular meeting of the Airport, 'Land. Use Commission held October 22, 1984, your request fora.heliport to trans- port the sick ,and injured to and from Oroville Hospital and Medical Cen'ter,.was approved. Should you have any questions regarding this•matter, please. contact this. department. Sincerely, B. A.. Kircher Director of Planning David R. Hironimus Associate Planner DRH:lr • • Z/Ga2. - S - Lfix 14"G V OROVI LLE HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER October 15, 1984 To: Dave Hironimus Re: Heliport Planning Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, Ca. 95965 Dear Dave, 0.- &*G- Co. fanning Call 6 C T 16 1984 Om &'. . cl f"'.h Please find enclosed the copies you requested. If you need anything else please notify me. Sincerely, ,�>, hLA Ron Schell rf Paramedic Manager RS/cg 1 A Community Owned Nonprofit Hospital 2767 OLIVE HIGHWAY • OROVILLE. CALIFORNIA 95965. 916-533-8500 Accredited by the joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals USE PERMIT CITY OF OROVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION 10/08/84 Date 902 Permit No. Pursuant to the Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Oroville and the special conditions granted set forth below: Oroville Hospital & Medical Center is hereby A,,¢,,k a Use NAME Permit in accordance with application filed: September 20, 1984 for a heliport. DATE Failure to comply with the conditions specified herein as the basis for approval of application and issuance of Permit, constitutes cause for Commission to revoke said permit in accordance with procedures set forth in Zoning Ordinance. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Operation and maintenance of the existing heliport shall be in strict compliance with all requirements of the California State Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics and the Federal Aviation Administration. 2. When issued, the City of Oroville Public Works Depart- ment shall be provided with copies of the Department of Transporation site approval permit and heliport permit. 3. Construction plans shall be submitted to the City of Oroville Development Review Board for approval prior to any -new construction at the existing site. 4. Approach and departure zone shall be to the east over undeveloped land. 5.. When development occurs within the approach and departure zone, a new zone shall be designated over the least dense- ly developed and populated area which is conducive to safe helicopter operations. NOTE: Issuance of this Use Permit does not waive requirement of obtaining Building Permit before starting construction. Mary nn Dilbeck Planning Technician 0 . 0 NEGATIVE DECLARA7_I01� NU1`iB E R 11-84 1. 'NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEP: that theproject described below' has been reviewed pursuant to the provisions of.the California Environmental Quality Act of '1970, including amendment=_ thereto, (Public Resources COGS Section 21100, et seq), and a Bete^ination has be.en.ma6E that it will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. Description of Project: Heliport to transport the sick and injured to and from Oroville Hospital & Medical Center. 3. Location of Project: 2767 Olive Highway, Oroville,-CA. 4. Tame and Address of Project Applicant: Oroville Hospital & Medical Center 2767 Olive Highway Oroville, CA 95965 5. A Public Hearing on this Negative Declaration was held by the decision making body. Hearing Body: City of Oroville Planning Commission Date of Determination: October 8, 1984 On the basis of the Initial Study, the information presented at hearing(s), comments received on the proposal and our own knowledge and independent research it was determined that: We find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. x We find that although the proposed project could have a signifi- cant effect on.the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the MITIGATION MEASURES described on the attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby approved. �. ..- •;. Si?1�anninq re Mary Ann Dilbeck Technician T-t1E • TO: Secretary for Resources 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 Sacramento, CA 95814 X County Clerk County of Butte 25 Count= Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 FROM: City of Oroville 17315 Montgomery Street Oroville, CA 95965-4897 OCT 9 - 1984 ELEANOR M.YE�K_ UK County C!er! By DePuf RE: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. PROJECT TITLE: oroville Hospital & Medical Center Heliport STATE CLEARING HOUSE NO. (If submitted to Clearinghouse): CONTACT PERSON: Kirt Hunter PHONE NO.: (916) 533-4764 PROJECT LOCATION: 2 7 6 7 01 i vP P i cThwa y, oroville, CA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Heliport to transport the sick and injured to and from oroville Hospital & Medical Center. This is to advise that the City of Oroville has apprcved the above described pro- ject and has made the following determinations regarding the described project: 1. The project will, x will not, have a significant effect on the environment. 2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at the City of Oroville Planning Department, 1675 Montgomery Street, Oroville; CA 95965-4897. 3. Mitigation measures y, were, were not, made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A State of Overri;iing Considerations was, x was not, adopted for this project. NUMBER: 11-84 Signa- re Diary Ann ilbeck Planning Technician Title 1. 2. 3. t 5. rV 7. Note: 8. CHECKLIST FOR AIRPORT/HELIPORT SITES PROPONENT'S TASKS Date & Staff Member Name of proposed facility Local Land Use Approval obtained (zoning or Use Permit). Local Government Approval (Board of Supervisors/City Council. Acted upon by Airport Land Use Commission (if applicable). Initiation of CEQA review process. Copy of Grant Deed or Long Term Lease (20 years). FAA Airspace Clearance - Requested: Approved: Submit the above items with Item #8 below. PART I - APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL (A) Layout Diagram of site and surroundings to scale (2 copies) (B) C & GS Survey Quad Map or large scale map showing site location and prominent fixes DEPARTMENT TASKS 1. Review application. 2. Incomplete application. Response to proponent. 3. Inspect site - establish conditions. 4. Notice to Public issued. 5. Final date for comments. 6. Public Hearing requested Yes No 7. Status of Hearing 8. Environmental Clearance. 9. Confirm compliance with.PUC 21666. .0. Issue Site Approval Permit. 1. Final inspection for completion. 2. Issue formal permit. Proponent Name: Contact Name Address: Telephone ( ) County DA 105 Rev 4/80 f f a. s2 ».. t. .Y' .•�J• � r f ! Cir r"' �� • � / , � - �t ,� .�: . 1 WMA 4A 31. AT ` ' 1 —A✓` rte- �_1 Iii �. � vtz 1�jN�• ` w i, `w• ` .. ••�i ya.� � •-y��~ �+�a',��'�..� i,'P • -0, ,�f'4 - r. � .;..� ., e ? ., -'41,1 � _ �` .. x . ►� ..y- �-'",. ,�.aa�� -(.i.. _ � ` • ..'� �� :R., g o �i.* `' � - `+ill -�iM ,. . �---•ae.,t, � �,,, rte' � -. . r - � ,� s.. - . 1 � 1+ t1 • LANNING COMMISSION. SUMMAR"HEET APPLICANT'I Oroville Hospital ADDRESS' 2767 Olive Highway, Oroville, Ca., 95965 OWNER Same PROJECT DESCRIPTION I Heliport to transport the sick and injured to and from Oroville Hospital. ON PROPERTY' ZONED. LOCATED ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER(S). L I DENTI.F'IED. AS . AP GEN. PLAN PROJECT CONS:I STENT?:. CITY DATE APPLICATION.RECEIVED DATE. REZONING PETITION SIGNATURES CHECKED- PERCENTAGE DATE LEGAL, DESCRIPTION'PREPARED OR -CHECKED: DATE PUBLICATION NOTICE. WRITTEN" PURLISHED. DATE DISPLAY.AD PREPARED P'UBLISH.ED PLACE NEWSPAPER—NOTICE(S) PUBLISHED.- 0. C.., P. G.. B, DATE MAILING LIST PREPARED DATE MAIL -OUT NOTICES, WRITTEN MAILED. NiJMBER ENVIRONMENTAL CATEGORICAL EXEMPTI.ON- - DATE . FILED DETERMINATION —"�"`' AND DATE NEGATIVE DECLARATION - DATE ADOPTED ENV. I -MP. ACT REPORT DATE CERTIFIED OTHER COMMISSION HEARING DATES October 22, 1984 @ 1:30 p m MWSSUM ACTION BOARD ACTION ORDINAIINCE (S) ADOPTED COMMENTS- r • PROJECT NAME Oroville Hospital SCH # AP # FILE # 30 Day Review Period Ends SCH Review Period Ends OUT -GOING ACTIVITY Date Action w Heliport at. Oroville.Hospital M7-.'Hiranimus reported that Oroville Hospital :is working toward licensing for their heliport: He. handed out .'capi.es of the.exh.ib t to.' the Commissioners and indicated that..the Hospital. has been -issued a use permit by the City of Orovi l Ie . . St.,.f`f . recommends ao` f i nd. _this . in. cohf orvii ty, with the State Aeronautics, Act: ,There was . a motion by Commi ssi over,' Lando. to support thi s. use permit. It vs as seconded by Commissioner Lambert. and unanimausly carried. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES - October 22, 1984