Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORTTO: FROM:.*, SUBJECT. DATE: Inter.-Departi"fals Memorandum Butte County Board of Supervisors Butte County Airport.Land Use Commission OROVILLE AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN February 191 .1987 At the February.4, 198 .7 meeting of the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission., implementation of the Oroville Airport Environs Land Use Plan was discussed. -The Commission unanimously.:voted to request the Butte County Board of Supervisors and the Oroville City Council initiate action to implement the Orovil.le Airport Environs Land Use Plan and to protect the Ai.rport.f.rom incompatible development and the public from aircraft hazards. The following actions, should be considered: A. Initiate rezoning -of clear zone areas'to prohibit-�, gki uctures . B. Initiate placing an overlay or combining zone on clear zone -areas to require site plan approval by.the Airport Land Use Commi.ssion for all structures. C. Initiate annexation of clear zones and surrounding properties, to the City of Oroville. D. And/or -any other things that might come to their minds that would help to gain control of the clear zones: Action is necessary in order to ensure that Oroviile Airport retainsits:status as an economic asset, not only to Oroville but the entire County. RH : j me cc: 'City of Oroville V ® A RESOLUTION APPROVING 'FUNDING FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1996/97 AERONAUTICS PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT FUND - APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDING TO PROVIDE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANS FOR THE VARIOUS BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORTS BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Butte County as follows: WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Land Use Plans for Oroville Municipal Airport, Paradise Airport, Ranchaero Airport, and Chico Municipal Airport are out of compliance with California State standards; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission has resolved to bring the . Comprehensive Land Use Plans into State compliance; and WHEREAS, the State of California has programmed $41,000.00 to be used -by the County of Butte toprovide Comprehensive Land Use Plans for..Oroville Municipal Airport, Paradise Airport, Ranchaero. Airport; a' 'Chico Municipal Airport; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has reviewed and hereby approves an application for up to $41,000.00; and WHEREAS, If the application is approved, the County will provide local leverage in the amount of $4,556.00 or 10% of the total cost of the project; and WHEREAS, the Chief Administrative Officer is authorized to enter into and sign the agreement and any amendments thereto with the State of California, and authorized and directed to act on the County's behalf in all matters pertaining to this application. PASSED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the Butte County Board of Supervisors held on July 23, 1996 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Meyer., Dolan, Houx, Thomas and Chair McLaughlin NOES: None ABSENT: None NOT VOTING: None too ►rlCr Ed McLaughlin, Chair BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ATTESTED: John Blacklock Chief Administrative Officer By: STATEC OF-CkUFORNIA - DEPARTMENT OF ORTATION 5 ACdUISITION & DEVELOPME ND =APPLICATION t. OOA-0010 (Rev. &W) PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE AND COMPLETE ALL ITEMS PART I. AIRPORT INFORMATION A,RPoRTwamE Ranchearo & P Chico & Oroville Muni CONTACT N W E Brian A. Larsen Administrative Analyst BusWESS ADDRESS . 7 County Center Drive Oroville', CA 95965 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PART II. PROJECT INFORMATION TOTAL COST RAW adise Airports I PERW NO. pal Airports ---- UswEss K OK 916-538-7464 CARP FUNDS - Update of all Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plans 452556 4,556 43;.000 PART III. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Sections 21681-21684 and Section 4064 of the CAAP Regulations. please submit the following documents with this application: • Local government approval (resolution or fWnute order) authorizing the application and certifying the availability of matching funds. Attached Completed Certification of Airport Eligibility for CAAP funds (Form DOA -0007). Documentation evidencing full compliance with CEOA and State EIR Guidelines: - State Clearinghouse No. SCH or Categorical Exemption Class No. Application for Amended Airport Permit (Form DOA -0103) or Airport Site Approval Permit (Form DOA -0100), if required. Layout Plan showing project location and dimensions. PART IV. AUTHORIZATION PRINT N John v SEND COMPLETED APPLICATION AND ALL REOUIRED DOCUMENTS To: DOA 91 -WO Chief Administrative 7-23-96 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AERONAUTICS PROGRAM - MS 940 P. O. BOX 942873 SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001 +�U,T--,,�,',��,-COLTT\N-TOAIP,IPORT LAND A, C epartment of D eve opment Services • ounty Center Unve, orove e, CA 9M 0 ( • TO: Lisa Purvis Wilson, Manager, City of Oroville Planning Department FROM: Stephen Lucas, Associate. Planner-ALUC DATE: November 4, 1995 RE: Submittal of proposed development projects to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). Dear Lisa, The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission held its regular meeting on October 18, 1995 at which time there was further discussion of the Oroville draft General Plan. Oroville Department of Public Works Director/ALUC Commissioner Campbell offered the Commission some explanation as to the process the City followed. The Commission was appreciative of the circumstances surrounding the need for revisions of the draft plan and the time constraints placed on City staff, but was concerned that the City was not acknowledging their legal responsibility to bring all development projects and actions within the boundaries of the Oroville Municipal Airport to the ALUC for a land use consistency review. The Commission moved to notify the City of their legal responsibility to continue to submit all actions in the Oroville Municipal Airport planning boundary to ALUC for review, unless overriding findings were prepared and adopted specifically addressing the inconsistencies found in the Oroville General Plan by ALUC as indicated in the October 2, 1995 (attached), letter to the Oroville Planning Manager. 5 ft should also be noted at this time that the Commission will be adopting interim CLUP's for the Oroville Hospital heliport and 'the Butte County Sheriffs Department heliport in the near future which will require the City to submit all development projects and actions in these zones of influence to ALUC as well. We will offer these interim CLUP's to the, City for review and comment before adoption. Once these heliport CLUP's are adopted, all City policy documents (general plan, specific plans, etc.) will be required by state law to brought into conformance. If you:have any questions concerning these items please contact me at 538-7601/6819. Sincerely, Stephen Lucas Associate Planner-ALUC Fred Gerst ALUC-Vice Chairman kAa1ucyan18-96.mtgbro. ftr e Butte County *Airport Land Use Commission e +$LUTTE COL" !a AIRPORT LAND Tja�-E CO2YD ISSION + e Department of Development Seances • 7 County Center Onve. Crowile. CA 95965 • (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-i /W • TO: Lisa Purvis Wilson, City of Oroville Planning Manger FROM: Stephen Luras, Associate Planner- ALUC DATE: 2 October, 1995 SUBJECT: Revisions to the Oroville draft General Plan. FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of October 18, 1995. ABSTRACT: The City of Oroville has submitted to the Planning Division a copy of additional changes to the text of the draft General Plan that was originally reviewed by ALUC at the March 15, 1995. The ALUC reviewed the Oroville draft General Plan (OGP) and found it to be consistent with the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan (OALUP). The City has failed to notify the ALUC of the changes and the changes were brought to the ALUC staff attention by the Planning Division. Considering the document has yet to be approved by the City and changes have been made from the earlier ALUC approved version, the document must be reviewed again by the ALUC for consistency. State law requires all planning documents to be approved for consistency by the ALUC. ANALYSIS: The following items are of much concern to ALUC and must be resolved so that a consistency finding can be made. The revisions are to be found in the following sections; 3.2 - Airport Business Park - New Text -6ffices-and Light manufacturing, limited industrial, food processing, wholesale trade and offices are the primary uses permitted. Wholesale, Retailing businesses and public services are permitted as accessory uses. I lowever, retail uses shefl be prehibited within the Approach Zone afess of theeroville AtiI port, and whelessle tises Airpoft Land Use plan (adopted Septernbe, 16, . Outdoor storage is only permitted in limited amounts if heavily screened. Projects must maintain architectural and landscape standards normally associated with the term "business park rather than "industrial area". Ma:amum FAR is .20 within Approach Zone areas in the area bounded by Feather Avenue on the north, Oroville Dam Blvd. West on the south, 20th Street on the east and 24th Street on the west. A maximum FAR of .20 also applies to the area north of Oroville Dam Blvd. West and east of the future location of 26th Street Maximum FAR is .35 in all other areas. The text originally stated that retail businesses are prohibited from Approach Zones and wholesale uses are subject to population concentration restrictions (25 persons/acre) as specified in the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan. The revised text has removed all prohibitions against retail businesses locating in the Approach Zone and allows public services to locate within the approach zone. The text also establishes a Floor Area Ration (FAR) standard that --replaces the population density standard found in the OALUP. This change is acceptable and will become the standard for density in future ALUP revisions. Inconsistency - The Oroville Airport Land Use Plan clearly disallows public uses within approach zones and prohibits retail uses in the approach zones from locating within one mile of the runway end and requires ALUC review if located beyond one mile of the runway end in the approach zone. The OALUP also indicates that all commercial or professional uses in the approach zone are subject to population density standards of a. maximum of 25 persons/acre. The area identified on the Oroville draft General Plan Diagram of the Oroville Planning Area and in the text as the business park is located within the approach zone and the entire business park area is within one mile of the end of runway 1-19. Finding - Section 3.2 of the Oroville draft General Plan is inconsistent with the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan in that the area identified in the draft OGP as the Airport Business Park is located in an area identified by the OALUP as being inconsistent with retail commercial uses or subject to population density restrictions requiring ALUC review. Recommendation - The OGP should accurately reflect the Approach Zone standards found in the OALUP and clearly indicate that uses in the Airport Business Park area located within the Approach Zone are limited or prohibited within one mile of the runway. e Butte County a Airport Land Use Commission e 5.50 - Oroville Municipal Ai - Circulation Element New Text -ALUC policies state that Emit single family residential development is a compatible land use within the Approach Zone. if the population density is not more than one single fancily dwelling unit per rive acres within one mile from the runway. Within the portion of the Approach Zone that is more than one mile from the runway, proposals resulting in four units per acre or more are subject to ALUC review. Inconsistency - The OALUP clearly indicates that 'single family residential is a compatible land use within the approach zone only if the population density is not more than one single family resident per five acres within one mile of the runway end, subject to ALUC review." In contrast to the new text above, the OALUP does not say anywhere that within the portion of the approach zone that is more than one mile from the runway, proposals resulting in four units per acre or more are subject to ALUC review. The OALUP requires ALL proposals for residential uses in the approach zone to be reviewed by ALUC and establishes a four unit per acre standard only with respect to the Overflight Zone. The original text in the draft OGP clearly stated that the four unit per acre standard was found in the Overflight Zone. this text ought to be reinserted. The change from the wording that would "limit" single family. residential to saying it is a "compatible land use", implies a less restrictive regulation, a situation that is not supported by ALUC. Finding - Section 5.50, paragraph 4, is not consistent with the OALUP in that it makes the inaccurate statement that within the portion of the approach zone that is more than one mile from the runway,. proposals resulting in four units per acre or more are subject to ALUC review. Recommendation - The OGP should accurately reflect the limitations imposed in development in the approach zones as found in the OALUP and support the position of the ALUC that residential development in the approach zones is not desirable. 5.50c - Implementing Policies New Text - Protect the Overflight Zone by limiting new housing to infill, and at a density not to exceed few units pe giess sere, and prohibit seheels and other uses resultiI ig ip ° residential densities to a ma)dmum of sot units per gross acre, with proposals consisting of four units per gross acre or more subject to ALUC review. Schools and other uses resulting in `large concentrations" of people should be prohibited. Few eernmunities provide sirpeft as rntieh protection as this policy. There is no reason to add housing nee, the Adr,­ when there are altemative loeatioII3 in the Planning Aies that ean provide �t superi nt and where Inconsistency -The ALUC has consistently opposed any increase in a density of residential units permitted in the Overflight Zone beyond four units per acre. The OALUP states that my residential uses proposed at a greater thar four unit per acre density shall require ALUC review. By stating tha` si units per acre are acceptable, the City is diverging from ALUC stated policy and undermines the ability of ALUC to tett the airports future viability. The ALUC strongly supported the language that directed residential uses to infill areas and has made their position very clear as to the non -development of residential uses to the west and north of the airport Finding - Section 5.50c of the OGP is inconsistent with the OALUP in both content and intent in that it allows and encourages a mabmum density of six units per acre in the Overflight Zone. The ALUC has responded to the City with these comments when it reviewed the proposed rezone and mobile home park to be located directly west of the Table Mountain Golf Course in the Overflight Zone. Recommendation -The OGP should use the four unit per acre density standard and maintain the deleted language concerning the support of airport protection policies. The ALUC is in strong support of directing residential development to other areas where pressures to limit airport use would not be generated. The City had a taken a very positive, pro -active approach by using this language originally and by eliminating this language, it would appear the City is softening airport protection policies and anticipating or encouraging the development of lands within the Overflight Zone. • Butte County a Airport Land Use Commission • SUIRURY The ALUC has reviewed the original draft General Plan and found the document to be consistent with the 1985 Oroville Airport Land UmIlMhwL Mhough the OALUP is in need of a revision to bring it into compliance with current Cattrans Aeronautics Program standards and accepted airport protection* policies, the OALUP is interpreted by the ALUC to re 64 - low 11 concems regarding airport protection policies. The revisions tolhe Genml.Plan received by ALUC represent a step backwards from the original document submitted for consistency findings.ALUC cannot find these revisions to be consistent and will require the document to revised the e City will have to adopt findings of overriding considerations according to State law. It is necessary to inform the City that I is the City's responsibility to submit all actions to the ALUC review and in accordance with legal tmednes. These revisions in the General Plan - Errata were not submifted directly to ALUC and the 45 day review period has not yet,expired; The ALUC will meet on October 18, 1995 to review this letter and formalize the preceding recommendations at the public hearing. We encourage the City to have a representative present at this hearing. k:/orodrafLItr e Butte County, v Airport Land Use Commission 0 +BUTTE C®Ul TT_ AIRPORT T LAND U OE (C®MMISSION+ • Department of Development Services 0 7 County Cerner Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 • June 28,.1995 Jim Michael, Aviation Consultant California Department of Transportation P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 RE: Oroville Elementary School District, Foothill Blvd, school site.. Jim, The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (BCALUC) staff has reviewed the Foothill Blvd school site for consistency with County policies and existing CLUP's. The regularly scheduled meeting of the BCALUC is on July 19, 1995, however, considering the urgency of this request by the Oroville Elementary School District, staff will offer this prompt response. The closest airport with an currently adopted CLUP is Oroville Municipal Airport, which is located approximately five (5) miles to the west of the chosen school site. There are no conflicts with the Oroville Municipal Airport or inconsistencies with its CLUP. Oroville Hospital is located approximately 3000 ft to the west of the school site and currently operates a permitted heliport. This heliport does not presently have a CLUP prepared by the BCALUC, therefore, findings of consistency/inconsistency cannot be made. Upon review of the data available, it appears that the heliport is only permitted to utilize approach and departure paths to the north and west of the heliport for a distance of 4000 ft. Considering the school site is located 3000 ft. to the east, it (. appears that present air traffic patterns will not impact this school site with overflights. Noise data for the heliport is not available, however, it is unlikely that at a distance of over a half mile, the school site will be impacted by noise generated by the heliport. This matter will be presented to the BCALUC at the July 19, 1995 meeting for any further discussion. If I can offer any further assistance please contact me at 538-7601. Sincerely, Stephen Lucas, Associate Planner, ALUC staff CC: ALUC Greg Kampf, Director of Administrative Services, Oroville Elementary School District • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission 0 +]BU'1["""ICIE COUN-I 91AIRPORT LAND U* (C®MMISSION+ • Department of Development Services • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 0 AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: Paula Leasure, Principal Planner BY: Stephen Lucas, Associate Planner DATE: June 27,1995 REQUEST: City of Oroville Rezone of a 37.4 acre parcel (APN 030-260-21 & 26) located south of SR 162 and adjacent to the west side of Table Mountain golf course from AR -5 (Agricultural Residential -5 ac. min.) to MH -1 (Low Density Mobile Home Park) and a Use Permit to allow 240+ unit mobile home park on the same property. RELATED ITEMS: None FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of July 19, 1995 ABSTRACT: The City of Oroville is processing an application for a rezone and a use permit to allow a 240+ unit mobile home park on a 37.4 acre parcel located approximately 3000 feet northwest of the Oroville Municipal Airport primary runway. The project site is within the Oroville Airport Planning Boundary and more specifically, in the Overflight Zone of the airport and is subject to ALUC review. Staff recommends a reduction in density and the inclusion of airport protection conditions. OROVILLE AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN (OALUP) The proposed project is within Overflight Zone of the airport as indicated on the planning area map in the ALUP. This project proposes 6+ units per acre which exceeds the above standard. The Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (ALUPH) equivalent to the OALUP Overflight Zone is the Traffic Pattern Zone, which the ALUPH indicates is acceptable for residential development at densities of 4-6 units per acre. The ALUPH does recommend that units should be clustered in order to provide the maximum amount of open space in case of an emergency landing scenario. This project is the first large scale, high density development proposed on the western edge of the airport, an area that is open land and zoned by the County for 5 and 10 -acre lots. Approval of this project may have the effect of encouraging other land owners to seek rezones to allow greater densities which may have the long term effect of encircling the airport with residential uses such as the case with the Chico Municipal Airport. The ALUC may wish to oppose the rezone or recommend a decrease in density on the site and the clustering of the units. OROVILLE GENERAL PLAN (OGP) The ALUC has recently reviewed (3/15/95) the Oroville draft General Plan for consistency with the OALUP. The finding of consistency was based on the policies presented in the OGP, policies that offered airport protection while maintaining the economic viability of the surrounding business park. The OGP designated these parcels as Medium Density Residential with densities of 2-6 units per acre. The proposed project exceeds this density and these parcels should realistically be viewed at the lower end of this density range. Objective 5.50b in the OGP Circulation Element, Section 5.50, Oroville Municipal Airport, states the City should "Protect the Airports ability to provide service within the community by ensuring compatible development within the airport impact area" and Policy 5.50c says the City should "Protect the Overflight Zone by limiting new housing to infill, and at a density not to exceed four units per gross acre, and prohibit schools and other uses resulting in large concentrations of people." Furthermore, the Circulation Element clearly states that the Overflight Zone "is an area in which low altitude flights cause noise complaints. Safety is another reason for limiting residential density and concentrations of people. Low intensity development increases opportunities for emergency landings that do not hit buildings." This density concentration issue is critical considering the National Transportation Safety Board indicates 22% of all serious or fatal accidents occur within one mile of an airport. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission 0 2 The CGP states that "there is no reason to add housing near the airport when there are alternative locations in the Planning Area that can provide a superior environment and where development would not generate pressure for limiting airport use." It is clear from this statement, that the draft OGP has taken steps to protect the airport and it for these reasons the Plan was approved by the ALUC in March. However, this proposal for a 240+ unit mobile home park does not meet the intent of the OGP or the desires of the ALUC and should not be approved as submitted. Environmental Review The City has prepared an Initial Study and recommends that Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures be adopted. The Initial Study checklist fails to list the ALUC as an approving agency nor did the City contact the ALUC for comments during the project review period. The Initial Study itself fails to address the potential impacts to the airport in the following areas: (bolded type is ALUC staff response) Question B6g: Would the proposal result in rail, water, or air traffic impacts? Response: No impact A 240+ unit mobile home park with an estimated 600 residents within the Overflight Zone and 3200 ft. from the runway has the potential to create both an increase in airport related complaints/lawsuits and act as growth inducing magnet that may encourage other land owners to propose high density uses on parcels in the Overflight Zone. Question B9d: Will the proposal result in the exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? Response: The site is located near the Oroville Municipal Airport, but not under take -off or approach paths. No impact. A large concentration of people located in the Overflight Zone poses a threat to residents on the ground from accidents as well as passengers on the plane that may not be able to avoid a concentration of buildings on the ground in the event of crash landing. Clustering of dwellings should occur to allow for maximum open space in the event of a crash landing. Question B1 Ob: Will the proposal result in the exposure of people to severe noise levels? Answer: Changes in future uses of the Oroville Municipal Airport may affect project residents. No impact. Response: Park residents shall sign avigation easements. _• ` The signing of avigation/overflight easements is not always a permanent protection from noise related complaints. Avigation easements have been successfully challenged in courts and airports have been required to after operations. Question B13c: Would the proposal create light and glare? Response: New light and glare will be introduced in the area through street and landscape lighting. The new sources of light and glare could affect airport operations. Mitigation: Street light installation shall meet the requirements of the Public Works Department and Pacific Gas & Electric Company to assure that street lighting does not interfere with airport operations. This response is adequate, however, airport operations questions should be referred to aviation consultants with the Caltrans Aeronautics Program. The responses included in the Initial Study failed to fully recognize the potential health hazards of living in an overflight zone as described by the Division of Aeronautics, the OALUP, the OGP and the National Transportation Safety Board. Additionally, the proposed project cannot be fully reviewed for environmental impacts at this time because staff has not received a detailed site plan for the mobile home park. Staff recommends that additional information be provided and that answers to critical questions be expanded. 0 Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission 0 Summary This proposed rezone from one unit per 5 acres (AR=5) to six dmfs per' acre (MH -1) and a use permit to allow 240+ mobile homes has several areas of concern that are not addressed by City of Oroville staff. The concerns are: 1. The project density is inconsistent with the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan in that the OALUP sets a mabmum density of 4 units per acre; and 2. -" The proposed use is inconsistent with the draft Oroville General Plan in that airport protection policies. in the plan relating to appropriate uses and densities are not followed; and 3. The Initial Study does not provide a complete project description and offers incomplete responses and requires additional information for a full analysis; and 4. The proposed rezone is a "spot zone and has growth inducing effects that are not addressed' by the City of Oroville. RECOMMENDATION: There are two possible recommendations the ALUC can forward to the Oroville Planning Commission; 1. The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission finds that the rezone and mobile home park use permit are inconsistent with the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan and the draft Oroville General Plan as approved by the ALUC and the proposed land use is not in the public interest in that it does not provide for the orderly development of the airport environs and is not in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the flying public or those people on the ground. 2. The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission finds that the proposed rezone and mobile home park use permit are inconsistent with the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan and the draft Oroville General Plan as submitted. Additional information and project modifications are necessary in order for the Butte County Airport Commission to make a recommendation for approval or denial. The. following conditions are required for an approval recommendation. 2a. Provide a thorough project description and prepare more thorough responses in the Initial Study that fully address ALL potential health and safety concerns related to the project. 2b. A detailed site plan shall be submitted that shows densities of less than 4 units per acre and utilizes a clustered development configuration that allow"sffor mabmum open space in the event of emergency landings. 2c. Provide an emergency action plan that addresses potential evacuation of 600+ residents and fire control procedures in the event of an accident scenario. 2d. Provide a noise study that reflects the current airport traffic patterns and frequencies of flights. 2e. Provide conditions to utilize sound proofing in all new residential development within the Overflight Zone. 0 Butte County • Airport Land Use. Commission 0 6 4 I BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Iplicant: City of Oroville Owner. Dr. John Richards & Linda Richards Hearing Date: July 19,1995 Ezisting Zone: M-2 (Heavy Industrial) A 1 Request: Rezone of 37.4 acres from AR -5 (Ag Res -5 at. min.) to MH -1 (Low Den Mobile Home Park) No Scale Assessor Parol No: 030-268-021 & 026 AGENDA ITEM AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land U e Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Planning Manager , BY: Stephen Lucas, Planner DATE: September 14, 1994 1 REQUEST: Request for Consistency Findings for Tentative Parcel Map - Ted Runge on APN 030-260-015&016: A request to divide 152 acres of land located on the south side of West OroDam Boulevard, in the AR -5 & AR -10 (Agricultural Residential - 5 & 10 minimums) zones within the Oroville area. FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of. October 12, 1994 ABSTRACT: This request is for consistency findings in relation to the Ted Runge TPM. The TPM application is to divide 152 acres of land into 24 lots. The lots will range in size from 5 - 12 acres. At the request of the. Planning Division, the ALUC is to consider the projects consistency with the goals and policies of the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan,. Staff recommends the ALUC consent to a revised TPM which mitigates noise and safety concerns. ANALYSIS: The application was reviewed, by ALUC staff to assess any compatibility issues in relation to the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan, (OALUP). The OALUP indicates that development in the general airport traffic pattern which results in large concentrations of people will also be subject to review by ALUC. The objective of the OALUP is to promote the orderly development of the Oroville Airport and the surrounding area in a manner which: • Safeguards the general welfare of the inhabitants in such areas; and • Assures the safety of air navigation; and • Maintains the utility of the airport. The proposed subdivision presents three significant concerns: 1. The compatibility of residential land uses within an airport safety zone (overflight zone) Which has historically had a "smothering" effect on the expansion of airport operations; and 2. The project is approximately 800 feet from the. 55 dB noise contour perimeter; and 3. The ability of public safety agencies to effectively respond to emergencies within the airport safety zone ■ Butte County Department of Development Services - Planning Division ■ 1 . AGENDA ITEM The Oroville Airport has seen significant expansion over the past few years in the area of industrial development and is currently completing a major runway expansion. Allowing increased residential uses in close proximity to the airport complex will create situation where there are competing land uses. With consideration to past legal interpretations that have favored the rights of the residential user, the .ALUC must consider whether the proposed development will impact the efficient and planned . use of the Oroville Airport area. The issue of noise abatement/ mitigation is also a continual problem for local airports that become increasingly surrounded by incompatible residential uses. The OALUP proposes two methods to alleviate this concern, implementing compatible use zoning and incorporating building code provisions for adequate sound insulation. ALUC must, also consider the issue of safety. With any use that occurs in an airport overflight zone, there is a possibility of airport accidents. ALUC should consider the availability of water, location of hydrants, site access, and preparation of emergency action plans. RECOMMENDATION: Considering the proposed development is presently zoned for residential use, ALUC is only in a position to mitigate concerns rather than avoid them. Staff recommends that the Airport Land Use Commission approve the application for a Tentative Subdivision Map on APN 030-260-015, 016, subject to the following findings and conditions. Section 1 Consistency Findings A. The proposed project is consistent with the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan with the added conditions of approval. Section 2: Conditions 1. Place a note on the final map stating that; "The subdivision is located within the Oroville Airport Overflight zone which permits airport activities and industrial uses. Residents within this subdivision may -be subject to increased noise levels, safety concerns, odors, and other, activities not normally -expected in a residential area." . 2. Place a note on the final map stating that; "Residences constructed within'the,subdivision shall be constructed with exterior walls having a Sound Transmission Coefficient (STC) rating no less than 45dB." 3. Prior to recording final map, applicant shall prepare and submit, an emergency action plan approved by the Butte County Fire Department and the Planning Division: The plan shall include the location of fire hydrants, projections of water availability, alternative access to the site and emergency procedures for response coordination between residents -and emergency personnel. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services -,Planning Division ■ 2 FILE No.119 08/19"W PM 04:21 ID:SHUTT MOEN FAX:5269721 PAGE 1 C�/ O. 0 SHUTT MOEN ASsq TEs FAX MEMO I`V*rillwl Date. August 19,,1999 ,Number of Pages: 2 (including this page) To: Paula Leasure Butte'6unty Dept. of Developinent Services SWV10W to the Ft�x Number: {.53U) 538-7785 Aviation Industry: . Planning From: Ken Brody • Engineering .. • Management Subject: Oroville Municipal Airport Accident Risk Diagram The Original: QX Will not klow ' 1• .I Will follow Messages Laura Webster called this morning to say you needed:a`copy of the Oroville Mu- nicipal Airport ac;cidenrrisk diagram we were looking at yesterday. Attached is a. cleaned-up copy. I'hope it serves your purposes' If not, please let me know. Plannin Departr v�g AUG ®199 707 AVIATION BLVD. 136dA119[93; �u19lOFnia SANTA ROSA, CA 95403> , TEL: (7071526-5010 FAX: (707)526-972,1 FILE No.119 08/19 '99 PM 04:22 ID:SHUTT u MOEN FAX:5269721 PAGE 2 o y 1 i I 1/NI 0 J I% 11111/1111 E III III I I ( �� nil II•. ,IIIIPI I w ur. ✓,' I .) I I� I } •,'I II I IIII 1„II flll�kl Inalll�;lll;l ;f�lmll II:� 7 I1 I I ,i�'/,i � fI ',.. � , • I �I � I! I�'•I II (. I I i I (�'I�� (I('�1S1.!i �' I I I!IIltIuIr. • JI IrIlIIl liIIIIII ::I'{IIl 1Q I !IIfI11I1I1L' 4� 1ll1I11�1:1.I11J1I1K0111�j1;t1VI11l�.IiLI'1! FTT1 I'1.I�III,''l`!I�li_ �lfulInLl'I�f.�Il I11ILIII'I1.;`. ,II (:IIII{IIllr. I , I II I l �, I I �II. lll },I” 1 Incl pll.lul{II 'IIIYIi( / Vi. I 4I 1.1.��;1111111111:114%I�InI,1Ilf 1 I I I Lla4nlllnd \I �111(�IIIIIIII I I S' 11111111 �1 R11 if : 1 J 1 o _l; ;�li I I�';; 'I'' I i'I Ij� I'"!'I�i Ifll i 1111,�Ir.nurlllllll�l I �f III (III il, II.I��If:-�.I(@I i° I1I p l.. IhHnrlllilRIVI iirTj I , ! I. 1 I II ' 'I � I`r �.�i 11111 III :Illi lsl l��lll l i r�� I • II I � II I � 1 I j ! I O O °IIhIILIIIIIII Il11 l'Irn.,: ';;.:•r 1, 1 1 I. I � O®°O O U 0 Ii! +II(1I1I� ;/A/1° II:1lrluII m111I b1!l' ir ;ulllI lI UIlI lll I I II 1l b ui.i 9111 `" Imutnnin , i I\ I' I 111 I I r IIIIIlI 1111' I I u, r I:tul� I { •pl % I I l 'I•( III I oI I i(It I I(� I I(tI°"II IIII I 'II% p o w \ I;I•��iu j I I 1:1:11 III I ° ° p ° "°� • , o + 01 _0 0; i1+ • ° •p I .I It 111 II • • ' • • • ' I I I • Atr aft rturo Acotdent Shea • 1 I{� I • I I \ (Shown for rakeoffe to the South) �• • i p Aircraft App�cdjrh Accldante • ; �� to • •• i (Shown forgs from.. NorUS) • • a,! \ • I I + �I :I' ISI , 1 I• I I ', l /I I 1; I it 1 LFEf'f / :. 0-* 1 .. .... . ....... . . ...... ..... ... . Accident Risk Distribution (based on 1993 Caltrans accident location database) Orovilie Municipal Airport jrtm I LnA :6 7 izF WATIN. wc4 WAl W 3 O^#�' --.e -ZVA SiEF, �bl §iaw Na jrtm I Inter -Departmental Memorandum To: Airport Land Use Commission From: David Hironimus, Planning Department Subject: Revision of the Oroville Airport Environs Plan Map Date:. March 5, 1992 The attached Oroville Airport Environs Plan Map reflects the new runway status and thresholds adopted by the .City of Oroville since the adoption of the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission's Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) for the airport. The existing ALUP was adopted September 16, 1985. The new Master Plan was adopted by City of Oroville in 1991. The map also shows three options for the overflight area. All of the options use a 10,000 ft. radius measured from the end of the primary surface 01, and a 5,000 ft. radius from runways 12 and 30. The options differ in that they use a 5,000 ft., a 7,000 ft. and a 10,000 ft. radius from runway, 19. All of the Options contain the same provisions for the. Runway Protection Zones (Safety area 1) and the Approach Zones (Safety Area 2). They are as follows: Clear Zone and'Part 77 Approach Surface Dimensions (Dimensions in feet) Runway Protection Zone Slope of Part .77 Approach Surface Inner Outer Part 77 Inner Outer Type of Approach. Width Width Length Approach Surface - Width Width Length 12-30 Visual - A 250 450, 1,000 20:1 250 1,250 5,000 01-19 Nonprecision - B2 1,000 1,510 1,700 34:1 1,000 4,000 10,000 The 5,000 ft. radius plan is the minimum protection. scenario that should be considered. Due to the change in location of the thresholds it covers less area than the existing overflight area that was designed using a 5,000 ft. radius. The 7,000 ft. radius plan recommended on page 2 of this memo is also favored by the City of Oroville for adoption into their General Plan and covers approximately the same area as the 'existing plan. The 10,000 ft. radius plan adds a considerable amount of land to the overflight area. Most of the added area is either west " of the Thermalito Afterbay and over land planned for large acreage agricultural uses, south of Oroville Dam Blvd. West and over the State Wildlife Area, or over already developed .residential areas in Thermalito where any infill development could be unnecessarily delayed by additional regulations. Since the proposed map reflects changes that have already been adopted, there will be no significant environmental effects generated by adopting the .map. The change in runway status since the adoption of the existing map has had the effect of moving the noise contours out of the residential areas of thermalito and into the South Thermalito Afterbay area. Recommendation: A. Find that the adoption of this revised map is consistent with the purpose of Section 21670 through 21679 of the State of California Public Utilities Code ` and with the purpose and policies contained within the text of the Oroville Municipal Airport Environs Land Use Plan; and B. Note that the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been completed and considered in making this decision, and note the Negative Declaration by -the Oroville City Council, filed October 18, 1990; and C. Adopt the revised map of the overflight area, safety areas and noise contours, showing a 7,000 ft. radius measured from the end of the primary surface of runway 19. POS r-- C I'iY G� ORO`J LLE ✓ d L•'.`i.J`►; �'tr �+ . ;i0TICE OF DETEP14INATIOIr TO:' x Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 . is ..;i: OCT 18 1990 _x_ County Clerk _.,. CANX-EJ. .HLUei.Wflr�;....:K* County of Butte FROM: City of 02b6111 LMCN%J1 at 25 County Center Drive 1735 Montgomery -Street Oroville, CA 95965-4897.-.,..__._..-.--,.._„ Oroville, CA 95965-4897 RE: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code 1. -PROJECT TITLE s - broville Airport Master 2. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 90030688 3.' CONTACT PERSON/PHONE NUMBER: Michael E. Leana, Director for Community Development (916) 538-2430 4. PROJECT LOCATION: South side of Oro Dann Boulevard West on the east side -of the Table Mountain Golf Course 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Extension of an existing runway, relocation of necessary clear zones, and relocation of Fixed Base Operator This is to advise that the City of has approved the above described project, and.has made- the following determinations regarding the above described project on October 16, 1990 and has made the following determination regarding. the- above described project: ' 6. The project WILL NOT. have a significant effect on the environment. 7. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. S. Mitigation measures WERE made a condition of project approval. 9. A Statement of Overriding Considerations WAS NOT adopted for this project.. 10. Findings WERE.made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the final EIR/Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public at the Community Development Department, 1675 MontgomeryS,t eet, Orovi le, C 95965-4897. ' MAL7�Tmbiorski, Planning Tech=cian 11 ' March 25, 1992 DISCOVER GOLD ... DISCOVER OROVILLE 1735 MONTGOMERY'STREET • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-4897 .Mr. Dave Hironimus Butte County Planning Department 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (916) 5387-2430 RE: CONTINUEb-AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION HEARING ON -THE OROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ENVIRONS PLAN MAP Dear Dave: After reviewing the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook prepared by Cal -Trans Division of. Aeronautics (July 1983), the Brandley Report for the Oroville Airport Master 'Plan (July 1990), discussing a reasonable protective zone for the Airport with Oroville'.s General Plan consultant, and examining existing land use patterns within the vicinity of the Airport, I feel it would be appropriate for the Airport Land Use Commission to adopt a 7,000 foot overflight area. Extending the overflight area out to 10,000 feet would conflict with too much existing and potential in -fill development, is way beyond the 55 LDN noise levels referenced in the Brandley Report, and appears to be unnecessary and in conflict with the City's need to provide housing at affordable levels. Probably of more significance to me than the actual adopted overflight zone 'is the intensity standards adopted within this zone for reviewing projects. I have no problem with the 4 dwelling unit per acre maximum in residential projects as this standard is easily measured. However, the standard of 25 persons per acre -as -an evaluative measure for commercial and industrial projects "creates .extremeY-problems for staff to evaluate and administer.;/ if., a- company is interested in locating in Oroville, we would.;:be�"hard pressed"'to say you can build but can't hire or expand beyond Bore than..a specified number employees. I think 'an option that 'should be explored with the Airport Land Use Commission is the potential for adopting building intensity standards, i.e.•floor area ratios/maximum lot coverage. Several Airport Land Use Commission plans in other communities permit up to 20 to 25 percent lot coverage. This type of standard compared to "people intensity"_ standards is easier to evaluate, administer, and monitor and is obviously more practical. March 25, 1992 Mr. Dave Hironimus Butte County Planning Department 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 RE: CONTINUED AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION HEARING ON THE OROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ENVIRONS PLAN MAP Page 2 of 2 Pages I'd appreciate it if you would pass along my comments 'to the Commission and discuss with them the possibility of adopting revised intensity standards within the overflight zone. It -is the City's desire to continue to work with the Commission in order to provide adequate protection 'for the- ultimate development of the Municipal Airport and at the same time provide. the type of development required by a growing community. If you. have any comments please do not hesitate to call me at 538-2430.,-.-- Sincerely,- Le 38-2430.,- Sincerely, Michael E. Leana, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development - �- -- I MASTER PLAN . FOR OROVILLE.MUNICIPAL AIRPORT CITY OF OROVILLE a= COUNTY, CALIFORNIA JULY 1990 TABLE OF CONTEN'T'S AVIATION TERMINOLOGY.. .. .................................. ..... ..v Report .. I. INTRODUCTION ................................ .................1 II. AIRPORT REQUiS.............................................1 A. Inventory.............................. ........ .............. 1 1. History.................................................1 2. Previous Airport Plans ........... ... ..................2 3. Existing Land Use and Height Limit Zoning Documents ..... 3 4. Site Review and Environs................................4 5. Wind Data........ ........................... ........4 6.. Air Space ..............................., ..............6. 7. Noise metre..........................................7 8. Financial Resources....................................7 9. Existing Airport Facilities ............... ............8 B. Forecasts of Aviation Demand................................10 1. Population, Plate No. 2 ......................... .....15 2. Total Operations. Plate No. 3....... ................... o15 3. Based Aircraft, Plate No. 4... ..... ...................16 c. Demand capacity Analysis....................................16 1. Runways..................................................18 2. Taxiways..... ................ ..................24 3. Aircraft Parking and Storage Facilities.. ... o ........... 24 4. Fixed Based Operator Plots..............................25 5. ........................ . ......25 Access Roads..... ...... 6. Recreational, ltmexcial and Industrial Iand Use........25 7. Highway Access. . o. o o. o ..................... .....26 8. Sequence of Development ................... ......... ..27 III.. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT... o ............................ o ........ 27 A. Impact on the Natural Environment ...........................28 1. Geology - Soils.........................................28 2. Water Pollution....... ..... ........ ...............28 3. Water Supply..........................................29 .4. Sewage Treatment.......................................30 5. Air Pollution.... •.. ................ ..........30 .6. Impact on Marine Life in Adjacent Creeks & Rivers....... 31 7. Impact on Wild Life Refuge..... ..... ..................32 8. Impact on Prime Agricultural Lands......................32 -i- TABLE OF CONTENTS ' Report . B. Impact on Human Environment.................................32 . 1. Relocation of Persons........ ..... ................32 ' 2. Compatible Land Use.........................33 3. Effect on Historic or Archeological Sites...............33 4. Effect on Public Parks..................................33 5. Aesthetic and Visual Effects .33 ' 6. Secondary Effects.. • ............................34 7. Noise Pollution.........................................34 8. Air Pollution...........................................40 ' 9. Considerations Relative to the Wet Lands..... .........41 C. Adverse Effects That Cannot Be Avoided.. ..................41 ' 1. Natural Environment.....................................41 2. Human Environment... .42 ' D. Evaluation of Alternates to the Master Plan... ....... ..42 . E. Mitigating Measures Proposed to Minimize the L1ipact......... 44. ' F. Growth Inducing Impact of the Proposed Action...............45 IV. TEaiNICAL STUDIES .. ..................................... :.....45 ' A. Pavement Evaluation Studies ............. ............ ...45. B. Topographic Surveys... ....... ................ .........47 C. Overall Drainage Plan .................... .................47 ' V. AIRPORT PLANS ..... .............................................48 A. Airport Layout Plan - Sheet No. 1. . ...... ................. 48, ' B. Terminal Area layout Plan - Sheet No. 2.. ................53 C. Airport Zoning Map - Sheet No. 3 ............................54 D. RunHray 1 - - . Approach Profile - 19 Sheet No. 4. .. . ..........55 ' E. Approach Profile - Runway 12-30 - Sheet. No. 5.......... ...55 F. Airport Access Plan.. ............. o o ... o o ........... 55 VI. FINANCIAL PLAN..................................................55 A. Schedules and Cost Estimates of Proposed Development ........ 55. B. Financial and Economic Feasibility.... ....................5 6 TABLE OF' CON ENTS Plates' ' Plate Page No. Title No. 1 Existing Zoning of Land 'Surrounding Oroville s Municipal Airport 5. ' 2 Butte County Population Forecast 12y ' 3 Aircraft Operation Forecast - Oroville Airport 13 4 Based Aircraft Forecast 14 ' 5 Area of Acquisition 22 6' Noise Contours - 1989 Traffic - R/W 19 Threshold ' Displaced 1,000 Feet 35 7 Noise Contours - 2010 Traffic— R/W 19 Threshold Displaced 1,000 Feet 36 ' 8 Noise Contours - 1989 Traffic - R/W 19.Threshold Displaced 2,180 Feet 38 ' 9 Noise Contours - 2010 Traffic - R/W 19 Threshold Displaced 2,180 Feet 39.1 Tables ' Table Page No. Title No. ' 1 Forecast Operations 11 2 summarization of Development Costs 57 Drawings Submitted Separately Sheet No. 1 Airport Layout Plan Sheet No. 2 Terminal Area Layout Plan Sheet No. 3 Airport Zoning Map Sheet No.' 4 Approach Profile - Runway 1-19 t Sheet No. "5roach Profile - Runwa APP Y 12-30 -iii- AVIATION ZEINIDQOLOGY . ACCESS ROAD - The right-of-way,• the roadway and all improvements constructed thereon connecting'the airport to a public highway: AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AREA - Any area of the airport used or intended to be used for the landing, takeoff, or surface maneuvering of aircraft. An aircraft operations area shall include such paved or unpaved areas that are used or intended to be used for the unobstructed movement of aircraft - in. addition to its associated runway, taxiway, or apron. AIRPORT --An area of land or water which is used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of aircraft,; and includes. its buildings and facilities, if any. AIRPORT DMUMMU PROGRAM (AIP) - A grant-in-aid program administered by the Federal Aviation Administration. AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN - The plan of an airport showing the layout of existing and proposed airport facilities. ATTR - An instrument for measuring altitude. APPROACH SIOPE - A surface longitudinally centered on'the extended runway centerline and extending outward and upward frcn each end of the primary surface. An approach slope is applied to each end of each runway based. upon the type of approach available or planned for that runway end. APRON - Aprons provide parking for airplanes, access to the terminal facilities, fueling, and surface transportation. CIEAR ZONE - An area used to enhance the safety of aircraft operations. It is at ground level beyond the runway end. LIKE - DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT - Provides pilots with the distance the aircraft is to or ,from a point. FDD BASE OPERATOR (FBO) - A fixed base operator's building usually provides space for the canmrcial activities, maintenance,and repair of aircraft, air charter, and the like. HOLDING APRON - Holding aprons provide a standing space for airplanes awaiting final air traffic control clearance and to permit those airplanes. already cleared to move to their runway takeoff position. By virtue of thVir size, they enhance maneuverability for holding airplanes while also permitting bypass operations. ILS.- INSIRU4UVT LANDING SYSTEM - The instrument landing system provides pilots with electronic guidance for aircraft alignment, descent gradient, and position until visual contact confirms the runway alignment and location. MSL - Mean sea level. w- ' Aviation Terminology (Continued) NDB - NON -DIRECTIONAL BEACON - The non -directional beacon radiates a signal which provides directional guidance to and from the transmitting.. antenna. NON -PRECISION INSTMENT RUNWAY - A runway having an existing instz nt" approach procedure utilizing air navigation facilities with only horizontal guidance, or area type navigation equipment, for which a straight -in non -precision " instnmment approach procedure has been approved or planned. ' . RUNWAY - The area on the airport re for the irpo P Pared landing and takeoff,of aircraft. TAXIWAY - The portion of the aircraft operations area of an airport that has been designated by competent airport authority for movement of aircraft to and from the airport's runways or aircraft parking areas. TEE HANGAR - Building'constructed for the storage of,individual aircraft. ZIHOLD -The beginning of .that portion of the runway available for landing. Mien the threshold is located at a point other than at the beginning of the pavement, .it is referred to as either a displaced or a relocated threshold depending on how, the pavement behind the threshold may be. used. Displaced Threshold - The portion of pavement behind a displaced threshold may be available for takeoffs in either direction and landings from the opposite direction. ' Relocated Threshold - The portion of pavement behind a relocated threshold is not available for takeoff or landing. It may be available for taxiing of aircraft. ' TIE DOWN - Portion of .the aircraft parking apron for the tying down of parked aircraft. VOR -.VERY HIGH FREQUENCY MANGE STATION - Provides the bearing of the aircraft to or frau the VOR station. 2041 Hallmark Drive s. Sacramento.' California 95825 s (916) 922-4725 Brandley, Consulting Airport Engineer, for the purpose of preparing a .' master plan for the development of the Oroville Municipal Airport. This master plan consisted of research into the history and present conditions of the airport, forecast for future development, analysis of development costs, enviro><miental considerations, and the preparation of ' airport layout plans for this airport. This report presents the results of these studies. II. AIRPORT REQUIRE["I NIS ' A. Inventory 1. History. The City of Oroville acquired the original 188 acres for airport purposes in 1936. In 1941 the runways Were extended in length by the City and Work Project Administration, and airport land was increased to 428 acres._ On May 1, 1942, ithe United States Army camiandeered Oroville Airport for the duration of the war and improved the runways to their present Page No. 2 r width and length. In May 1947'the Army returned the airport jurisdiction to the City. Additional land has since been acquired and the current size of the airport is approximately. 804.acres. Approximately 300 acres of this property are leased for various uses including a golf course, riding arena, and a mosquito abatement district telex. The airport facilities, when turned back to the City'in 1947, consisted of two runways, a series of taxiways,.and a small apron for aircraft parking. The airport has been upgraded aver the past 36 years under three projects funded by,' the Federal Aviation Administration including: Apron bctension and Runway Marking in 1962 under FAA Project No. 9-04-106-6403. Runway 1-19 Strengthening Overlay and a Non -Directional Beacon in 1984 under AIP No. 3-06-0178-01. The Overlay of Runway 12-30, Overlay. and Reconstruction of Taxiway C, Edge Lighting of Runway 1-19, and Security Fencing in 1989 under AIP Project 3-06-0178-03. 2.. Previous Airport Plans.' The current airport layout plan. was prepared by the City of Oraville; Department of Public Works and was last updated in.March 1988. That update consisted of.relocating the thresholds on Runway 12 and Runway 19 such that the.visual clear zones (20:1 approach) for these,. runways would be located entirely within public land. This plan not only addressed the needs for the developanent of the aviation related facilities on the airport.but set aside surplus land for commercial development. REINARD W. BRANDLEY . . CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER Page .No. 3 Two reports pertaining to airport development have been prepared by the City of Oraville`and`the Butte County Land Use Commission. These reports are entitled: "Oroville Municipal Airport General Plan Update for the Oroville Municipal Airport" prepared by the City of Oroville dated November 1985. "Oroville Airport Land Use Plan" prepared and adopted by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission dated September 16, 1985. These reports set forth.the basic development goals for the airport and land use criteria for the property located around. the airport. 3. Existing Land Use and Height Limit Zoning Doclunents. The City of Oroville has not established height limit zoning on land within the City limits surrounding the airport. The County of Butte is currently preparing height limit zoning around all County airports. Both the.City and the County. should zone land surrounding the airport .that is within their jurisdiction to conform to the height limit zoning requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration. A model zoning ordinance is included as Appendix B to this report to assist the City. and County in developing the Height Limit Zoning Ordinance for the Oroville Municipal Airport. It is recoriended that both the City and the County adapt this ordinance to provide protection to the existing and planned facilities from encroachment by offsite development. The land surrounding the airport at the approaches to the airport is zoned: "Public or Quasi Public," "Agriculture," REINARD W. BRANDLEY • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER Page No, , 4 "Low -Density Residential, n Industrial, 11 and/or 110pen Space". The existing zoning of the land surrounding the airport is shown on the attached zoning map, Plate No. 1. 4.. Site Review and Environs. The City of Oroville is located on the eastern edge of the Sacramento Valley adjacent to the foothills of the Sierra Nevada mountain range. The Sacramento Valley in this portion of California is mostly agriculture land. The mountains to the east are forested. Oroville is located approximately 15 miles southeast of the City of Chico and approximately 26.miles miles north of the cities of Marysville and Yuba City.'. The major highway serving this area is California State Route 70 which extends from Sacramento through Marysville, Oraville'and on through the Feather River Canyon to Quincy and points east. State Route 162 extends westerly from Oroville and connects to State Highway 99. State Route 162 runs past the northern boundary of the Oroville Municipal Airport. The Union Pacific Railroad passes through Oroville from Marysville/Yuba City area and extends on to the north and east through the Feather River Canyon. 5. Wind Data. Wind data were originally obtained from the Forest Service Station located 2.9 miles east of the Oraville Airport for the period July 1968 to July 1972. Additional wind analyses were conducted in 1985 by the City of Oroville in preparation of the General Plan Update for the Oroville Municipal Airport.. Additional evaluations were conducted for REINARD W. BRANDLEY • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER ' I i 11 •� / 1 11 1163 14 W p N ( mit- �t J h ito rebar North Q a 00 I / - Par a' 'o Cr— CL w vR � AREq''�� J...� A \+ ''" } - :l 300 Romp ,,s J p Q �` L4 jam= � �> _ J J�'`_ �� 1 G-- O elso O D t \. ` \ E B i Park LL O V 11 l l60 Z_J G 7 'i ELSON VENUE >-, 1 �. G R04 LINDA _ ••• I Z J '� O 1 e�., . 'L \ I ><; _ . 10 W i • 11a .... �: J6N M �' .. .I • .Acy � . • N - �,�'•.-• . ,� ����,•_ .O _ •� _ � ;—� `Polar °e � � _ - _ � .., :. • � ... _ Ther baY [poutX II ... V10) *Nater2dD e a to i �...'•: r ; :" .S-HW21 I-HW2i S=HWa"'�° I•HW�C =100F i� _\ • E ER .. AVE iia Ce 1' He Ll r •lez it i` S •t .AHE O ioz j6\p 165 .) —69 a 162 162 i,/i - e - 1 _ .� ^ rr t I 1 .166 O ml J l.7 0 I C) N. G ,5 I - ! 1 rs�1J 17 22 �J. l- �) ' � ° p i I ' > unlci —n ort (- Ql 0 / + ( o �/ © ' i�;.i �'• + r -- __ // ` I �"-/�01 I i9`'n a // '\OM1 • ';'S We `' 1,�., J of J IQ. O c'., t r � /Jo• o, o _�pn'�)� � ,.-� ,��� �.--� • '- ,' ' � 1, ° •.� �� � ,.:+ T' '/•,1� P: `n �( / - ' frailer e6 r` o I I ----- ---------- �./ ^ ji Park ' .:J !i ('� - O y/s a Pit ru f 5 / .1••/ :,�1 ` '-' �� ,, ,r `�` i/, ,4 �. _ Y Pit • �/ i.' to - .'� '\ i Ld .lh ! .?q /, • /- (�1 1 � ' I ' / � � SII .. it / ��- / 1 o � 33.. •1 .� --.�� � �- :� � ',. «l Bei, ��• � 1,•' _ - I(�,,'',I� Page 5A CITY. OF OROVILLE DEFINITION OF ZONING SYMBOLS. SYMBOL DEFINITION p Open Space PQ Public or Quasi Public. PD Planned-Unit Development '. R1. Single Family Residential ARI Agricultural Residential. - 10-Acres ' AR5 Agricultural Residential - 5-Acres, ' MH-1 Low Density Mobile Home RMH-1 Residential Mobile Home ' RMH-3 Residential.Mobil Home Suburban NC- Neighborhood Commercial Cl Restricted Commercial ' C2 Heavy Carmercial CLM Commercial Light Manufacturing ' M1 Limited Industrial M2 Industrial r Plate lA 1 1 I 1 1 1 114111V it.I41 (-il�.IVl V W lM 411G. 1 VM.\ W41.I L>,iLL.IVL + if L 1LlY j JiiiV The results of these -studies show that the wind rose which was prepared as part of the oroville Airport Plan in 1965 is .still valid. Coverages for the two runways at the Oroville Municipal Airport were computed on the basis of crosswind camponents not exceeding thirteen }mots. It was found that Runway 1-19 provides 94.8% wind coverage for a thirteen }mot crosswind c=rponent; whereas,.Runway 12-30 provides 97.6% wind coverage for thirteen ]mot crosswind components. Both runways' combined provide in excess of 99% wind coverage. •6. Air Space. Air space surrounding the Oroville Municipal Airport is affected by the Instrument Approach Facilities at the Chico Municipal Airport, the Beale Air Force Base, and the Yuba.County Airport in Marysville. The Chico Municipal Airport has -an IIS approach to , Runway 13L, a VOR -LAME approach to Runway 13L, a VOR approach to Runway 31R and a NDB approach to Runway 13L. Yuba County Airport at Marysville has an ILS approach to Runway 14, a VOR approach to Runways 14 and 32, and a NDB approach to Runway 14. Oroville Airport has a VOR Approach to Runway 1 from the Marysville VOR and FAA is now preparing to publish a NDB approach to Runway 1. ILS approaches.affect air space for a considerable distance around an airport.. The existence of ILS approaches to runways.at Marysville, Chico, and Beale will seriously limit the air space available around the Oroville.Airport, REINARD W. BRANDLEY • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER Page No. , 7 ' particularly for instrument approaches. While these limitations will not preclude ILS approaches to Oroville ' Airport in the future, they could have a significant effect on . the instrument approach pattern to all of the surrounding airports, 7. Noise M, p re. There have been few complaints of noise frim the Oroville Municipal Airport, mainly because the ' population on the. lands immediately surrounding the airport is widely scattered.and the use of the airport with large aircraft at this time is limited. .Runway 1-19 is the longest runway and will be used by all of the.heavy aircraft and the jet aircraft. The southerly departure from this runway is over ' land which is currently zoned for large acreage development and then over the Thermalito Afterbay which is government property that will never be developed. Recoim e-ndation of this report is that the.airport acquire the land at the approach to Runway 1 which is between the airport and the afterbay. The northerly ' approach to Rumy 19 is over the land currently zoned for ca mnercial development. Runway 12-30 is a short runway and ' will be used exclusively by small general aviation aircraft which do not create excess noise. 8. Financial Resources. To date the fees charged to users do ' not pay the entire cost of airport operation. The only source of funds for development of the airport must come from the ' City, County, State Division of Aeronautics, and the Federal Government. Grants are available from the State through the ' REINARD W. BRAr4DLEV • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER 'w. Page, No. 8. CRAP program and through the Federal Government.through the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) of the Federal Aviation Administration. Cammercial and recreational land leases of surplus airport property can contribute to revenue for aiYport,�. operation and development. 9. Existing Airport Facilities. The existing airport occupies approximately 804 acres of land. Approximately 300 acres of this land are leased for various uses including a golf course, riding academy, and mosquito abatement district complex. A portion of the property is also leased to the Fixed Based Operator and Helicopter Facilities. Current facilities consist of two runways and a series•of taxiways serving these runways. Mmway.1-19 has a total physical length of approximately 6,000 feet and, is 150 feet wide. This runway has been shortened to an effective length of 4,580 feet by relocation of the threshold to Runway 19. Runway 12-30 has a paved section of approximately 4,800 feet long and 150 feet wide but has been shortened to an effective length of 3,180 feet by relocation of the threshold to Runway 12., There' is also a displacement of some 218 feet of the threshold'to . Runway 30. Both Runways 1-19 and 12-30 were originally paved to a width.of 150 feet and the runway edge lights are installed at a distance of 10 feet beyond the edge of the 150 -foot pavement. When these runways were overlaid, the overlay section was limited to 100 feet in width. The pavement was then tapered at REINARD W. BRANDLEY . CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER ' Page No. 9 ' a 5 percent maximum slope to match existing pavement and the remaining existing pavement was chip sealed to form a paved ' shoulder. The effective width of these runways is now 100 feet. • Runway 12-30 is served by a parallel taxiway located some 500 feet to the northeast of this runway. There is also a taxiway connecting the original threshold.to aurway 19 and Runway 12 and a taxiway which is now abandoned also connects the threshold to Runway l and Runway 30.' There is -a taxiway which connects the existing aircraft parking apron to.the approximate center of Runway 12-30 and then extends across the, infield to intersect Runway 1-19 at the approximate center of . the total length of this runway. The terminal area at this airport consists of an aircraft 'parking apron, a series of tee hangars, and a FBO hangar. In ' addition there is an unimproved taxiway leading to a paved aircraft parking apron adjacent to the golf course. A business ' park is currently being developed on excess airport property located in the northeastern corner of the airport. Navigational facilities to this airport consist of a ga irpo ' non -directional lieacon on the airport whichis commissioned, . and F.A.A.'is expected to publish approved NDB approach ' procedures in the near future. VOR approaches are also available from the Marysville VOR. ' VOR and/or ILS approaches could be added to the Oraville ' Airport as traffic increases to a point where F.A•A•'carn ' REINARD W. BRANOLEY • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER Page No. 10 justify funding the equipment needed for such approaches or the City and/or.County decide to fund the installation of the . required equipment., _ F B. Forecasts of Aviation Demand Forecasts of aviation activity at the Oraville Municipal Airport have. been prepared by reviewing population forecasts, by reviewing forecasts prepared by the California State.Division of Aeronautics in 1988, by reviewing the F.A.A. aviation forecasts, and by reviewing the history of aviation activity at this airport.. . The data utilized'are summarized in the following plates: Plate No. 2 - Butte County Population Forecast. -Plate No. 3 - Aircraft Operation Forecast - Oroville Airport. Plate No. 4 - Based Aircraft Forecast. In Table No. 1.the forecast operations have been broken down as to type of aircraft which are forecast to be using the airport frau the period 1989 through 2010. A large part of the jet type operations, helicopter operations, and large reciprocating aircraft operations are those currently used and forecast to be used by the Louisiana Pacific Company Fleet. On each of these plates, the actual activities have been included through 1988. The.forecasts for the State of California Division of Aeronautics have been shown and Brandley Recommended Forecasts are included. A brief description of the basis of these forecasts shown on each of these Plates No. 2 through 4 is, presented herewith: REWARD W. BRANDLEY • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER TABLE NO. 1 OROV-ILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA FORECAST OPERATIONS II ANNUAL OPERATIONS II II ' II II ----------=------------------------------------•-----------------••----------------------------------------------------------- OTHER II YEAR II G-2 CITATION.111 CITATION 1I BUSINESS JETS KING AIR SMALL TWIN SINGLE G.A. HELICOPTER MILITARY II TOTAL 1989II 24 48 600 48 600 3,000 56,476 154 100 II 61,050 II - II � II II 1995 II 24 72 800 80 800 3,500 - 58,424. 300 100 II. 64,100 (D - 2005 I( 36 90 1,000- 200 900 4,000 62,474 400 100 II 69,200 �~ 2010 II 50 100 1,100 250 1,000 5,000 64,000 600 100 II 72,200 Note: One Operation Equals One Departure Or One Arrival Summary of Distribution of.Traffic Note: _1989 operations of Louisiana Pacific ---------------------------------- fleet shown below: R/W 12-30 25% of Single G.A. Annual Aircraft Operations R/W 1-19 All Others ________ ____________ After 6:00 p.m.: 10% All Others Citation 11 600 20% G.A. Single Citation III 48 G2 24 King Air 600 Jet Ranger Helicopter 104 0 L- 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 0 80 =------ --� —-----{-----------{----------------� I R. ' W. BRANDLEY FORECAST � I I I gp— — — — — — — --I ----- -- --� __ =— — -------�--- --� v p I — j STATE FORECAST .� a ryirn w I I -----I Iw .01 I Qj - :...o . SOURCE OF DATA . I ►— 20 ----------I-----------}-- FAA FORM 5010-1—1-------� ! i I STATE OF CALIFORNIA ; I. x DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS FORECAST 0 L- 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Page No: ` 15 . 1. Population, Plate No. 2.' Population forecasts were obtained from the California State Aviation System Plan,. Element No. 1 dated December 1988 and Element No. 2 dated August 1988. The existing population data were obtained frarn the survey report of the Oroville General Plans Study dated December 1972. The forecast population growth shows a steady. increase over the next twenty years. 2. Total Operations, Plate No. 3. Aircraft operations showed .. a sharp increase in 1977 and then a corresponding sharp decrease in 1985. Since 1985, there has been a slow, steady increase in operations. The State of California Division of Aeronautics forecast'a continuation of this slow increase. Brandley forecasts parallel the State forecast but are somewhat higher. The decrease in operations in the mid to late.1980's is due largely to the decrease in general aviation activity caused by higher purchase and operating costs of aircraft. It is forecast the number of operations will continue to show a modest annual increase following the increase in population in Butte County. As shown in Table No. 1, a major portion of the jet aircraft operations,; the King Air operations, and the + helicopter operations are resulting from the Louisiana Pacific Company's Fleet operations at the Oroville Municipal Airport. A large portion.of the forecast increase in operations will be a result of increases in operations by Louisiana Pacific Company Fleet as well as,same increase in other business jet and large twin aircraft, operations. As industrial development. REINARD W. BRANDLEY • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER Page No: 16 in.the Oroville area increases there will be a significant increase in.jet aircraft and large twin engine operations. The further development of the airport to accommodate these aircraft will also have -a significant impact on the' attractiveness of the area for industrial development. 3. Based Aircraft, Plate No. 4. The number of. based aircraft held steady from 1970 to 1977 then showed a sharp increase by .1980 and a major decrease between 1981 and i982. Since that time the number of based aircraft held steady to 1985 and.then - showed a significant increase to 1988... The State Division of Aeronautics forecast a very slight increase in the number of based aircraft from forty to forty-three between.1987 and the year 2005. Bzandley forecast represents a more rapid increase in based aircraft but still by -the year 2000 it is forecasted there will only be 100 based aircraft at the Oroville Municipal. Airport. C. Demand Capacity Analysis. In general the aircraft which will use the Oroville Airport will consist of light single engine and twin engine aircraft with reciprocating engines. Some business jet aircraft and helicopters .will also use this airport. Currently the main business jets, lame twin engine aircraft, and helicopter operations are conducted by the Louisiana Pacific Company.. They operate the Citation III, Citation II, Gulfstream II, King Air, and the Jet Ranger Helicopter. 'Icuisiana Pacific Company Flight Operations Section have been contacted and they forecast that.they will continue to REINARD W. BRANDLEY • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER - Page No. 17 use this mix of aircraft at the'Oroville Airport and that over the , next twenty years the frequency of operation of these aircraft will increase somewhat. As industrial land develops in and around' - Oroville, other companies will use, the Oroville Airport for business jet and other large twin engine. aircraft operations. I_ The' airport will continue to be used by the small single engine general aviation aircraft, by the light twin engine aircraft, and by ihelicopters which are normally used by private pilots and flight training operations. ' Aviation forecasts have been prepared which indicate only modest increases in based aircraft and aircraft activity at the Oroville Airport over the next twenty years. Forecasting of ' general aviation growth is difficult at this time because of the uncertainties of general aviation development brought.about by the Aircraft Manufacturing Moratorium and the large increases in cost ' of operation and purchasing of aircraft. There are indications at this time that some. light plane manufacturing will resume which ' will increase the availability of aircraft,'and as the population of the area and commercial industrial development of the area ' continue to grow the demand for aircraft could increase faster than has been forecast. The foothills of the Sacramento Valley are experiencing major growth starting"in the Auburn/Placerville area and spreading north and south. This area growth could cause significant growth in the oroville area which would also cause the ' growth of aviation operations to exceed the forecast growth. It is therefore considered prudent in the preparation of a Master Plan ' REINARD W. BRANDLEY . CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER Page io. 18' for the Oroville Airport to plan the general aviation facilities to accommodate. forecast growth plus a reserve capacity of at least 100% for unexpected growth. Based on the forecast and allowing reserves for the unexpected growth, the estimated facility requirements for this airport have been developed: Wind analysis studies show that Runway 1-19 provides 94.8 wind coverage with thirteen.knot crosswinds; Runway 12-30 . provides 97.6% wind coverage for thirteen knot crosswinds, and both runways provide in excess of 99% wind coverage for a thirteen loot crosswind. Runway. 12-30 is so oriented that it cannot be extended without major relocation of existing roads. In fact thresholds for both Runway 12 and Rz way' 30. mist be displaced, or relocated to provide clearance for vehicles traveling on larkin Road and Highway 162. Runway 1-19 can be extended to the south as far as needed to provide necessary length for the aircraft Ipperating-and. forecast to operate at this airport. The wind analysis indicates that two runways are required at this airport. Runway 19 will be developed as the main instnm ent runway and will be extended as necessary to accommodate the business jet and large general aviation aircraft. Runway 12-30 will be a short, runway and will be used in heavy crosswind conditions by the small general aviation aircraft. The large business jets and large twins will nct.be able to use -the short runway. REINARD W. BRANDLEY • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER ' Page No 19 . ' In order to maintain clearance over existing roads and wherever possible keep the clear zone within the airport ' Property, relocated or displaced.thresholds will be required on ' both nuiways. Runway 12-30 will be strictly a visual runway and will have 20 to 1 approach slopes.- Runway 1-19 should be . ' designed as a non -precision instrument nunway with 34 to 1 . approach slopes .and clear zones. In order to properly serve ' the large business jet type aircraft Runway 1-19 must be constructed to'a 6,000 -foot length and a minimum of 100 -foot width. Runway 12-30 can be constructed to a considerably ' shorter length, and if the clear zone to Runway 12 is vela entirely within public property and the threshold to Rmway 30 is displaced enough so that there is adequate clearance over ' Iarkin Road, the maximum length of. Runway 12-30 available will be -3,540 feet.. It is recd nTended that this runway also be 100 feet in width. Economic studies have been conducted for the construction of Runway 1-19 to a length of 6,000 feet. The results of these studies are presented in the financial section of this report. - Two analyses were conducted - one in which the clear zone, for ' Runway 19 is located entirely within public property which requires an approximate 2,200 -foot relocation of the threshold , to kinway 19 and the second in which the threshold to Runway 19 is relocated'a sufficient distance to provide 17 -foot clearance between the pavement on State Route.162 and the approach. ' surface -to the runway. This requires a relocation of REINARD W. BRANDLEY CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER Page No. 20 l ' approximately 1,000 feet for the threshold of Runway 19. A 6,000 -foot effective runway length was used for both analyses. These cost analyses showed that there was very little . difference in the cost of the two runway design systems when taking into account the value of the land to the north of State ' Route 162 on which easements would have to be acquired or land acquired in fee simple -and the value of the land to the south of Runway 19 which would have to be acquired for the extension '. of the runway,and the clear zone in that area. If Runway 1-19 is constructed in such a manner that the clear zone for Runway 19 is entirely within public property and this runway is extended to the south approximately 2,200 feet ' beyond the southerly end. of the existing runway, the departure to the south from . this runway will be over. City -owned, property or the publicly -awned afterbay property and aircraft ' approaching from the north will be higher above private. property north of State Route 162. This relocation of the' ' threshold to Runway 19,will also minimize the constraints on ' the development of the land north of State Route 162. The only disadvantage of relocating Runway 1-19 to the south is inconvenience of taxiing to the existing general . aviation tie dawn facilities.. The area available for future ttie down facilities inn the existing tie down area limits the growth capability of this airport. To improve access to the airport operations areas and torovide area for ultimate P , ' growth capability at the airport., it is reconnended that the REINARD W. BRANDLEY • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER Page No. 21 ' aircraft operations area be moved to the south side of Runway 12-30 into the triangle between Runways 12-30 and 1-19. ' It is therefore recmaended that the threshold for Runway 19 be relocated such that the 34:1 clear zone -for Runway 19 is. entirely within public property which requires a threshold relocation of approximately 2,200 feet. It is further recannended that Runway 1-19 be extended to the south such that it will provide a runway length of 6,000 feet. This will require the acquisition of land to the south of the airport for the runway extension and for the clear zone to Runway 1. .This acquisition will require the purchase of land between the current airport property and the Thermalito Afterbay. The extension of Runway 1-19 to the south will.require the ... acquisition of land to the south of the existing airport . boundary. Land should also be acquired such that a non -precision instrument clear zone to Runway 1 will be located entirely within publicly -owned property.' The Airport layout. Plan,.Sheet No. 1, shows the,proposed.Runway 1-19 extension and clear zone to Runway 1. This plan also shows the outline of ' theaProPoproperty required for this ' development. The property proposed for acquisition is located entirely - within the Afterbay Estates Subdivision: Details of a portion of this subdivision showing the area of proposed.acquisition are shown in Plate No. 5. Where acquisition required to obtain . ' all land within the proposed development area or clear zone ' " . REWARD W. BRANDLEY • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER _ "� i �mo SEE i ETA/L "A" 3 o = a PARCEL J 3' N PARCEL K N PARCEL L =I �' �''` a 0 _ c o PARCEL AE::' PARCEL N = o N a� :s'G = O //.24Ac, o o //.24Ac. o //?4Ac 100 ro O m o RA R CEL / O h 620_00' (N) 620Od`(N )�} 620.00' (M)—620.00'(M)=?a2:f?:fi:::f?ul:;: 580.00' (M 3i% 1 PARCEL .T - .:;:::PARCEL S I PARCEL R = PARCEL 0 :.• PARCEL P PARCEL 0 ) Y /6.40Ae. W /2./7A.L /2. /OAe /2.03Ae//.96Ae. '- //,/JAa e ... col Q: O� ....... h CD co CD 40.00 N — Q'n 40.00' N N _ M � ?iii:%<: •! ;.. ' "iii::•: �:•?:•i 4Y:4i}:iii - F( T - 519.78 (N ). ':::::''::::`SM3.�QD f:1if:�'::::::::::::::ri:��:: '.. ".(��'f�;::;>::6 N 80. ' .:;�.�.. 1................BZOA.Yi:tt!i•1•:i:;i:;•:•: ::;•:•;:�:;•;;:.. 20 02 ( 1 5 02 (M 1 S 89- 33' 22" TUU 1430.97' i LEGEND OO FND D.W. R. R/W MON. -lir~ I. P. W/BRASS CAP FND BUTTE COUNTY STREET SURVEY MON. S -/l Nk SET 2~ 1. P, • R.C.E /3062 PER RIS 74-57 • SET �/. P. R. C. E. 13062 PER RIS74-57 SET lig C. 1. P. L. S. 4202 PER- RIS 96- 78 rnru 82 o DIMENSION POINT ONLY -NOTHING FOUND OR SET (M) MEASURED DISTANCE (R3) 2 A[O.R. 176 SOUTH THERMALlTO SUED. AREA OF ACQUISITION CITY OF OROVILLE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DRAWN BY T. F CHECKED BY J.J. DATE 9-12-89 SCALE NOT TO SCALE AREA OF ACQUISITION APPROVED BY DIPECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS- R.C.E.41977 PLATE NO. 5 620.00-m&20<O IM) I 620.00-m580.00'(M) 6,11 6" Coit Ir N 89030'47"E PARCE,C'•': I -,PARCEL C � �o PARCEL B PARCEL A`" 0.48 n 9:2FQtt'•' o: 9.26 Ac 9.J0 Ae. — B. ;I At. ' owl CC ..... n 40.00'to L t to i, 'm _ : - tiO: 0) ".i i 620.00'(M) .00' (N) 620.00' (N) .:%:400 : . 3 o = a PARCEL J 3' N PARCEL K N PARCEL L =I �' �''` a 0 _ c o PARCEL AE::' PARCEL N = o N a� :s'G = O //.24Ac, o o //.24Ac. o //?4Ac 100 ro O m o RA R CEL / O h 620_00' (N) 620Od`(N )�} 620.00' (M)—620.00'(M)=?a2:f?:fi:::f?ul:;: 580.00' (M 3i% 1 PARCEL .T - .:;:::PARCEL S I PARCEL R = PARCEL 0 :.• PARCEL P PARCEL 0 ) Y /6.40Ae. W /2./7A.L /2. /OAe /2.03Ae//.96Ae. '- //,/JAa e ... col Q: O� ....... h CD co CD 40.00 N — Q'n 40.00' N N _ M � ?iii:%<: •! ;.. ' "iii::•: �:•?:•i 4Y:4i}:iii - F( T - 519.78 (N ). ':::::''::::`SM3.�QD f:1if:�'::::::::::::::ri:��:: '.. ".(��'f�;::;>::6 N 80. ' .:;�.�.. 1................BZOA.Yi:tt!i•1•:i:;i:;•:•: ::;•:•;:�:;•;;:.. 20 02 ( 1 5 02 (M 1 S 89- 33' 22" TUU 1430.97' i LEGEND OO FND D.W. R. R/W MON. -lir~ I. P. W/BRASS CAP FND BUTTE COUNTY STREET SURVEY MON. S -/l Nk SET 2~ 1. P, • R.C.E /3062 PER RIS 74-57 • SET �/. P. R. C. E. 13062 PER RIS74-57 SET lig C. 1. P. L. S. 4202 PER- RIS 96- 78 rnru 82 o DIMENSION POINT ONLY -NOTHING FOUND OR SET (M) MEASURED DISTANCE (R3) 2 A[O.R. 176 SOUTH THERMALlTO SUED. AREA OF ACQUISITION CITY OF OROVILLE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DRAWN BY T. F CHECKED BY J.J. DATE 9-12-89 SCALE NOT TO SCALE AREA OF ACQUISITION APPROVED BY DIPECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS- R.C.E.41977 PLATE NO. 5 Page No. 23 area split an existing parcel, the entire parcel is shown to be acquired when it was estimated that parcel splitting costs would equal total acquisition costs. The profile of. Runway 1-19 currently sags in the middle and the grade into this sag from both ends is approximately one percent (1%) '. By eying the nunway to the south the southerly end of the existing. runway will be. rebuilt to lower the grade at this end to decrease the gradient of this runway which will improve the operation of aircraft on this runway. Oroville Airport currently has a published VOR instrument approach to Runway 1 from the Marysville VOR. The F.A.A. is now prepared to publish a NDB approach procedure to Runway 1. The IFR minimum ceiling with the proposed NDB approach will be 1,000 feet MSL due to.the existence of a WEN Radio Tower . located 4.4 miles south of the airport along the extended centerline of Runway 1-19. The high minimums are due to uncertainties as to the elevation of the top of this tower. Once accurate surveys are obtained the ceiling minimums should be reduced to approximately 500 feet and when an altimeter is established at the airport, the minimums can be reduced an additional 88 feet. Future develcpment-of the airport and an. increase in instrument operations will emphasize the need for further instrumentation. It is recommended that the runway -taxiway spacing, clear zones and approach surfaces all be sized for Runway 1-19 to become.a Non -Precision Instnmient Runway and Runway 12-30 to remain a Visual Runway.. REINARD W. BRANDLEY • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER Page -No. 24 2.. Taxiways. Good taxiway ams will be.required for both runways. A parallel taxiway for the main non -precision instrument Runway 1-19 will be required and will be located some 400 feet centerline to centerline distance frcan the nunway and to the east of the runway. Four right angle cross taxiways will be required for adequate operation of this runway. Aircraft holding aprons should be constructed at each end of the runway.: All taxiways should be 50 feet wide. Runway 12-30 will be a short runway used only for light general aviation aircraft. A parallel taxiway located south of this runway should be constructed with a centerline spacing of 300 feet from the runway and the taxiway should be 40 feet wide.- Four cross taxiways will be required to connect the parallel taxiway to Runway 12-30. Connecting taxiways will be required from the parallel taxiway system to connect the two runway systems together and to connect the taxiway -runway system to the future aircraft tie down apron and tee hangar apron areas. 3. Aircraft Parking and Storage Facilities. Due to uncertainties of.the general aviation development the Master Plan should provide for the current number of based aircraft, anticipated growth for the design period, and a reserve for unanticipated growth. Tie down apron space will also be required for transient parking. Initial facilities REINARD W. BRANDLEY • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER Page No. `25 should be sized to acccmTcdate 93 aircraft; at least 18 should be located in tee hangars and 75 in aircraft tie dawn spaces. Twenty of these spaces should be reserved for transient operations.. By the year 2010 space will be required for 100 based aircraft, 30 transient aircraft,. and a reserve space for at least 100 aircraft: It is anticipated that by the year 2010, 50 of these aircraft will be stored.in tee hangars. 4. Fixed Based Operator Plots. Space should be reserved on the airport for three Fixed Based Operator plots. These facilities should be sized such as to ao=mcdate a full service Fixed Based Operator'in each. of the three plots.- 5. lots.5. Access Roads. Mien the general aviation operations move to the new area reserved for development: in the triangle between the two runways, a new access road will be required off from Larkin Read. The existing abandoned taxiway connecting the existing ends of Runway l and Fdnway 30 can be used as a portion of the loop road proposed for access to the Fixed Base Operator areas, aircraft parking areas, and tee hangar areas.: Automobile parking will be required within the loop road system. 6. Recreational, Commercial and Industrial land Use. The existing Table Mountain Golf Course occupies the western portion of the airport property. This -is good compatible land use for land surrounding an airport and the REINARD W. BRANDLEY •- CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER ' Page No: 26 ' continued use of this landby-golf course should be encouraged. There is a section of land west of Runway 1-19 and ". ' -south of the existing golf course which will not be necessary ' for aviation use and this land could properly be used for an expansion to the golf course. . Sufficient land should be reserved, for development of all forecast aviation requirements and land should be reserved for unexpected growth. Any additional land available on airport ' property .over and above that which is required for aviation use and reserves should be set aside for commercial development which is compatible to aviation operations. No commercial. operation which.produces smoke, electromagnetic interference,' interference for be or visual. aircraft operations should ' allowed to develop on airport property. Some of the airport PAY not used for aviation uses will be located such as to ' allow direct access to the runways and taxiways from the commercial property. ' 7. Highway Access. ' current access to the airport is from California Highway 162. This access is adequate for the current airport �� irpo ' operations and should be adequate for anticipated future operations. When the general aviation facilities have moved to ' the triangular area between the two runways the access to the ' airport will be off from Larkin Road. Larkin Road's access is off fran State Highway 162. With the minimal traffic ' anticipated at the airport, the Iarkin Road access will be ' REINARD W. BRANDLEY, • ' CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER Page`No. 27 adequate and airport operations will not significantly affect the capacity of this road. 8. Sequence of Development. The runway and taxiway systems are required as soon as they can be developed. The development of the new aircraft parking apron and tee hangar access roads can be expanded as needed. It is not considered necessary to abandon the existing - aircraft operations• facilities at this time, but any additional facilities Should be constructed in the area set aside for the future development and the operations transferred.to the south. side of Runway 12-30 in an orderly manner as the need develops. III . ASSFSSMERr A series of environmental assessment reports have previously been prepared for the City of oroville and for.Butte County for development in and around the City of Oroville and Butte County. These reports have been reviewed in detail. The reports •reviewed.included the following: "Butte County Non -Attainment Plan" produced by. -Earth Metrics' Incorporated, Palo Alto, California, dated January 17, 1979. "Final Environmental Impact Report for the Chico Area land Use Plan and Amendment to the Butte County General Plan" by the Butte County Planning Department in Oroville dated July 1982. "Survey Reports, Oroville General Plans Study" prepared by Iampman and Associates,.Sacramento, California, December 1972. "Final Environmental Impact.Report; City of Oroville Enterprise Zone," dated February 3, 1986. "EIR Oraville land Use Plan" prepared for Butte County Airport Land Use Ccumission by Butte County Planning Department.. These reports have been,reviewed in detail and only those areas where significant differences in conditions exist weredetailed analyses REINARD W. BRANDLEY CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER ' Page No. 28 ' conducted including noise evaluation, air pollution, and the requirement for the effects of construction on the environment. The evaluations 'resented in the previous reports have been summarized and area P ccePted as valid for this report also. A. Impact on the Natural Environment. ' 1..' Geology - Soils.*.Croville is located at the edge of the foothills of the Sierra Nevada mountains. The downtown area is ' located on the alluvial plain of the Feather River near where ' it emerges from its canyon to the foothill belts of the mountains. The suburbs extend both to the east into the ' foothills and to the west.onto the flats near Thermalito. The airport is located on the flats. The -soils at the airport site consist essentially of sands, sandy silts, and clayey silts. These soils are t compacted stable materials. Bedrock in the area consists of 'medasedimentary and imetavolcanic rocks typical of those normally present in the foothills of the Sierras. These are tfirm to hard depending on the depth of weathering and rates of erosion of the residual soils. ' All of Butte Coon incl the project site is County, including P J located in Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII. The last large earthquake occurred in August 1, 1975; registering a magnitude ' of about 6.O on the Richter Scale. Structural damage occurred throughout the community. ' 2. Water Pollution. Runoff is to the east and the south into ' the low areas developed by the excavation for the droville Dam ' REINARD W. BRANDLEY CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER - „ ' Page No 29 ' construction. This water is currently discharged into the property immediately east of Larkin Road and causes scene ' flooding and erosion in this area. With the developm-nt of the. airport the discharge should be channeled into controlled ' channels or pipes to eliminate the erosion and flooding in this area•. . Erosion will be controlled on the airport by controlling . grades, drainage, and reseeding. Any erosion that does occur will be trapped in sedimentation-basins and controlled. All erosion, dust, and runoff will be controlled during construction. Water pollution fremn the aircraft parking ramp and ' proposed Fixed Base Operator areas will be controlled by ' requiring proper disposition of all wastes fraQn aircraft maintenance. The discharge of pollutants from the aircraft ' operations will be slight because of the -light use of this area resulting from, the small number of aircraft that are based at . this- airport. The drainage of the apron will be designed such ' that all of the drainage frau the aircraft parking apron, the tee hangar areas the Fixed Base Cperator areas, and the ' automobile parking lots will be discharged from the site at one location. The design will be prepared such that oil/water ' . separators can be installed in the future if a contamination ' problem develops. 3. Water Supply. The City of oroville has a 12-inch water ' main constructed into the golf course clubhouse on the west REINARD W. BRANDLEY • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER Page No. 30 .side of'the airport and a'12-1inch water main along Oro Dam Boulevard (State Route 162). An 8 -inch water main has been carried into the camw- tial area south of Oro Dam Boulevard and west of Larkin Road. The development of the aircraft operations area and fixed base operations south of Runway 12-30.. and east of Runway 1-19 will require the extension of water'. service into this area.. 4. Sewage Treatment. Existing sewers exist along Oro Dam Boulevard and the northern portion of larkin Road. The development of the new aircraft operations area and Fixed Base Operator area will require the ultimate extension of sewer lines to this area. Due to the topography'of this area it will. probably be necessary to install a lift station and pressure sewer to carry the sewage to existing lines. 5. Air Pollution. Butte County is currently designatedas a "non-attairmient area for photo chemical oxidants" caused by the transportation of pollutants from the Sacramento/San Francisco Bay area, agriculture burning, pesticide and herbicide ' applications, and local traffic. The traffic at Oroville Airport and the number of based aircraft will increase even if no changes in layout and design are implemented. There will be some additional increase in business aircraft use resulting from the proposed development of this airport, but the effect on air quality caused by this increase in business aircraft traffic will be more than offset by moving all operations 2,000 feet south and locating the aprons near the center of the runways. REINARD W. BRANDLEY • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER ' Page. No. 31 ' Moving the air operations facilities south of Runway 12-30 should have a beneficial effect on air quality in,this area 1e, since the source of airport pollution will be moved away from ' the commercial industrial development along Oro Dam Boulevard which will disperse the air pollutants over a larger area. By ' moving the aircraft operations to the new development area, there will be a major decrease in aircraft taxiing operations, which will in turn considerably decrease the air pollution caused by aircraft operations since the major air pollution fraQn aircraft operation is attributed to taxiing operations. ' .fie moving of the aircraft operations south of Runway 12-30 will increase the distance that automobiles and trucks will. ' have to travel to reach the airport.. The increase in travel distance will be approximately 1 mile. The distance fran the ' intersection of Oro Dam Boulevard and Larkin Road to the " existing airport operating areas is approximately 1/2 mile; whereas, the distance to the center of the proposed new development will be approximately 1-1/2 miles. The net effect of moving.the airport operating facilities to the south of Runway 12-30 would be a slight improvement in air quality. - ' 6. Impact on Marine Life'in Adjacent Creeks and Rivers. The drainage from the current airport operations is to the low ' lying area to the east of Larkin Road and this will not change with the new development. The new development of the airport ' will be such as to improve the drainage to this area by better.. controlling the offsite drainage. The development of the new ', -REINARD W. BRANDLEY • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER ' Page No. 32 'propos air operations areas will also be such as to protect against.pollutants discharging into the runoff and providing for the installation of oil/water separators to control these ' discharges when required. It is, therefore, considered that there will be little or no additional impact on marine life in ' adjacent creeks and rivers. 7. Impact on Wild Life Refuge. The Thermalito Afterbay is immediately east and south of the airport and is designated as ' wild life refuge.. There will be no changes in operation of aircraft or other facilities in or aver this wild life refuge ' by the proposed new development other than lowering -the flight, path over the refuge for approaches and departures to Runway ' 1-19 by same 30 to 60 feet, depending on'cperation. Noise levels in these areas will not be significantly affected by' ' . moving the threshold to Runway 1 approximately 2,000 feet ' farther south. 8. Impact on Prime Agricultural Lards. There are no prime ' agricultural lands in the area affected by the airport. The land around the airport is used essentially for grazing ' purposes. The development of the runway extension to the . ' south, taxiway e)cpansion, and general aviation storage and operating facilities will remove some of this grazing land from' ' production. - B...Impact on Human Envirormient. ' 1. Relocation of Persons. The proposed development will not: ' cause the relocation•of any persons. There is currently only ' _ - REINARD W. BRANDLEY • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER ' . -. Page ge No. 33 one residence adjacent to the proposed land acquisition and development area which residence is located outside of the 57 CNEL contour for both existing and proposed development. 2. Comipatible Land Use. The current City of Oroville.Zoning ordinance adequately protects the airport from incompatible ' development. It is recommended that the current zoning be. maintained for'a distance of at least 4,000 feet on each side of Runway 1-19 and for a distance of 7,000 feet beyond the end. tof all runways. Within this area it is recommended that commercial, industrial, low density residential, open space, ' and golf.course type use be maintained. Additional airport compatible commercial land use is in this for land for recommended plan airport not required ' aviation uses. The cCMTercial uses of this land will increase vehicular traffic noise air,Po llution, and storm water runoff. ' but will improve the economic base of the airport and of the community. ' 3. Effect on Historic or Archeological Sites. There are no ' ]mown historic or archeological sites on the property which will be affected by the proposed development. 4. Effect on Public Parks. There are no public parks which will be affected by the proposed development. ' 5. Aesthetic and Visual Effects. There will be no significant change in the aesthetic or visual effect of the, ' area by the development of the relocated aircraft operation ' area and ivnway extension. ' _ REINNRD W. BRANDLEY • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER Page No. 34 The proposed dial development of excess airport property will have an aesthetic effect on the property in that ccuuercial' buildings will be constructed on property that is now vacant. Commercial development of these areas will fit well with the. existing and proposed commercial and airport -development of adjacent.lands. 6. Secondary Effects. The development of the proposed aircraft operating facilities will create a modest increase in. automobile -traffic on Larkin Road but this increased traffic on Larkin Road will not significantly affect the capacity of this road.It is anticipated that the development of the airport will provide sufficient improvement in capability for the airport to accamxDdate business jets and larger general aviation aircraft and that it will have a significant effect on attracting industrial growth to the area which will significantly inprove the economy of the area. 7. Noise Pollution. Detailed noise studies have been conducted by the Acoustical Consultant - Brown Buntin, Sacramento, California, The detailed Bron Buntin report is included as Appendix A. The noise analyses were conducted for two different conditions of runway location and two time periods. The plots of the CNEL noise contours are presented as follows: Plate No. 6 - FWnway 19 Threshold Displaced 1,000 Feet, 1989 Traffic. Plate No. 7 - Runway 19 Threshold Displaced 1,000 Feet, 2010 Traffic. REINARD W. BRANDLEY • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER i` l°1 r.r r \• \\e� It ° ..... .,q .� S 6 • .Q' i �• 6R) —�i _ � 1 `' � \\911• ,i��+r - \0!t`\/ \ ! 46Al � lo, tp 00, 001 le 0 C �\p, It CA sr, ,\ �i sr, , 10, 11101, \ f N rt �`\� •.,:fir': �' _��� ;,• i • . •�.o r .t �� o c doo 4�' IF 61 01 I .:y j of p' C bo CO / 1/^> l oe_ N. `• tJ �o n ♦n S f + . I j 1 \U� `Ir0 41 CZ O O �+ ' /-f-\ f J ori : e} /, JM1I;✓ `�.. Z 0s°t ~� 691, / �S Oo a� -< , D fel o --+ z •Q \ \ I ui OD V V O S 0 L61 10 m o �• e z Q o -� r, • coal Of e a O N - _ ,� C n D itJ N p J. , f •' 1\°Lll . ,'s s +v►0 `\ 1 ` (11 \\\ ON \ t' , o ♦ 01 2.°1:1 \ 11 Urr 56 qb Al .�� { /�♦ \Y "'tai ..\ _rl ,ry \� ` \ ,� ,1 � • ` .• � % ' 10 `\\� ♦ / - • L 001 \\ \ ``\\\ • �, // \\v F �IJf!°� 1 - \ e CIO 8 tr K. 10, o'1. ro, ' � vrf ;�vt ,/ r `•\r_ f r • ,`` rr •)►Ji .. 1, �' 0. ,. ` � L r r = 1+1 / • � (.. r NJ 4\ e �. .. S • O ^ _ \ J so • ao E•1 r/ b I A + �• , � � Q,�`� , .� •. •�`;_�R�` � N;' _ .;1 i r ` p O '�; /moi t ! C, C Z Zey1 • fG o G= / \ 05, dDe O n XT 30 O 4• o Z~ 1A 0 - r .•' 101'bog I a•MCI O Page No. 37 • ,.t Plate No. 8 - Runway 19 Threshold Displaced 2,180 Feet, • + 1989 Traffic. .• Plate No. 9 - Runway 19 Threshold Displaced 2,180.Feet, ' 2010 Traffic. In addition to determining the location of the CNEL ' contours, the,single event noise exposure was calculated for the location of the nearest residence located immediately west of thePosed ro property acquisition at the south end of the P ' proposed Runway 1-19.. CNEL is the descriptor used by the California Division of ' Aeronautics to describe the noise impact boundary of California ' airports. A CNEL value of 65 decibels (dB) is the noise impact criterion for noise -sensitive land uses, such as single and multi -family dwellings, trailer parks, and schools. Such uses are considered ccnipatible with airport/aircraft noise exposures . of 65 dB CBEL or less. The CNEL descriptor.is also eaployed by the California.office of Noise Control.(ONC) as a means of tspecifying ccupatible land uses for other ccnmunity noise ' sources. The oNC "Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of Noise Elements of the General Plan" indicate that. ' residential land uses are normally acceptable where the noise exposure is 60 dB CNEL or less, and that such uses are ' conditionally acceptable where the noise exposure does not ' exceed 70 dB CNEL. The table showing Land Use Compatibility for con -aunty noise environs is. shown in Figure No. 1 of ' Appendix A. Even for 2010 forecast traffic the 65 CNEL contour, which is, not shown on the drawings, is located entirely within - REINARD W. BRANDLEY • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER o ' ♦ Env m No,- m Ile 4w -04K \: � t+ • �� ♦ \\a� 37� ;\ate\\, 00, 60,001 10, cl 00, / • /\ lop 10, ol �. w �. ` dt�, s; j'I , •lam .\\ 1 � 0, \� ``� �t��,A• .'� `"r ;., r� ,.1�,.. -'O ' `i. ';. ;' - • \1 /moi �•. _ �'� � ', '� '• ,.•i.f .tom' \ c: ' ,, I�'\� ;' � �``\\\ ? � '' _.���� �� Std _ �, • • s��• ��, `` r ill �. ;� `✓ •`� r f � ` > � o � Ilk' - n a .,. / � •�.i \ 7•.. 47 • All oe D ;;( fir', •� t ,`' \\/' I b9 • Via. ® �' ® , C-. ' ,`. \ C `of JJ . pc / �6 / / All Z CIO n le � _ � � '� a �p. `� .o �I l ,,.fie 'i �•( Oe a `� l , ` 'L* , / y` 1 ^� \\ �' ��`�� •/� tS _ _ r( -0 a IT1 a s �% • .a1 i 0a 06 T N �� 0' ' 0 \ W lo' alp/• An bo' / t 601 ~ O Ott \\ / 66 100, f X. xx 6 40 t Cb `,�b ` , ,, t t • , / Al L"00,oll 1 F ® \ y OD OD' o, / VA M \ ,'fie � O - � i '� j � •..r• srl fl \ '`bf�-r RS�. .► w• 4 f c Mei , 1 .. i .•�'� °1 a� '/•, 1. `\ 1 Ito 06 10 LA ' r / • � v' J' �} � �" � f ` / \\ .\ t` ,•':rte, z p\\ ' C O ( �• j I I Z �j • / �. m o \ wCD r i �7 s t�• ` �! ' `10 ly AA ` kol 4K co i - - , ri\ O _ / ,l S _ Z '' ^^ O Te It t Iso 401 06 oor ice` i f � : ��• m o;u -q o > r N Db r u o " �� m o -n n Z.JJ~ m� tD D —� ice` i f � : ��• Page No. 40 airport property next to the runway. The 60 CNM contour is. located entirely within public property except for a small section north of Oro Dam Boulevard on Runway 1-19 centerline extended. Even the 55 CNEL contour is mostly located within public property. Some single event noise levels are fairly high at the existing residence located southwest of the southerly end of Runway 1-19 extended. There is insignificant single.event noise level differences between existing conditions at the airport and those that will exist with the proposed runway. 8. Air Pollution. Butte County is currently designated a "non -attainment area for photo chemical oxidants". The growth of aircraft traffic at the Oroville Airport will increase in approximately the same proportion even if the new proposed development is not accomplished. The only increase in operations by extending the runway and moving the general aviation facilities to the south side of Runway 12-30 will be a slight increase in business jets and lamer business general aviation aircraft which will be a small percentage of the total' operations on the airport. By moving aircraft operations to the south there will be a dispersal of air pollutants over a wider area which will tend to improve air quality. There will also be a major decrease in aircraft taxiing'requirements by moving operations to the south of Runway 12-30 which will decrease the air pollution caused by REINARD W. BRANDLEY • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER Page No: 41 ' taxiing of aircraft. There will be added automobile traffic since each trip will require approximately 1 mile additional travel in each direction for the operations in the new .' development area. 9. Considerations Relative to the Wet -Lands. The development of the proposed runway extension and relocated aircraft operation areas will have no significant effect on wet -lands. ' C. Adverse Effects That Cannot Be Avoided. There are same environmental effects resulting from the ' expansion and PPo-develoPt of the Oroville Municipal ' Airport which cannot be avoided.. These have been covered in the previous sections of this report. Summarized herewith arethe ' effects - neutral and adverse - of the proposed development. 1. Natural Environment ' There will be no significant destruction or displacement • gcu of wild life and/or marine life. There will be no detrimental effect on any lakes, streams, rivers, water conservation areas, swamps or ' creeks since none exist on the airport. There are no endangered species on the airport and therefore no impact on endangered species. ' There are no local, state, federal, or national recreation areas affected by the airport except for some ' minor noise increase in that portion of the Thermalito Afterbay along'the extended centerline of Runway 1-19. Consumption of undeveloped land. There will be same land on which the use will be changed. Some lands will be paved for the runway/taxiway extensions, some lands will be paved for tie down aprons, aircraft parking ' facilities, tee hangar development areas, and fixed based operator development. ' REINARD W. BRANDLEY • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER Page No. 42 ' There will be no impact on wild life refuge, water flow. ..area, or flood plain area and there will be no significant impact on the wild life breeding, nesting or feeding grounds. - 2. Human Environment The development of this airport will not have a dividing or disrupting influence on an established ecn minty or cutoff access.to recreation or shopping areas- ' There are no conflicting c=unity interests or controversies over the proposed development other than ' the noise and air quality impact of those people living in the area immediately adjoining the airport. The acquisition of land for the proposed development ' does not cause any derogation of historical sites listed on the National Register of Historic Sites. ' Any water pollution which may occur either during construction or during operation of the airport will be handled on the airport in such a manner as to minimize. ' pollution and contain the pollution levels within state standards. Air quality should not be affected by the development of ' these airport facilities since the location of the major. source of air pollutants will be moved away from other major sources and taxiing distances will`be decreased. There will be an increase in noise pollution, both permanent and temporary, as a result of the increase in ' the airport operations, however, most of the increase in air operations would occur even in the "do nothing" scenario and if Runway 1-19 is not.displaced to the south, then the area north of the airport which is the ' more likely area to develop will be exposed to more noise than it would be with the runway being displaced. See Plates No. 6 through 9. D. Evaluation of Alternates to the Master Plan., Three.alternates to the Master Plan have been evaluated. one is 1 the "do nothing" approach in which the airport operations area . ' remain where they are and the runways remain in their present condition. The second is to extend Runway 1-19 from its present ' threshold such as to produce a 6,000 -foot length of runway and allow ' REINARD W. BRANDLEV • - CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER ' .Page No. 43 the clear zone to extend north of Oro Dam Boulevard as much as.. possible.and leave aircraft operation facilities where they currently exist. The third was the reccmTended.master plan development in which the threshold to Runway 1-19 is relocated sufficiently to allow the clear zone to be entirely within public property which requires an approximate 2,200-foot relocation from the north physical end of the runway and moving the aircraft operations area.into the triangular area between the two runways. If Runway 1-19 is developed as a non-precision instrument runway, then for all three options the land south of the airport will have to be acquired in order to provide protection to the airport from noise claims, for use.in development of the airport, and for clear zone use. The noise in the major noise-sensitive areas is less for the master plan development than for either of the other two scenarios since the source of aircraft noise is moved approximately 1,200 feet south with this plan, moving the noise source from noise-sensitive land north of Oro Dam Boulevard to open space to the south. The master plan development is the only plan that provides adequate reserve for growth which has not been forecast. The master plan development provides more prime land for aviation commercial development than does the other plans in that it opens up the area in the southwest corner of Oro Dam Boulevard and Larkin Road for ultimate ccune tial use thus providing an economic base for development and operation of the airport. The future development of the airport land designated for future commercial use will have an environmental impact that cannot be avoided with growth REINARD W. BRANDLEY • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER Page No. 44 including loss of open space; increased noise, air and water pollution; and increased traffic. The extension of, Famway.19 to 6,000 feet will facilitate operations of the business jet aircraft and large twin general aviation aircraft into this airport which can have a significant inpact in attracting industrial growth to the Oroville area which in turn will improve.the.economy of 'the c=m1nity. If the threshold to Runway 19 is not displaced, then a major, portion of thenon precision int clear zone will be over private property north of Oro Dam Boulevard which property will either have to be acquired in fee. title or easements acquired, both' of which would be costly. E. Mitigating Measures Proposed to Minimize the Impact.' The paving of sections of this site resulting from the proposed development will increase the amount and rate of runoff. This will be controlled by development of adequate drainage facilities,both onsite and offsite, to.control the runoff frau the airport. Noise will be increased as a result of increased operations. The noise effect will -be held to a minimum by taking the following actions: By relocating the threshold to the south the noise source will be moved away from the noise -sensitive areas north of Oro Dam Boulevard to open land over the Thermalito Afterbay. The acquisition of land between the airport and the Thermalito Afterbay will preclude any development in the noise -sensitive areas in this section of the airport. . Controlling traffic patterns such that the traffic pattern_ for Runway 1-19 is held to the west of this runway and the traffic pattern for Runway 12-30 is held to the south of this runway will decrease the number of people subjected to noise from the airport. REINARD W. BRANDLEY • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER . Page No. 45 ' is designated the 'calm wind then the. If Runway 19 as runway, takeoff noise will be concentrated over the uninhabited area over the Thermalito.Afterbay. If midfield takeoffs on Runway 1-19 are prohibited for any aircraft with greater than 180 horsepower engines, the noise ; at the edge of the runway will be decreased. loss of agriculture land as a result of this development can be " ' . held to a minimum by encouraging the policy of continued. farming in. as much of the clear zone land of the airport as possible. ' F. Growth Inducing Impact of -the Proposed Action. The development of the Oraville Municipal Airport is proposed basically to serve.the existing and proposed general aviation and business aviation.in the area. The development of the airport itself can attract industrial development to the Oroville area because of good air access.that this facility will provide.' There is also some increased growth resulting from the development of the. area because of increased number of people that will be employed at the airport in flight operations including.sales, rentals, schools, maintenance, -.etc. The commercial development of excess airport land ' will increase the nimber.of people employed. on airport property. IV. TECHNICAL STUDIES A. Pavement Evaluation Studies . ' Detailed pavenent evaluation studies have been' conducted at the Oroville Municipal Airport, including non-destructive testing on the ' existing pavements,.soil borings, and soil testing on proposed future development areas. The results of these studies are . presented in detail in Appendix C to this report and summarized ' herewith. REINARD W. BRANDLEY . CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER ' Page No. 46. 1 The subgrade soils at.this airport range from silty. sands and I fine gravels to sandy silts to clayey silts to sandy silty clays... ays... The California Bearing Ratio of these subgrade soils ranges from 12 for the sandy silt materials to 8"for the clayey sandy-silts to 5 ' for the sandy silty clays. The sandy,silty clay soils are prevalent- throughout the site and are the critical subgrade soils for design. using the F.A.A. design methodology. ' The non-destructive tests conducted on the existing pavements showed the following modulus of elasticity and Poisson's Ratio ' " values for existing pavement, base,"and subgrade materials at ' average pavement temperatures: Modulus of Elasticity Poisson's Material psi Ratio ' A.C. Pavement 200,000 0.40 tAggregate Base 60,000 0.35 Subgrade 10,000 to 20,000 0.40 ' Using the test data developed in this study the following pavement sections are recommended for development of this Airport: " Gross Aircraft Weight - lb. Pavement Section - Inches Single Dual Asphaltic Aggregate Aggregate Total ' Gear Gear. Concrete Base Subbase Section 12.5 — 3` 6 4 13 20 35 3 7 6 16 ' 34: 50 4 9 7 210 " It is reccnmended that Runway 1-19 and•associated taxiways and ' portions of the apron be designed for a.50,000 pound"dual gear type aircraft which will accommodate the Gulfstream II and. all other ' business jets. R INARD W. BRANOLEY • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER E Co sup G Page No. 47 ' R mway 12-30 and associated taxiways should be designed .for single gear aircraft with a gross.aircraft weight of.20,000 pounds to acconmiodate small twins. Those portions of the tie down apron and tee hangar area e reserved for small aircraft should be designed for single gear ' aircraft with a gross aircraft weight of 12,500 pounds.. B. Topoaraphic Surveys Topographical surveys of the portion of the.airport on which ' development is proposed have been conpleted using aerial survey. methodology. Cartwright Aerial Surveys were the consultants for . this phase, of the work. The topographic surveys have been presented .. separate from this.report. These surveys were used to prepare.the Preliminary Engineering design work and cost estimates. C. Overall Drainage Plan Drainage studies conducted for the existing facilities show that ' all runoff is carried by pipes and ditches to the' low lying ground _ to the east and southeast across Larkin Road. There are reports of ' some flooding and erosion -'caused by this drainage outfall in areas ' immediately east of Iarkin Road. Preliminary engineering studies prepared show that all drainage. from the proposed development will continue to discharge into the same low lying areas located. east and southeast of the airport. The ' drainage will still be carried by pipes and ditches. Erosion and , ' flooding problems in the area east of Iarkin Road will be corrected . by offsite drainage structure. development. ' RE INARD W. BRANDLEY • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER ' Page No. 48. ' V. AIRPORT PLANS Asa result of this study,. a series ofairport plans have been prepared. These plans are presented separately and . include the following: ' Sheet No. 1 - Airport -layout -Plan Sheet No. 2 -.Terminal Area Layout Plan ' Sheet No.3 - Airport Zoning Plan Sheet No. 4 - Approach Profile - Runway 1-19 Sheet No.' 5 Approach Profile - Runway 12-30 ' A. Airport Layout Plan Sheet No. 1 The'Airport Layout Plan shows the proposed development, tincluding reserve and unanticipated growth through the year 2010. . Runway 12-30 is shown as a short visual general aviation runway with displaced or relocated thresholds such that the clear zone for ' Runway 12 is.entirely within public property and the approach surface for Runway. 30. 'provides necessary clearances aver Larkin ' Road. The land to the east_of Larkin Road drops off so rapidly that the approach surface is sufficiently high over the land that it will. not cause any problems or significant height restrictions in this ' area. Runway 12-30 will be used only by the light single engine and twin engine aircraft, and the pavement will be. designed fora gross ' aircraft weight of 20,000 pounds for single gear aircraft. The.' current runway is 150 feet wide, and runway edge lights have been installed 10 feet beyond the 150 -foot width. Runway 12-30 is being overlaid in the stormier of 1990 to a width of 100 feet) but uniform tapers are being constructed to the existing pavement and the. ' outside edges of'the pavement will be slurry sealed. The REINARD W. BRANDLEY • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER Page No. .49 . ' feet but the strengthened section of this.runway will be 100 wide, ' total. 150 -foot width will be usable. Runway 1-19 will be ' constructed to a width of 100. feet and.a. ' total length of 6,000 feet. The threshold to Runway 19.will.be relocated approximately 2,200 feet to. the south from the north ' physical end of pavement such that the 34:1 non -precision instrument clear zone will be located entirely within public property.. This '. will require. an extension of 2;180 feet to the south. This runway, ' when finally constructed, will be 100 feet wide by 6,000 feet long. The current runway.has a sag in the middle and is high.on both ' ends., The gradient of each segment is approximately one percent. ' When the runwayis extended, the existing runway will'be reconstructed from the depressed area to decrease this gradient and ' provide a better profile for the runway. The extension of the . runway will require acquisition of land to the south of the airport and the non-precision.approach clear zone will also require acquisition of additional land. If the land shown on the Airport ' layout Plan is acquired, then the City will own all of the lauxi. ' along the runway alignment between the airport and the Thermalito Afterbay. A south departure on Runway 19 will then be over ' City -owned property and public -owned property. . Once the threshold to Runway 19 is relocated, then the existing aircraft tie down and tee hangar area will be located in an area which will be inconvenient for operation of Runway 1-19, and a large portion of this apron will . be within' the clear zone. There is also insufficient'area available for forecast expansion and reserve for REINARD WD • -. . BRAN CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER ' Page No. 50 1 reccaunended the unknown expansion. It is., therefore, that the. aircraft operational areas be relocated at this airport to the. triangular area between the two runways, which is south of Runway ' 12-30 and east of.lun y 1-19. It is not anticipated that the aircraft operations will-be transferred imTediately to this area, but the be that ' that existing.facilities will used and any-expansion ' required be in the proposed new location. The transfer of aircraft . activities to the new area willf no doubt be. dual and take' lace � P ' over several years: Parallel taxiways will be required for both runways located on ' the airport operation side of the runways. Runway 1-19 has the ' .capability of becoming a non-precision instrument runway and the parallel taxiway has been established at a centerline distance of .. 400 .feet to the east of the 'runway.. This taxiway will be 50 feet wide. Four cross taxiways. are planned to connect, the parallel ' taxiway to Runway 1-19. An aircraft holding apron is planned for each end of.the runway. t.. The parallel taxiwaytoserve Runway 12-30.will be located 300. feet south of Runway 12-30, will be 40 feet wide, and there will be four connecting taxiways between the parallel taxiway and Runway ' 12-30. Connecting.taxiways are planned.to interconnect the two. runway/taxiway systems and to connect the proposed aircraft parking apron and tee hangar areas to the parallel taxiways. Runway 12-30 and'.associated taxiways will be used only for light ' aircraft .aril the pavements will be designed fora gross .weight of REINARD W. BRANDLEY .' • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER . Page No. 51 ' Runway 1-19 and 20,000 pounds on a single gear.type aircraft.: associated taxiways will be the main instrument runway and .will be'. used for all of the business 7 'et type . aircraft and large general ' aviation aircraft. The pavement for this runway complex should be .. designed to acoommodate gross aircraft weight of 35,000 pounds for ' single gear aircraft and 50,000 pounds for dual;gear.aircraft., The 50,000 --pound capacity is required to accommodate the Gulfstream tbusiness jets which are now. using this airport and will be adequate 1 for occasional use by dual gear aircraft weighing.as much as 60,000 . pounds. ' Aircraft parking apron, tee hangar development areas, and Fixed . Base Operator plots have been reserved adjacent to the parallel taxiways in the triangular area between the two runways.. Even. ' though the total.forecast for based aircraft for the year 2010 is 6. . 100 aircraft and the forecast total requirement allowing room for ' transient parking is no more than 150 aircraft, provision has been made in the plan for aircraft tie down apron capable of storing 300 �.. f aircraft and tee hangar area capable.of,storing 72 aircraft. In ' addition, an area has.been reserved for aircraft tie dowm expansion and/or corporate hangar development to the south of the proposed.: ' aircraft tie down apron and an area has been reserved for tee hangar expansion to the east of the.tee hangar.area to accon nodate an ' additional 40 units. These reserve areas should be held until such ' time as future demand indicates that there is no need for this ,$ ` development area at the Oroville Airport, which probably will be 10 ;. ' to 20 years 'from. now. REINARD W. BRANDLEY - CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER' Page No. 52 ' Area has been east the tie down for . reserved of aircraft apron three Fixed Base.Cperator plots and a section has been set aside for . a -future Air Traffic Control Tower. A helicopter - P landing Pad and storage area has been shown to the south of the aircraft tie down apron. . tFuel is currently dispersed to aircraft from a fuel. island that is. equipped with underground tanks. An area has been reserved adjacent to Larkin Road and south of the.proposed new access road to the operational areas on the airport for a new fuel farm. -Because of the problems with fuel leakage and contamination of ground water ' from underground. tanks it is-reccnmvnded that all new tanks in the new fuel farm be located above ground. Minimum initial fuel tankage.. ' should consist of a.10,000 -gallon tank for jet fuel. and a 10,000 -gallon tank for 100 octane aviation New access'roads and parking lots' have. been provided on this ' plan to serve the aircraft tie down, tee hangar areas, 'and FBO Plots. This road is served-fram Larkin Road, which in turn ties into State Highway 162. With the small number of based aircraft forecast for this airport, the vehicular traffic will be�light and will not. significantly impact the capacity of. larkin Road or State. Highway 162.-, After all aviation uses have been provided and major areas: ' reserved for possible future expansion, there are still fairly extensive areas of.undeveloped land available on the airport. At the west.side of the airport Table.Mountain Golf Course is in - ' F operation and is a good compatible use adjacent to the airport. It REINARD W. BRANDLEY . CONSULTI NG, AIRPORT ENGINEER Page No. 53 'course in its is recommended that this golf remain operation at ' current location. There are approximately 54,acres of-land south of e golf course and west of Runwa 1-19 which are not for th g y required '. airport development. This land does not have ready access to public roads, and golf course expansion in.this area would be a.good. ' compatible land. use for the airport. ' on the east side of Runway 1-19 between Taxiway A and Larkin Road and south of the aircraft tie down.area there is a fairly �, .1 E ' segffmt of land which can be readily used for aviation calmercial development. This land could have ready access to the airfield and ' can be easily served from Larkin Road.. There, is excess land within the proposed loop road which is not required for automobile parking 'between which can also be used for aviation pial: The land Larkin Road and the proposed loop road is also available for CXXMnerCial development, This land has good access off from Larkin . ' Road. once the general aviation operation areas are moved frm the north side of Runway 12-30 to the new.proposed location, then the. ' area occupied by these facilities, together with that land to the ' east of existing airport facilities, can also be used for aviation oammercial use extending the :current commercial development in the .southwest corner .of State Higf�way 162 and Larkin Road. B. Terminal Area Layout Plan - Sheet No. 2 The Terminal Area Layout Plan'is.a larger scale drawing of the general aviation development area showing the proposed and reserve areas for aviation development. on this drawing recouunended construction staging has also been indicated. 1 REINARO W..BRANDLEY' • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER, Page No. 54 . ' Map No.`3 C. Airport.Zoning - Sheet Runway 1=19 is ,planned as a future non -precision instrument runway.YCurrently, there is a non -directional beacon located at the ' airport and F.A.A. is now preparing approach procedures for a non -directional beacon approach to this airport. There is currently, ' a VOR approach -to the airport from the Marysville VOR. The, ...non -directional beacon approach will be to Runway 1. lower mini=ms can be obtained for.Runway l because of the terrain. South Table ' Mountain to the north limits the approach minim�mtis fora Runway 19 approach. ' The imaginary surfaces surrounding the airport.as set forth in the Federal Aviation Administration Federal Air Regulations Part'77 ' are superimposed on a U.S.G.S..quad sheet in the form of contours. ' These imaginary surfaces are depicted on the Airport Zoning Map, Sheet No. 3 -for non -precision approaches to both ends of Runway 1-19 ' and visual approaches to Runways 12 and 30. The approaches to Runways 1 and 19 are 34:1 and the approaches to.Runways 12 and 30: ' are 20:1. ' The only.iteTns penetrating these imaginary surfaces are in the upper portion -of Sugar Loaf Peak located to the northwest of the ' airport.,.approximately 3 miles from the airport reference point.: A model Height Limit Zoning Ordinance has been prepared and is . included as Appendix B to this report.. It is recommended that this Zoning Ordinance be adopted by both the City of. Oroville and the County of Butte to protect the airport. REINARD W. BRANDLEV • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER ' Page No. 55 ' D. Approach Profile - Runway 1-19 (Non -Precision Approach - 3/4 Mile Visibility) --Sheet No. 4 ' Approaches profiles have been prepared for Runway 1-19:for the condition of a non -precision approach with 3/4-mile;visibility limits. This profile is shown on Sheet No. 4. There are no ' objects penetrating the approaches to this runway. E. Approach Profile - Runway 12-30 (Visual Runway) - Sheet No. 5 ' The approach profiles for the general aviation Runway 12-30 are. shown on Sheet No. 5. Standard VFR 20:1 approach slopes are. these shown. There are no objects which penetrate any of approach .. ' surfaces. F. Airport Access Plan ' A separate Airport Access Plan has not been prepared, but access is'shown on the Airport Layout Plan, Sheet No. 1. Acce_ss.to ' the new airport development will be from State Highway 162 by way-). ' of Larkin Road. The airport access road will come off from Larkin Road and a loop road will be constricted withautomobileparking and aviation conmiercial located within the loop. VI. FINANCIAL PIAN 'A. Schedules and Cost Estimates of Proposed Development ' Development cost estimates, have been prepared for different designconcepts considered practical for the development of the P Oroville Municipal Airport. The results of these studies are presented in Appendix D to this report. �. Based on.these estimates and the studies conducted in the ' preparation of this Master Plan for the Oroville Municipal Airport the recommended airfield configuration has evolved and is as shown REINARD W. BRANDLEY • CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER Page No. 56 on the Airport layout Plan. The estimated development costs showing total costs, F.A.A. eligible costs, potential F.A.A. participation and local participation are summarized in Table No. 2 for this plan. It is not anticipated that the entire work shown in Table No. 2 would be constructed at one time. The first construction should be the development of Runway.1-19 and associated taxiways. Aircraft operations and storage would remain at its present location on the. north side of.Ruhway 12-30. As funding becomes available and the need for expansion of aircraft°storage or FBO facilities develops then the proposed new apron, access road and tee hangar area should be developed. The.water.and sewer line extensions along Larkin Road will be required for future planned development along. larkin Road and the costs'can be shared. F.A.A.will not participate in the cost of sewer and water lines or for the cost of the construction of tee hangars.or maintenance hangars. All other work is eligible for Federal funding or'State of California funding in the amount of 90% of the total cost of eligible items. B. Financial and Economic Feasibility All work proposed in the Master Plan except the water and sewer. lines and the tee hangar construction are eligible for a'Federal or. State grant in the amount of 90% of all eligible costs. A preapplication has -already been submitted to the Federal Aviation..,'.. Administration to cover the following work. REINARD W. BRANDLEY • CONSULTING AIRPGRr ENGINEER TABLE NO. 2 ----------- OROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT OROVILLE, BUTTE COUNTY, CA LIFORNIA SUMMARIZATION OF DEVELOPMENT COSTS COSTS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ENGINEERING ITEM CONSTRUCTION AND TOTAL F.A.A. F.A.1A. LOCAL NUMBER ITEMS COST CONT-INGENCIES PRO.JECT ELGIBILE - PARTICIPATION PARTICIPATI I ON ------------------------------------ ------------- : -------------- --------------- ----------- --------------- --------------- Runway 1-19 and Associated Taxiways $6,607,314.00 $1,651,828.00 $8,25.9,142.00 $8,259,142.00. $7,833,228.00 i825,914.00 (D z 2 'Runway 12-30 Taxiway 1,031,091.00 257,773.00 1,288,864.00 1,288,864.00 1,159,978.00 U8,886.00 0 Ln 3 Tie Down Apron (75 Aircraft) 607,950.00 151,863.00 759,813.00 759,813.00. 683,832.00, 75,981.00 4 Tee,Hangar Development (18 Units) 494,000.00 18,500.00 617,500.00 347,500.00 312,750.00 304,750.00 5 Access Road (First Stage) 248,000.00 62,000.00 310,000.00 310,000.00 279,000.00 31,000.00 6 Sewer and Water Services 620,000.00 155,000.00 775,000.00 0-00.. 0.00 775,000.00 7 Land Acquisition 152,000.0.0 38,000.00 190,000-00 -------------- -------------- --------------- 190,000.90 --------------- .1.71,000.00 --------------- 19,000.00 ----------- TOTAL t9,760,355.00 $2,439,964.00 $12,200,319.00 $11,155,319.00 $10,439,188wOO $2,160,531.00. NOTES: 1. Master plan option used with threshold of Runway 19 displaced 2,180 feet. 2. Runway 1-19 - 100, wide x 6,000, long. 3. Taxiways for Runway 12 -30 constructed. 4. First Stage Apron (75 aircraft) constructed. 5. Firs.t Stage Tee Hangars (18 units) constructed. 6.- First Stage Road constructed. 7. �ircraft Class C & D used. Triat NO - 2 -Esti--tas u- s c�d- - APPENDIX A 5150,Sunrise Blvd., Suite D-3 Fair Oaks, CA 95628 9 (916) 961-5822 a Fax: (916) 961-6418 807. West Oak Aue., Suite B Visalia, CA 93291 9 (209) 627-4923 Fax: (209) 627-6284 - INTRODUCTION: Brown -Bunt in. Associates,, Inc. (BBA) has completed -an a n a 1 y s i s of -aircraft/airport operat_ions. and. related noise 1 evel s for the Or6ville Municipal Airport:to prepare Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)* noise exposure maps for year -1989 and year 2010 airport operating conditions. The mapsare to'be.incorporated into the Airport Master Plan. being.prepared for the airport by Reinard W. Brandley. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and BBA noise level file -data were used as the basis for preparing A predictive aircraft noise model. based on Version *3.9 of the Feder -al Av*i a*tion Administration Int'egrated No.ise -Model JINM) (Reference 1). Existing and projected -data for aircraft activity, airc�aft- fleet -mix and airport configuration used in the noise modeling process were .obtained from Reinard:W. Brandley. *The'following report provides a summary of the data, methods -and assumptions used in preparing'the CNEL noise exposure maps.. The noise descriptors used in this analysis are the Community Noise Equivalent - Level (CNEL), the Sound Exposure Level (SEL) and the maximum A-weighted'noise level due to a single aircraft noise event (Lmax). The CNEL descriptor is a method of averaging- s1ngle event noise levels over a typical 24-hour day, applying penalties to noise events occurring during evening (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) and nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) hours.., CNEL.is usually defined in terms of average annual conditions, so that -the CNEL measured on a given day may be either less than or greater'than the annual average.. CNEL is the descripto'r used by the California Division of Aeronautics to .describe the noise impact.boundary of California airports. A CNEL value of 65 - decibels (dB) is the.noise Ampact criterion for.noise-sensiti.ve land uses, such as s'ingle and multi-famil-y dwellings, trailer' parks, � and school.s.. 'Such - uses are considered compatible- with airport/aircraft noise exposures of 65 dB. CNEL or less. The CNEL,descri,ptor is* also employed by the California Office of Noise Control (ONC)''as a means of specifying compatible land uses for other community noise sources. The'ONC "Guidelines for.the*� Preparation and Content, of Noise Elements -of the General Plan'! indicate that residential land uses are normally acceptable.where the noise exposure is 60. dB CNEL or -less, and that - such uses are conditionally acceptable where the noise exposur�-does not exceed 70 -dB CNEL (See Figure'l). For explanation of these term s, see Appendix -1: Acoustical Terminology". The Federal AviationAdministration (FAA) uses a -descriptor called the Day-, Night Average Level (,Ldn)..to describe I and use compat i b i 1 i ty with,respect to. - aircraft noise exposures. Like CNEL,' the, L descriptor is a method of. dn averaging. aircraft noise'levels over an annual average 24-hour period, except that the 'evening 'period defined by CNEL i s. included.into.the daytime hours,.- with.no penalties assigned to those,hburs..' The FAA'airport/aircraft noise .65 dB Ldn- compatibility.criterion for resident.ial land uses is .-The maximum A -weighted noise level assoc.iated with a given noise event' -(L max) is expressed.in.terms of deci.bels,'A-weighted (dBA). The Lmax is useful as. an index of the relative noisiness of a given event, e'asily-compared to other - noise sources', such' as passing trucks, lawnmower.s, or ordinary conversation. Figure I.illustrates typical maxi.mum A -weighted nojse levels of several community noise 'sources., The imp ortante of the Lmax valu esAescribed'in this report to persons exposed t o noise from aircraft operation's can be judged by comparison.to Figure 2. For example,, an Lmax exceeding 60. dBA could be expected to interfere with speech. Indoors, maximum noise levels.exceeding 45 to 50 dBA could result in ..sleep disturbance. Levels of*80 to 90 dBA are comparable.to the noise -of a passing truck.at a distance of about,'50 feet. Lmax is,used in this analysis to relate 'noise level experienced during a single'aircraft operation. to noise'levels an individual may observe using a hand-held, sound. level,meter.- Estimated Lmax values for. ci-vil aircraft at. reference'measurement locations have been reported by the FAA in Advisory Circular: 36-3E. The Sound Exposur-e Level is.�a measure of the total. noise level accumulated during*a noise event. D.efi ned% as the level of' -the time -integrated, A -weighted sound pressure 1 evel for a given time interval, based upon a reference of duration,of one second, the SEL.represe'nts the total noise,energy of a noise event as though.it occurred in a ohe-second,period. For noise .,events longer than one.second,-the SEL is a higher level than the L For. max* typical jet aircraft takeoffs and landings in the near vicinity of -airports, the.SEL would be 5..dB to 10 d9 higher than theA for:a given noise event'. max Noi se I eve'l data for.aircraft operating.,at the Airport were primarily obtained from the data base prepared by the. Federal Aviation Admilistration for use with the Integrated Noise Model. *The current data ba * se con.tains.generali'zed �n'oise level and operational characteristics for 81'different aircraft types and variations, and reflects much of the current aircraft fleet, -The majority of the aircraft cited in the INM data base are jet aircraft, with few entries -available for propeller -driven aircraft. The relative. lack of, representative propeller' -driven aircraft types posed particular concerns at Oroville Municipal Airport, where the projected fleet contains a vari-ety of single- and twin -engine aircraft.. The INK data ba5e now contains three. single-engine and -two twii-n-engine propel ler-driven aircraft types. - Aircraft operations at Oroville Municipal Airport were divided into these and other categories. A correction was made to the INM -data for. twin piston engine propeller -driven aircraft to account for the noise emission characteristics of light twins.used at the Oroville Airport. .Helicopter noise level and flight profile data are' not included in the INM data,base, but may be obtained from�other published data. The helicopter fleet at Oroville Municipal Airport is expected to include helfcopters such as the Bell 206L. Noise emission and,flight'profile data developed.by the FAA for that aircraft (Reference 2).were used a s inputs to the INM to conservatively represent helicopter noise exposure at -the airport. For the year .1989 and year 2010 sce narios, two different.ru'nway configurations were used. The "existing" 01-19 runway configuration was assumed to extend - from STA 110+0 to STA 162+75. The "future" 'configuration for runway 01-19 was assumed to extend from STA 88+20 to -STA 148+20. AIRPORT OPERATIONS: Airport operational -'factors' which can significantly' affect overall noise levels as described by CNEL include the total number of operations, aircraft fleet mix and the time of day when aircraft operations occur. Table I summarizes the number and distribution of annual average daily operations by aircraft type for Oroville-Municipal Airport.for existing and future conditions, based upon analyses of airport activity prepared by Reinard W. y Brandley.... Runway utilization factors sign if icantly' influence noise. levels as'defined by. CNEL.. Projected operations at Oroville Mu.nic'ipal Airport were assumed to odcur'.15%,o.n runways 01, or 12, 'and- 85,% on.runways 19 or 30. Pattern operations we're assumed to occur for 20% of.all single-engine propeller -driven aircraft. Use of -runway 12-30*was assumed to be limited, t o -single-engine propeller-driven,aircraft. Aircraft flight tracks were described from data provided -by Reinard W. Brandley. The generalized flight tracks were used- in the noise modeling process to describe -areas with a concentration of aircraft overflights. TABLE I AIRCRAFT'OPERATION ASSUMPTIONS Annual Average Day: 1989 and 2010 Oroville Municipal Airport 1989 2010 % Daily Operations Aircraft Type Total Total Day Evening - Night Single Engine Prop 156.327 179.093 80 18 2 Twin Engine Prop: Piston 8.200 13.668 90' Twin Engine: Turboprop .0.820 90 9 Helicopter 0.142 0.547 90 9 Business Jet 0.983 1.869 90 9 Military 0.273 0.273 90 .9 PREPARATION OF CNEL NOISE EXPOSURE MAPS: :The Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 3.9.was used to prepare CNEL noise exposure maps for the airport based upon the aircraft noise level and airport operational factorsdescribed in the previous sections. The INM was developed for the FAA,- and represents the. federal ly4anctioned and preferred method for analyzing a1rcraft/airport noise -exposure. Version 3.9 is the., most recent version,of the INM available, and incorporates an updated data base of. aircraft. performance parameters And noise levels. ,The INM cal*-C'ulates aircraft noise -exposure by mathematically tombi,ning.. -aircraft.ndise'levels and airport operational factors at a series of points within a cartesian coordinate system,which defines the location of airport -runways and aircraft flight tracks. User,'inputs to the INM'.include. the fol I owi fig: a. Airport -altitude and mean temperature* b. Runway configuration c. Aircraft flight track definition d. Aircraft stage length e. Aircraft departure and approach profiles Aircraft traffic volume and fleet mix g. Flight track utilization -by aircraft types The' IN data base includes aircraft performance parameters and noise level data for 81 commercial, military and.general aviation aircraft classes. - When' the user specifies a particular aircraft -class from the' INM data base, the model automatically provides the necessary inputs. concerning aircraft power settingsi speed, departure profile and noise levels. For Oroville Municipal Airport, additional inputs were developed from FAA file data to represent helicopter operations. After the model had been prepared for the aircraft classes described in Table 1, input files containing the number of. operations by aircraft class, time of day and flight track were prepared for the descr-ibed levels of airport activity. --A separate input file was prepared for each year -and runway configuration. CNEL contours prepared from these inputs have been plotted.on mylar overlays for superimposing on maps of the area surrounding the airport. The noise contours prepared by this ttudy are included in the main body -of the Master Plan Report. as Plates 6, 7, 8, and 9. Table II describes the noise impact of Oroville Municipal Airport in terms'of the'approximate land area contained within each of the.CNEL contour values. of.- 55.to 65 dB. TABLE I I APPROXIMATE LAND AREA (SQUARE MILES.). WITHIN CMEL CONTOURS Oroville Municipal Airport* CMEL Contour Year Runway 55 dB .60 dB. 65 dB 1989 Existing .0.57 0..20 0.08 1989 'Future. 0.58 0.21 0.08 2010 Future 1.53 0.48 0.18 2010 .-Future 1.53 '0. 51 0.19 The Integrated. Noise Model calculates CNEL values at selected grid points using the following formula: CNEL SEL + 10 log Neq -49.4, dB;,where: SEL is the mean Sound Exposure -Level predicted' for each aircraft type, Neq is the number 'of daytime aircraft.operations plus 3 times the number of. evening, operations. and 10 times the number of nighttime operations, and 49.4 is 10 times the logarithm of the number of seconds in a 24-hourday.* The-CNEL at a given location is the sum of the CNEL contributions by.each of the aircraft -operations affecting that site. - Thus the INM accounts for the noise -level produced by individual overflights of each aircraft type, the number of overflights.experi.enced and.the time of day in which the overf-lights.. occur. Table III shows the predicted SEL values, by scenario, for takeoffs by different aircraft types at the nearest residence, located immediately west of the future land acquistion area at the south end of runway 01-19.. Table IV shows the predicted CNEL values at the same residence. TABLE I I. PREDICTED SINGLE EVENT NOISE LEVELS OF DIFFERENT AIRCRAFT TYPES AT NEAREST RESIDENCE:.YEARS 1989 AND 2010 Predicted SEL, dB Aircraft Type Existing Runway Future Runway G-2 110.7 110.5 Citation 111 95.2 95..8 Citation I 1 Other Jets . 86.16 105.1.1 87.0 .105.2 King Air 79.5 79.4 Small Twin 83'.4 83.5 - Single 81.7 �81.6 Helicopter 78.7 78.9 Military. 83.4 83.5 TABLE IV PREDICTED CNEL VALUES AT.NkARBY RESIDENCE Year Runway CNEL, dB 1989 Existing 53.0, 1989 .'Future 53.3 2010 Existing, 57.2 2010 Future 57.7 Respectfully submitted, Jim Buntin Vice President INTERPRETATION NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included ir� the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning -will normally suffice. NORMALLY UNACCEP ABLE New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. CONSIDERATIONS IN DETERMINATION COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LAND USE CATEGORY Ldn OR CNEL, clB 1 55 60 65 70 75 80 RESIDENTIAL — LOW DENSITY !MEMOS= I . SINGLE FAMILY, DUPLEX, MENNIVENNIVEMNIM MOBILE HOMES C. SUITABLE INTERIOR ENVIRONMENTS RESIDENTIAL MULTI. FAMILY One objective of locating residential units relative to a known noise source is to maintain a suitable Inierior noise environment at no SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, greater thin 45 dB CNEL of Ldn. This requirement, coupled with CHURCHES, HOSPITALS, the measured or calculated noise reduction performance of the type NURSING HOMES of structure under consideration, should govern the minimum accept - AUDITORIUMS, CONCERT MEN V//////, rz////, HALLS, AMPHITHEATRES SPORTS ARENA, OUTDOOR SPECTATOR SPORTS D. ACCEPTABLE OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTS PLAYGROUNDS, NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS Another consideration, which in some communities Is an overriding GOLF COURSES, RIDING factor, is the desire for an acceptable outdoor noise environment. to aircraft no 'se . In order to facilitate the purposes of the Act, one of STABLES, WATER RECREATION, CEMETERIES =mom OFFICE BUILDINGS, BUSINESS acceptable" for' that land use category, may be appropriate. COMMERCIAL AND. PROFESSIONAL INDUSTRIAL, MANUFACTURING UTILITIES, AGRICULTURE r1111114 INTERPRETATION NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included ir� the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning -will normally suffice. NORMALLY UNACCEP ABLE New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. CONSIDERATIONS IN DETERMINATION OF NOISE—COMPATIBLE LAND. USE A. NORMALIZED NOISE EXPOSURE INFORMATION DESIRED munity Noise Exposure Areas greater thin 65 dB should be discour. aged and considered located wi thin hormally unacceptable areas. Where sufficient data exists, evaluate land use suitability with respect I . to a "normalized" value of CNEL or Ldn. Normaliz,-d values are ob ta ined by adding or, subtracting the constants described in Table 1 C. SUITABLE INTERIOR ENVIRONMENTS to the measured or calculated value of CNEL or Ldn- One objective of locating residential units relative to a known noise source is to maintain a suitable Inierior noise environment at no U. NOISE SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS greater thin 45 dB CNEL of Ldn. This requirement, coupled with the measured or calculated noise reduction performance of the type The land use -noise compatibility recommendat Ions should be viewed of structure under consideration, should govern the minimum accept - in relation to the specific source of the noise. For example, aircraft able distance to a noise source. and railroad noise is normally made tip of higher single noise events, than auto traffic but occurs less frequently. Therefore, clifferen ' t sources yielding the same composite noise exposure do not necessarily D. ACCEPTABLE OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTS create the same noise environment. The State Aeronautics Act uses 65 dB CNEL as the criterion which airports must eventually meet -to Another consideration, which in some communities Is an overriding protect existi7g residential communities from unacceptable exposure factor, is the desire for an acceptable outdoor noise environment. to aircraft no 'se . In order to facilitate the purposes of the Act, one of When this is the case, more restrictive standards for land use com which is to'cricourage land uses compatible wiiI. the 65 dB CNEL patibility, typically below the maximum considered " normally criterion wherever possible, and in order to facilitate the ability of acceptable" for' that land use category, may be appropriate. airports to comply with the Act, residential uses located in Com- FIGURE 2 -EXAMPLES,OF NOISE LEVELS NOISE SOU- RCE NOISE LEVEL SUBJECTIVE DESCRIPTION AMPLIFIED ROCKIN ROLL BAND b" 120 dB(A) mill COMMERCIAL JET TAKEOFF AT.200 FEET DEAFENING 100 dB(A) iffi 'BUSY URBAN STREET VERY LOUD 80 dB(A) FREEWAY TRAFFIC AT 50 FEET LOUD NOR14AL CONVERSATION AT 6 FEET 60 dB(A) N-01 TYPICAL OFFICE.(INTERIOR) MODERATE SOFT RADIO MUSIC 40 dB(A) !oil TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL (IWTERIOR) FAINT TYPICAL WHISPER AT 6 FEET 20 CIB(A) HIM HUMAN BREATHING I" VERY FAINT 0 dB(A) 00 El., B A N APPENbIX ACOUSTICAL.TERMINOLOGY AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL: The composite of noise from all sources near and f ar.. In this context, the ambient noise level constitutes, the normal or-existing'level of environmental noise at a given location. CNEL: -Community Noise Equivalent -Level. The average equivalent sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of approximately five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and ten decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p�m. DECIBEL, dB:' A unit for describing the -amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the- base -10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound 'measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals.-(?O micronewtons per square meter). Ldn: Day -Night Average Sound Level. The average equivalen t sound -level during a 24-hour day,.obtained after: addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night 10:00 p..m. and before 7:00 a..m.. Leq: Equivalent'So und..Level. The sound 'level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample,period. Le is typically computed over. i 1, 8 and 24-hour sample p5riods. NOTE: CkL and L represent daily levels of noise-expos'ure averaged on n an annual �asis, while Leq-represents the average noise exp'osure - shorter time,period, typically one hour. Lmax: The maximum sound level recorded during a noise event. Ln: The- sound. level exceeded"n" percent of the'time during a sample interval L equal.s the level I(TgO, exceeded 10 percent of the time L509 etc.) BBA N 1-2 ACOUSTICAL TERMINOLOGY NOISE -EXPOSURE CONTOURS: Lines drawn ab . out a noise source indicating constant. �.levels of,noise exposure. CNEL and Ld contours. are frequently 6tilized to describe communily exposure,to noise. SEL or SENEL: Sound. Exposure Level.or Single 1vent Noise Exposure Level. The level of noise accumulated,during i single -- noise event, such *as an aircraft overfl.ight, with reference to a duration of one second.. More specifically, it is the time -integrated A -weighted squared sound level -for a -stated time interval or event, based on a reference pressure of 20. micropascals and a.reference' duration of one second. SOUND LEVEL: The sound pressure level in. decibels as measured on a sound level meter us-ing the.A-weighting filter -weighting, filter de-emphasizes the network. -The A" ve ry low and very hi.gh frequency components of the -a manner similar to the response of the human sound in ear -and gives good co.rrel,ation wi th subjective reactions to noise. APPENDD( B OROVILIE MUNICIPAL A_IRPC11Zr MODEI, ZONING ORDINANCE TO LIMIT HEIGHT OF OBJECIS AROUNDAN AIRPORT AN ORDINANCE REGULATING AND RESTRIC'MM -THE HEIGHT OF SMCI.URES AND OBJECIS. OF - NATURAL GRC*M, AND O`IHERWISE R99MATIM THE USE OF PROPERTY, 'IN THE VICINITY OF THE OROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BY C1MTING THE A11PR0PP= ZONES AND. ESTABLISHING THE'BOUNDARIES THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR CHANGES IN THE R]ESTRICrIONS AND BOUNDARIES OF SUCH ZONES; DEFINING CEFaAIN TER4S USED HEREIN PEE RRING TO THE OROVIII-E MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ZONING MAP WHICH IS INCORPORATED IN AND MADE A PART OF THIS 0*RDINANCE; PROVIDING MR ENF`ORCEMENT; ESTABLISHING A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT;.AND IMPOSINGPENALTIES.' This . ordinance is adopted pursuant to the authority conferred by ��3�. It is hereby found that an obstruction has the potential for endangering the lives and property of users of Oroville Municipal Airport, and property. or occupants of land in its vicinity; that an obstruction 1pay affect existing and future instrument' approach minimums of Oraville Municipal Airport; and that an obstruction may reduce the -size of areas available -for the landing, -takeoff, and maneuvering of aircraft, thus tending to destroy or inpair the utility of, Oroville Municipal Airport and the public investment therein. (1). 'that 'the cr�ation or e�slishment of an obstruction has the potential, of being a.,public. nuisance and may injure the region served by Oroville Municipal Airport; .(2) that it is necessary in the interest. of the public health, public safety,� * and general welfare that the creation of establisbwmt of obstructions that are a hazard to air navigation by prevented; and (3) that the prevention of. these obstructions should be accoriplished, to the extent legally possible, by the exercise of the police power without caqDensation. -It is further- declared that- the prevention of the creation or establishment of hazards to air navigation, the elimination, removal, alteration or mitigation: of hazards to air 'navigationt or the marking arxl lighting of cbstructions.,are P�blic purposes for which a political subdivision may raise and expend, public funds and acquire land or interests in land. rr IS HEREBY ORDAINED BY. ME CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CROVI=, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLU)WS Note: City or. County to fill in blanks left in this model ordinance to *satisfy. legal requirements. See attached Listing of Reference Nmibers and Descriptions for.guidance. Dage 2 J SECTION I: SHORT TITLE This Ordinance shal 1 be known and may.be cited as the Oroville Municipal Airport Zoning Ordinance. SECTION II: DEFINITIONS As used in this. Ordinance, unless the context otherwise requires:, 1. AIRPOIC Means Oroville Municipal Airport. 2. Ajaipoizr ELEvAnom - The highest point of an airport s usable landing area measured in -feet from sea level. 3.. APPROACH SURFACE A surface longitudinally centered on the extended runway centerline, extending outward and upward from the end of the primary surface and at the same slope as'the approach zone. height.*. limitation slope set forth in Section IV of this Ordinance. In plan..., the perimeter. of the approach surface coincides with the perimeter ..of the approach zone. 4. APPROACH TRANSITIONAL, HORIZONTAL, AND CONICAL ZONES These zones, are set forth in Section III,of this Ordinance. 5. BOARD' OF. ADJUSTV= members, A Board consisting of appointed by the as provided in V - 6. CONICAL SURFACE A surface extending outward and upward from the, p&iphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of.4,000 feet. 7. HAZARD. To AIR NAviGATioN An obstruction determined to have a substantial adverse, effect on the safe and efficient utilization of' the navigable airspace. 8. HEIGHT For -the purpose. of determiningthe height limits in all zones set forth in this Ordinance and shown on the zoning -map, the -datum shall be mean sea level elevation -unless otherwise specified. 9. HbRIZONTAL SURFACE A* horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport. elevation, the perimeter -of whic�i in plan coincides with.the perimeter of the horizontal zone. 10. 1AR9ER THAN UTILITY RUNWAY - A runway that is constructed f0r'and intended to be used by propeller driven aircraft of greater than 12,500 pounds maximum gross weight and jet powered aircraft— 11. NONCONFORIENG USE Any pre-existing structure, objective of natur al growth, or use of land which is inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance or an amendment thereto. 12., NOMPRECISION INSTRUMENr RUNWAY - A runway having an existing instrument approach procedure utilizirxj air navigation facilities with only, horizontal guidance, or area. type navigation equipment', - for which a straight -in nonprecision instrument approach procedure has been approved or planned. �13. OBST!RUCT`ION. Any -structire, growth,,or other object, including a mobile object, which exceeds a limiting height set forth in Section IV of this Ordinance. 14.. PERSON An. individual,. firm, partnership,.corporation,' company, association, joint stock association, or* gaverrmLental.. entity; includes a trustee, a receiver, an assignee, or a similar representative or any of them. 15. PRIMARY SURFACE A surface longitudinally centered on -a runway. When the runway has a specially prepared hard surface, the primary surface extends 200 feet beyond each end of that runway; for -military runways or when the runway has no specially prepared hard surface, or planned hard surface, the primary surface ends at each end of that runway. The width of the primary surface is set forth. in Section III of this Ordinance.. The elevation of any -point on the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway centerline. .16... R�Y - A defined area on an airport prepared for landing and take- off of aircraft along its length. 17. muciuRE An - object, including, a mobile object, constructed or installed by man, including but' without limitation, buildings, towersf. cranes,. smokestacks.,' earth formation, and overhead transmission lines. - 18. T!RANSrrIONAL SURFACES - These surfaces o&" -1d axtward at go degree angles to the runway centerline and the runway centerline extended ..at a slope of seven (7) feet horizontally for each foot vertically fran the sides of the primary and approach surfaces to where they intersect the... horizontal and conical. surfaces. Transitional surfaces for those portions of the precision approach surfaces, which project . through and beyond the limits of the.conical surfacel extend * a distance of 5,000 feet measured horizontally from the edge of the approach surfac ' e and at 90 degree angles to the extended runway centerl ine. 19. TREE Any object of. natural growth. Page 4 20. UTILITY RUNWAY A runway that is constructed for and intended to be used by propeller driven aircraft of 12,500 pounds maximum gross weight and 1 .21. VISUAL- MW A runway intended solely for the operation of aircraft using vislial approach procedures. SECTION III: AIRPORT, ZONES In order to carry out the provisions of this Ordinance, there are hereby created and established certain zones which include all of the land lying beneath the approach surfaces, transitional surfaces, horizontal surfacest and conical surfaces a's they, apply to the Oroville Municipal Airport. Such. zones are shown on,Oroville Municipal Airport Zoning map consisting of '1 sheet, prepared by Reinard W. Brandley, consulting Airport Engineerl and dated January 1990,- which is attached to this Ordinance and made a part he±;eof. An area located.in more than one (1) ofthe following,zones is considered to be only in the zone with the ' more restrictive height limitation. The various zones are hereby established and defined as follows: 1. Util Visual Zone (Ru- fway 12-30) The inner edge of this -approach zone coincides with the width "of the primary surface and is 500 feet wide. The approach zone expands outward -uniformly to a width of 1,250 feet at a horizontal ' distance of 5,000 feet from the . primary surface. Its centerline is the continuation of the centerline of the'runway.. 2i T!,ian Utilitv with a Visibil Minimum as Low as 3L4 Mile, -Nonprecision Instrument Zone (Runway 1-1�) - The inner edge of this approach zone coincides with the width of the primary surface and is 1,000 feet wide. The approach zone expands outward uniformly - to a width. of 4,000 feet at a horizontal distance 10,000 feet from the primary surface. Its centerline is the -continuation of.the centerline of the runway. 3.� Transitional Zones The transitional zones are the areas,beneath the transitiOrIal surfaces. 4. Horizontal Zone .- The horizontal zone is established by swinging arcs of 10, 000 feet radii from. the center of each end of the primary surface of the non -precision instrument runway and 5, 000 feet radii fran - the center of each end of the primary surface of the utility runway and connecting the adjacent arcs by drawing lines tangent to. those arcs. . The horizontal zone does not'include the approach and transitional zones. 5. Conical- Zone The conical zone is established as the area that ccmmnces at. the periphery of the horizontal zone and exterids outward therefrom a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet. ,Page 5'. SECTION M. AIRPORT ZONE HEIGHT I03=TIONS Except as otherwise provided in this' ordinance, no structure shall be. erected, altered, or. maintained, and no tree shall be allowed to grow in any zone created by this Ordinance to a height in excess of the applicable height limit *herein established for such zone. Such applicable height limitations are hereby established for each of the zones in question as follows: 1. Utilitv Visual Zone Slopes twenty (20)'. feet outward for each foot upward beginning at the end of and at the same elevation as the imazy surface and extending to a horizontal pri distance of 5,000 feet along the extended runway centerline. .2. Non -Precision Instxument Nonorecisi6n Instrument A=roa Zone - Slopes 34 feet outward for each foot upward beginning at the efid of and at- the -same elevation as the primary surface and. extending to a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet along the extended runway centerline. 3. Runway Than Utility Vi Zone Slopes twenty. (20) feet outward for each foot upward beginning at the end of and at the same elevation as the primary surface and extending to a horizontal. - distance of 5,000'feet along the extended runway centerline. 4. Transitional- Zones Slope seven (7) feet- -outward for each foot upward beginning at the sides of and at the same elevation as the primary surface and the approach surface, and extending to a height of 150 feet above the airport elevation which is 340.47 feet above mean sea level. In addition to the foregoing, there are established height limits sl cpuxg seven .(7) feet outward for each foot upward beginning at the sides of and at the same elevation as the approach surface, and extending to where they intersect the conical surface. Where the precision instrument runway approach zone projects beyond the conical zone, there are established height limits sloping seven (7) f eet outward for each foot upward beginning at the sides of and at the same elevation as the approach - surface, and extending a horizontal distance of.'5,000 feet. measured at 90 degree'angels.to the extended runway:centerline. 5. Horizontal Zone -. Established at 150 feet above the airport elevation or at a height 'of 340.47 feet above mean sea level. 6. Conical Z Slopes twenty (20) feet outward for each foot upward beginning at the periphery of the horizontal zone and at 150 feet above the airport elevation and extending to a height of .3.50 feet above the airport elevation. .7. Excented He Limitations Nothirxg in this ordinance shall'be' construed 'as prohibiting the construction or maintenance of any structure, or growth of any tree to a height up to 35 feet above the surface of the land. I _: I I I I Page 6 SECTION:V: USE RESTRICTIONS Notwithstanding.''any other provisions of this Ordinance, no use ray be made of land or water within any zone established by this Ordinance in such a utanner as to create electrical,interference with navigational signals or radio communication between the airport and aircraft,. make it.difficult for pilots to distinguish between airport lights and others, result in glare in - the eyes of pilots using the airport, inpair visibility in the vicinity of the airport, create bird strike hazards, or otherwise in any* way endanger. or interfere with the landing, takeoff, or maneuvering.of aircraft intending t6 use the airport. SECTION VI: NONCONMRMING USES 1. Requlations Not Retroactive The. regulations prescribed by this Ordinance shall not be construed to require the rmoval, lowering, or other change or alteration of any - structure -or . tree not 'confirming to the regulations as of the effective date of this Ordinance, or otherwise - interfere with the continuance. of nonconforming use... Nothing- contained herein shall reg-dreany. change in, the construction, alteration, or intended use of any structure, the, construction or alteration of which was begun prior to the effective date. of this Ordinance, and is diligently prosecuted.. .2. and Light Notwithstanding the preceding.provision of. this Section, the owner of*any existing nonconforming structure or tree is hereby required to permit the installation, operation, and maintenance thereon of such markers and lights as shall be deaned necessary by the 1.1/ to indicate to the operators of aircraft in the vicinity of the airport the presence of such airport obstruction. Such markers -and lights shall be installed, operated, and maintained at the expense of- the County of El Dorado, .California. SECTION VII: PER= 1. Future Uses 'Except, as specifically. provided in* a, 'b, and c, hereunder, no material change shall be made in the use of land, no structure shall be erected or otherwise established, and no tree. shall be planted in any zone hereby created unless a permit therefor shall have been applied for' and granted. Each application for a: permit shall indicate the purpose for which the permit is desiredl, with sufficient particularity to permit it to be determined whether the .- resulti use, structure, or tree' would conform to the* ing regulations -herein prescribed. -if such determination is in the affirmative, the permit shall be granted. No permit for a:use inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance shall be -granted unl. a variance has been approved in accordance with Section VII, :)age 7 a. In the area lying within the limits of the horizontal zone ar-d conical zone, no permit shall be required for any tree or. structure less than.75 feet of vertical height above the'grourd, except when, because -of terrain, land contour, or tcpograpbic features,. such tree or structure would. extend above the height limits prescribed for such zones. b. In areas lying within the.limits of the approach zones, but at.a horizontal distance of -not oss than 4,200 feet from each end of -10 the runway, no permit shall be reqaired for any .-tree or structure less than 75 feet of vertical height above the ground,. except when such tree or structuremould extend above the height limit prescribed.for such approach zones.. C. In the areas lying within the limits of the transition zones. beyond the perimeter of the.horizontal zone, no permit sball be required for any tree or structure less than 75 feet -of vertical height above the ground,' except when such tree or structure,. because of terrain, land contour, or topographic features, would ext"d above -the height limit prescribed for such transition zones. Nothing contained in any of the foregoing exceptions' shall be. construed as permitting or intending to permit any construction,. or alteration of any structure, or growth of any tree in excess of any of the. height, limits established by this ordinance except as set. forth in Section IV, 12. 2. Exist uses No permit shall be granted that would -allow the establishment or .' creation' of an obstruction or permit a* nonconforming use, structure, or tree to become a-greater*hazard to air navigation than it was on the effective date of this Ordinanoe� ion or any amendments thereto or than it. is.when the applicati for a - permit is made. Except as. indicated, -all applications for such -a permit shall be'granted. 3. Noncon Uses Abandoned or Destr8yed­ Whenever the 13J .--determines that a nonconforming tree or structure has been abandoned or more. than.. 80 percent torn down, . physically deteriorated, or decayed, no �permit shall be granted that would allow4such structure or txee- to exceed the applicable height limit or otherwise deviate, fran the zoning regulations. 4.' Variances - Any *person desiring to erect or increase the height of any structure, or permit the growth of any tree, or use property, not in accordance with the regulations prescribed in this Ordhwx>e_, may apply to the Board of Adjustment for a variance from such regulations.- The application for variance shall be accmpanied by a detemination from the Federal Aviation Administration as to the .effect of:thd-prcposal on'the operation of air navigation facilities the safe, efficient use of navigable airspace. Such var ances 5. Page. 8 shall be allowed. where it is duly found that a literal application or . enforcement of the regulations will*. result in unnecessary. hardship and relief granted, will not be contrary to the public interest, will not. create a hazard to air,, navigation,- will do substantial justice, and will be in accordance with the*spirit of this Ordhwx)e_. Additionally, no application for variance to the requirements of this ordinance Pay be considered by the -Board of Adjustment unless a copy of the application has been furnished to' the . 14J for advice as to the aeronautical effects of. the variance, If the 4 — LJ does not respond to the application within fifteen '(15) days.after receipt, -the Board of Adjustment may act on its own to grant or deny said application.. Obstruction and Light - Any permit or variance grantedt' may, If - such action -is deemed advisable to effectuate the purpose of this ordinance and -be. reasonable in the circumstances, be �so conditioned . as to require -the owner of the structure or.tree in question to install, operate, and maintain,'at the owner's expense, such markings and lights as condition may modified to require the owner to permit the County of El Dorado, California, at�its.own expense, to install, operate, andmaintain the necessary markings and lights. SEMON.VIII! ENFORCE24ENT -Lini . ster . and enforce the. it sbal I be the duty of the 15J to a& regulations prescribed. herein. Applications for permits and variances sbal 1 be made to the L5J upon a form published for that purpose. Applications required by this Ordinance to be submitted to the 15/ shall be praiptly considered and granted or denied.. Application for action by.the Board of Adjustment -shall be forthwith transmitted by the. SECTIORIX: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 1. There Is. hereby created a Board of Adjustment to have and.exercise the following powers: (1) to hear and decide appeals from any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the 15/ in the enforcement of this ordinance; (2) to hear and decide special. 1�41::::,,��ions to the terms of this ordinance upon which such Board of Adjusbwzt under such regulations may be required to_pass; and (3) to hear and decide specific variances. 2. The Board of Adjustment shall consist of members appointed by the 12/ and each shall serve for a term of _ years until a successor is duly appointed and qualified. Of -the members first ..appointed,' one shall be appointed for a term of — yearl for a' term of _, and' for a tem of years.' Members shall be removable by the appointing authority for cause, upon written charges, after a public hearing. Page 9 3. The Board of Adjustment shall adopt rules forits governance and in harmony with the provisions. of this ordinance. Meetings of the Board of Adjustment shall be held at the call of the Chairperson -and at such other . times. as , the . Board of Adjustment may determine, The Chairperson. or, In the absence of the Chairperson, the Acting - Chairperson may administer oaths and campel the attendance ' of witnesses.. All hearings of the Board of Adjustment -shall be public. The Board of Adjustment shall keep minutes - of its proceedings showing the vote of each moTber upon each question; -Or if absent or failing to vote,. indicating such fact, and shall -keep records of its examinations and other officials actions, allof which: shall imiiediately be filed in the office of and on due cause shown. 4.. The Board of Adjustment shall - make written f indings of facts and conclusions of law giving the facts upon which it acted. and its' legal. conclusions - from such facts in reversing, affinuing, or modifying any order, requirement, decision, or -determination which comes before it under the provisions of this Ordinance. .5. The concurring vote of a* majority of the members of the Board of Adjustment shall be sufficient to reverse any order,'requirement, decision, or determination of the or decide in -favor of the applicant or any matter uponwhich it is required to pass under. this ordinance, or to effect variation to this Ordinance. SECTION X: APPEAIS 1. Any person or any taxpaye r affected, by any decisionof the .15J made in the administration of the Ordinance, may - appeal to the Board of Adjustment. 2'. All appeals hereunder must be taken within a reasonable time as proyided by the. rules: of. the Board of - Adj ustment , - by. filing with the L5/ a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. The L5/ sbal 1 forthwith transmit to the Board of Adjustment all the papers constituting the record upon. which the action. appealed from was taken..'. 3.. An appeal shall stay all�proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from - unless the' 15/ certifies to *the Board of Adjustment,. after the notice of appeal has been filed with -it, that by reason of the facts stated in the certificate a stay would in tbe, opinion of 15J cause imminent peril to,life orproperty. In. such case, proceedings shall not be stayed except by the order of the Board of Adjustment on notice to the L5J and on due cause shown. 4. 7he Board - of Adjustment -'shall .-fix* a reasonable time for hearing appeals,. give public notice and due notice to the parties in interest,. and - decide the same within a -reasonable time. Upon the' hearing, any party may appeacr in person or by agent or by attorney- Page 1 0 5. The Board of Adjustment'. may, in conformity with the provisions of this - ordinance, reverse or affirm, in whole or in part, or modify the order, rWArement, decision, or determination appealed from and may make such order, requirement,- de6ision, or determination as may be appropriate under the circumstances. SECTION XI: JUDICIAL REVIEW Any person aggrieved, :or any taxpayer affected,.by any decision of the Board of Adjustment, may appeal to the Court of as. provided in Section of Chapter of the Public Laws. of SECTION XII: PENALTIES Each violation of this ordinance or of any regulation, order, -or ruling promulgated. - hereunder shall constitute a misdemeanor and sha 11 . be punishable by a fine of not.more than- dollars or imprisormient for.-. not more than - days or both; and each day a violation continues to exist shall constitute.a.separate offense. SECTION )(III: CONFLICTIM PBGULATIONS V41ere there exists a conflict between -any of the regulations or' limitations prescribed in this ordinance and any other regulations applicable to the same area, whether the conflict be with respect to the height of structures or trees, and the use of land, or any other matter, the more stringent limitation or. requirement -shall govern and prevail. SECTION xiv: sEvERABiLrry If any of. the provisions of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances are held invalid, such invalidity shall riot affect other provisions or applications of the Ordinance'which can be... given effect without the invalid provisions or application, and to this end, the provisions of this. ordinance are'-dec.lared tobe. severable. SECTION XV: EFFECTIVE DATE WHEMAS, the immediate operation. of the provisions of -this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of the public health, public safety, and general welfare, an ENT43ENCY is hereby. declared to exist, and this Ordinance shall be in full forceland effect from and after its passage by the Board of Supervisors , County of El Dorado, Califonda and publications and posting as required by law. Accepted, by - the this. day of 19 MODEL ZONING ORDINANCE LISTING -OF REFERENCE NUMERS AND DESCRIPrIONS This, citation should be made to' conform. to the usual method of citing your state laws. Insert the- number of members, appointed to the Boardof Adjustmenti t -appointing.body, and the enab ing legislati. authorizing same. he ion Insert the title of the appropriate official who has been charged' with the responsibility for determining the necessity for. marking a lighting. nd 2 Insert the name of -the appropriate political.body or subdivision.. 1�3/ Insert here the title of the appropriate- official charged with making this determination. 14J Insert here the official or body. responsible for operation and maintenance of the airport.to be zoned. 15J - Lisert here the title .of the' appropriate. of f icial, such. as Director, Department of Public Works, etc. 1�6/ Insert, the jurisdiction. Consideration should be given' the' desirability of setting forth this procedure here, � or as. an alternative attaching. to all copies of -this ordinance, -a copy of., excerpts -from the statute -cited. APPENDI X OROVILT-E MUNICIPAL AIRPORT OROVILI-E, BL= CCUNTY, CALIFORNIA SOIL STUDIES AND PAVEMENT EVAILUATION S=IES INDEX I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 1 A. Airport Layout ............................... .................. 1, B...Role of the Airport ........................... ................. 2 C. . Pavement C%Dnvosition ........................................... 2 D.. Need for Study and Purpose of Test Program ................... 3 -II., TEST PROGRAM .................................. ...................... 4 A. Soil Conditions and Pavement Sections ........................... 4 B. Pavement Condition Survey .................. ! ................... 5 C. Falling Weight Deflectareter ................................... 7 III. ANALYSIS AND EVAILUATION .................................... ....... 11 A. Introduction ................................................... 11 B. Forecast Operations andAircraft Characteristics .............. 13, C. Fatigue Analysis Evaluation .................................... 14 D. Federal Aviation Administration Design Method ................. 16 . . . Tables Table No. Title C-1 Log of Test Pits - C -2 Log of Core Holes C-3 Log of Boring No. U1 C-4 Log of Boring No. U2 C-5 log of Boring No. U3 C-6 Log of Boring No. U4 C-7 Pavement Performance Data - C -8 Forecast Operations REINARD W. BRANDLEY CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER IND8X (Continued), Pl�tes Plate. No. Title C-1 Test Hole location Map C-2 F.W.D. Test Results - Center Deflection - Runway 1-19 C-3 F.W. D. Test Results - Center Deflection - Runway. 12-30 C-4 ...F.W.D. Test Results - Center Deflection Taxiway V C-5 F. W. D. Test, Results - Center Deflection Taxiway R C-6 iilts F. W. D. Test Res Center Deflection Taxiway L C-7 F.'W.D.,Test Results Center Deflection Taxiway T C-8 F � W. D. Test Results Center Deflection - Taxiway S West C-9 F.W.D'. Test Results Centex Deflection - Taxiway S East C710 F.W. D. Test Results - Center Deflection - Apron -West Edge C -1 1., F.W. D. Test Results - Center Deflection - Apron - 200 Ft. East.of West Apron Edge., C-12 Y.W.D. Test Results - Center Deflection Apron -.400 Ft. East of West Apron Edge C-13 F. W. D. Test*Results Center Deflection -.Apron East Edge Exhibits Exhibit. No. Title C-1 Fatigue Analysis Method for Pavement Evaluation and Design REINARD W.'BR'ANDL'EY CONSULT'iNG AIRPORT ENGINEER Reinard- W. Brandley. CONSULfING AIRPORT ENGINEER 2041 Hallmark Drive Sacramento. California 9�825 J916) 92 2- 4 72 5 ASPENDIX it' ORMIUE NWICIPAL AMPOFa OF OF40V= BM CO=, CALMRNTA SOIL STMIES AND PAVEMENT EVAT=0N SrIM= I. INTRODUICTION A. ayout The existing Oroville Municipal.Airport consists of two runways., a series -of supporting taxiways, a general aviation tie down apron, and sam tee harypr facilities. Runway 1-19 is 150 feet wide by.' 6,000 feet -long with relocated thresholds shortening the runway. 0 is 150 feet wide by 5,000 feet long with displaced or Famway 12-3 reloc-ated thresholds'shortening this runway. Taxiway R parallels Runway 12-30 on the. north side. Taxiway L connects Rzyway 1-19, to Runway 12-310 to the aircraft' tie down apron. Taxiway V connects the. thresholds 6f Runway 1 and.Rzrway 30. Taxiway S connects the apron to the threshold of Rummy 19 to the threshold of Fwftway 12. It is anticipated tha� the threshold to Rmway 19 will be relocated approximately 2,180 feet to the south, and this runway will be ext'Rnded'2,180*feet to the south. The aircraft operations area will be iroved to the triangular area between the runways and a new taxiway system will constructed to serve the runways and the aircraft operations area.., Page. 2 B Role the Ai of The Oraville Municipal Airport. is a general aviation facility which will serve the general aviation and business aviation -needs of the oroville area. Aircraft currently using the airport include most ...of the general aviation and'business aviation fleet up to and including the Gulfstream II business jet. It is anticipated that th�s airport will continue to.serve this type ofaircraft in the forecast future.. C. Pavement Composition All pavements on this airport are flexible pavements. Runway* 1-19 received an asphaltic.concrete pavementaverlay in'1985 and a contract has been awarded to -overlay Runway 12-30 and Taxiway L in the -summer of 1990. All other pavements.are in their original condition and show significant deterioration due largely to. environmental conditions. The existing pavement sections of different.segments of this airport are as shown in the following table: Pavement Section (inch) Location AC AB Total Runway. 1-19 Northerly 2,5001 6 9 -15 Runway 1-19 Southerly 3,5001 5 12 17 Rurm;�y 12-30.Westerly 4,0001 3 6 9 Runway 12-30 Easterly 1,0001 2 -.12 14 Taxiways R,. V, S & L 2 12, .14 Taxiway T .2 .6. 8 Aircraft Parking,Apron 2 6 8 REINARD W. BRANDLEY CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER Page 3 D. Need for Study and Purpose of Test Program The proposed southerl extension of Ruiway 1-19 will require y extensive cuts.and fills to provide adequate profile for the runway - The development of the new taxiways and aircraft operating facilities*, will also.require fairly extensive cuts and fills. Soil studies are required in these areas for the purpose of determining the type soils to be encountered at various depths'and the -type of subgrade material. that will be available for construction of the pavement sections. - These soil studies -are required -to determine the problems, if anyl that may be encountered in excavation and placement of embankment. Soil studies are.also required to determine the adequacy of the soils for subgrade for pavement sections and the pavement section requireze6nts. The relocation of aircraft operations to the proposed new location will oc=.gradually and existing facilities will be used for several more years. The existing pavements at this sitehave been in operation for an extensive period of time and have performed well under the applied loadings-. -The distress which is apparent at this time is largely'due to environmental conditions. Detailed pavement -evaluation studies on, existing pavements are useful for the purpose of determining the life of existing pavements and overlay or reconstruction requirements of these pavements to adequately perform under anticipated and forecast. traffic and to serve as a guide for the design of new pavements to be constructed at this site. This report presents the results of.the.soil studies'and nondestructive pavement evaluation studies conducted at this site. REINARD W. BRANDLE'y CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER Page -4 TEST PROGRAM A. Soil Conditions and Pavement Sections A series of test.borings, test pits, and coreholes has been conducted as part of this study and previous studies conducted by our office.at.this airport. The core holes were cut in the existing pavement of Runway 1-19 prior to overlay of this pavement to determine the thickness aria character of -the existing pavement sections. The test pitswere excavated along the edge of Runway 1-19, to determine the soil conditions -below the pavement sections in -this area. Test boru*igs were drilled as a portion of this program in the vicinity*of'the Runway 1-19 extension and the relocated -aircraft operation areas to determine the general characteristics of -the soils in this'area. Access to properties outside the airport was difficult. to obtain;,therefore", the amount of tesLng in future land"to be acquired was limited to the one test boring where access could be obtained. The location 6f these core holes, test pits, and test. borings is shown'on the Test -Hole Location Map, Plate No. C-1. The Log of the Test Pits along Runway 1-19.is shown on Table No. C�l. The Log of the Core.Holes conducted on the Runway 1-19 pavement sectionds suuumrized in Table No. C-2. The Log -of the Test Borings. is summarized in Tables No. C-3, C-4, C-5, and C-6. These test borings and pits indicate that the soils encountered.' .at this.'site' range fra'n silty fine sands to clayey fine sands to clayey silts'to sandy clays. All the soils are reasonably.compact REINARD W.BRANDLEY CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER Page 5 and stable. The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests conducted on ..the various materials show the following results: material: CBR Existing Aggregate Base Course 30 S ty il Fine Sands 15 Sandy Silts 12 Sandy Clayey. Silts 8 Sandy Clays 5 The critical subgrade soil'is the sandy clay with.a. California Bearing Ratio of 5 and required.pavement sections set.forth in this. appendix are based on this material being the critical subgrade soil in each location. By selective grading it may be possible to utilize the sand soils.f6r the upper six inches of subgrade and thus decrease the pavement section required,' but this decision will have. to be aeferred until each project is designed..� No ground water was. encountered in any of, the test holes. or test pits at the time they were drilled. B. Pavertent Condition As an aid to determining the performance to date of the existing pavements and to provide a guide for the test program to'be conducted, in this study, a detailed condition survey of all existing pavements was made. This survey consisted of visually observing all pavements summ ary*.of the and noting deficiencies in areas of distress. A. .observations made is as follows: REINARD W. BRANDLEY CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER 7 Page 6. 1. Runway 1-19 Runway 1-19 was overlaid in 1985 and the pavement is in very instances of cracking good condition. There " are only MInor developing along the joints between construction lanes. No other cracking'was-detected.' 2.. Runway 12-30 The pavement on Runway 12-30, except for'the intersection with Runway -1 -19, -is original pavement.which has not receivedany overlays. In the easterly 900 feet -of this runway the pavement is in good condition with only minor cracking. The remaining portion of the pavement shows extensive cr�cking, with cracks -spaced at two to four feet on centers. -The.cracks are generally 1/8 to 3/8 inch wide and there is some minor spalling. There is little or no indication of rutting. The deterioration appears to be mainly caused by environmental conditions and the. age of the pavement. This runway. will be overlaid in the summer of 1990. 3. Taxiway R - Taxiway R -parallels Runway 12-30 to the north. The easterly. end of Taxiway R UP to the intersection with Runway 1-19 has a crack pattern with spacing of approximately five feet. The cracks are well defined'with openings as large as 1/4 inch. 'West of Runway 1-19 there is only minor cracking. . There are no indications of spalling or rutting. The deterioration -appears to be mainly caused by environmental conditions and the age of the pavement. 4. Taxiway V Taxiway V connects the threshold of - Runway 1 to the threshold of Runway 30. This taxiway is -closed atthis time and the maj or portion of it is proposed to be abandoned in the future development. The central portion of this taxiway will be used as part of the loop road to serve the aircraft.operations areas. The pavement on this taxiway shows extensive cracking with crack spacing of approximately five to eight feet. There is some minor spalling, but -little or no rutting on this pavement. This pavement has been used in the past as a drag strip and two concrete slabs have been installed in a portion of,the pavement. r1he.,distress in this pavement appears to be related to the age of - the pavement and environmental conditions. .5.. Taxiway T, Taxiway L connects the central portion of Runway 1-19 to the.. central portion of Runway 12 to the eastern� end of the aircraft REINARD W. BRANDLEY CONSULTING, AIRPORT ENGINEER Page 7:. parIldn g apron. The pavement on this taxiway is in good condition� with sane separation at the joints between paving lanes. The northerly portion of this taxiway will be overlaid in the sinnuer of 1990 and the southwesterly portion will be abandoned and replaced with Taxiway E, which is also proposed for construction in -199b. Both of.these projects are currently under contract. 6. Taxiway S Taxiway S connects the threshold of Runway 12 to the threshold of Runway 19 and then extends in a easterly direction., to the aircraft parking apron. The westerly portion of this taxiway between Runway 19 and Runway 12 has extensive cracking but no apparent rutting. The taxiway between the threshold of Runway 19 and the apron is in reasonably good condition with only' minor cracking and -no visual rutting.. The distress on this pavement appears to be related to age and environmental conditions. 7. Taxiway T Taxiway T -is the old existirxj taxiway extending between Taxiway R and the Butte County Mosquito Abatement facilities. The pavements on this taxiway are cracked with spacing of six to eight feet, and there appears tobe no rutting of this pavement The distress on this pavement appears to be related to age of pavement and envirormiental conditions. 8. Aircraft Bftrki :Qg Apron The aircraft parking apron was constructed in two phases. The north end of the apron is the -older pavement and shows significant cracking. There is' much less cracking in the southerly end of this pavement. There is some broken pavement in the northerly apron around the helicopter maintenance building. ents show little sign of rutting or distress other All other paveme than cracking caused by age of pavement and environmental conditions. C. Falling Weight Deflectcmeter The pavement evaluation methodology which was utilized for this appendix is the Fatigue Analysis.developed by,our office. This methodology is described.in detail in a paper presented at a Synposium on Nondestructive Test and Evaluation of Airport Pavenents. REINARD W. BRANDLEY CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER i[)age 8 sponsored by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways 1�:�.t -Mi i . i in 1975. A copy of this paper is- Stationat Vicksburg, Sslsslppl,. included as Exhibit C-1 to this appendix. This method of design.is a.rational method,of design and utilizes basic soil parameters of.Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson's Ratio of., each layer of pavement and subsoil.' Fr(xn these data the life of the, existing paverimts; under existing txaffic conditions can.be.. predicted, and the.expected life of the pavementsection. after .overlays arid/or reconstruction of the pavement sections can also be predicted. In order to utilize this fatigue analysis methodology, it is. necessary,to determine the modulus of elasticity -of each layer.of pavement in place, -of each overlay material, and of each layer of r subsoil under the pavement section.. 1hese. data have previously been obtained by full—scaie testing,.in which deflections at the surface' of each layer were measured under aircraft or simulated aircraft.' wheel loadings. Later� we were able. to. obtain reliable data �y the use of repetitive plate bearing tests conducted -in test pits excavated in the pavement sections. Recently nondestructive test methods have been*developed whereby vibratory, -static or falling weight loads are imposed on the pavement A surface and the*deflections are accurately measured. Q-fce_ the. deflections have�been measured,,not only under the applied load but for*a distance of six to eight feet from the applied load., then there are methods utilizing computer programs by which modulus of REINARD W. BRANDLEY 4�ONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER Page 9 elasticity values of each layer can.be back -calculated from these. deflection measurements. Research -has shown that reasonably good correlation can be obtained -between test. conducted using the heavy vibratory loads, such as the Corps of Engineers W.E.S. Pavement TLester, and by the ing heavy fall' weight deflectaneter test equipment which inposes -forces of 25,000 to 30,000 pounds on a. 12-inch-di6dwter plate. These vibratory and falling weight deflectcmeter tests accurately show the: relative strength of one section of pavement.with relation to another and when calibrated with repetitiveplate-bearing tests or full-scale. tests can acc6rately provide values for -modulus of elasticity of. ..each soil layer. Nondestructive tests can be -conducted very quickly, and many tests can be performed in a short period of time to provide a considerable amount of data for the entire pavement section. The falling weight deflectometer (FWD), which can inpose forces of 25,000.to 30,000'pounds on a 12 -inch -diameter plate, was used to evaluate and test all of the pavements.at this airport. on the runway two,rows of tests at approximately 2.00-foot'spacing were conducted; one -on eadi side of -the centerline at a distance to 15 to 20 feet frarn the centerline. On the taxiways one raw of tests -was conducted at a 200 -foot spacing along'the wheel. path of the taxiway. On the apron tests were conducted at a spacing.of approximately 200,* feet. These tests were made by drcpping'a calibrated weight a sufficient distance to iepresent the.designatx�l loading on the REINARD W. BRANDLEY CONSULTING AiRPORr ENGINEER Page 10 pavement. In the tests a force -of 10,000, .14,000, and 23,000,pounds was. appl. ied. to the 12-irr_h-diametjbi7 plate. Deflection readings of. the surface of the pavement caused,by these loadings were measured at the center of the plate and at distances -of 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, and. 72 inches from the center of the plate. These data gave a inNnitude and shape of the deflection bowl-. under the applied loadings at each location. It also provided information whereby -the relative strength of each se�ticn could, be Wickly obtained., The neximum deflection at the center of the plate -under the 10,000 -pound- 14,006 -pound, and 23,000-potind loadings for each pavement section are shown in Plates C-2 through',C-13. These test results show the uniformity of strength of the,pavement section and. clearly show the weak areas of each section.. There was considerable variation.fram one location to the other, but.average strength could.. be developed for each section of pavement, and horizontal dashed - lines are shown on each graph indicating the average deflection for each loading for each section.. These average values of deflection were used with the ccnp� program for �etermining.stressesll strains, and deflections in multi -layered systems under* various applied loads to,back-caiculate�rcdulus of elasticity values for the pavement section,itself and thesubgrade soils on which the pavement r section is constructed. 1he results of these analyses.showing the* modulus of elasticity for each section of pavement arxf.subgr�ade' are shown on Table No. C-7. REINARD W. BRANDLEY CONSULTING. AIRPORT ENGINEER Page 11 III. ANALYSIS AND EVAILUATION A. Introduction Flexible pavements must -be designed such that the following conditions are satisfied: The subsoil conditions, including embankment construction and preparation, mist.be such that excessive settlements or expansion of subsoils will not cause significant profile deterioration on a pavement section sudi-as to cause. unacceptable roughness. - The total section thickness and quality must be sufficient to protect the subgrade soils fran aver stress under the magnitude and frequency of the,forecast loadings. The materials that make up the pavement sections must be of such quality that they.will withstand the applied loads without failure.." Rigid pavenents must be designed such that the following corx1itions are satisfied: The subsoil conditions including embankment c ' onstruction. and preparation, mist be such that excessive settlements or expansion of subsoils will not cause significant,profile deterioration on a pavement section such as to cause unacceptable roughness. The total section thickness and quality must be sufficient to protect the subgrade soils frm overstress under the magnitude.and frequency of the forecast loadings.' The materials that make up the pavement section must be of. such quality that they will withstand the applied loads without.failure. The Portland cement concrete slab thickness must be sufficient that the concrete will not be overstressed under the applied.loads. Me joints in the Portland -cement concrete slabs mist be designed withadequate support and load transfer such that stress concentrations will not develop at the edge and corner of slabs of sufficient magnitude.to'cause distress. REINARD W. BRANDLEY CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER Page 12 Econanic considerations rule out the-use.of rigid pavements at this airpoj�t'at this time, a�d the analysis performed in this' study is 1jinit6d to flexible pavement sections. The Fatigue Analysis i��od of design has been utilized to evaluate the pavement sections with regard to total section'thickness and quality of pavement section materials required to protect the r subgrade soils. 1he Federal. Aviation Administra�ion has ad9pted the U.S. Anrry Corps of Engineers design pro6edures using California Bearing Ratio test data tc; evaluate and design quality and thickness requirements for materials making up flexible pavenent sections. Both 'the Fatigue Analysis methodology and the F.A.A. methodology for :pavement evaluation and design. have been used for the. evaluation of existing pavements and design of new pavements at the Oroville' Municipal Airport and are included in this appendix.. In order. to evaluate pavement sections with the Fatigue Analysis methodology, it -is -necessary to know the type,.weight, and nuTber 8f operations - of* aircraft which. will occur over each section of pavement,. both at, the present time and in the future, and to know the basic soil parameters of modulus of elasticity and Poisson's Ratio of each layer of the pavement and underlying'soils. Th &valuate the pavements using the F.A.A.-Corps -of Engineers procedures*, it Is necessary to know* the critical design - aircraft type and loading; the - classification.and CB9 of the base course, subbase course, and subgrade soils;. and the annual departures. of aircraft of each type; from the facility.* REINARD W. BRANDLEY CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER Page 13. . . . The soil parameters for both the Fatigue Analysis,methodology and, the F. A. A. -Corps of Engineers methodology have. been. determined and have been presented previously in this appendix�,-, --B� Forecast Operations and Aircraft - 0mracteristics. The current activity aInd-forecast-activity.for this airport hav� been prepared and included in the Forecast section'of the Master Plan Report and are shown in Table No.� 1 -to that r�port_ This table has been reproduced as Table No. C-8-in.this appendix.. This table shows the type aircr ft anticipated to use this facility and the annual operations of all of.these aircraft*types through the year 2010. All. ofthe larger aircraft will be required to use Runway 1-19. only the. single engine general aviation,aircraft and the small -twin engine general aviation aircraft will be able to use RurTway.12-30 because of its short length. For the -purpose of evaluation of the pavements it has been asswed that Runway 1 ive percent of.the Gulfstrec -19 will recei 100 -un II, the -Cessna Citation'business jet aircraft, all other business jet aircraft, the. large twin engine aircraft'such as. the'. King Air, and - - all military aircraft. ..It has also 'i3een assumed that Runway -1-19. will receive 80 percent of the small' twin engine general aviation aircraft and -66 percent.0if the single erxjine.general aviation aircraft., Runway -12-30 will be used by 20 percent of the small twin engine general aviation aircraft and 40 percen� of the single engine general aviation aircraft.* REINARD W. BRANDLEY CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER Page 14 The Gulfstream II,when fully loaded weighs approximately.6o,poo pounds, which is carried on a dual -gear. All other business jets'are considerably lighter.. The number of operations of the Gulfstream,II at this airport is small and itis not usually operated at gross weight. It is, therefore, recommended that Runway 1-19 and. associated taxiways and apron -designated for use by the business jets be designed using 'as the.critical aircraft the Gulfstream, II.loaded to a gross aircraft weight of 50,000 pounds. Rurrway 12-30 and associated taxiways and the rest of the apron will be used only by the smaller aircraft, including the general,aviation single engine and twin engine aircraft.* Since Runway 12-36 may.be used infrequently by some of the larger twin engine aircraf t it is recommnded that the pavements for this runway and taxiway be designed for.a gross aircraft on single gear weighing 20,000 pounds and. that the pavements for the aircraft- parking. areas which will be limited.to the light single engine airplanes be designed for a gross aircraft weight of..12,500,pounds. C. Fatique Analysis Evaluation 1. Modulus of Elasticity Calculations Modulus of elasticity values for,each portion of the pavement section and for the subgrade at each area tested were determined by back -calculating these values using data-fran the falling weight deflectometer. The results of these analyses are shown in Table -No. C-7. The values for Poisson's Ratio were assumed based - on previous experience. The computer program for calculating stresses, strains, and deflections is not sensitive to variations in Poisson's Ratio values and estimated values are sufficiently accurate.for this analysis.. REINARD W. BR ANDLEY CONSUL.TING AIRPORT ENGINEER' Page 15 2. Predicted Pavement Performance For each runway, taxiway, or apron evaluated, and for each different pavement section or soil parameter developed from this analysis, the Fatigue Analysis method of design was utilized to 'predict pavement performance. These predicted pavement performance analyses'were made for each pavement section as it - currently exists and/or for various overlays. For the runway and taxiway sections the'existing pavermt section was evaluated and various overlays ranging in thickness up to five inches of asphaltic concrete pavement were evaluated. In addition, various pavement s,ections.using different thicknesses'of pavement and base course materials were also evaluated for each subgrade modulus value determined from the falling weight deflectometer-tests. From this data, subgrade deflections for each type of aircraft were computed for each of the test paveaent sections and then, using the Fatigue Analysis methodology, the number of coverages of each aircraft allowed on each pavement.section before failure were computed. All of these data are included in Table No. C-7. The results of this analysis indicate that the existing pavement on Runway 1-19 will support the forecast traffic for at least 15 years and that if an additional three-inch overlay is placed, this pavement will have a life in excess of 20 years. The Gulfstream II aircraft is the,critical,aircraft. The analysis shows-th�t the existing pavement on Runway 12'30 will have a life under forecast traffic of eight years based on subgrade strength only. - This analysis does not take into consideration the weather-related damage to the pavement. When -inc -on this the. three h asphalt overlay which is being placed runway in 1990 has been constructed, the pavements on Runway, 12-30 will have a life in excess of 20 years under forecast traffic. All existing taxiways, except for Taxiway T, will have a pavemnt life in excess of 20 years under forecast traffic except for surface deterioration caused by weathering. The general aviation apron will have a pavement life of only three years in areas where the Gulfstream II operations are concentrated -but will have a pavement life of 10 years under forecast traffic of all other aircraft. If the total pavement section on the apron is increased to 13 inches by either overlay or reconstruction, then the pavement life for areas used by all aircraft other than the Gulfstream II will be'in excess of 20 years. For areas used by the Gulfstream II the total pavement section should be increased,to 19 inches to obtain a 20 -year life. REINARD WBRANDLEY CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER L Page 16 - For new pavement sections.the.Fatigue Analysis methodology, indicates that for the Gulfstream II loaded to 50,000 pounds gross aircraft weight a -total pavement section of 18 inches will be -required, for a general aviation aircraft loaded to 20,000 -inch pavement section is pounds on single gear configuration a 14 required, and.for a single engine aircraft on single gear configuration loaded to 12,500 pounds a 13 -inch total pavement section is required. D. Federal Aviation Administration Design Method The Federal Aviation Administration has adopted a method of design and evaluation of airport pavements'that has been present-�ed in -6C. The F.A.A. design method is' F.A.A. Advisory Circular 150/5320 based on the California -Bearing Ratio design procedure for - flexible pavements. Based on the soil test data obtained in this and previous studies, the California Bearing Ratio of the subgrade materials can be expected to range between 5 and 15, with 5 being the critical -Lia Bearing Ratio of existing base course subgrade. The Califon materials under existing pavements was found to be 30 and the California Bearing.Ratio of any new aggregate base course materials used at this site will be 100+. -Using these data and the critical aircraft, the following pavement design sections for various critical aircraft. and various subgrade - conditions have been determined'. These pavement section requirements are summarized in the following table:. REINARD W. BRANDLEY CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER' Page.17 Pavement Section Requirements Gross Type Annual Subgrade (Inches) Aircraft Wt - Lb. Gear Operati CBR AC- AB Tbtal G 11 50,000 Ddal 1,200 5 3, 15 18 3,000 3,* 16 19 1,200 8 3 10 13 3,000 3-- 11 14 .1,200,� 12 ..3 6 9 3, 000 3 7 10 1,200 3 5 8 3,000 3 5. 8 Small Business' 20iOOO Single 1,200 5- 3 10.5.,13.5 Jet 3,000, 3 11.5. 14.5 8 3 7 10 3,000 3 8. 11 1,200 12 3 4. 7 3,000- 3- 5 8 1,200 15 3 3.5 6.5 3,000 3 4 7 General Aviation .12,500 Single 3,006 5 2 11 13 8 .2 8 10 12. 2 5. 7 15 2. .3.5 5.5 It will be noted that the pavement requirements for both the Fatigup Analysis petliod of design and the CBR method of design for tlie,same number,of aircraft�operations and subgrade-conditions are similar. 'It is recommended that the following pavement sections be utilized.for',overlay and reconstruction of existing pavements and for the construction of new pavements: REINARD W. BRANDLEY CO!4SULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER page. 18 Recom-ended Pavement Desian Sections Gross Critical l6ad Type* Pavement Section inches Location Aircraft (lb.) Gear AC .'.AB** -Total RIW 1-19 (Overlay) G 11 501000 Dual 8- 9 .17* R/W 1-19 (New Construction) G 11 50,000 Dual 3 16 19 P,/W 12-30 GA Twin 20,000 Single 3 11. 5 14.5 T/Ws. A, B, C, D & E� G H. 50,000 Dual 3. 16 19 T/Ws ZT, K,. L & N GA,Twin-. 20,000 Single 3 11.� 14.5 Tie Down Apron Jet Aircraft. G 11:. 50,000 Dual 3 16 19 Tie Down Apron light GA GA Twin 12,500 Single 2 11 -13 Tee Hangar Area.- Light Business Jet, Bus.Jet 20,000 Single 3 11.5 14.5 Tee Hangar Area Light GA. GA, Twin' 12,500 Single 2, .11 13 NCTES:- 1. All data based on critical subgrade CBR 5. With selective grading, -CBR of subgrade may be upgraded with corresponding decrease in pavementsection. *Based on 3 -inch AC overlay over existing,section. **Subbase course materials can be -substituted for the lower portion -of the base course 'materials, REINARb w. BRANDLEY 5:ONSULTING AIRPORT Et4rINEER TABLE -NO.' C-1 - - - - - - - - - - - - --- OROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT OROVILLE, BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA RUNWAY 1-19.PAVEMENT EVALUATION.STUDY JOG Or TEST PITS Location Depth Natural Test ----------------- Below Mo'isture Pit Offset, Surface Content No. Station (Ft.) (Ft.) (Perce �nt) Materia.l�Describtion --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P 1 68+60 Rt'. 0-3 9_9 Brown Clayey Sandy Silt %125* 3-5 10.7 Brown Sandy Silt 5-8 14.0- 'Brown Clayey Silt P2 61+00 125 Lt.. 0-3.1 4.7 Brown Sandy Silt 3.1-6.3 16.8 Brown Sandy Clayey Silt 6..3-8.0 25.0 Brown Sandy Clayey Silt "P3 53+00 125 Rt.* 0-3 1.1.3 Brown Clayey Sandy Silt 3-5 22.8 Brown Sandy Clay .-5-8 18.0 Brown Sandy Clay P4 45+00 :-.125 Lt. 0-3 5.1 Brown Sandy Silt 3-5 6.0 Brown Sandy Silt to Silty Fine, Sand 5-8 16.0 Brown Clayey Silty Fine Sand'' P5. 37+00 125 Rt. 0-2 3.5 Clayey*.Sandy Silt 2-4.2 17.8 Sandy Silt to Silty Fine Sand 4.2 13.8 Hardpan Compact Silty Fine Sand P 6 29+00 125 Lt. �0-2.8 1.1.5 Brown Sandy -Silt, (Clayey) 2.8 Hardpan P 7 21+00 125 Rt. 0-2.0 7.8 Brown Sandy Silt 2.0 Hardpan P8 11+00 125 Lt' 0-3.5 7.9 Brown Silty Fine Sand (Gravelly) 3.5-8.0 12.8 Brown Silty Fine Sand (Gravelly) 8.0 16.9 Brown Silty Fine to Medium Sand TABLE - ------------- NO. C-2 - OROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT OROVILLE, BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA RUNWAY 1-19 PAVEMENT EVALUATION. STUDY ,LOG OF -- ----------------- CORE HOLES Location Depth Natural Core ---------------------- Below Moisture Hole Offset Surface Content No. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Station -(Ft. (In.) (Percent) Material,Description TI .68+50 .50 Rt. 0-2 3/4 Asphaltic Concrete. 2 3/4-13 1/4 6.0 Aggregate Base - Silty Sand and Gravel 13 1/4-19 13.6 Brown Sandy'Clayey Silt T2 61+00 50 -Lt. 0-3 Asphaltic Concrete 3-12. 7.6 Aggregate Base - Silty Sand and Gravel 12-18 11.4 Brown Sandy Silt (Slightly Clayey) T3 53+00 50 Rt.- 0-3 1/4 Asphaltic Concrete 3 1/4-12 11.1 Aggregate 'Base - Clayey Sand and Gravel 12-17 17.9 Brown Sandy Clayey Silt T4 45+00 50 Lt. 0-3 Asphaltic Concrete 3-12 8.2 Aggregate Base - Sand and Gravel (Silty) 12-16 9.6 Brown Sandy Silt T5 37+0.0 50 Rt.- 0-3 3/4 Asphaltic Concrete 3/4-12 8.8. Aggregate Base - Sand and Gravel (Clayey) ..12-16 18.2 Brown Clayey Sand T6 29+00 50 Lt. 0-3 1/4 Asphaltic Concrete' 3 1/4-14 4.0 Aggregate 'Base - Sand and� Gravel, Partially Crushed. 14-20 14.6 Brown Sandy Clay T7 21+00 50 Rt. 0-3 Asphaltic Concrete 3-13 3.8 Crushed Aggregate Base 13-19 12.0 Brown Sandy,Silt T8 11+00 50 Lt. 0-3 Asphaltic Concrete 3-16, 3.7 Aggregate Base - Sand and Gravel, Partially Crushed 16-22 14.0 Brown Sandy Silt (Clayey) 'l ev. 2 3 4. .5 6 7 8 9 '10 12 13 14 15' - 16 - 17 -18 19 20 No. 2 3 4 RED Ft.. ------ Level ----- lb/cu ft --------- % -------- Description ----------------------------------- 20 36 Red Brown Silty Fine Sand '50/12 135 7. 3 Gravel Embedded - - - 50/6 - - - - - - - -- 114 - - - 12.6. - - - - - - - - - - - - Rod Brown Clay Silty - - - - - - - Fine Sand - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Reddish Brown Silty - - - - - - - Fine Sand 37 .(Clayey) - - - - - - --- 122- -18.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - --- - 50/10 127 10.6. Reddish Brown Clayey SJ 1 t 16 37 ill 19.0 - - - - - - 120-1. -16.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34 Red Brown Silty Fine Sand (Clayey) ------------------------------ Boring Terminated ------ 'at 18 feet' ------------------ 4ARD W. -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- BRANDLEY, CONSULTING ----------------------------- AIRPORT.ENGINEER TABLE NO. C-4 ----------- I --------- ---------------------------------- ----------- -------- PROJECT: Oroville Municipal.Airport- LOG OF BORING NO. U2 Master Plan Report ----------- - - - - -- - - --- --- - - 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date Drilled: -11-16-89"- Surfa6e Elevation: 175,feet --------------------- ---------- ------------------------- Dry Natural. Unit Moisture Sample Blows/ Water, Weight Content Elev. No. Ft. Level lb/cu-ft - % Description ----- ------ ------ ----- -------- -------- ------------------- --------------- 1 - 2 3 4 5 6.- 7 8 9 10 11 .12 13 14 15 16 17. - 18 19.- 20 2 3 4 RED .10 26 Brown Clayey Sandy Silt 50/8 126, —9.6 - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - Orange Brown - - - Sandy - - - - - - - - Silt 50/10 104 20.7 - - - - 23 - - - - - - -- - - --- - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - 38-1 106. 2.3.2 'Orange Brown Sandy Cl'ayey Silt 50/12- - - - - 50/8 - - - - - - --- 101 - - - ..25.0 - - - -- -- - - - Brown Sandy - - - Clayey - -- - -- - - - - Silt ---------------------------------- ..Boring Terminated at 16 feet, --------------- 4ARD W. ---------------------------------- ------------------- BRANDLEY, CONSULTING ----------------------------------- AIRPORT ENGINEER 7 ----------------------- TABLE NO. C-:5 ---------------------------- ---------------------- ------------------------------- PROJECT: Oroville Municipal Airport LOG OF BORING NO. U3 Master P.lan*Report --------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7-- 7 -------- Date Drilled: .11-16-89. Surface Elevation: 185. feet ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dry- Natural Unit Moisture Sample Blows/ Water Weight Content Elev. No. Ft. Level lb/cu-ft % Description ----- ------ ------ ----- -------- -------- --------- -------------------------- . 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 12 13. - 1.4 15 16 17 18 19. - 20 - 2 3 4,� REI 4 5 6. 7 8 9 10' - 1 12 13 14 - 15 - .16 17 18 19 20 RED TABLE NO. C-7 ............. OROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT OROVILLE, BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE DATA ------------------------- pavement Section E KsJ Deflection x 10-3 (inch) Coverage to Failure X' : -------------- 103 --------------------- Location - ----------------- --------------------- AC AS Total AC ----------------- ------------- ------------------- 7 -------- AS Subgrade G 11 Citation ' -------------------------------------- 7 ---------- Twin -------------- Single ------------ G. 11 ---------- Citation 7 --------------------------- Twin Single - - Runway*1-19* 6 9 15 1.200 60 20 28.2 7.9 4.2 2.2 14 850 5,000 10,000+. (Northerly 2,5001) 6 112 '18 25.4 6.8 3.7 .1.9 47 1,800 9,500 10,000+ 6 18 24 21.3 5.4 2.9 1.6 230 9,000 10,000+ .10,000+ 8 9 18 25.69 6.9 3.7 1.9 50 1,800 10,000+ 10,000+ a 12' 21 23.4 6.1 3.3 1.7 90 4,200 10,000+ 10,000+ 8 18 26 19.9 5.0 2.7 1 .4 270 11,000 10,000+ 10,000+ Runway 1-19* 5 12 17 200 60 12 39.8 10.6 5.7 3.0 12 440. 2,700 10,000+ (S.outherLy 3,5001) 5 18 23 -32.8 8.3 4.5 21.4 46 2,400 10,000+ 10,000+ 8 12 20 34.9 8.9 4.8 2.6 28 1,300 7,500 10,000+ 8 18 26 29.5 7.3 3.9.. 9.1 80 4+,300 10,000+ 10,000+ Runway 12-30* 3 6 9 200 60 14 50.4 16.4 8.9 4.5 1.2 31 109 1,200 (Westerly 4,0001) 3 12 15 38.8 10..9 5.8 3.0 7.7 300 1j700 10,000+' 3 18 21 31.5 81.2 .'4.4. 2.3 40 1,800 9,000 .10,000+ 6 6 12 42.4 12.1 6.6 3.4 3.8 140 676 4,000 6 12 18 33.8 8.9 4.8 2.5 20 900 5,000, 10,000+ 6 18 24 28J 7.1 3.8 2.0 00 4,500 10,000+ 10,000+ 8 6 14 38.0 10.4 5.6 2.9 8 330 2,000 11,000 8 12 20 31.0 8.0 4.3- 2.3 40 1,800 10,000. -10,000+ 8 18 26 26.2 6.5 3..5 1.9 103 7,000 .10,000+ 10'.000+ *Existing Section Noie: ALL other sections'anatyzed except.egis�ting section based on overlay or reconstruction. OroviLte Municipal Airport Table No. C,7 Pavement Performance D ata, Page 2 Pavement,Section E Ksi Deflection x 10-3 (inc*h - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - Coverage, - - - - - - - - - to Failure x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 103 - - - - Location ---------------------- - - - - AC ------------- - - - - - - - AB - - - --- - -- - - Total --------- - - - - - - - - AC ---------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - AB Subgrade G 11, -------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - Citat.ion ----------- - - - - Twin' ------------ Singte -------------------- G 11 Citation 7 Twin ------------------ Single Runway 12-30* 2 12 .14 200 60 20 30.6 9.0 4.9 2.5 14 500 2,800 10,000+ (Easterly 1,0001) .2 18 .20 24.9 6.7 3.16 1.9 70 3,000 -.10,000+ 10,000+ 4 12 1.6 27.8 7.8 4.2 2.2 22 1,000 6,000 10,000+ q 4 18 22 22.9 6.0 3.2 1.7 1 125 5,500 10,000+ 10,000+, 6, 12 18 25.5. 6.8 3.7 1.9 47 2,000, 10,000 10,000+ 6 18 24 21.3 5.4 2.9 1.6 20 0 10,000 10,000+ 10,00.0+ Taxiways R, V, S & L* 2 12 14 200 60 15 38.7 11.1 6.0 3.1 7 270 1,400 10,000 2 18 20 31-.3 8.21 4.4 .2.3 40 1,700 9,000. 110,000+ 4 12 16 -35.0 9.6 5.2 2.7 13 500 3,000 10,000+ 4 18 22 28.7 7.4 4.0 2.1 65 3,100 10,000+ 10,000+ 6 12 18 32.0 8.5 4.5 2.4 25 1,000 6,000 10,000+ 6 18 24 26.6 6.7 3.6 1.9 40 5,500 10,000+ 10,000+ Taxiway T* 2 6- 8 200 60 20 39.0 14.2 .7.8 3.9 2.5 40 240 1 1,700 2 12 14 30.6 9.0 4.9 2.5 14. 450 2,700 10,000+ 2 1.8 .20 24.9 6.7- 3.6 1.9 80 3,000 10,000+ 10,000+.. 4 6 10 35.2 11.3 6.1 M 4.7 130 700 4,800 4 12 .27.8 7.8 4.2 2.2 23. 1,000 5,200 100000++ 4. 18 22 ?2.9 6.0 3.2 1.7 120 5,000 10,000 104000+ 6 6 12 31.6 9.3 5.0 -L6 9 300 1,800 11,000 6 12 18 25.5 6.8 3.7 1.9 47 2,000 10,000 10,000+ 6 18 24 21.3 5.4 2.9 1.6 190 8,000 10,000+ 10,000+1 *Existing Section Note: ALL other sectJons analyzed except existing section based on overlay or reconstruction.. Orovi I te Municipal Airport Table No. C .7 Pavement Performance Data Page 3 Pavement Section E Ksj Deflection x 10-3 (inch) ----------------------------- Coverage to,Faiture.x 10 ; 3 ......... Location ---------------------- - - - - AC ----------------------- - - - - - - - AB - - - - - - - - - Total - - - - - - - - AC ----------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - AB . Subgrade 11 ------------------------------------ - - - - - - - - - - Citation - - 7 - - - - - - - - Twin. - Single ----------------------------- G 11 Cita I tioh Twin I ------------ Single - Apron* 2 6 8 2.00 60 10 71.5 23.6 13.0 6.5 0.35 10 50. 400 2 12 14 53.5 14.9 8.1 4.2 2.7 120 .630 4,200 2 18 20 42.8 11.11 5.9 3.2 15 800 4,500 10,000 + 6 10. 63.0 18.7 .10.2 5.2 0.9 27 170 1,100 4 12 16 48. 2� M9 6.9 3.6 5.3 220 1,500. 8,000 4 18 22 39.2 10.0 5.3 25 1,300 7,000 10,000- 6 6 12 55.7 15.5 8.4 4.3 17 72 400 2,800 6 12 18 43.8 11.4 6.1 3.2 10 460 2,600 10,000+ 6 24 36.3" 4.9 2.6 37 2,200 11,000. 10,000+. *Existing Section Note: All other sections an.aLyzed except existing section. based,on overlay or recon struction. TABLE NO. C8 ------------ OROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA --------------- FORECAST OPERATIONS ANNUAL OPERATIONS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OTHER YEAR G-2 CITATION III CITATION 11 BUSINESS JETS KING AIR SMALL TYIN tINGLE-G.A. HELICOPTER - MILITARY ------------ TOTAL 1989 24 48 600 48 600 3,000 56,476 154, 100 61,050 1995 24 72 800 80 800 3,500 58,424 300 100 64,1.00 2005 36 90 1,000 200' .900. 4,000 62 474 400 100 '69,200 2010 50 -100 1,100 250 1,000 5,000 64,000 600 100 1 72,200 .1 Note: One Operation Equals One Departure Or One ArrivaL Summary of Distribution of Traffic Note: 1989 operations of Louisiana Pacific ----------- ---------------------- fleet shown below: R/W 12-30 25% of Single G.A. Annual- Ai,rcraft Operations R/W*1-19 All Others - ------------ After 6:00 p.m.:. 10% ALL others Citation I 1 600 20% G.A. Single Citation 111 48 G2 24 King Air 600. Jet Ranger Helicopter 104 012 M -e irt (n 60 z 0 x 50 1 z 0 UJ 1 .40 LA_ w a - 30 20 10 0 0+00 '.'LEGEND 10KIOADING X 14K LOADING 23K LOADING 10+00 OROVILLE MUNICIPAL ' AIRPORT F.W.D. TEST -RESULTS —.-CENTER DEFLECTION RUNWAY 1, — 19 10/24/88 PAVEMENT SURFACE 850F 20+00 30+00 STATION 40+00 50+00 60+00 PLATE No. C2 OROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 0+00 10+00 20+00' 30+00 40+00 STATIM. 50+00 60+00 -'�'PLAT E, N o. C 3' '...:'LEGEND 10K LOADING X 14K LOADING 23K LOADING STATION 60+00 PLATE No. C4 70 (n 60 z x 50 z U uJ 40 30 -20 10 0 '...:'LEGEND 10K LOADING X 14K LOADING 23K LOADING STATION 60+00 PLATE No. C4 OROVILLE' MUNICIPAL AIRPORT - F.W.D. TEST'RESULTS CENTER DEFLECTION NOTE: TAXIWAY R .10/24/88 STATION 0+00 LOCATED AT THRESHOLD OF PAVEMENT SURFACE 740F EXISTING RUNWAY 30. STATIONING. INCREASES 90, EAST TO- WEST 10K LOADING 80 X 14K LOADING 23K LOADING �70 0 60 50 + 0 LJ 40 '30 vil 20 10 0. 0+00, 10+00 , 20+00 36+oo --40+00 50+00 60+00 STATION PLATE No. C5 00 LOCATED AT STATIONING INCREASES 3OUTH I .LEGEND 10K LOADING' X 14K LOADING 23K LOADING 0ROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT F.W.D. TEST RESULTS -CENTER -DEFLECTION' TAXIWAY 'L 10/24/88 PAVEMENT SURFACE 820F PLATE No. C6' .0+00 10+ 00 STATION 100 90 80 70 60 z 50 40 LL_ 30 20 10 0 00 LOCATED AT STATIONING INCREASES 3OUTH I .LEGEND 10K LOADING' X 14K LOADING 23K LOADING 0ROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT F.W.D. TEST RESULTS -CENTER -DEFLECTION' TAXIWAY 'L 10/24/88 PAVEMENT SURFACE 820F PLATE No. C6' .0+00 10+ 00 STATION LEGEND 10K LOADING X 14K LOADING & 23K LOADING NOTE: STATION 0+00 'LOCATED AT TAXIWAY R. STATIONING -INCREASES SOUTH TO NORTH, DROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT. 'EST RESULTS CENTER. DEFLECTION TAXIWAY T. .1 0124V88 r PAVEMENT SURFACE 94 F -00 PLATE No. C7 100- LEGE I ND, 1 OK LOADING I 14K LOADING LOADING 90 80 70 NOTE: 1. STATION 0+00 LOCATED AT THRESHOLD OF EXISTING RUNWAY 12. STATIONING INCREASES WEST TO EAST X 60 X 50 ui j 40 u- V, 30 20 OROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT F.W.D.. TEST RESULTS "CENTER DEFLECT ION 10 - TAXIWAY S WEST 10/24/88 PAVEMENT. SURFACE -940F 0 0+00 10+00 STATION PLATE NO. C8. - ple 90 80 LEGEND 10K LOADING X 14K LOADING 23K LOADING NOTEe I STATION 0+00 LOCATED AT THRESHOLD. OF EXISTING RUNWAY 19. .'STATIONING INCREASESVEST TO- EAST (n .10 C-) 60 0 50 4-0 LL. 30 .20 LEGEND 10K LOADING X 14K LOADING 23K LOADING NOTEe I STATION 0+00 LOCATED AT THRESHOLD. OF EXISTING RUNWAY 19. .'STATIONING INCREASESVEST TO- EAST .10 0 LEGEND 10K LOADING X 14K LOADING 23K LOADING NOTEe I STATION 0+00 LOCATED AT THRESHOLD. OF EXISTING RUNWAY 19. .'STATIONING INCREASESVEST TO- EAST 100 10K LOADING 14K LOADING .23K LOADING 90 70 NOTE: TEST L A,NE LOCATED AT WEST EDGE OF APRON. STATIONING INCREASES NORTH TO SOUTH 60 z 0 50 40 Li 30 20 'MUNICIPAL OROVILLE AIRPORT F.W.D. TEST RESULTS CENTER DEFLECTION 10 APRON 10/24/88 PAVEMENT SURFACE. 940T 0 10+00 .0+00. PL ATE No. CL -0 STATION 100 1EGEND so 10K LOADING X .14K LOADING 23K LOADING 90 80 70 NOTE: TEST LANE' LOCATED AT 200 FT. EAST OF.WEST APRON EDGE. STATIONING INCREASES NORTH TO SOUTH 60 z 50 z 40. It 3 0 20 OROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT F.W.D. TEST RESULTS CENTER DEFLECTION APROW 10/24/88 Pcc PAVEMENT SURFACE. 9,f F. 0+00. 10+00 -.15+00 PLATE No.C11 CTATIOKI 70 (n '60 z x 50 z 0 0 40 30 20 10 .0 NMIN LEGEND 0 10K LOADING X. 14K LOADING 23K LOADING NOTE: TE ST LANE. LOCATED AT 400 FT. EAST OF WEST APRON EDGE. STATIONING INCREASES NORTH TO SOUTH OROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT F.W.D.'TEST RESULTS CENTER DEFLECTION APRON 10/24/88 PAVEMENT SURFACE; 949 F Pccl 0+00 10+00 20+00 PLATE No. C12 STATION C-1 FATIGUE -ANALYSIS N=OD FOR PAvEmERr EvAujAmoN. AND DEsiGN by Reinard W. Brandley Consulting Airport Engin' ' eer 2041 Hallmark Drive Sacramento, California, -95825 For Presentation at: SyTrposium on Nondestructive TL -stand Evaluation of Airpoft Pavement Navaiiber 18-20, 1975 Vicksburgi Mississippi Sponsored by U_S_ Army Engineers Vaterways D<periment Station FATIGUE ANALYSIS METHCD* FOR.PAVEMENT.EVALUATION.AND DESIGN by Reinard W. Brandley Consulting Airport Engineer. Sacramento, California 1 INMCCUMON A pavement section on an airport or highway normally does not suddenly collapse and allow the vehicle,to sink into the pavement unless the pavement is grossly under -designed or unless same major defect suddenly occurs within the pavement section. The normal type offailure on a pavement is a progressive failure which takes place over a period of time and gradually cause's the pavement to deteriorate to a point where - normal maintenance is no longer econamically feasible. When*a pavement reaches this condition of deterioration or failure, it is normally strengthened br reconstructed.in order that its life. -can be extended., The type of failure which -occurs with a flexible'type pavement is somewhat different fram that which occurs with a rigid type pavement., With a flexible pavement, failure is usually associated with -excessive vertical displacement, both permanent and recoverable. When deflections in a flexible pavement section exceed t:he-allowable*limits, then the pavement section ruts.and cracking occurs in the pavement surface' * The first signs of -cracking are usually longitudinal cracks in the pavement. Transverse. cracks develop shortly thereafter, and eventually a map -pattern cracking develops throughout the pavement sectiono Shortly after this - cracking pattern develo a complete failure of the section can be PS anticipated. With the rigid type pavement the first signs bf distress are ..generally cracking of the pavement slab, corner -cracking, arid/or spalling at the joints. -This is followed by vertical displacements of sections of the slab and eventually.deterioration to a point where maintenance is no' longer feasible. The present design criteria for pavements are largely empiricalvand there is no assurance that pavements designed by these empirical methods will necessarily perform as anticipatedo' 7he design of rigid pavements is based on a more theoretically exact design method, but even these designs are based on empirical.considerationst and there is some question as*to the reliability of -the-tests used to determine the modulus of soil reaction (K -factor) which is utilized in the design. The inherent weaknesses in these criteria pranpted the development of a rational design method which can be used for the design'And evaluation of rigid.pavements,, ..flexible pavements, and pavements using combinations of materials, either stabilized or unstabilized. II*I PAVEMENT rESIGN (DNSI]DERATIONS There are four mAjoi consideration which must.be taken into'*account in pavement evaluation and design: Protect the subgrade and underlying soils fran-fatigue failures under load. Design the pavement*section such that -it will -distribute loadings to. the subgrade without failure of the pavement'section itself Design the section such that permanent deformations are limited to. levels which do not*aver-stress the pavement section and do,not cause roughness or -rutting. Design the section which is ifiost'econmical fr'm the standpoint of initial costr maintenance cost, and operational cost.' The design of a pavement section and the materials which are used can be controlled by the Engineer. The materials utilized for theisection' can be selected and placed such that sufficient strength and durability can be provided to distribute the loads -to the subgrade without failure of the pavement section itself. The Engineer can utilize Portland cement concrete, bituminous surface course, cement -treated base, lime -stabilized bases, untreated bases, or'combinations thereof, to provide the necessary stability within the pavement section.- The design of the pavement section. itself,can be.accomplishe.d,using a fatigue analysis in which the first -crack theory can be utilized for rigid pavements and the limiting strain criteria for flexible pavements. Permanent deformations are caused by consolidation of the.subgrade and underlying soils and by:compaction of the pavement sections under - load.. By the application of Soil Mechanics Theories, the amount of consolidation and compaction of subgrade, and pavement section materials. under loading, both dynamic and static, can be anticipated. , The &sign of. the section can be adjusted.to minimize the permanent deformations due to. consolidation or compaction. Such techniques as over-exca,�atibn of soft.. subgrade materials and replacement with denser compacted embankments, pre -consolidation of soft, materials by the use -.of 'pre --loading, and the use of stable foundation and base course materials adequately compacted or� cemented serve this purpose. Stable pavement sections which adequately protect the subgrade and subsoils can be developed using many combinations of stabilized or unstabilized base or subbase materials and be using flexible or rigid pavements. The pavement sections can be designed to support the proposed.. I loadings without failure for one, five, twenty years, or longer. Econamic evaluations will normally dictate the type of section used. Initial construction costs are not the only costs that must be considered in such an analysis. The'costs of subsequent overlays, maintenance and operational expenses during maintenance and reconstruction must also be taken into account. on airport'pavements the operational expenses incurred during maintenance and reconstruction often are a significant' factor in design. The author'has developed a fatigue -analysis method for pavement - evaluation and design. This method of analysis is a rational approach to pavement design in which the soil constants used for design are -the fundamental properties of the.soils and each layer of the pavement sections. These are the Modulus..of Elasticity and Poisson's Ratio. III BASIS FOR FATIGUE ANALYSIS A. Eatly ReM_4Lr_b Extensive research has been conducted over the past thirty years to study the performance of pavements under repeated load applications of-pneunatic-tired vehicles. During and shortly after World War II,, the U. S. Arny.Corps of Engineers conducted a series of accelerated traffic tests on airfield pavements in which various pavement sections were constructed, instrumented, and tested. Testing consisted of repeated loading of the.pavement sections with test vehicles. Data accumulated consisted of elastic deflection measurements under load, permanent deformation under load, as well as performance of the section under the applied load. During*the same period the Canadian -Government and the British Goverment, -as well as other govermental agencies.throughout the world, conducted extensive research on the subject of pavement performance under, load. 9ILL.Q B. Develo Ugent o ec CCt 'a Q., ade Defj The author utilized the data developed by the various governments in the preparation of a doctorate thesis at Harvard University, Graduate School of Engineering, to develop performance criteria for pavements underrepetitive loading. This research showed that there was a direct relationship between performance of the pavement section as defined by the nuTber of coverages before failure and the deflection or strain in the upper portion of the subgrade soils.. These studies have led to the development of a Limiting Subgrade. Deflection Criterion to determine the capability of the pavement: section to perform under repeated loadings without fatigue failure.. The Limiting Subgrade Deflection Criteria developed by -this research ....are present in Plate No. 1. It will be noted that the criteria relate subgrade deflection with pavement section thickness and the total number of coverages that can be applied to the section -before a f atigue failure will occur A similar criterion can be. developed relating subgrade strain with performance as defined by the -number of coverages of a load before failure will occur. 7he subgrade deflection and thickness of section above the subgrade wasvtiliied in this analysis since it was more readily measured thansubgrade strain.', Subgrade deflection used,in this analysis is the -maximum subgrade deflection measured under a given loading. C. has Over the past twenty years -the author conducted extensive research at various airports throughout the United States,, including.. Sacramento Metro Airport, Sacramento,*California; Stockton na i Metropolitan Airport, Stockton, California; Honolulu Inter t onal Airport, Honolulu, Hawaii; Seattle -Tacoma International Airport, Seattle, Washington; Standiford Field, Louidville,, Kentucky; Nashville Metropolitan Airport, Nashville, Tennessee; and Chicago -O'Hare International Airport, Chicago, Illinois. 7hese research programs were conducted not only forthe purpose of evaluating the -specific pavements, but for the purpose of augmenting the'data which had been developed as a result of the author's research:work at Harvard University Sufficient data have.been obtained fran.these research projects to refine the original Limiting Subgrade-Deflection curves prepared. by the author and to validate their accuracy. D. FieL(LP_erfg Experience has shown that the Limiting Subgrade Deflection Criteria can be used without modification with all types and combinations of -types of pavement.- The rigidity as measured,by Modulus of Elasticity of any.section of pavement is autanatically 'taken into consideration by the.effect it has on subgrade deflection under a given load. Over the past twenty years this Limiting Subgrade Deflection Criterion has been used by the author to evaluate and design,. numerous pavement sections. 7he performance of these sect -ions has been observed, and the relationship between forecast life and -the actually -life of the pavement under load has been remarkable. For example, at Stockton Metropolitan Airport a design was prepared in 1956 in which a total flexible pavement section of 44 inches,overa heavy clay subgrade soil was recommended -to prav ide, a 20-yW life under forecast traffic of airline -type jet aircraft used for pilot training. Pecause of F.A.A. design criteria at that time, the design section was limited to 33 inches. Failure was predicted under the applied loads within six to'eight years, and failure actually occurred -in seven years.. At S6cramento-Metro'Airport the pavement design was prepared on the basis of the Limiting Subgrade.Deflection criteria and was F I I designed for a 20 -year l.ife under foiecast traffic. Both fle�xlble and rigid pavements were utilized. The pavements havebeen in ope ration now for ten yea rs unde r traf f ic appr oximately 5 0 pe-rca& greater than.that forecast, and there have been no indicatlionsvf any failures in any pavements on this airport. At Nashville� Metropolitan Airport pavement evaluation studies were conducted in the fall and winter of 1972. Using the L=king Subgrade Deflect -ion Criteria a fatigue failure was predicted an.the parallel taxiway to Runway 2L -20R within three years. This.-t�ivay failed on schedule in the sumver of 1975. E. thodglocry f r _Cmputing lKe-figctions 1 In the ori . ginal development of this method of fatigue analysis, it was necessary to obtain the actual subgrade deflection values under load by f ull"scale. testing in whidi.the pavement sections were fully instrumented. 'Full-scale loads .were applied by the operating aircraft or the ' use of 'heavy-daty rubber -tired equipment, and resultant deflection, stress Wd strain measurements were made throughout the pavement sect-Im. This initial approach was a tinL—consuning and costly procefte. Efforts have been made to. develop methods whereby'th6 d r deflection,and strain measurements could be obtained by =1 and less.expensive procedures. - 2. Test Prggr At each test site location, a series of test boririgswais made and a series of test pits excavated in the pavement sections themselves. -Tests conducted in these test pits. ted of standard classification tests,'plate bearingt-ests consis and field,Californici Bearing Ratio tests. Detailed laborat(ty. testing was also conducted on all samples of materials. - %,ie test was accomplished on each layer of the pavement section, other than the asphaltic concrete or Portland cement. -concrtte pavement itself, and on the surface of the subgrade soil and on each major change in subgrade materials within the upper t1wee . to four feet'.of the subgrade. 3. Deve- ing Te,9t The plate bearing test conducted'was a repetitive test which the loading*and unloading cycle was repeated Ehree�to five 'times until repeatable results for elastic def lbction could ble obtained with each subsequent loading. Twenty years ago, the author recognized that the starxia-rd' plate bearing test, -in which only one repetition of load -was applied, gaveerratic and unusable data.,.There was poor correlation between test results studies and pavement performance and between test results obtained,frm similar.and adjacent test sites. 'Correlation could not even be, obtained between tests conductedadjacent to each other in.the same test pit. If a plate bearing test is repeated several times, then after a third or fourth repetition of loading, repeatable results are bbtained 'With subsequent application of the load. Good'correlation has been obtained between test data and Taveme pt performance under.load. in Plate No. 2'i typical set of plate bearing test,data is presented, which clearly shows� the -discrepancy between test results fram the first repetition of loading and subsequent repetitions. 'It is'apparent'thAt many variables - suchas seating of the plate, disturbance of the soil immediately below the plate, and.compaction of the soil - cause the test data under the first repetition of loading to be distorted. 11he actual aircraft loadings are applied in a repetitive manner, and the data obtained frm,a-repetitive plate bearing test more, accurately represents the performance of the section under typical loading., Studies�conducted'have shown that the relationship between Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (K),, as determined fran th&'fou'rth repetition -of loading,.'and that determined f ran the' -f irst repetition of loading ranges fran 0.85 to 1 to 6, to 1, whereas the K-�-valu6 obtained f ran the sixth to fourth repetition of loading is approximately the. same. 4. MQd-dllg -Qf tion (E Yalue),. The results of the -load deflection,data obtained frcm the plate bearing tests after stable conditions have been obtained at.the end of -the third to fifth repetition'of loadinghave been utilized.with the Chevron'Cornputer Program for determining stressesf.strains, and deflections in multi -layered systemsp to determine the Modulus of Elasticity for the various pavement section. layers.. Repetitive plate bearing tests are conducted on the surface of -each layer of pavement section, on the -top of the subgrader and o the top of each.'major change in soil withinthe upper three to four feet subsoil. If borings show major changes in'. subsoil stratification within the upper 30 feet, then assumptions of Modulus of Elasticity (E) and Poisson's,Ratio (u) are made for these I ower I ayers; otherwise, a sem . i -infinite thickness of the subgrade or lowest subsoil tested in assumed. Using the deflection data obtained frm the repetitive plate bearing tests andthe thickness of each layer ' as d6teimined f rcm the test pit and test boring program, Modulus of Elasticity (E) values can be computed using the Chevron Computer Program technique for each layer of soil.and pavement section, starting with the bottcm layer and progressing upward. Flor these I I Onalyses' assumed valuesof-Poisson's Ratio (u)�must be made.' Research has shown that the computer program is not sensitive to moderate variations in Poisson's,Ratio and that, if reasonable estimates are made for values of Poisson's Ratio for each layer tested, the error in computed value -of Modulus of Elasticity (E). is -not significant. By this procedure, the Modulus of Elasticity (E), Poissonts Ratio, andthickness of each layer of the pavement section and� underlying soils can be determined. The Modulus of Elasticity" and Poisson's Ratio of materials which are to be, constructed within the pavement section, or -of overlay materials -cemented,- stabilized, or Unstabilized - can be detexmined. The Modulus of ­ Elasticity of asphaltic concrete pavement materials.is. temperature deperx3ent, and the relationship between temperature and Modulus of Elasticity of these materials has been determined. -by.the Asphalt Institute and -is present in Plate No. 3. S., F g.r-f _Qjmi@= Once the value of.Modulus of Elasticity., Poisson's Ratio, and thickness of each layer*within the pavement section -and beneath it has been determined, then the computer program for. layered systems can be utilized with any aircraft loading system, and stresses, strains and deflections computed at arry depthor location within or below t ' he pavement section. This was accomplished on all test sites, and it was'found that the correlation between measured.maximum deflection and maximum computed . deflection under the wheels was extremely good. In all cases the measured deflections were consistently about:85, perce . nt of the computed . deflections. This relationship,held for all -pavement conditions, whether the pavement section was flexible or rigid, whether the base materials were untreated or treated* .The correlation between,measured and computed deflection is not as cood near the 6doe of a deflectioA basin, but these data are not utilized in the Limitina Subarade Deflection criteria. The close relationship between measured and computer maiinum- deflections is shown in Plate No.A.- With the excellent correlation obtained, it is not possible to compute the maximum deflections and strains of the surface of the subgrade under applied wheel loadings and thereby eliminate the requirement for measuring subgrade-deflections and strains. These subgrade deflections can be utilized with the Limiting Subgrade Deflection Curves shown in Pl.ate.No. 1 to determine the life of any given pavement and of any proposed design, including newbonstruction, reconstruction or overlays. - IV FATIGUE ANALYS IS TECHNIQUES It has been demonstrated that -by the use of repetitive plate bearing'.. tests conducted on the surface of each layer of a pavement section,,on the surface of the subgrade soil, and. on the surface of major. changes. in the subsoil, the Modulus of Elasticity of each layer can be determined,. Using these data, any pavement section, including new construction, reconstruction and overlays using'treatLid or untreated bases can be. analyzed and deflections'and strains of the surface of the subgrade computed. The Limiting Subgrade Deflection criteria presented in -this paper can be used to determine the number of coverages a pavement section can withstand. before failure. Depending upon the type of aircraft being used and the portion of the airport (runway, taxiway, etc.).,�hich is being used, coverages can be converted to operations of the aircraft. A katigue.analysis is conducted by.the following general procedures: A. - The existing facility is tested by means of.exploratory test holes carried to a minimum depth of 3 0 feet, f ran which undisturbed soil samples are obtained. Laboratory teswlq on the undisturbed soil 'samples, obtained consists of classification, consolidation, and strength tests. B. Test pits are excavated at the location of each test section, - and repetitive, plate -bearing tests conducted on the surface. of each layer of the existinq pavement, on the surface.of the subgrade soil and on the surface of each major change in subsoil within the upper three to four feet of the subgrade. These data are utilized with the computer program to compute values Of Modulus of Elasticity (E) for each layer*of the pavement section and for thesubgrade and subsoil conditions., -,Values of Poissohl s. Ratio are assumed for each layer., C. The traffic,and forecast traffic over the period under. consideration is determined.. D. For each &ircraft and aircraft loading anticipated to use the facility, a computer analysis is conducted to determine roaximurn subgrade deflection and strain under load. The def lections are computed for the existing sections and for, each condition of overlay or reconstruction to be c6nsidered,in the analysis. The computed deflection's are multiplied by a factor of 0.85 -to convert the computed deflections to equivalent measured deflections. E. Using the ccmputed equivalent -deflections for each aircraft and aircraft loading, 'the Limiting Sub4rade Deflection criterion 'presented in Plate No. 1 is utilized to determine the number of coverages of each aircraft and aircraft loading that can be tolerated before*failure of each pavement section. -9- F. The -allowable coverages as detemined f ran the Limiting. Subgrade Deflection criteria are next converted to allowable operations for any pavement section for each aircraft. G. - Knowing the number of operations which are forecast and the allowable operations.for each aircraft on a given pavement. section,'the percentage use of that pavement section over a one-year period ca ' n be computed for each aircraft and aircraft loading. 7hese percentages can be added for all aircraft and. aircraft loading to provide the total percentage use ih,,one year of a given airport pavement under a forecast mix of aircraft and loading - H. Knowing the percentage use.each year, it is a simple matter to compute the life of the.pavement based. on 100 percent. -use of the. section. The analysis can be refined as -much as desired. The weightof a given -type aircraft.can be averaged, -or the weights of each -of the aircraft using the facility can be used. An average value of, -Modulus of Elasticity of bituminous pavement for a year or a segment of a year based on average pavement temperature can be used, 'or the anal . sis can*,be broken y down into segments of the year or even segments of the day.. It is normally not -necessary to refine the analysis too much since the percentage use of a pavement section for the average loadings is approxirmtely the same as the average percentage use of that determined fran the high loading and the low loading. The same relationship holds true with temperature variations inflexible pavements. An exa�mple of a typical'analysis 'is shown in Plate No. 5, in which an existing pavement -is analyzedi and the same pavement is analyzed with a .14 -inch asphaltic.concrete pavement overlay and then evaluated with, a 14 -inch Portland.cement concrete overlay. V CONCLUSIONS The Fatigue Analysis Method,developed by the author is a rational analysis of a pavement sectionin which the soil parameters used in the analysis are the'Modulus of Elasticity (E) and the Po.isson' s. Ratio (u) -of each layer of the pavement section and of the'underlying soils. By'use of this analysis technique,. any pavement section.can be evaluated,,, not only on ' the basis of whether it'is strong or weak, adequate. or inadequate, but also on the basis of how long it can be expected to perform satisfactorily under given loading conditions. 7he loading conditions can.be varied. The effect on pavement life can be determined for any overlay 'condition or any'type of reconstruction. Subbase,course materials, base course materials, treated or untreated bases and'subbases'., cemented or lime-stabilized.subbases and basest rigid or flexibl� pavements can all be analyzed with the same criteria.. 7he analysis can be. conducted using various types of,overlays or reconstructions, anda, meaningf ul econanic evaluation -can be made in which not only initial cost can be ' consideredo� but maintenance costs,and.operational costs can also be taken into acoouht. VI REQUIREMENT FOR FURTHER RESEARCH The Fatigue Analysis Method requires data obtained fram repetitive plate.bearing tests conducted throughout the pavement section. .7his is time-consuming . and relatively expensive and requires considerable� disruption of operations on the test pavement. Additional research is necessary to develop norr-destructive test methods whereby Modulus of Elasticity values for each -layer of the pavement section and.of the underlying subgrade and subsoils can be determined fran tests conducted'on the pavement surface.. The heavy-duty dynamic testing equipment developed by.the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station has been utilized At test locations at Nashville Metropolitan Airport, Nashvillet, Tennessee,, and at,Chicago-O'Hare International Airport, where -repetitive platebearing tests have also been conducted 'Research has been conducted utilizing this data,, and it appears that scme correlation can be developed between the results of the dynamic testing and plate bearing test results. Much more analysis of the existing data and testing and research are required before the repetitive plate bearing tests can be eliminated And norr-destructive testing procedures substituted.. - The -Fatigue -Analysis Methods presented,in this paper can 1)6 used as a basis for ultimate development of a non-destructive testand evaluation procedure whereby a,rational*method of Analysis can be utilized. 7he soil 'parameters of each layer of pavement section and underlying soils provide the basis for this analysis, not the soil parameters of the composite.. section. Non-destructive test procedures must be developed which will provide a method of determining the Modulus of Elasticity of each layer of the -pavement section and of the subgrade soils. November 10, 1975 mmm m mmm m m m m mm m MIM m m m PLATE NO. le TYPICAL FATIGUE MALYSIS CALCULATIONS A. TEST DATA *Stabilized Deflection, Thickness Modulus of Under PBT **Poisson's,' of Layer. Elasticity (E) material (Inches). Ratio (Inches) (psi) Ashpaltic Concrete Pavement (AC) .0.45 8 65.0, 000***.. Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) 0.35 7, 3,000,000 Aggregate Base ..03 0.35, 10 69-300.' Silty Clay Subgrade .060 0.45 Semi -Infinite 4,000 Asphaltic Concrete Overlay 0.45 Variable. 650,000*** Portland Cement Concrete -Overlay 0.35 Variable 3,000,000 -*Stabilized deflection under.plate bearing test - 30 -inch diameter plater 10 psi loading. **Assum . ed values based on character of materials. ***Pavement temperature - 60' F. Page 1 of.3 PLATE NO. 5 (Continued) -TYPICAL FATIGUE ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS B. PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE CALCULATIONS Pavement -Section Subgrade Deflection ***Allowable, ****Allowable Coverings Operations Thickness Aircraft Aircraft *Cwputed **Adjusted- to to Type (Inches) Type (lb.) .(Inches) (Inches) Failure Failure Existing 25 DC8-55 '303-000 0.202 .0.172 520 -3,120 _271000. B727-200 160,000. 0.114 0. 0 97 2,700 Existing 47 DCB -55 303,000 0.128 0.109 10,100 �60,600 + 18" AC B7.27-200 160,000 0.076 0.064 45,000 45.0#000 Existih 39 ng DCB -55 303,-000 0.118 0.100, 10,000 60,000 14" PCC B727-200 160,000 0.070 0.060.- 43,0.00 430-000 *Actual computed values of maximum deflection at surface of subgrade.'.'. **Actual computed 'values subgrade deflection x 0.85. .***Fram Limiting Subgrade Deflection criterion. ****Assuming taxiway section: B727-200 - 1 coverage = 10 o�erations.. DCB -55- - 1 coverage = 6 operations. Page 2 of 3+, M M ism M. M PLATE NO. 5 (Continued) TYPICAL FATIGUE ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS� C. FATIGUE ANALYSIS Allowable Gross Operations Pavement Weight to Annual Life Overlay Aircraft (lbs.) Failure Operations' %.Use (Years) None DCB -55 303,000 3,120 1,500 48.1 B727-200 160,000- 27,000 15,000 55.6 Thtal 103.7. 0 .96 180 AC DCB -55 303,000 60,600 1,500 2.48 B727-200 160,000 450400 15,000 3.33 71otal 5.81 17.2 12" PCC DC8-55 303,000 60j000 1,500 2.50 B727-200 160,000 430,000 15,000 3.49 Thtal, 5.99 16.7 Page 3 of -3 . 4 4 APPEMDC D ENGINEER'S ESTIMATES Table. Index .,Table No. D1' Engineer's Estimate -Trial No. 2 Class A'& B Aircraft .Table No. D2� Engineer's Estimate Trial No. 2 Class C-& D Aircraft Table No. D3 Engineer's Estimate Trial No. 2A - Class A & B Aircraft' Table No. D4- Engineer's Estimate Trial No. 2A Class. C & D Aircraft Table No. D5 Engineer's Estimate Trial No. 3 Class A & B Aircraft .Table No. D6 -,*.Engineer's Estimate Trial No. 3 Class C & D Aircraft Table No. D7 Engineer's Estimate Runway 12-30 Parallel Taxiway 'Thr-ee Cross Taxiways., Clear Zone FduTway 12 on Public Property Table No. D8 Engineer s Estimate Runway 12-30 Parallel Taxiwa�... Three Cross Taxiways, Clear Zone for Runway 12 Extend North Across Oro Dam. Boulevard Table No. D9 Summary of Development Costs Trial No. 2' Table No. D10 Summary -of Development Costs Trial No. 2A Table No. D11 Summary of Development Costs Trial No. 3. Table No. D12 Engineer's Estimate Aircraft Park:ing Apron & Lead In Taxiway, 75 Tie Down Spaces Table No. D13 Engineer's Estimate Tee Hangar Developnent Area Table No. D14 Engineer's Estimate Access Roads and Utilities REINARD W. BRANDLEY CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER APPENDIX D ENGINEER'S.ESTIMATE .Engineer's estirnates have been prepared for various options of Runway 1-19 development. Trial No. 2 was prepared for the following assumptions. • Runway 1-19 is 100 1 x 6,0001. • Designed for both Aircraft Class A &'B and Class C & D. . -The threshold for - Runway 19 was displaced 2,190 feet so the clear zone would be entirely within public property. • Grades on Runway 1-19 were set for a balanced cut and fill. Trial No. 2A was prepared for the following assumptions: Runway 1-19 is 1001 x 6,0001. Designed for both -Aircraft Class A & B and Class C & D.. The threshold for Runway 19 was displaced 940 feet so approach path clearance over Oro Dam Boulevard is 17 feet. large portion of.the clear zone is in private property north of Oro Dam Boulevard and it was assumed that land occupied by the clear zone would be acquired.� Threshold for Runway 12 was -displaced such as to provide 17 -foot clearance of approach path over Oro Dam Boulevard. Clear zone land - north of Oro Dam Boulevard would be acquired. Grades on Runway 1-19 were set same as Trial No. 2, which produced an unbalanced cut and fill. Trial No. 3 was prepared for the following assumptions: . Runway. 1-19 is 100 x 6, 000 1. . Designed for both Aircraft Class A & B and Class C & D.' . The threshold for Runway 19 was displaced 940 feet so approach path clearance over Oro Dam Boulevard is 17 feet. large portion of the clear zone is in private property north of Oro Dam Boulevard and.it was assumed that'land occupied by the clear zone,would be acquired. REINARD W.BRANDLEY CONSULTING AiRPORT ENGINEER .,Threshold for Runway 12 was displaced such as to'provide 17 -foot clearance of approach.path over Oro Dam Boulevard. Clear zone land north of Oro Dam Boulevard would be acquired. Grades on Runway 1-19- were set to provide balanced cut and fill. which established an undesireably steep runway gradiant. The results of these Engineer's Estimates are included in Tables D1 through D14. The runway gradiant for Trial No. 3 is undesireably steep and the clear zones for Runway 12 and Runway.19 are on private property located north of Oro Dam Boulevard. Cost estimates for acquisition of this land are uncertain and. use of this plan increases the area of private land exposed to noise aver that with the greater displacement of the threshold to Runway 19. It is therefore reommended that this option not be used. All designs for Runway 1-19 should be based on Aircraft Class C & D to acc=cdate the Gulfstream. II.aircraft currently using the airport.' The estimated development costs for Trial No. 2 and Trial No. 2A are sufficiently close that the advantages of the Trial No. 2 configuration in noise exposure reduction and safety of operations strongly favor the adoption of the runway configuration used -in Trial. No. 2, which is the. configuration shown on the Airport layout Plan. The Trial No. 2 configuration includes the following: Runway 1-19 is 100 x: 6, 000 1. The threshold for Runway 19 was displaced 2,190 feet to hold the clear zone for this runway entirely within public property. Threshold to Runway 12 is displaced to hold clear zone -for this runway entirely within public property. Runway 1-19 profile is set such as to produce a balanced cut and fill. REINARD W. BRANDLEY CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER TABLE NO. D1 OROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA. TRIAL NO. 2 CLASS A & B AIRCRAFT EXTEND RUNWAY 1-19.0001 X 2,1901) CONSTRUCT 50, PARALLEL TAXIWAY RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (1501) PRIMARY SURFACE WIDTH 1,0001 BALANCED CUT AND FILL ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE ------------------- Runway 1-19 Parallel Taxiway Cross Taxiway Total ItemUnit ------------------------- ------------------------- -------- ------------------- ------------------------- No. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Description Unit Price. Quantity Cost ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost I Mobilization L.S. L.S. L..S. $30,000.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 L.S. $30,000.00 2 Temporary Airfield Marking L.S. L.S. L.S. 15,000.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 L.S. 15,000.00 3 CLearing-and Grubbing Acre M,000.00 88.0 88,000.00 12.0 12,000.00 0.0 0.00 -100.0 100,000.00 4 Excavation Cu. Yd. 4.00 694,300.0 2,777,200.00 27,300.0 109,200.00 0.0 0 .00. 721,690.0 2. 886, 4 00.06 - 5 Scarify and Recompact 6 inches of Subgrade 10'_Beyond Paved Areas Only, Sq. Yd. 1.00 53,500A 53,500.00 56,200.0 56,206.00 14,275.0 14,275.00, 123,975.0 123,975.00 6 Aggregate Subbase Ton 11.00 17,650.0 1941150.00 16,400..0 180,400.00 3,925.0 43,175.00 37,975.0 41.7,725.00 7 Aggregate Base Course Ton 13.00 21,550.0 280,150.00 20,650.0 260-1650.00 4,275.0 55,57MO 45,875.0 596,375.00 8 Bituminous Surface Course Ton 35.00 12,200.0 427,000.00, 8,250.0 288,750.00 1,675.0 58,6125.00 22,125.0 774,�7540 9 B i tumi n'ous Prime Coat Ton 300.00 50.5 15,150.00 47.0 14,100.00 11.3 3,390.00 108.8 32,640.00 10 Bituminous Tack.'Coat Ton 350.00 39.2 13,720.00 19.1 .6,685.00 4.0 1,400.00 62.3 21,805.00 11 Security Fence- Ln. Ft. 11.00 5,000.0 55,000.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 5,00D.O 55,000.00 Orovitte Municipal Airport Table No. D1 Trial No. 2 Class A & B Aircraft Page 2 Runway 1-19 Parallel Taxiway Cross Taxiway Total ItemUnit -------------------------- -------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - -- No. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Description Unit Price Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity ---------------------------------------------------- Cost Quantity Cost 12 Airfield Marking Sqo Ft.' $1.25 48,300.0 $60,375.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $OoOO 48,300.0 $60,375.00 13 181, RCP, Class IV Ln. Ft. 33.00 0.0 0.00 130.0 4,290.00 260.0 '8,580.00 39016 12,870.00 14 2411 RCP,'Class IV Ln.. Ft. 40. 00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 130.0 5,200.00 130.0 5,200.00. 15 4211 RCP, C lass IV Ln. Ft. 100.00 1,780.0 178,000.00 200.0 20,000.00 0.0 0.00 1,980.0 198,000.00' 16 1811 RCP.End Section Each- 400.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 800.00 4.0 1,600.00 6oO 2,400.00 17 2411 RCP End Secflon Each 650.00 000 0.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 1,300.00 2.0 1,300.00 18 4211 RCP End Section Each 1,200.00 '4.0 4,800.00 1.0 1,200.00 0.0 0.00 5.0 6,900.00 19 Drop Inlets Each 3,000.00 .0.0 0.00 1.0 3,000.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 3,.000.00 20 Electrical Pultboxes Each 2,500.00 2.0 5,000.00 16.0 40,000.00, 14.0 35,000.00. 32.0- 80,000.'00 21 1/C, No. 8, 5 KV Cable Ln. Ft. 0.80 46,600.0 32,480.00 24,700.0 19,76OoOO 7,540.0, 6,032.00 72,840.0 .58,272.00 22 2 -way, 3 -inch, Type I Duct Ln. Ft. 16.00 140.6 2,240.00 760.0 12,160.00 560.0 8,960.00. 1,460.0 23,360..00 23 2 -way, 3 -inch, Type 11 Duct Ln. Ft. 10.00 1,010.0 10,100.00 0.0 0.00 0.6 0.00 1,oio.o. 10,160.00 24 1-way,'2-inch, Type I Duct Ln. Ft. 4.00 13,400A. 53,600.00 13,700.0 54,800.00 4,970.0 19,880.00 32,070.0 128,280.100 �5 Medium Intensity Runway Edge Lights Each 550.00 76. 0 41,800.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 76.0. 41,800.00 26 Medim intensity Taxiway Edge. Lights Each 525.00 10.0 5,25OoOO 140.0 73,506..00 98.0 51,450.00 130,200.00, 27 PAPI Unit 16,000.00 2.0 32,000.00 0.0 0.00' 000 0.00 2.0 28 Taxiway Guidance Signs, 1 -character Each 1,500.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 21.0 31,500.00 21.0 31,500.00 Oroville Municipal Airport Table No. D1 Trial No. 2 Class A & B Aircraft Page 3 Runway 1-19 Parallel Taxiway Cross Taxiway Total Item 'Unit ------------------------- ------------------------- --------------- --------- ......................... No. . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Description Unit Price Quantity Cost Quanti,ty Cost Quantity Cost Quantity ------ Cost 7 29 Taxiway Guidance Signs, 2 -character Each $1,800.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 .5.0 $9,000.00 5.0 '$9,000.00 30 Taxiway Guidance Signs, 4 -character Each 2,200.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 4,400.00 2.0 4,400..00 31 Taxiway Guidance Si�ns, .5 -character Each 21'500.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 5,000.00 3.0 7,500.00 5.0 12,500.00 32 Taxiway Guidance Signs, 6 -character Each 2,600.00 0.0 0.00 .0.0 0.00' 1.0 2,600.00 1.0. 2,600.00 33 Supplemental Wind Cone Each 4,000.00 1.0 4,000.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 41000.00 34 New Lighting Regulators Each 6,000.00 1.0 6,000.00 2.0 .12,000.00 0.0 0.00 3.0 18,000;00 35 Vault Labor & Equipment L.'S. L.S. L.S. 10,000.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 L.S. 10,000-00 36 New Vault L.S. L.S. L.S. --------------- 30,000.00 0.0 0.00 -------------- 0.0 0.00 ----------- L.S. t - ---------------- 30,900.90 TOTALS $4,424,515.00 $1,174,495.00 $369,442.00 $.51968,452.00 .7 TABLE NO. D2 OROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA TRIAL NO. 2 - CLASS C & D AIRCRAFT E XTEND RUNWAY 1-19 (1001 X 2,1901) CONSTRUCT 50, PARAL LEL TAXIWAY RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (5001) PRIMARY SURFACE WIDTH 1,0001 BALANCED CUT AND FILL ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE - ------------------- Runway 1-19 Parallel Taxiway Cross Taxiway Total Item Unit ------------------------- --------- 7 ---------------- -------------------------- ---------- ............... No. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description Unit Price Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost -Quantity Cost .1 Mobilization L.S. L.S. L.S.. $30,000.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 L.S. $3.0,000. . 00. 2 Temporary Airfield Marking L.S. L.S. L.S. 15,000,00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 L.S. 15,000.00 3 Clearing and Grubbing Acre S1.1600.00 96.0 96.,000.00 12.0 12,000.00 0.0 0.00 .108.0 108,000.00 4 Excavation Cu. Yd. 4.00 850,000.0 3,400,000.00 27,300.0 109,200.00 0.0. 0.00 877,300.0 3,509,200.00 5 Scarify and Recompact 6 inches of Subgrade - 101 Beyond Paved Areas . Only Sq. Yd. 1.00 53,500.0 53,500.00 56,2 00.0 56,200.00 14,275.01 14,275.00 123,915.0. 123,975.00. 6 Aggregate subbase Ton 11.00 17,650.0 104,150.00 16,400.0 180,400.00 3,925.0 43,175.00 3.7,975.0, 411,725.00-. 7 Aggregate Base Course Ton 13.00 21,550.0 280,1 50.00 '20,050.0 260,650.00 4,275.0 55,575.00 45,875 .0 596,375.00 8 Bituminous Surface Course Ton 35.00 12,200.0 427,000. , 00 8,250.0 288,750.00 1,675.0 58,625.00 22,125.01 774,375.00 9 Bituminous Prime Coat Ton 300.00 15,i5O.00 47.0 1.4,100.00 11.3 3,39.0.00 1.08.8 32,640.00 10 Bituminous Tack Coat Ton 350.00 �9.2 13,720.00 19.1 6,6851.00 4.0 .1,400.00 62.3 21,805.00 11 Security Fence Ln. Ft. 11.00 5,000.0 55,000.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 . 0 5,000.0 55,000,00 Orovitte Municipat Airport Tabie Mo. D2 Triat No. 2 Ctass C & D Aircraft Page 2 Runway 1-19 Parattet Taxiway Cross Taxiway. Totat I.tem Unit. --------------- 7 --------- ------- ---------- ------------------------- ------------------------- No. ----------------------------------------------------------- Description Unit Price ------------ Quantity -------- Cost -------------------------------------- Quantity Cost 7---------------------------------------------- Quantity Cost Quantity Cost ......... 12' AirfieLd Marking Sq. Ft. $1.25 .48,300.0 $60,375.00 3,750.0 $4,687.50 2,700.0 $3,375.00 54,7'50.0 $68,437.50 13 181, RCP, CLass IV Ln. Ft. 33.00 0.0 0.00 130.0 4,290.00 .260.0 8,580.00 390.0 12,870.09 14 2411 RCP, Ctass IV. Ln. Ft. 40.00 0.0 0.00 .0.0 .0.00 130.0 5,200.00 130.0 5,200.00. 15 421" RCP, CLass IV Ln. Ft. 100.00 18780.0 178,000.00 200.0 20,000.00 0.01 0.00 1,980.0 198,000.00 16 1811 RCP End Section Each 400.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 800.00 4.0 1,600.00 6.0 2,400.00 17 2411 RCP End Section Each 650.00 0.0 0.00 '0.0 0.00 2.0 1,300.00 2.0 1,300.00 18 4211 RCP End Section Each 1,200.00 4.0 4,800.00 1.0 1,200.00 0.0 0.00 5.0 6,000.00 19 Drop intets Each 3,000.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 3,000.00 0.0 0.00. 3,000.90 20 ElectricaL Putlboxes Each 2,500.00 2..0 5,000.00 16.0 40,000.00 14.0 35,000.00 32..0 80,000,00.1. 21 1/C,.No. 8, 5 KV Cabie -Ln. Ft. 6.80 40,600.0 32,480.00 24,700.0 191,76.0.00 7,540.0 6,032.00 72,840.0 58t272.00 22 2 -way, 3-inch,.'Type I Duct Ln. Ft. 16.00 140.0 2,240.00 760.0 12,160.00 560.0 8,960.00 lt46 . 0.0 23,.360.00. 23 2 -way, 3 -inch, Type It Duct Ln. F . t. 10.00 1,010.0 10,100.60 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 1,010..0 10,100.0.0 24 1 -way, 2 -inch, Type I Duct Ln. Ft. 4.00 13,400.0 53,600.00 13,700.0 54,800.00 4,970.0 19,880.00 32,070.0 128,280.00 25 M ed i Lin Intensity Runway Edge Lights Each 550.00 76.0 41,800.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 76.0 41,800.00 26 MediLmn Intensity Taxiway Edge Lights Each 525.00 10.0 5,250.00 140.0 73,500.00 51,450.00 2.48.0 130,200.00 27 PAPI Unit 16,000.00 2.0 32,000.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 32,00.0.00 28 Taxiway Guidance Signs, 1 -character Each 1,500.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0. 00 21.0 31,500.00 21.0 31,5 00700 Orovitte Municipal Airport Table No. D2 Trial No. 2 Class C & D Aircraft Page 3 Runway 1-19 Parallel Taxiway Cross Taxiway Total .I tem Unit --------------- 7 --- ------ --------- ---------------- -------- ----------------- ------------------------- No. Description ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Price Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost 29 Taxiway Guidance Signs, 2 -character Each $1,800.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 5.0 $9,000.00 5.0 $9,000.00 30 Taxiway Guidance Signs, 4 -character Each 2,200.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 4,400.00 2.0 4,400.06 31 Taxiway Guidance Signs, 5-ch.aracter Each 2,500.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 5,000.00 3.0 7,500.00 5.0 12,500.00 32 Taxiway Guidance Signs, 6 -character 'Each 2,600.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 6.00 1.0 2,600.00 1.0. 2,600,00 33 Supplemental Wind Cone' Each 4,000.00 1.0 4,000.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 4,000.00 34 New Lighting Regulators Each 6,000.00 1.0 6,000.00 2.0 12,000.06 .0.0 0.00 3.0 18,000.00 35 Vault Labor &'Equipment L.S. L.S. L.S. 10,000.00 0.6 .0.00 0.0 0.00 L.S. .10,000.00 36 New Vault L.S. L.S. L.S. 30,000.00 0.0 0.00 --------------- 0.0 0.00 --------------- L.S. 30,000.00 --------------- TOTALS $5,055,315.00 $1,179,182.50 $372,817.00 $6,607,314.50� TABLE NO. D3 OROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA TRIAL NO. 2A CLASS A & B AIRCRAFT. EXTEND RUNWAY 1-19 (1001 X 9401) CONSTRUCT 501 PARALLEL TAXIWAY RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (1501) PRIMARY SURFACE WIDTH 1,0001 PROFILE SAME AS TRIAL #2 CUT & FILL NOT BALANCED ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE - ------------------- Runway 1-19 Parallel Taxiway Cross Taxiway Total ItemUnit -------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- - -- No. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Description Unit Price -------------------------------------------- Quantity Cost Quantity Cost 7 -------------------------------- Quantity Cost 7 ---------------------------- Quantity' Cost ------- 1 Mobilization L.S. L.S. L.S. $30,000.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 L.S. $30,000.00. 2 Temporary Airfield Marking L.S. L.S. L..S. 1.5,000.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 .0.00 L.S. 15,000.00. 3 Clearing and Grubbing Acre $1,000.00 62.0 62,000.00 12.0 12,000.00 0.0 0.00 74.0 .74,000.00. 4 Excavation Cu. Yd. 4.00 669,300.0 2,677,200.00 27,300.0 109,200.00 0.0 0.00 696,600.0 2,786,400.00 5 Scarify and Recompact 6 i.nches of Subgrade 101 Beyond Paved Areas Only Sq. Yd. 1.00 34,300.0 34,300.00 46,600.0 12,250.0 12,250.00 93,150.0 93,150.00 6 Aggregate Subbase Jon 11.00 11,275.0 124,025.00 13, 600.0 149,600.00 3,450.0 37,950.00 2 . 8,325.0 311, 575 . Do 7 Aggregate Base Course Ton 1.3.00 1.3,775.0 179,075.00 16,600.0 215,800.00 4,250.0 55,250.00 34,625.0 450,125 i"00 8 Bituminous Surface Course Ton 35.00 13,600.0 476,000.00 7,000.0 245,000.00 1,450.0 50,750.00 221050.0 771,75.0.00 9 Bituminous Prime Coat Ton 300.00 32.3 9,690.00 39.0 11,700.00 10.0 3,000.00 81.3 24,390.00 10 Bitumi.nous Jack Coat'. *on 350.00, 34.0 11,900.00 16.2 5,670.00 3.4 1,190-00 53.6 18,760.00 11 Securi ty Fence Ln..Ft.. 11.00 2,200.0 24,200.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0. 0.0 2,200.0 24,200.00 Orovi I te Municipal Airport Table.No. D3 Trial No. 2A - Class A & B Aircraft Page 2 Runway 1-19 Parallel Taxiway Cross Taxiway Total ItemUnit ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- No. ----------------- Description --------- ----------- Unit ------------------------------------------------ Price Quantity Cost Quantity ------------------------- cost Quantity ------------------------------------ Cost Quantity .......... Cost' 12 Airfield Marking Sq. Ft. $1.25 48,300.0 $60,375.00 3,125.0 $3,906.25 2,050.0 $2,562.50 -.53,475.0 WjB43.75 13 181, RCP, Class IV Ln. Ft. 33.00 0.0 0.00 130.0 4,290.00 260.0 6,580.00 390oO 12,870.00 14 241, RCP, Class IV Ln. Ft. 40.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 130.0 5,200.00 130.0 5,200..00 15 4211 RCP, Class IV Ln. Ft. 100.00 0.0 0.00 200.0 20,000.00 0.0 0.00 200.0 20,000.00 16 1811 RCP End Section Each 400.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 800000 4.0 1,600.00 6.0 2,400.00 17 2411 RCP End Section Each ..650.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 .0.00 2.0 1,300.00 2.0 1,300.00 18 4211 RCP End Section Each 1,200.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 1,200.00 0.0 0.00 .1.0 1,200.00 19 Drop inlets Each 3,000.00 0.0 0.00 .1.0 3,000.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 3,000.00, 20 Electrical Puttboxes Each 2,500AD 4.0 10,000.00 16.0 40,000.00 13.0 32,500.00. 33.0 82,500.00 21 1/C,.No. 8, 5 KV Cable Ln. Ft. 0.80 35,300.0 28,240.00 22,200.0 17,760.00 4,840.0 3,872.00 62,340.0 49,872.00 22 2 -way, 3 -inch, Type I Duct Ln -Ft. 16.00 320.0 5,M.00 760.0 12,160.00 320.0 5,120.00 1,400.0 22,400.00 23 2 -way, 3 -inch, Type 11 Duct Ln. Ft. 10.00 1,010.0 10,100.00 0.0 0000 0.0 0.00 ,1,010.0 10,100.00 24' 1 -way, 2 -inch, Type I Duct Ln. Ft. 4.00 12,250.0 49,000.00 11,200.0 44,800.00 3,200.0 12,800.00- 26,650.0 106,606,00 25 Medium Intensity Runway Edge Lights. Each 550.00 76.0 41,800.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 76.0 41, i 800 .00 26 Medium Intensity Taxiway Edge Oghts Each 525.00 0.0 .0.00 125.0 65,6.25.00 58 .0 30,450.00, 183.0 96 . 075..00 27 PAPI Unit 16,060.00 2.0 32,000.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 32,000.00 .28 Taxiway Guidance Signs, 1-charact6r Each .1,500.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 15.0 22,500.00 15.0 22,500.00 Orovitte Munici,pal Airport TabteNo. D3 Trial'No. 2A Class A & B Aircraft Page 3 Runway 1-19 Parallel Taxiway Cross Taxiway Total ItemUnit ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ----------------------- No. ------------------------------- Description 7 -------------------- unit 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Price Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity -------- Cost Quantity -------------- Xost ---------- 29 Taxiway Guidance Signs, 2 -character Each $1,800.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.60 5.0 $9,000.00 -5.0 $0,0,00.00 .30 Taxiway Guidance Signs, 4 -character Each 2,200.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 4,400.00 .4,400.00 31 Taxiway Guidance Signs, 5 -character Each 2,500.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 5,000.00 5.0 12,500.00 17,500.00 32 Taxiway Guidance Signs, 6 -character Each 2,600.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 2,600.00 1.0 2,600.00 33 Supplemental Wind Cone Each 4,000.00 1.0 4,000.00 '0.0 0.00 0.0 0.90 1.0 4,000.00 34 New Lighting Regulators Each 6,000.00 1.0 6,000.00 2.0 12,000.00 0.0 0.00 3.0 1-8,,000.00. 35 Vault Labor & Equipment L.S. L.S. L.S. 10,000.00 0.0 00 0.0 0.00 L.S. 10,000.00 36 New.Vautt L.S. L.S. L.S. 30,000.00 ............... 0.0 0.00 --------------- 0.0 0.00 7 --------- L.1S.. 30,000.00 ------------ TOTALS $3,930,025.00 $1,026,111.25 $315,374.50 -$5,271,510.75 TABLE NO. D4 OR.OVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA TRIAL NO. 2A CLASS C & D AIRCRAFT EXTEND RUNWAY 1-19 (1001 X 9401) CONSTRUCT 501 PARALLEL TAXIWAY RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (5001) PRIMARY SURFACE WIDTH 1,0001 PROFILE SAME AS TRIAL #2 CUT & FILL NOT BALANCED ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE ------------------- Runway 1-19 Parallel Taxiway Cross Taxiway Total ItemUnit ----------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- No. .................................................................... Description Unit Price Quantity Cost Quantity ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cost Quantity Cost ----------------------------------- Quantity Cost 1 Mobilization L.S.* L.S. L.S. $30,000.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0. $0.00 L.S. $30,000.90 2 Temporary Airfield Marking L.S. L.S. L.S. 15,000.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0 .00 L.S. 15,000.00 3 Clearing and Grubbing Acre $1,000.00 68.0 68,000.00 12.0 .12,000.00 0.0 0.00 89 . 0. .,80,000.00 4 Excavation Cu. Yd. 4.00 669,300.0 2,677,200.00 27,300.0 109,200.00 0.0 0.00 696,600.0 2,786.,400.00 5 Scarify and Recompact 6 inches of Subgrade 101 Beyond Paved Areas Only Sq. Yd. 1.00 34,300.0 34,300.00 46,600.0 46,600.00 12,250.0 12,250.00, 93,150.0 93.,150.00 6 Aggregate,Subbase Ton 11.00 11,275.0 124,025.00 13,600.0 149,600..00 3,450.0 37,950.00 28,325.0 .311.,575.0.0 .7 Aggregate Base Course Ton .13.00 13,M .0 179*075.00 16,600.0 215,800.00 4,250.0 55.,250.00 34,625.0 .450,125.00 8 Bituminous Surface Course Ton 35.00 13,600.0 476,000.00 7,000.0 245,000.00 1,450.0 50,750.00 22,050.0 T71,750.00 9 -Bituminous Prime Coat Ton 30.0 0.0 32..3 9,690.00 39.0 11,70.0.00 10.0 3,000.00 81.3 24,390.00 10 Bituminous Tack Coat Ton 350.00 34 1 .0 11,900.00 16.2 51670.00 3.4 1,190.00 53.6 18,760.00 ii Security Fence Ln. Ft. 11.00 2,200.0 24,200.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 2,200.0 24,200.00 Orovilte Municipal Airport Table No. D4 Trial No. 2A Class C & D Aircraft Page 2 Runway 1-119 Parallel Taxiway Cross Taxiway Total. ItemUnit -------------------------- ------------------------- --------------- ---------- -------------------------- No. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description Unit Price Quantity Cost I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost 7 ---------- 12 Airfield Marking Sq. Ft. $1.25 48,300.0 $60,375.00 3,125.0 $3,906.25 2.1050.0 $2,562.50 53,475.0 $66,843.75 .13 1811 RCP, Class IV Ln. Ft. 33.00 0.0 0.00 130.0 4,290.00 260.0 8,580.00 390.0' 12,870.00 14 2411 RCP, Class IV Ln. Ft. 40.00 0.0 0.00. 0.0 0.00. 130.0 5,200.00 130.0 5,200.00 15 4211 RCP, Class IV Ln. Ft. 100,00 0.0 0.00 200.0 20,000'.00 0.0 0.00., 200.0 -20,000.00 16 1811 RCP End Section Each 400.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 800.00 4.0 1,600.00 6.0 2,400.00 17 2411 RCP End Section Each 650.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 1,300.00 2.0 1,300..00 18 4211 RCP End Section Each 1,200.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 .1,200.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 1,200;00 19 Drop Inlets Each 3,000.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 3,600.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 3,000.00 20 Electrical Putiboxes Each 2,500.00 -4.0 10,000.00 16.0 40,000.00 13.0 32,500.00 .33.01. 820'50.0.00 21 1./C,* No., 8, 5 KV Cable Ln. Ft. 0..80. 35,300.9 28,240.00 22,200.0 17,760.00 .4,840.0 3,872.00 62.,340.0. '00 .49,872. .22 2 -way, 3 -inch, Type .1 Duci Ln. Ft. 16.00 320.0 5,120.00 760.0 12,160.00 320.0 5,120.00 1 .400.0 22,400.00 23 2 -way, 37inch, Type 11 Duct Ln. Ft. 10.00 1,010.0 .10,100.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 1,010.0 10,100.00 24 1 -way, 2 -inch, Type I Duct Ln. Ft. .4.00 12,250.0. 49,000.00 11,200.0 44,800.00 3,200.6 12,800.00 26,650.0 106,600.00. 25 Meditsn intensity Runway Edge Lights Each 550,00 76.0 41,800.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00, 76.0 41-800.00 26 MediLmn Intensity Taxiway Edge Lights Each 525.0.0 �0.0 0.00 125.'0 65,625.00 58.0 30,450.00 183.0 96,0.75.00 27 PAPI Unit 16,000.00 2.0 . 32,000.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 32,000.00. 28' Taxiway Guidance Signs, 17character Each 1,500.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 DAD 15.0 22,500.00 15.0 22. 500.00 Orovi I ie Municipal Airport Table No. D4 Trial No. 2A -,Class C & D Aircraft. page 3 Runway 1-19 Parallel Taxiway Cross Taxiway Total. ItemUnit ------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ......................... No. ------------- Description ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -Unit Price Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quanti.ty Cost 29 -Taxiway Guidance Signs, 2-6haracter Each $1,800.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 5.0 $9,000.00 5.6 S9,000.00 30 Taxiway Guidance Signs, 4 -character Each 2,200.00 0.0 0.00. 0.0 0.00 2.0 4,400.00 2.0 4,400.00 31 Taxiway Guidance Signs, 5 -character Each 2,500.00 0.0 0.00. 2.0 5,000.00 5.0. 12,500.00 7.0 .17,500.00 32 Taxiway Guidance Signs, 6 -character Each 2,600.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 2,600.00 1.0 2,600.00 33 Supp(ementaL Wind Cone Each 4,000.00 1.0 4,000.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 4,000.00. 34 New'Lighting Regulators Each 6,000.00 1.0 6,000.00 2.0 12,000.00 0.0 0.00 3..0 .18,000.00 35 Vault Labor & Equipment L.S. L.S. L.S. 10,000.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 L..S. 1.0,000.00 36 New vault L.. S. L.S. L.S. 30,000.00 --------------- 6.0 0.00 ---- ----------- 0.0 0.00 ---------------- L.S. 30,000.00 TOTALS $3,936,025.00 $1,026,111.25 $315,374.50 $5,277,510.15 TABLE NO. D5 OROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA TRIAL NO. 3 - CLASS A & 8 AIRCRAFT EXTEND RUNWAY 1-19 (100, X 9401) CONSTRUCT 501 PARALLEL TAXIWAY RUNWAY SAFETY AREA,0501) PRIMARY SURFACE WIDTH 1,0001 STEEPER PROFILE GRADE THAN TRIAL 2A BALANCED CUT AND FILL ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE ------------------- Runway 1-19 Parallel. Taxiway Cross Taxi.way Total ItemUnit ------------------------- ------------------------- ---------------------------- --- ......... 7 ---- -------- No. ----------- Description ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Price Quantity Cost Quantity ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cost Quantity Cost Quantity., Cost 1, Mobilization L.S. L.S. L.S. .$30,000.00 0.0 $0.00 $0.00 L.S. $30,0.00.00 2 Temporary Airfield Marking L.S. L.S. L.S. 15,060.00 0.0 0.00 0.0. 0.00 L.S. 15,0.00.00 3 Clearing and Grubbing Acre $1,000.00 56.0 56,000.00 .12.0 12,000.00 0.0 0.00 68.0 .68.,000.00 4 Excavation Cu. Yd. 4.00 440,100.0 1,760,400.00 27,300.0 109,200.60 0.0 0.00 467,400.0 1,869,600.00 5 Scarify and Recompact 6 inches of SuNra.de 101 Beyond Paved Areas Only Sq. Yd. -1.00 34,300.0 34,300.00 .46,600.0- 46,600.00, 12,2.50.0 12,250.00 93, . 150.0 93,150.00 6 Aggregate Subbase Ton 11.00 11,275.0 124,025.00 13,600.0 149,600.00 3,450-.0 37,950.00 28,325.0 311,575,001 7 Aggregate Base Course Ton 1.3.00 13,775.0 179,075.00 16,600.0 215,800.00 4,250.0 55,250.00- 34,625.0 450,125 . .00 8 Bituminous Surface Course Ton 35.00 13,600.0 476,000.00 7,000.0 245,000.00 1,450.0 50,750.00 22,050.0 771,750-00, 9 Bituminous Prime Coat Ton 300.00 32.3 9,690.00 39.0 11,700.00 10.0 3,000.00 81.3. 24,390.00 10 Bituminous Tack Coat Ton 350.00 34.0 11,900.00 16.2 5,670.00 3.4 1,190.00 53.6 18,760.00 11 Security Fence Ln. Ft. 11.00 .2,200.0 24,200.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 2,200.0 24,200.00 Orovilte Municipat Airport Tabie No. D5 TriaL No. -3 Ctass A & 8 Aircraft Page 2 Runway 1-19 Parattet Taxiway Cross Taxiway Totat Item Unit -------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- No. - -- - - - - Description - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - Price.� - - - - - - - - - - - - - Quantity - - - - - - - - - - - - Cost - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Quantity - - - - - - - - - - 7 Cost - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Quantity - - - - - - - - - Cost - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Quantity- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cost - - . . . . . . . . . . 12 AirfieLd Marking Sq..Ft. $1.25 48,300.0 $60,375.00 3,125.0 $3,906.25 2,050.0 $2,562.50 53,475.0 $66,843.75 .13 181, RCP, CLass IV Ln. Ft. 33.00 0.0 0.00 130. 0 4,290.00 260.0 8,580.00 390.0. 12,870.00 14 2411 RCP, CLass.IV Ln. Ft. 40.00 D.O' PAO. 0.0 040 130.0' 5,200.00. .1.30.0 5,200.00 15 42-- RCP', Ctass IV Ln. Ft. 100.00 0.0 0.00 200.0 20,000.00 0.0 0.00 200.0 20,000.00 16 1811 RCP-.Endl Section Each 400.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 800.00 4.0 .1,600.00 6.0 2,400.00. 17 241, RCP End Section Each 650.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 1,300.00 2.0 1,300..00 18 421, RCP End Section Each 1,200.00 . 0.0 0.00 1.0. 1,200.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 W 1,200.00 19 Drop Intets Each 3,000.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 t'000.00 0.0 0.00 1.0. 3.,000.00 20 ElectricaL PuLtboxes Each 2,500,00 4.0 10,000.00 16.0 40,000.00 13.0 32,500.00' 33..0 82,500.00 21 I/C, No. 8, 5 KV CabLe Ln. Ft. 0.80 35,300.0. 28,240.00 22,200.0 17,760.00 4,840.0 3,�72.00 62,34D.0 49,872.00 22 2 -way, 3 -inch, Type I Duct. Ln. Ft. 16.00 320.0 5,120.00 760.0 12,160.00 320.0 5,120.00 1,400.0 22,400.00 23 2-way,.3-inch, Type 11 Duct Ln. Ft. 10.00 1,010.0 10,100.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 1,010.0 10.'100.00 24 1 -way, 2 -inch, Type I Duc . t Ln. Ft. 4.00 12,250.0 49,000.00 11,200.0 44,800.06 3,200.0 12,800.00 26,650.0 106,600.00 25 Medium Intensity'Runway Edge Lights Each 550.00 16.0 41,800.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 G.00 76.0' 41,800.00 26 Medium Intensity Taxiway Edge Lights Each 525.00 0.0 0.00 125.0 65,625.00 . 5�..O 30,450.00 10.0 96,075.00 27 PAPI Unit 16,000.00 2.0 32,000.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 OM 2.6 32,000.00 28 Taxiway'Guida . nce Signs, 1 -character Each 1,500.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 15.0 22,500.00 ..15.0 22,500.00 Orovilte Municipal Airport. Table No. D5. Trial No. 3 Class A & B Aircraft Page,3 -Runway 1-19 Parallel T axiway Cross Taxiway Total ItemUnit --------------------------- ------------ ; -------------- ------------------------- ............................. No. Description, ....................................................................................................................................................................... Unit Price Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cott 29 Taxiway Guidance Signs, 2 -character Each $1,800.00 0.0 $0.00 b. 0 $0.00' 5.6 $9,000.00 5.0 $9, 000AO 30 Taxiway Guidance Signs,.4-character Each 2,200.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 4',4.00.00 2.0. 4,400.0.0 31 Taxiway Guidance Signs, 5 -character Each 2,500.00 0.0 0.00 2.0, 5,000.00 5.0 12,500.00 7..0 17,500.90 32 -Taxiway,Guidance Signs, 6 -character'. Each 2,600.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 2,600.00 1.0 2,600.06 33 Supplemental W ind Cone Each 4,000.00 1.0 4,00 - 0 . .00 0.0 0.00 0.0* 0.00 1.0 4,000.00. 34, New Lighting Regulators Each 6,000.00 1.0. 6,000.00 2.0 12,000.00 0.0 0.00 �3.0 35 -Vault Labor & Equipment L.S. L.S. L.S. 10,000.00 0.0 0.06 0.0 0.00 L.S. 10,000.00 36 New Vault L.S. -L.S. L.S. 30,000.00 --------------- 0.0 0.00 --------------- 0.0 0.00 --------------- L.S. 30.,000.00 --------------- TOTALS $3,007,225.00 $1,026,111.25 $315,374.50 $4,348,7.10.75 TABLE NO. D6 OROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA TRIAL NO. 3 - CLASS C & D AIRCRAFT EXTEND RUNWAY 1-19 (1001 X 9401) CONSTRUCT 501 PARALLEL TAXIWAY RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (5001) PRIMARY SURFACE WIDTH 1,0001. STEEPER GRADES THAN TRIAL 2A BALANCED CUT AND FILL ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE ------------------- Runway 1-19 Pa rattel Taxiway Cross Taxiway Total. ItemUnit --------- 7 --------------- ------------------------- ----------------------- -- -------------------------- No. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description Unit Price Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost 1 Mobilization L.S.' L.S. L.S. $30,000.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 L.S. $30,000.00 2 Temporary Airfield Marking L.S. L.S.* L.S. 15,OdO.60 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 L.S.. 15,000.00 3 Clearing and Grubbing Acre $1,000.00 64.0 .64,000.00 12.0 12,000.00 0.0, 0.00. 76.0 76,000.00 4 Excavation Cu. Yd. 4.00 4.40,100.0 1,760,400.00 27,300.0 109,200.00 0.0 0.00, 467,400.0 1,869,600.00. 5 Scarify and Recompact 6 inches of Subgrade 101 Beyond Paved Area . s Only Sq. Yd. 1.00 34,300.0 34,300.00 46,600.0 46,600.00 12,250.0 12,250.00 93,150.0 93,150.00 6 Aggregate Subbase Ton 11.00 11,275.0 124,025.00 13,600.0. 149,600.00. 3,450.0 37,950.00 28,325.0 311,575.00 7 Aggregate Base Course' Ton 13.00 13,775.0 179,075.00 16,600.0 .215,806.00 4,250.0 55,250.00 34,625.0 450,125.00 a Bitum . inous Surface Course' Ton 35.00 13,600.0 476,000.00 7,000.0 245,000.00 1,450.0 50,750.00 22,050.0 771,7.50.00 9 B'ituminous Prim . e Coat Ton 300.00 32.3 9,690.00 39.0 11,700.00 10.0 3,000.00 81.3 24,390.00 10 Bituminous Tack Coat Ton 350.00 34.0 11,900.00 16.2 5,670.00 3.4 1,190.00 53.6 18,760..00 11 Security Fence Ln. Ft. 11.00 2,200.0. 24,200.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 2,200.0 24,200.00 orovitte.Municipat Airport Table go. D6 Trial No. 3 Class C & D Aircraft Paige 2 Runway 1-19 Parallel Taxiway Cross Taxiway Total ItemUnit -------- : ----------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- --------- ------------ No. --------------------------------------- Description Unit -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Price Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Ouanti.ty Cost 12 Airfield Marking Sq. Ft. $1.25 48,300.0 $60,375.00 3,125.0 $3,906.25 2,050.0 $2,562.50 5.3,475.0 $66,843.75 13 1811 RCP, Class IV Ln. Ft. 33.00 0.0 0.00 130.0 4,290.00 260.0 8,580.00 390.0. 12,870.00 14 2411 RCP, Class IV Ln. Ft. 40.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00. 130.0 5,200.00 130.0 5,200.00 15 .4211 RCP, Class IV Ln. Ft. 100.90 0.0 0.00 200.0 20,0001.00. 0.0 0.00 200.0 .20,000.00. .16 1811 RCP End Section Each 400.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 .800.00.. 4.0 1,600.00, 6.0 2,400.00 17 2411 RCP End Section Each 650.UO 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 2.0 1,300.00 18 4211 RCP End Section Each 1,200.00. 0.0 0.00 1.0 1,200.00 0.0 1.01 1,200.00 19 Drop Inlets Each 0.0 0.00 1.0 3,090.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 ..3,0.00.00 20 Electrical Pultboxes Each 2,500.00 4.0. 10,000.00 16.0 40,000.00 13.0. 32,500.00 33.0 82,500.00 21 1/C, No. 8, 5 KV Cable Ln. Ft. 0.80 35,300.0 28,240.00 22,200.0 1�,760.00 4,840.0 31,872.00 62,340.0 49,87.2.00 22' 2 -way, 3 -inch, Type I Duct Ln. Ft. 16.00 320.0 5,120.00 760.0 12,160.00 -320.0 5,120.00 1,400.0 ..22,400.00 23 2-wiy, 3 -inch., Type 11 Duct Ln. Ft. 10.00 1,010.0 10,10.0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 1,010.0, 10,100.00 24 1 -way, 2 -inch, Type I Duct Ln. Ft. 4.00. 12,25.0.0 49,000.00 11,200.0 44,800-.00. 3,200.0 12,8.00.00 261,650.0 106, 1 600.00 25 Medium Intensity Runway Edge Lights Each 550.00 76.0 41,800.00 .0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 76.0. 41,800.00 26 Med i Lin Intensity Taxiway Edge Lights Each 525.00 0.0 0.'00 125.0 65,625.00 58.0 30,450.00 183.9 96,075.00- 27 PAPI Unit 16,000.00 2.0 .32,000.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 32,000.00 28 Taxi'way Guidance'Signs, 1 -character Each 1,500.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 .0.00 15.0 22,500.00 15.0 22,500.00 Oroviiie Municipat Airport.' TabLe No. D6 Triat No. 3 C(ass C & D Aircraft Page 3 Runway 1-19 ParaLLet Taxiway. Cross Taxiway Totat ItemUnit ----------------------- ------- ; ------------------ ------------------------- -------------------------- No. --------------------------------- Description ------------------------------------- Unit. Price Quantity 7 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cost Quantity Cost 'Quantity Cost Quantity Cost ........ 29 Taxiway Guidance Signs, 2 -character Each S1,800.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 5.0 $9,000.00 5.0 $9,000.00 30 'Taxiway Guidance Signs, 4 -character. Each .2-0200.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 4,400.00 2.0 4,400.00 31 Taxiway Guidance Signs, 5 -character Each 2,500.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 5,000.00 5.0 12,500.00 7.0 17,500.00 32 Taxiway Guidance Signs, 6 -character Each 2,600.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 2,600.00 1.0 2,*600.06 33 Supplementat Wind Cone. . Each 4,000.00 1.0 4jO0O.OQ 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 4,000.00. 34 New Lighting ReguLators Each 6,000.00 1.0 6,000.00 2.0 12,000.00 0.0 0.00 3.0 18,000.00 35- Vautt Labor & Equipment L.S. L.S., L.S. 10,000.90 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 L.S. 10,000.00 36 New'Vautt L.S. L.S. L.S. 30,000.00 --------------- 0.0 ---------------- 0.00 0.0. 0.00 --------------- L. -S. 30,000.00 --------------- TOTALS $3,015,225.00 $1,026,111.25 $315,374.50 $4,356,710.75 TABLE NO. D7 OROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA RUNWAY 12-30 PARALLEL TAXIWAY (351 X 3,5401) THREE CROSS TAXIWAYS (501 X 232.51) CLEAR'ZONE RUNWAY 12 ON PUBLIC PROPERTY ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE -------------------- Parallel Taxiway 'Runway 12-30 Cross Taxiway Total I tem Unit ------------------------- -------------------------- ---------................ No. ------------------------------------- Description -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Price Quantity Cost Quantity Cost ------------------------------------ Quantity Cost 1 Mobilization L.S. L.S. L.S. $30,000.00 0.0 $0.00 L.S. $30,000.00 2 Temporary Airfield Marking L.S. L.S. L.S. 15,000.00 0.0 0.00 L.S. 15,000-.00 3 Clearing and Grubbing Ac r e $1,000.00 7.5. 7,500.00 0.0 0.00 -7.5 7,'500.00 - 4 Excavation Cu.. Yd. 4.06 10,000.0 40,000.00 0.0 0.00 10,000.0. 40,000.00 5 Scarify and Recompact 6 inches of Subgrade - 101 Beyond Paved Areas Only Sq. Yd. 1.00 21,800.0 21,800.00 6,600.0 6,610 0.00 28,400.0 2B,400.0 1 0 6 Aggregate Subbase Ton 11.00 6,000.0 66,000.00 1,850.0 20,350.'00 7,850.0 86,350.00 7 Aggregate -Base Course Ton 13.00 7,325.0 .95,225..00 4,000.0 52,000-00. 11,38.0 147,225.00 8' Bituminous Surface Course Jon' 35.00 2,625.0 01,875.00 800.0 28,000.00 .3,425.0 119,BT5.00 9 'a i t Lin i nous Prime Coat Ton 300.00 17.2 .5,160.00 25.5 7,650.00 42.7 12,810.00 '10 Bituminous Tack Coat Ton 350.00 6.1 2-,135.00 1.9 665.00 8.0 2,800. 0 0 11 Aj'rffeld Marking Sq. Ft. 1.25 2,025.0 2,531.25 1,300.0 1,625.00 3,325.0 4,156.25 12 1.811 RCP, Class IV Lni Ft. 33.00 250.0 8,250.00 260.0 8,580.00 510.0, 16,830.00 Orovitte Municipal Airport Table No. D7 Runway 12-30 Parallel Taxiway Page 2 Three.Cross Taxiways. Parallel Taxiway Runway 12-30 Cross Taxiway Total ItemUnit ------------------------- --------- --------------- ------ ------------------ No. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description Unit Price Quantity Cost Quantity Cost 7 -------------------------------- Quantity Cost 13 3311 RCP, Class IV Ln. Ft. $65.00 125.0 $8,125..00 0.0 $0.00 125.0 $8,125.00 14 1811 RCP End Section Each 400.00 4.0 1,600.00 4.0 1,600.00 8.0 3,200.00 15 3311 RCP End Section Each 1,000.00 2.0 28000.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 2,000.00 16 Electrical Puttboxes Each 2,500.00 4.0. 10,00.0.00 6.0 15,000.00 10.0 25,000.00 17 1/C, No. 8, KV Cable Ln. Ft., 0.80 11,250.0 9,000.00 2,900.0 2,32.0.00 14,150.0 11,320..00 18 2 -way, 3 -inch, Typo6 I Duct Ln. Ft. 16.00 160.0 2,560.00 320.0 5,120.00. 480.0 7,680.00 19 1 -way, 2 -inch, Type I Duct. . Ln. Ft. 4.00 .6,000.0 24,000.00 1.,700.0. 6,800.00 7,700.0 .30,800.00 20 Medium Intensity Taxiway.Edge Lights Each .525.00 72.0 37,800.00 2.8.0 14,700.00 .100.0 52,500.00 21 Relocate VASI Each 3,000.00 1.0 3,000.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 3,000.00 22 Taxiway Guidance Signs, 1 -character Each 1,500.00 0.0 01.00 8.0 12,000.00 8.0 12,000.00 23 Taxiway Guidance Signs, 2 -character Each 1,800.00 0.6 0.00 5.0 9,000-00 5.0 9,000.00. 24 Taxiway Guidance Signs, 5 -character Each 2i5OO.00 1.0 2,500.00 1.0. 2,500.00 .2.0 5,000.00 25 New Lighting Regulators Each 6,000.00 1.0 6,000.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 6,000.00 26 Vault Labor & Equipment C.S. L.S. L.S. 10,000.00 --------------- 0.0 0.00 --------------- L.S. --------------- 10,000.00 TOTALS $502,061.25 $194,510.00 $696,571.25 JABLE NO. D8 OROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA RUNWAY 12-30 PARALLEL TAXIWAY (351 X 4,2501) THREE CROSS TAKIWAYS (501 X 232.51) CLEAR ZONE 00 R RUNWAY 12 EXTEND NORTH ACROSS ORO DAM BOULEVARD ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE ------------------- Parallel Taxiway 17 Runway 12-30 Cross Taxiway Total ItemUnit ------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- No. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description Unit Price Quantity Cost ................... Quantity --------------------------------------------- Cost Quantity Cost - I Mobilization L.S. L.S. L.S. $300000.00 0.0 .$0.00 L.S. $36,000.00 2 Temporary Airfield Marking. L.S: L.S. L.S. 15,000.00 0.0 0.00 L.S. 15,000.00 3 Clearing and Grubbing Acre $1,00b.00 8.7 8,700.00 0.0 0.00 8.7 8,700.00 4 Excavation Cu. Yd. 4.00 12,000.0 48,000.00.. 0.0 0.00 12,000.0 48,000.00. 5 Scarify and Recompact 6 -inches. of Subgrade 101 Beyond Paved Areas Only Sq. Yd. 1.00 24,900.0 24,900.00 6,600.0 6,600.00 31,500.0 31,500.00 6 Aggregate Subbase Ton 11.00 7,150.0 78,650.00 1,850.0 20,350.00 9,000.0 99,000.00 7 Aggregate Base Course Ton 13.00 8,750.0 113,750.00 4,000.0 52,000.00 12,750.0 165,750.00 8 Bituminous Surface Course Ton 35.00 3,200.0 112,000.00 800.0 28,000.00 4,000.0 140,000.00 9. Bituminous Prime Coat Ton 300.00 20.5 61150.00 25.5 7, 650. 00 46.0 13,800.00 10 Bituminous Tack Coat Ton 350.00 7.2 2,520.00 1.9 665.00 9.1 3,185.00 11 Airfield Marking Sq. Ft. 1.25 2,380..0 2,975.00 1,300.0 1,625.00 3,680.0 4,600.00 12 181, RCP, Class IV Ln. Ft-. 33.00 250.0 8,250.00 260.0 8,580.06 510.0 16,830.00 Oro,�itte Municipal Airport Table No. D8 - Runway 12-30 Parallel Taxiway (351 x 4,2501) Page 2 Three Cross Taxiways Parallel Taxiway Runway 12-30 Cross Taxiway Total Item Unit ------------------------- ... ---------------------- -------------------- ------ No. - --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description Unit Price Quantity. cost. Quantity Cost Quantity Cost 13 3311 RCP, Class IV Ln. Ft. .$65.00, 125.0 $8,125.00 $0.00 1.25.0 $8,125.00 14 181, RCP End Section Each 400.00. 4.0 1 600.00 4.0 1,660.00 8.0 3,200.00 15 3311 RCP End Section Each 1,000.00 2.0 2,000.00 0.0 0.00 2...0 2,000.00 16 Electrical PuLLboxes'' Each 2,500.00 4.0 10,0 . 00.00 6.0* 15,000.00 10.0 25,000.W 17 I/C, No. 8, 5 KV Cable Ln. Ft.- 0.80 11,250.0 9,000.00 2,900.0 2,320.00 14,150.0 11,320.00 18 2 -way, 3 -inch, Type I Duct Ln. Ft. 16.00 160.0 2,560.00 320.0 5,120.00 480.0 7,660.00 19 1 -way, 2 -inch, Type I Duct Ln. Ft. 4.00 7,420.0 29,6801.00 1,700.0 6,800.00 9,120.0 36,480.00 20 Medium Intensity Taxiway Edge Lights Each 525.00 80.0 42,000.00 28.0 14,700.00 108.0 56,700.00. .21 Relocate VASI Each 3,000.00 1.0 3,000.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 3,000.00 22 Tax . iway Guidance Signs, 1 -character 'Each 1,500.00 0.0 0.00 8.0 1�,000.00 :8.0 12,000.00 23 Taxiway Guidan . ce Signs; 2 -character Each 1,800.00 0.0, 0.00' 5.0 9,000.00 ?,000. 00 24 Taxiway Guidance Signs, 5 -character Each 2,500.010 1.0 2,500.00 1.10 .2,500.00 2.0 5,000.00 25 New Lighting Regulators Each 6,000.00 1.0 6,000.90 '0.0 0.00 1.0 6,000.00 26 Vault Labor &,Equipment L.S. L.S. L.S. --------------- 10,000.00 0.0 --------------- 0.00 L.S. --------------- 10,000.00 TOTALS $577,360.00 $194,510.00 $771,870.00 TABLE NO. D9 OROVILLE AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN - - - ------------------------------- SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT COSTS Trial No. 2 Primary Surface Width .1,000 ft. Clear Zones on Airport Property R/W 1-19 100 x-6,000' (2,1,90' Exten.sion):. R/W 12-30 100' x 3,540 Balanced Cut and Fill Aircraft Class A & B C & D R/W Safety Area Width�- ft. 150 500 Construction Costs: ----------------- R/W-1-19 $4,424,515 $5,055,315 T/W 1-19 1,174,495 1,179,182 Cross T/W's 369,442 372,817� ---------- ---------- Subtotal $5,968,452 '$6,607,314 T/W 12-30 & Cross Taxiways'.- 696,571. 696,571 Light R/W.12-30 & Parallel T/W 334,520 334,520 Land Acquisition 152,000 - - -- - - - - - - - - - 152,000'.. --7 - - - - - - - Total Construction Cost $7 151,543 $7,790-,405 Engineering & Contingencies 25% 1,787,861 1, 947,�601 ---------- ---------- Total Project Cost $8,939,404 .$9,738,006 TABLE. NO. D10 OROVILLE--- AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT COSTS Trial*No'. 2a Primary Surface Width 1,000 ft. Clear Zones North - Off Airport Property', R/W.1-19 100' x 6,000' (940" Extension) R/W 12-30 100' x 4,250, Grades Same as Trial 2 Unbalanced Cut and Fill Aircraft Class A & B C & D R/W Safety Area Width -.ft.. 150. 500 �.Construction Costs: --------------------- R/W1-19 $3,930,025 $3,936, .025 T/W 1-19 1,026,111 .1,026,111 Cross T/W's .�315,375 - - - - - - - - - - -:315,375 - -- - - - - - 7 Subtotal $5,271,511 $5,277,511 J/W 12-30 & Cross Taxi'ways 77.1,870- 771,870 Light.R/W -12-'30 & Paral.l el 'T/W 334,520 Land Acquisi tion 1,100,000 1 100,000 ----------- ------ Total Construction Cost ...$7,477,901 $7,483,901 Engineering & Contingencies 25%. -1,869,475 ---------- 1,870,975. ---------- Total Projett'.Cost. $9,354,876 TABLE NO. D11 OROVILLE AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN -------------------------- SUMMARY-OF-DEVELOPMENT COSTS Trial No. 3 PrImary Surface Width --.1,000 ft. Clear Zones North - Off Airport Property. R/W 1-19 100' x 6,000' (940' Extension) R/W-12-30 100 x 4,250' Grades Steeper Than Trial'2 Balanced Cut and Fill Aircraft Class.. A & B. C & D R/W. Safety Area Width' - ft. 150 .500 Construction Costs:* ------------------ R/W 1-19, $3,007,225.. $3,015,225 T/W 1-19� 1,026,111 1,026,111 Cross T/W S 315,375 --------- 315,375 - ---------- Subtotal $4,348,711 $4,356,711 T/W 12-30 & Cross -Taxiways 771,870. 771,870 Light R/W 12-30 & Paral lel T/W 334,520- . . 334,520 Land Acquisition 1,100,000 1,100,000 - - - - - - - - - - Total Construction Cost $6,555,101 - .$6,563,101 Engineering &'Contingencies 25% 1,638,775 - - - - - - - - - - 1,640,775 - - - - - - - Total. Project'Cost $8,193,876 $8,203,876 TABLE NO. D12 OROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FIRST STAGE DEVELOPMENT AIRCRAFT'OPERATIONS AREA Aircraft Parking Apron & Lead In Taxiway 75 Tie Down Spaces ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE Apron 300' X 700' Taxiwa y 50' x 3W ITEM COST ------------------------------------------- - - ---------------- - Grading 10,000 cy. @ $4 $40,000;00 Paving 2271,000 sq ft @.$1.85 Lighting Al To�ance 60,00.0.00 Dra'inage Allowance 60,000.00'. Tie Down Anchors 75 ea @ $,300. 22, 500. 00 Marking & Signing Allowance 5,000.00 ---------------- Total Construction Cost ...,.$607,450.00 Engineering & Contingencies 25% 151,863.00 ----------------- Total Project Cost $759,313.00 Note: Approximately $500,000 cost of this work.is ineligible for Federal Participation - TABLE NO. 'D13 OROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FIRST STATE DEVELOPMENT- AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AREA Tee Hangar Development Area ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE Tee Hangar Paving -:2801 x 3801 Tee Hangar Taxiways 40' x 400' 50' x 160' Tee Hangars'- 18 Units ITEM COST ---------------------------------------------- ---------------- Grading 5,'000 cy @ $4, $20,000.00 Paving 130,000. sq ft @ $1.60 208,000.00. .Lighting Allowance .20,000.00 'Drainage Allowance 20j000..00. Tee.Hangar$ 18 ea @ $12'000 7 -- 216,000.00, - - - - - - - - - - Total Construction.Cost .$484,000.00 Engineering & Contingencies.- 25% ----------------- 121,000.00 Total Project Cost $605,000.00 Note: Approximately $500,000 cost of this work.is ineligible for Federal Participation - TABLE NO. D14 OROVILLE MUNICIPAL 'AIRPORT FIRST'STATE-DEVELOPMENT AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AREA. Access'Roads. and Utilities ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE Access Road 40', x 2,0001 ITEM --------------------------------------------- COST --------------- Grading 10,000,cy @ $4 $40,000.00 Paving 80,000.sq ft @ $1.85 148),000.00 Drainage -Allowance 20,000:00 Marking, Lighting*,& S*i',gn'ag6',,Al lowance' 40,000.00 - Sewer Lines .7,00.0 ln ft @ $40 280,000.,00 Sewer Lift Station 60,000.00 Water Lines 7,000 ln ft @ $40. 280,000.00 ---------------- Total Construction Cost $868,000.00 Engineering & Contingencies 2 5% 217,000.00 - - ------------ Jotal, Project'Cost $1,085j000.00� Note: The se�er1 water lines'are not eligi.ble for FAA participation DISCOVER GOLD ... DISCOVER* OROVILLE 1735 MONTGOMERY STREET OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-4897 !r7 'Sm. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT' (916) 538-2430 November 1, 1993 NOTICE -OF INTENT TO ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT NO TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that -the City of Planning:'Commission will hold a public hearing the.environmental assessment of future development 'in Phases I and.II of the Oroville�Airport Business Park. REVIEW PERIOD November 3'thrbugh December. 3, 1993 MEETING DATE/TIME/PLACE December 13, 1993 at 7:00 P.M;, -City Council Chambers (Old Fire' Hall), 1725 Montgomery Street, Oroy*ille, CA 95965-4,897. PROJECT,LOCATION The Oroville Municipal Airport is located approximately two (2) miles west .'of State Highway 70 on the south side of Oro Dam Bou . levard, West (State Route 162). The Oroville.Airport Business 'Park Phase I is. located at the southeast corner 'of' Oro. Dam. Boulevard ' West .(State 'Route 162) and Larkin Road. Phas ' e II Is' ,located- off Larkin Road south of the.airport.Cerminal building between runways.1-:19,and.12-30. PROJECT PROPONENT CITY*OF OROVILLE 1735 MONTGOMERY STREET ..,OROVILLE, CA 95965-4897 The proposed Negative Declaration and project plans are available for public review at the Community Development Department, 1675 Montgomery Street, Oroville, CA 95965-4897. Mar Ann Imb orski. i P nning Technician .............. :7TT 1�7 6 w a a WA, C I'! AR -5 ORO DAM BLVD. WEST 0 AR -,5* PQ RMH-1 0 A -5 0 'AR -10 10 1V 0 71 -LEGEND A --- CITY BOUNDARY 0 OPEN SPACE AR -5 AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL 5 ACRES AR -10 AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL /0 ACRE,' CLM COMMERCIAL LIGHT MANUFACTURING N M-1 LIMITED INDUSTRIAL M-2 INDUSTRIAL PQ PUBLIC or QUASI -PUBLIC R4 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RMH-1 RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME DESIGNED 13Y H.G.M. DRAWING NO city. of oroville DRAWN BY C.M.H. APPROVEP' BY PUBLIC WORKS DAT El 10/31/84 AIRPORT SCALE I" = 1'.500'. department. SHEET OF AM I& DISCOVER GOLD.. DISCOVER OROVILLE 1735 MONTGOMERY STREET OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-4897 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT� (916) 538-2430 , NOTICE OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION NAME'OF APPLICANT: CITY OF OROVILLE LOCATION OF PROJECT: THE.OROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY TWO:(2) MILES WEST'OF.STATE HIGHWAY 70 ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ORO DAM BOULEVARD WEST (STATE ROUTE 162')., THE; OROVILLE AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK PHASE I IS LOCATED -AT THE SOUTHEAST -CORNER OF ORO DAM BOULEVARD WEST (STATE ROUTE 162) AND LARKIN ROAD. PHASE II IS LOCATED OFF LARKIN ROAD SOUTH OF THE AIRPORT TERMI14AL BUILDING BETWEEN RUNWAYS 1-19 AND 1*2-30. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN PHASES I AND II IN THE OROVILLE AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK. DECLARATION On November l,'19,93, the Planning Department determined that,. the above project will not. have a* significant -effect on - the environmen t 'and -'is,' therefore, exempt from the requirement of -an Environmental Impact Report.- The determination was based on -the following findings: 1. An Initial Study has been conducted by. the, Community Develop ment Department evaluating the,potential for adverse environmental impacts, and declares there is no, evidence before the ' Department that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect onwildlife resources. 2. The project will, not 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 species to drop below self sustaining.levels, threaten to eliminate ' a plant-o*r 'animal co ' mmunity, reduce the -number, of or restrict the -.range of a -rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory; 3. It will not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of,long-term environmental.impacts. 4. It will not have impacts which areindividually limited but cumulatively considerable. NOTICE OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION OROVILLE AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK PHASES I AND II PAGE 2 OF 2 PAGES 5. It will' not have environmental effects will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly - 6. No -substantial evidence exists that the project will have, a, negative effect oft the environment. 7. Mitigation measures identified in the Initial,Study shall be incorporated into the project design.and approval. Written comments shall be ' submitted no later than thirty t30) days -from the posting date-. Appeal of this determination must be made -during the posting period.. POSTING,PERIOD: NOVEMBER 3, 1993 THROUGH DECEMBER 3, 1993 SUBMIT COMMENTS TO:.. Community�,Development Department 1-735 Montgomery Street Oroville, CA 95965-4897 .(9,16) 538-2433 �Th ' e Initial -Study may be examined at.,the Community Development Department, 1675 Montgomery Street,,"'Oroville, CA 95965-4891 during regular- office 'hours, 8:00 a.m. to 51:00 p.m., Monday through Friday ra7rA in n I m Zir s "ki P ning Technician CITY OF OROVILLE. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY PROJECT NAME: Oroville Airport Bu'silness Park Phases I, and PROJECT PROPONENT: City of Oroville. 1735 Montgomery Street Oroville, CA -95965-4897 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This initial environmental s ' tudy is being.prepared to expedite future development projects.in Phases I and II of the Oroville Airport Business Park which are located in the Enterprise Zone. Staff has been evaluating projects as.they are submitted 'on a project -by -project basis. This is not only time.consuming for Staff, but can delay projects by as long as 90 to 120,days and, therefore, defeats the purpose of the'Enterprise Zone whi.cihballs for streamlining and expediting project.approval. Although this study may apply to many businesses locating in the Oroville Airport Business Park, it should be stressed that- all projects. submitted -may not be covered by this study. Some businessesj by virtue of the amount of traffic generated, hazardous materials. involved in their operation, or other significant impact may require more extensive environmental evaluation. Phase I, containing 36+- acres, -is currently.developed with the Butte County Mosquito Abatement complex; two (2) divisions of Spectra -Physics, a, laser manufacturer;, a 20-,000 square foot building containing a variety of'businesses; and an area once used by the Oroville.Pageant Riders for rodeos. The Oroville Municipal Airport, T -hangars, etc. lie directly west of Phase I. Phase II, containing 35+- acres, lies south and between Runways. 1-19 and 12-30. An abandoned.taxiway, formerly used for quarter mile drag races, and hard stands used by the. military- during.. World Ware II are located in this area. ..The Oroville Airport.Land Use Plan prepared by Butte County lists the following uses that could be*allowed in.of Phases I and.II: INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING 1. Miscellaneous manufacturing. - 2. Warehousing, storage of non-flammables. TRANSPORTATION,.COMMUNICATIONS, AND UTILITIES 1. Railroad, rapid rail transit. INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK - PHASE I AND II PAGE 2 OF 13 PAGES 2. Highways, streets. 3. Auto parking lots. 4. other transportation, communications, utilities. COMMERCIAL RETAIL TRADE 1. Wholesale trade. 2. Building materials, retail. 3. Automotive. 4. Personal and business services. OUTDOOR RECREATION 1. Nature exhibits. 2. Golf courses, riding stables. RESOURCE PRODUCTION 1. Agricultural except livestock. 2.- Livestock farming, animal�breeding. 3. Forestry and related services. 4. Mining activities. Phases I and II are zoned C -L -M (Commercial Light Manufacturing). Uses allowed in this zone are as follow - USES PERMITTED BY RIGHT 1. Commercial laundry and cleaning works. 2. Beverage manufacturing, including bottling plants. 3. General contractors yards. 4. Bakery plants'. 5. Truck repair and maintenance. ..6. Warehousing. .7. Carpet cleaning plants. 8. Production of dairy products. 9. Fuel and ice dealers. 10. Ceramic manufacture. 11. Cabinet Shops 12. Parcel delivery sales and service. .13. Handicraft manufacture. 14. Food lockers.. 15. Boat sales and service. 16. Truck sales and service. 17. Institutes and laboratories. 18. Sheet metal shops. 19. Auto painting shops. 20. Awning manufacture. 21. Administrative offices. INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK PHASE I AND''II PAGE 3 OF 13 PAGES I 22.- Any other 'use, which in. the opini ' on of the Planning' Commission, is similar in natureto the aforementioned'uses. USES REQUIRING A USE PERMIT .1. Residential uses limited to lesseel caretaker,'or owner of., the commercial -use., 2. Public buildings, public utility buildings and substations. .9 It should be noted 'that the C -L -M zone also Allows any use I permitted in a N -C (Neighborhood Commercial)., C-1 (Restricted Commercial), and C-2 (Heavy -Commercial) zones.' Although allowed by right, many of the uses listed in the N -C, C-1, and C-2 zones would not be permitted in the Airport Business Parks because of population concentration limitations'(4 dwelling units per acre or 25 persons per acre) set by the Butte County Oroville Airport Land Use Plan, and the Butte.County kirport,'Land Use Commission. LOCATION The Oroville Municipal Airport is located approximately two (2) miles west of, State Route 70 on the south side of, Oro Dam Boulevard -West (State'Route 162). The Oroville.Airport Business Park Phase I is located at the southwest corner of Oro Dam Boulevard West (State.Route 162) and Larkin Road. Phase II, is located off Larkin Road south of the Airport Terminal Building between Runways 1-19 and 12-30. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, Soil type in this area is Redding Gravelly Sandy Loam. It is moderately shallow, 16to 30 inches, gravelly loam with some clay content in the subsoil. It usually occurs in areas of less than 10 percent slope. It can be classified as naturaIlywell drained with slow to medium runoff capacity, moderate erosionpotential, and very slow subsoil permeability.' The terrain in Phase I is comprised of undulating slopes. The, terrain in Phase II is essentially flat, an abandoned 'taxiway traverses the.'site from east to west Vegetation is bo'th.phasels,.'. consists of seasonalgrasses. DISCUSSION OF,ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. EARTH: Development on the sites will result in disruption, displacement, and'overcovering of the soil with impermeable surfaces such -as building pads, parking areas, and access driveways. -Wind and water erosion could occur during periods of construction. INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK PHASES I AND II PAGE 4 OF 13 PAGES Oroville -is located in a Seismic Zone III as defined in the Uniform Building Code. There are four active earthquake' faults in Butte County that affect the Oroville-Area; the Cleveland Hills Fault, the Midland Sweitzer Fault, the. San Andreas Fault Zone (north section), and the Russell Valley Fault. All of -these faults are ' considered active due to geologic, historic, or seismic -data. The only recently active fault in this area is the Cleveland Hills Fault which was.responsible for the earthquake in Oroville on August 1, 1975. This movement was apparently the result of crustal strain developed in the Foothill Shear Zone. The Cleveland Hills Fault is located Approximately six (6) miles southeast of Oroville, stretches north to northeast, and is about ten (10) miles long. The 1975 earthquake had a magnitude of 5.7 on the Richter Scale and centered in Palermo five (5) miles south of Oroville. The Foothill Shear Zone is a potenti ally active fault that runs north through the eastern foothill area. The effects of earthquakes in the Oroville Area in addition to ground shaking. may result in landslides, li.quefaction,,differential settling, seiches, and dam safety. Implementation of the following mitigation measures should reduce the potential adverse impacts on earth to less -than -significant. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Grading plans shall be submitted to -and approved by the Public Works Department prior to any earth moving on the .sites. 2. Drainage plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department prior to commencement of any grading activity. The drainage plans -shall address both .on- and off-site drainage improvements. 3. Subsurface - exploration shall be carried..out by a ..qualified engineer in conjunction with any proposed construction to determine.the.degree of compaction and the potential for.settling, satiation values, strength,of. materials, shear values, and presence of subsurface faults. 4. During construction, wind erosion shall be controlled by sprinkling the site with water. Overwatering should be avoided so as not -to track mud onto adjacent paved streets. INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK - PHASE I AND II PAGE 5 OF 13 PAGES 5. During periods of wet weather, all disturbed soil surfaces shall be covered with hay or straw to, prevent erosion. 6. All new construction shall.comply with the seismic safety requirements of the Uniform Building code. 2. AIR: The Butte County airshed is contained in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin. Air quality problems are centered in the Sacramento Valley floor area where summer conditions create an ideal environment for theformation of photochemical smog from valley air pollutants. Butte County is designated as a non -attainment- area for photochemical oxidant - hydrocarbon. Although the County was initially determined to. be 'a non -attainment area for ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter it was subsequently redesignated to founclassified" with respect,to particulate matter. Major emission sources in the County are hydrocarbons from agricultural -waste burning conducted in the fall, hydrocarbons from application of pesticides and herbicides, and carbon monoxide generated by motor vehicles. Air quality impacts associated with projects constructed in the Airport Business Parks will be both.long- and short-term. Short-term impacts are those associated with project construction. The greatest short-term impact will be dust generated by grading and construction activities. The amount of airborne particulate matter that results from any construction depends upon such factors,' including but not limited to,'percentage of silt content -and the moisture level of the soil, wind direction and velocity, and the level of construction* activity. Dust generated during construction can vary from day-to-day depending on these factors. To minimize short-term construction impacts, several measures are available. The construction area should be watered consistent with any local drought control regulations to minimize airborne dust. Overwatering should be avoided to minimize the tracking of mud unto adjacent paved streets. Site preparation should be phased in accordance with building construction so as to minimize the extent of disturbed area during buildout of any project. Long-term impacts, and the most significant.relating to projects in the Airport Business Parks, will be from carbon monoxide generated by project related traffic. Since no specific project is being considered in this study,. traffic estimates cannot be made at this time. The -traffic generated will be the result of employees going to and from work, pickups, and deliveries. Projects locating,in the Airport INITIAL'STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK PHASES I AND II PAGE*6 OF 13 PAGES Business Parks will not create a significant amount'of new' traffic within the Butte -County Region that would not occur if the projects did not exist. Projects may, however,' increase traffic.at new locations. Some of the projects locating in the Airport Business Parks may require permits and approvals.from the Butte County Air Pollution Control,District. Projects will not greatly affect regional air quality but will affect air quality on a more localized basis such at the intersections in and around the airport. . No -mitigation measures for carbon monoxide are warranted other than regional measures. required by the California Air Resources Board. Implementation of* the following mitigation measures will reduce air impacts to less -than -significant. MITIGATION MEASURES - 1. See mitigation measure A.(4.) -,,EARTH.. 2. New businesses locating in the Airport ' Business Parks shall obtain permits,from-the Butte County Air Quality Control District on as needed basis. 3. The Zoning Ordinance requires 50 percent shading of parking lots within 15 years of issuance of building permits. This requirement along with other plantings will help reduce air quality impacts. C., WATER: Ovbrcovering of the soil,with impermeable surfaces will change absorption rates, drainage'patterns, and the rate and -amount of surface ' water runoff. Water and. drainage impacts from projects locating in the Airport Business'Parks could be significant.. At present, the airport properties are,well.drained'.via a subsurface storm'drainage.system that discharges into natural drainage.channels.to thelsoutheast and finally to the Feather .River. Criteria for discha rgeable allowances into surface,waiters in the Oroville Area have been developed by -the Regional. Water Quality. Control Board, Division of Water Quality., The - requirements established by the Water Quality Control Board are used as criteria in granting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Any fa ' cility or activity that will discharge waste into any surface water must obtain waste discharge requirements from -the Water Quality. Control INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK - PHASE I AND II PAGE 7 OF 13 PAGES Board. If waste will be discharged into surface water from an enclosed. system such as a pipe or enclosed channel, a NPDES permit is required instead -of waste discharge requirements. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity of surface water may increase ` as runoff increases. Industrial uses may affect, the quality of surface or ground water due to the use of solvents, oils, and similar products that are used for maintenance, washdown, and product processing. Implementation of the following mitigation measures, should reduce impacts on water to less -than -significant. MITIGATIOM MEASURES 1. Developers shall their fair share for . the construction of off-site drainage improvements required by the Thermalito Master Drainage Plan. 2. Any facility pr -activity that will discharge waste into any surface water shall obtain waste discharge requirements from the Regional Water'. Quality Control Board. If waste will be discharged.into surface water from an enclosed system such as a pipe or enclosed channel, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit shall be required instead of compliance with waste discharge requirements. D. PLANT LIFE: Vegetation on the site consists of native seasonal. grasses. Soil, type is Redding Gravelly Sandy Loam which has considerable agricultural value if water can be obtained for irrigation, however, these sites have lain fallow for years and are not zoned for agricultural use. New species of plant.life will be introduced through landscaping and will help mitigate air impacts. No significant adverse impact on plant life is anticipated as a result of any development in Phases I and II.., 'E. -ANIMAL* LIFE:, Staff.—has reviewed the Areas of Special Biological Importance .(ASBI) maps for Butte County and has determined that there are . no known unique, . rare, threatened, or endangered species of animals in habiting either site.. A pair of 'coyotes and their pups have been sighted in and around the airport�area, and it can be reasonably assumed the development in either phase will displace rodents, snakes, and birds -that inhabit the sites.. A 5,000 acre wildlife areas is located less than a mile south of the sites, therefore, the impact on animal life from development in either phase will be insignificant. INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK PHASE I AND II PAGE 8 OF 13 PAGES F. NOISE: Development in either phase will -result in short-term noise level increase * s associated with project construction. Long-term increases -arid -project traffic -will result from Noises occupancy of buildings and associated traffic. generated by manufacturing processes should not be discernible beyond the property boundaries. Excessive noise could be generated'inside the buildings from machinery used in- manufacturing processes. The OroVille General Plan that indoor noise levels exce ' eding 70dB are not uncommon for industrial uses. However, the Noise Element does indicate. that hearing loss -begins to occur at the indoor Leg(8) of' 70dB. The potential of excessive indoor noise levels from some of the businesses locating in either -phase may be significant, however, Amplementation of the following,mitigation measure should reduce the impact to less -than -significant. MITIGATION MEASURE 1. Employers shall make available, to employees who are exposed to noise indoor noise levels of 70dB or more, hearing protection devices. 2. Construction activity shall- be limi ' ted to 'the hours prescribed by the.Citils Noise Ordinance; 7:00 a.m.- to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m...Saturdays, Sundays, and Holidays. - G. LIGHT AND GLARE: Landscaping lighting, and�outdoor security lighting. will produce new light and glare. ',Adjacent land uses such ' as the airport could be affected by this impact which could be significant. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce this -impact to less -than -significant. MITIGATION MEASURE 1. Light standards no taller than 20 feet in height with low wattage lamps and -shielded covers -shall -be installed. Light standards 'shall be, approved by the Public Works .Department prior to installation. 2. Exterior project lighting shall be directed.,on-site away .from adjacent properties and -roadways. H. IJM- USE: The Oroville General.Plan designates both sites for industrial uses. The zoning is ' C -L -M (Commercial Light Manufacturing). Only projects that are compatible with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinances will be allowed in either INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK - PHASE I AND II PAGE 9 OF 13 PAGES phase. There should be no significant impact.on the existing airport related uses which include aircraft welding, repair, and maintenance as a result of.businesses locating in either phase- I.- NATURAL RESOURCES: materials used in the construction 'of projects locating in either phase and product manufacture will increase consumption of naturalresources. Electricity and natural gas used to provide light and operate heating, cooling, and'other equipment will help deplete nonrenewable resources. Although consumptiori of the resources discussed will occur, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated because of the small acreage involved evenat full buildout of both,phases. J. RISK OF UPSET: There is the potential for Accidental release of -oil or' other vehicle related chemicals during project construction. The storage, handling, and spill cleanup of other chemicals used in manufacturing processes are regulated by the 1988 Uniform Fire Code adopted by the City of Oroville, other City adopted codes and ordinances; as well as those codes adopted by Butte County,. the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and other responsible agencies. The use of chemicals for any reason has the potential for significant impacts. Implementation of the following mitigation measures should reduce the potential 'impact to less -than -significant. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The storage, handling, use, and spill- cleanup of flammable and potentially.hazardous materials.shall meet the requirements of the Oroville Fire Department,, B ' utte County, the State of California Regional Quality Control Board, and other responsible agencies. 2. Disposal of� hazardous materials shall be'handled. by 'a licensed hazardous waste transporter... K. POPULATION: The Oroville' General Plan Housing 'Element, revised in 1993, indicates a population increase in.the City of Oroville over the last three census periods has averaged 2 percent per year. During the period 1980 ' through 1990, population in the City of Oroville increased by 3.-8 percent generally due to an . improved, diversified employment base. Population growth between the period 1992 and 1997 is INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSI NESS PARK - PHASE I AND II PAGE 10 OF 13 PAGES - projected to be a steady .2 percent per year based -on new, housing and an increasing employment rate. Although businesses locating in the Airport Business Park may transfer key employees to Oroville, it is anticipated that a majority of -prospective employees already live in and around the area, therefore,additional development in the Airport Business Park should have little impact on the overall population of Oroville. L. HOUSING: According to the 'Butte County Association of Governments (BCAG) Regional Housing -Allocation for the . City of Orovi ' lle, 230 new moderate,income units and 511 above moderate income housing units need to be constructed within the City over the, next five (5) year period to meet the projected housing needs for those income .categories. The City's goal based on past construction activity and likely market -demand is for the construction of 150 moderate income units and 240 above moderate income units. The City currently is processing applications for 16 multiple family dwelling units and.156 single family residential lots. 273' multiple family dwelling units and 723 single, family residential, lots have been approved but not constructed. In addition, 8 'multiple family dwellings units and 527 single family residential lots are presently in various phases of construction. Full development of Phases I and II of the Airport Business Park should not have a substantial impact on existing housing or create a demand for additional housing. Therefore, no mitigation measures for housing are warranted at this time. M. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: Full development of the Airport Business Park could generate substantial additional traffic and will create a demand for new parking. Alteration to present patterns of circulation, or movement of people and/or goods may occur. .Traffic . hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians will increase. Implementation significantly circulation. MITIGATION MEASI 1. Developers ,Traffic Imp; of the following,mitigation measures will reduce impacts on transportation and JMES .shall pay their fair share of Thermalito 5Lct Fees. JNITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK - PHASE I AND II PAGE 11 OF 13 PAGES 2. When warranted, the City of Oroville of Oroville and/or Cal -Trans shall install a traffic signal at the intersection of Larkin' Road, 20th Street, and State Route 1.62 (Oro Dam Boulevard West). 3. The City and the State Department of Transportation shall pursue construction of four (4) lanes on Oro Dam Boulevard West ( ' State Route.162) from Larkin—Road to Feather River Boulevard. 4. Employers shall , encourage carpooling by offering premium parking spaces to carpoolers. 5. Installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk, and paveout should reduce some of the hazards associated. w*ith additional vehicular, -pedestrian, and bicycle traffic within the Airport Business Park. N. PUBLIC SERVICES. As the City continues to grow, all branches of public service will be affected. Each project proposed requires initial review by. all -City Departments. Upon project approval, the Building and Public Works Department will be require& to perform plan check and. inspection .services. The Fire Department currently provides fire and medical emergency service to this area. The City.has also entered into an. Automati-c.and Mutual Aid Agreement with the Butte-'' County Fire Department for -fire suppression services., The Parks and Trees Department will be required to plant and maintain street trees. The cost Of these services will be partially offset.,by building permit, plan check, ,and. inspection, fees. No additional mitigation. measures for public -services are warranted at this time. 0. ENERGY: At this timelit is not,known if projects locating in the Airport Business Park will.require substantial amounts of fuel. or energy. Pacific Gas and Electric Company has stated that provision of gas and electric facilities to Phase II will require substantial extension of their existing facilities. See discussion under P. UTILITIES. P. UTILITIES: The City recently -received a 6.5 million dollar FAA grant 'for improvements to the airport. A portion of these . monies will be used to extend electrical service to various areas within the airport complex, In addition to the grant, the City is:expending RDA and'sewer funds to construct INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK PHASE I'AND II PAGE 12 OF 13 PAGES main trunk lines for' -water, sewer,, gas, electric, and telephone service, These—trunk.lines will begin at the intersection- of Highway 162 (Oro Dam Boulevard West) and Larkin Road and extend south, southwest, and north to Phase II and around its perimeter.. Storm drainage improvements are also a part of this project. Upon completion- of the trunk lines, developers will be required,to-extend utilities to individual project sites. Oroville- Solid Waste Disposal*currently provides garbage and trash pickup., this area. The impacts on solid. waste and disposal ate unknown at.th.is-time. Impacts on utilities resulting from development in Phases I and II of ' the Airport Business Park should, be less -than -significant. Q. HUMAN HEALTH.: Vehicle emissions could affect human health. Butte County is in th ' e Sacramento,Valley Air Basin a " nd designated by. the_ California Air' Resources Board as a nonattainment area for carbon monoxide, ozone, and total suspended particulates. Impacts on human health are discussed and mitigated under AIR�, and NOISE. — I . R. AESTHETICS: All, new 'commercial and industrial 'projects, except those industrial uses exempted under' the Oroville- Enterprise Zone,' are subject to review and approval'by the' Development Review Board which is charged with ensuring that new development is aesthetically compatible with its surroundings. In addition, Spectra -Physics and Bob' Taylorl's existing buildings could 'be said to have set'a precedent as to what type of construction and landscaping will be,expected in the Airport Business Park.' No significant impact on aesthetics is expected to occur*as,-a result of -projects locating in -the Airport Business Park. S. RECREATION:� Employees relocating to this area will 'slightly increase the local population which mayresult i . n increased ,.use. of existing recreational facilities. The City, the State, and Feather River Recreation and Park District provide substantial recreational opportunities.. No significant impacts on recreation are anticipated as a result of development in the Airport Business Park. INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK PHASE I AND II PAGE 13 OF 13 PAGES T.' CULTURAL RESOURCES: No cultural resources are known to exist on or in the proximity of the Airport Business Park. There are a number of identified archaeological sit es in the Oroville Area. if historic or prehistoric 'materials are encountered during ponstruction, all, work shall cease immediately and a qualified archaeologist shall be retained for investigation of the uncovered materiels and the site. No significant impact on cultural resources is anticipated as a result of.development in the Airport Business -Park. DETERMINATION on the basis of this initial evaluation: 1 We find 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 not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in theInitial evaluation have been added to the project. A' NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. _x_ 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 BY: November 1, 1993 Mary Ann Imbiorski Planning Technician CITY OF OROVILLE INITIAL STUDY A.* BACKGROUND 1. NAME'OF- PROPONENT(S): City of Oroville 2. ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF PROPONENT(S):- 1735 'Montgomery Street Oroville, CA 94965-4897 (916) 538-2420 3. NAME OF PROPOSAL AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Assessment of future development, in Phases I and II in �the Oroville Airport'Business Park. 4. GUIDE PREPARED BY:, Community Development Department 5. DATE PREPARED: November 1i 1993- B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECK LIST - Explanations of all,YES and -MAYBE answers are attached. YES. MAYBE NO 1. EARTH.. Will the -proposal result in:, a. Unstable earth. conditions, or changes in geologic substructures? x b. Disruption, displacement,. compaction, or pvercovering of the soil? x c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? x d.- The destruiction, covering, or' modification of any uhi.que geologic or physical feature? x e. Any increase' in wind -or water. erosion on or off'the site? x f Changes in deposition 6r.erosion of beach sands, or changes'�in siltation, depositions or erosion1which maymodify' the channel of a river or stream.-.or.bed of any ocean,,- or any bay, inlet or lake? x INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2*OF 6 PAGES 9- Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards suchas earthquakes, land -slides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. 'AIR., Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality-> b. The creation of objectionable odors? C. * Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any changes in, climate, either locally or regionally? 3. WATER. Will.the-proposal result,in: a. Changes in curren ts, or the course or direction of water movements, in or either marine or fresh waters?. b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? .c. Alterations to'the course. -of flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of 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 oxygent :or turbidity? f. Alteration to the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? 9. Change in the quantity of ground water, either' through additions or withdrawals, or through interception of by cuts or excavations? an aqui h. Substantial'reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? YES MAYBE NO _x_ _x_ _x_ _x_ X _x_ _x_ X _x_ _x_ INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3 OF 6 PAGES 'YES MAYBE NO i.- Exposure -of people or property to water related hazards such,as flooding, .or tidal waves? X 4. PLANT LIFE. the proposal result in: a. Change in the dive.rsity.of species, or number of plants including trees, shrubs,.�,grass, crops, or aquatic plants? _x_ b. Reduction in the number of unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? /_x_ C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in abarrier to the normal- replenishment of existing species. x 5.' -ANIMAL, LIFE. Will,the proposal result in: a. Change in diversity of species or - number of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, or,insects)?- x b. 'Reduction ofAhe number.of unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? X 7 c., Introduc ' tion of new species of animals into an area, or result in, a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d. Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? X. 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result,, -in'.. a. Increases in area noise levels? �x b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?. 7. LIGHT - AND. GLARE. Will the proposal produce new light and glare? _x_ LAND USE. Will the proposal'result in .8. substantial alteration to the present or planned land use,in an the area? INITIAL STUDY PAGE 4 OF -6 PAGES YES MAYBE NO �. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the -rate of use of any natural resource? b. Substantial depletion of nonrenewable resources? x 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, or radiation in the event of. an accident or upset condition? _x_. b. Possible interference -with an emergency response plan, or an, emergency evacuation plan? _x_ 11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution', dens'ity,-or growth rate of the human population in. an area? x 12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect.. existing housing or create.a demand for additional housing? x 13.1 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substahtial additional vehicular traffic? b. Effects on. existing - parking facilities, or demand for hew parking? _x" C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? x d. Alteration to present patterns of circulation, or movement of people and/or -goods? _x_ e. Alteration to waterborne, rail, or air traffic? INITIAL STUDY . PAGE 5 OF 6 PAGES f. increase I 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? d. Parks and recreation? e. other government services? 15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts offuel or energy? ,b. Substantial increase or 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 alteration to the'following utilities; a. Power or'natural gas? b. Communication.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? _x_ INITIAL STUDY PAGE 6 OF 6 PAGES 'YES, MAYBE NO b. Exposure of.people to potential health hazards? 18. -AESTHETICS. �Will'-the-oroposal result in the obstruction-of.any scenic vista or view -open to �he public or will the proposal result in the cr;ation of an� aesthetically offerfsiv*e-' site op en to public view? 19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon -the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? _x_ 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a., Alteration of or destruction*of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects on a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? _x_ C. The potential to cause physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the project area? X Planning Department NOV. - 8 1993 Orevide, California � 4 ... —;a IForm Approved OMB No. 2120-0036\' US Dtipwrivint & Donspantion NOTICE OF LANDING AREA PROPOSAL 7 Faderw Aidirriiinis im Ark~ a NAME OF PROPONENT, INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION 0 Establishment or Activation 0 'Airport 0 Ultralight Flightpark City of Oroville 0 Alteration 0 Heliport 0 Seaplane Base ADDRESS (No., Street, City, State, Zip Code) 1735 Montga nety 'Street, Orovi-Ile, ok 95965 0 Deactivation or Abandonment OF 0 Other (Specify) . -of 0 Change of Status A. Location Landing Area 1. NEAREST CITY OR TOWN 2. COUNTY I STATE 4. DISTANCE AND DIRECTION city of oraville Butte CA` TO NEAREST CITY OR TOWN Miles Direction S. NAME OF LANDING AREA 67LATITUDE LONGITUDE & ELEVATION Oraville Pikinicipal Airport 390 1 29'1 20 ,17. 12ol37,1 09, 199 3.8 . East S. Purpose Type Use Type Ownership If Change of Status or Alteration, Describe Change. Construction Dates C2 Public (21 Public 1. Relocate Threshold R/W 12 - 7231 to East • Private El Private 2. Relocate Threshold-R/W 19 - 5§0 - to South To Begin/Began Est. Completion • Personal 11/1/87 11/20/87 Ref A5 Above . D. Landing Area Data Existing (if any) - Proposed Direction from Distance 1. Rwy #1 Rwy #2 1 Rwy #3 Rwy RwY21 Rwy C. Other Landing Areas Landing from Landing Magnetic Bearing of Runway(s) or 1250 0150, 125' 015 Area Area M cl- *a IE Sealane( 52'41 '05'11" i214' "051 .111 None Length of Runway(s) or Sealane(s) in Feet 4158 5140 Az 34T. Az 455 cc Sm Width of Runway(s) or Sealane(s) in Feet 150 150 150 150 0 Type of Runway Surfacia (Concrete, Asphalt, Turf, Etc.) Asp6. ASPh[ 2- Dimensions of Landing and'Takeoff Area in Feet 0 Dimensions of Touchdown Area in Feet T. Magnetic Direction of Ingress/Egress Robles E. Obstructions Direction from Landing Distanc7 from Landing Type He,gnt Atio�e Type of Surface Landing Area AreR Area (Turf, rooftop, etc.) 3.1 Description of Lighting (if any) Direction of Prevailing Wind Al = R/W 12-30 & VASI iScuth to Scuth�ves- F. Operational Data 1. Estimated or Actual Number Based Aircraft Presen (if go. Alrpor% present (it @St. Anticipated 5 Ym Heliport indicalfiby toner Flightpart. indicate by loner Hence Anticipated 5 Yes. 1. Seaplane base "E-) Hence -E) Under 35W lbs. 2 E 6 E MGw ow 35W Ilm SingWEngine 48 E 70 E Mr1w Glider G. Noise Considerations Direction from Landing Distance from Landing 2. Average Number Monthly Landings Identification Present (it est indicate by to d@r Present (it est. Anticipated 5 Yrs. Anticipated 5 Ym Hence indicate by letter ence Area Area E.) E-1 Thenrlolito East* 0. 8NM 90 E 200 E Helicopter 60 -E 80 E Turboprop 20 E 50 E Uftralight 0 -E 0 E­ Sierra Ave School-Thenrtc>- lito 9 600E 1 . 4nA . Prop .500 E 700 E Glider 3 E .3 E 1. 3. Are IFR Operations Anticipated' . Poplc-w Ave School 9 450E Nelson *Ave school 14 230E 2. 0 No I@ Yes Within 2 Years Type Navaid: DME 1".Lorc-LL 6cncol 1. 41 0 Has Been Made Not Required 11 County *Be Church 450E 9 Will Made IN State 0 Municipal Authority 1. CERTIFICATION: / hereby certify that all of the above statements made by me are tru6 and complete to the qqitof my knowledge. Name, title, (and address it different:har, above) of person filing thisnctica­ ype or print. Signal re(In" ' "k) �y 11 Will Randolph, Citz A(fr-. iistrator 1735 Montganery. Street Owe oi Signature 1 Telephone No. (Precede v;ith area code) Oravillie, cA, 95-065 -7 - 916 -531�2576 X .1 Reinard W. Brancitey .CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER 2041 Hallmark -Drive Sacramento, Calitornia 9 . 5.825 (916)922-4725 - - ' September 15. 1987 AnmRT OROVILLE,, CALIFORNIA NOTICE OF LANDINIG 'AREA.PROPOSAL ENGINEER'S REPORT A Notice of Landing Area -Proposal, FAA Form .7480-1 j is submitted herewith,' together with four qbad--sheets.shcwing the airport and vicinity and the Threshold Relocation Plan — Runway 12 and Runway 19 showing the layout -of. the ' airport and the proposed changes. The proposed changes"cbnsist of the relocation of the threshold to Runway 12 a distance of 723,feet to the east and the relocation of the threshold to Runway -19' a.distance, of 590 feet to the south. The thresholds to Runways 12'and 19 have already been displace.d somewhat to provide.the necessary approach clearance over State Highway 162- It is proposed at this time,to'relocate the thresholds of both runways furthet down the runway such as to'keep the clear zone entirely within airport or state highway property. There,is currently a n6rr-directional beacon installed at Oraviile Municipal Airport, andit will be operational as soon as F.A.A. has.developed an approach plan for this airport.* This will provide nion-precision-approach., capabilities to the airporty but the only aircraft currently 'Using the airport are'those weighing less than 12-500 pounds. The clear'zones-for this type operation have an inner surface width of 500 feet, an outer su,--'f ace width of 860 feet, a length of 1, 000. feet, and a slope of 20: 1. This size clear zone'bas been applied to each runway, and the threshold is lx� relc�cat-ec-. Fu:rh- F57 to al., 'Ch 11 s c1l z ne for 'a 12 and Runway 19 within airport'or state highway.property. The 'icai--i on requi red will be to r6rark the 'ends, of - both of these runways. The reason for these chances is'that the land -to the north of State Highway 162 i' pri a,- d S tely -awned, an the avners have petitioned for develorment of an,induttrial.subdivision.on these properties and have indicated that,the c6st.to the City to-pur6hase these properties will be in excess of $I ble to acquire these million. . It is not considered edoncmically feasi properties, and it is therefore'propose.d to relocate the thresholds of.the runway such that the properties need not be acquired. In,addition, the develo�ment of this property to the north of,Highway 162 fits the a.ver.all development plan for the City of Oroville. .0rovi-Ile-Municipal Airpor*t Engineer's Report Notice of Landing Area Proposal' Page 2. The.. relocated thre8holcis still leave -Runway 1-19 with a length of.4,55 0 feet - and Runway 1.2-30 with.a length of 3,435 feet. These lengths are Adequate for current usage on the'airport,.particularly,since Runway 12-30 is used just as a cross -wind runway and is only used*'during the heavy' cross -.wind operations. If at a later date it becomes necessary to.pravide additional runway length'at this airport and to provide a 34:1 -clear zone for the norr-precision instrument runway, then it is proposed*to.further' relocate.the.threshold to Runway'.19 and -to build an extension toRunway 19 to the- south. 7he land to the south of Runway 19 is -inexpensive, readily� available land and the.approach.to'Runway 1 -is well -'protected since it is located over the forebay.to Oraville Dam. Reinard W. Brandley RWB:aw REINARD W. BRANDLEY CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER ILL- I A. 1735 MONTGOMERY STREET OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-4897 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I'A I (916) 538-2430 August.17, 1990 Butte.-Count.y,--Planning-,Depar.tment T.County Centerl.Drive "or bville, CA- 9'59,6--5 ATTN: Betty- Kircher.- Director Attached.i�,a..c*opy of, the� Negat Ive, De.claration. and...'I nit ial. 'Study for the,,prop . osed-. revi-sxon_.. to the- Oro,�-i lie., Masi e -r -Plan.; You were previouSly-'esent under separate,cover:three...'(3) c8pies.of the. -.Plan itself. The review period, f or.. ­the:�, Negative ' Declaration.. is.. August- 17,, 1990 through� " Sep;temb&r.:zl7,,' .1990, with the..'initial public hearing., at'.. t. -he .. Planning­..� Comim-iss.ion Mee�ing._ on", Monday, Se]�tem]:)Ler. 17, 1990.. "If'you.1iiv-.6 'any comments on, the.- Negative - Dec laratiori/ In'itial.. Study please --f orward ..them,. to' us prio-r- to- the: conclusion: of: the, review ..period.. Sincerely, Michael ,E..;,Leana .7. - 1 1. ­ . - - ­ -­:--��Dire&tor-of �1 -Community- DeVeIopmerft -_ CAM". Wco, e Cj%iod Buft Co. Planr4ng Conm0a OCT 5 1987. orovale, C46fornla DATE /!p t/,?- gz OVT -.A FROM Rle-5-e-17 California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics e ee,*- ?44ee I Aug-dst 14, 1990 1735 MONTGOMERY STREET OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-4897 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1916) 538-2430 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE.DECLARATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the, ­City: of Oroville Planning Commission intends,'. to adopt-. ' a Negative Declaration.. of Environmental Impact with mitigati6n.-measures as follows-, REVIEW.PERIOD August -17, 1996 to September 17, 1990 MEETING DATE/TIME/PLACE September 17, 19.90 at 7:00, p m., Council. Chambers. (Old Fire Hall), 17.25 Montgomery Street, Oroville, CA 95965-4897. PROJEC'T-DESCRIPTION Planning Commission approval for a. proposed .revision to the, Airport Master:Plan,. 'The proposed.'revision involves ext ending runways 1 -19 -to the -south.. shif.ting.the,clear:zone.s . so that they are located.entirely on City owne.d.- property south of Oro. Dam Boulevard We'st', reserving additional space -to. accommodate future commercial and/or -airport re'lated-uses-and relocating:. the fixed base operator fadili-Cies; The, airport property is- presently zoned 11011 (Open. Space), and.. tLM 1, Co.'mn&r-_ia,1j, Light - Manuf acturing) No zoning changes.:are' proposed-� at - this time. The project area is- lo-:::ated on the - south s;_ e of .'Oro Dam Boulevard West: west of L a. r k i n R a U-1. 8 i I adi a'cent to the.: Table Mountain.Golf Course. AUG 0'roville, California WIA The -proposed Negative.Declaration-and.master:. plan revision are..' available for. public review cit the- Cormiunity. -Developmerit, Street and Oroville City:H-all,, 1735 Montgomery Street.. .0rovi'lle, ICA 959t5-4897.' k-, Michael.E. Leana Director of Coymunity Development' NOTICE OF NEGATIVE.DECLARATION- NAME OF PROJECT: LOCATION'OF PROJECT: Airport Master Plan Revision South side,of Oro Dam Boulevard West adjacent Table Mountain -Golf Course DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The extension of an existing runway, relocation of -necessary clear zones, and the.relocation of the Fixed Based Operator DECLARATION On August 16, 1990, the Director of Community' Development. determined that the above project 'will have no significant effect on the environment and—is, therefore, exempt from the requirement of an Environmental Impact Report. The determination is based'on the following findings: 1. The project will not have the, potential to degrade the quality.of'the environment,, substantially reduce the habitat -of a fish or wildlife speci ' es, cause. a fish or w ' ildlife population to drop below self sustaining.,levels, threaten to, eliminate a plant or animalcommunity, reduce.the-number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered. plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of. the major periods .of California history.or prehistory. - 2. It will not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental impacts. 3. it will:not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerablei, 4. It will not have environmental. effects which will cause substantial adverse. effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.. 5.. No substantial evidence*exists that the project will have a negative effect on the environment. I 6. An Environmental'Impact Report was certified for the -original Airport Master Plan in November .1985, and,,conditions in the p ar I ea have.'not-materially changed'since: that time. 7.- Mitigation measures-ident-ified.in the.Initial Study shall be incorporated intolthe.project design and approval. Written comments shall be submitted -no later tham. thirty (30) days from the posting date.- Appeal of this determination must be made during.the posting period--. POSTING PERIOD-., August 17, 1990 to,Sepitemb6r 17, 1990 Submit comments to: 'Community Development Department' 1735 Montgomery Street Oroville, CA. 95965-4897 The.Initial Study may be examined at.. the 'Community. Development Department 1675 Montgomery 'Street' Oroville, CA 9596.5-48,97-., during regular office hours (8:00 a.m. to .5.:00 p.,m.), Monday through Friday. NCO\ N,(J Michael E.,Leana'- Director of Community Development CITY OF OROVILLE INITIAL STUDY A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Propohent(s): City of Oroville 2. Address and.Phone Number of Proponent(s): 1735 Montgomery Street, Oroville, CA 95965-4897 (916) 538"2430 3. Name of Proposal/Project-Description: Adoption of a Revised Master Plan for the Oroville-Municipal Airport 4. Guide Prepared -.By: Community De velopment Department 5-. Date Prepared: August,* 1990 In N ' ovember, 1985, the City of Oroville adopted' the Oroville Municipal.Airport General Plan and certified an environmental impact report relating to the project. Although a minimal amount of constructionactivity has occurred on the airport property, the City Council has embarked upon an aggressive industrial. recruitment.programin order to attract new companies to the City in hopes of diversifying its economic -base. One of the cornerstones of this recruitment program -is to market the airport property. As a result, in.19-89 the -City engaged the services of an airport engineer consultant to prepare a revised master plan for the future development of the airport. -The major intent of the revised airport master plan is to accomplish the following: a. Lengthen an existing runway to accommodate a wider variety of corporate jet.aircraft. b. -Shift the runway further to the south so that the clear zones are located south of. Oro- Dam Boulevard West and do not encroach upon private property. c. Acquire additional'land in the undeveloped Afterbay. Estates Subdivision to serve as.clear zones to buffer any future residential development to the south, east and west. d. To shift the location of the Fixed Base Operator to a more centralized location. and provide - additional land to accommodate hanger construction'and "tie -down" are -as. The "tie -down" areas are proposed to be enlarged to accommodate approximately 600 aircraft from the present 150. e. To reserve additional land within the airport environs for future commercial and airport related uses. The existing zoning of the airport property is a mixture of CLM (Commercial Light Manufacturing and.0 (open Space). Follcwing adoption of a revised airport master -plan and acquisition of the necessaxy clear zone property, it is.the intent of the City to either rezone or create a new airport zone to accommodate a wider range of uses. The E.I.R. certified.for the 1985 Oroville.Airport Master Plan adequately addressed the impacts. associated with the general development of, the airport operations. This. initial study incorporates. the previously certified E.I.R. by' reference and specifically addresses the potentially adverse impacts associated with the proposed runway,extension, and shifting of the required clear zones and. Fixed Based, operator, and future development potential of the airport�property. . B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explanations of all'YES and MAYBE answers are in Section C. 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in: a. 'Unstable earth.conditions or changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruption, displacement, compaction,, or overco,vering of the soil? c. Change in.topography, or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modi fi- cation of any unique geologic or physical feature? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition 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 geollogic hazards such as earthquakes, YES MAYBE NO _X_ _X_ x landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. AIR. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of -ambient air.quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration -of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, .either locally or regionally? 3. WATER. Will theproposal re*sult in: a. Cha nges in currents, or the courseor direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes inabsorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?' c. Alterations to the course.or flow of ,-flood waters? d. Change in the amount of water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface water,.or in any alteration of surface,water quality,. Ancluding but not limited to temperature,. dissolved oxygen., or turbidity? .f. Alteration to thedirection or rate of -flow of ground waters?, g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either'through.direct additions orwithdrawals, or through interception of an acquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public _x_ — . _X_ _X_ _X_ x _X_ _x. water supplies?. i. Exposure,of pe ' Ople,or property to water related.hazards such as -flooding or tidal waves?' x 4. PLANT LIVE. Will the proposal result in:- a. Change in diversity of species-, or number of plants including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, or acquatic plants? x b. Reduction in—the number of any un ique, rare, or endang'ered species of plants? _X_ C. Introduction,of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing specie -s? X. d. Reduction -of acreage.of.any agricultural crop? 5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal.result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of -animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish.and shellfish, benthic organisms, or insects)? X, b. Reduction of the number of any unique, rare, or -endangered species of animals? _X 7 C. Introduction of n.ew.species.of animals into an area, or result,in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? x d. Deterioration to existing fith.or wildlife habitat? 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a. increases 'in area noise levels? x b. Exposure of people to severe. -noise levels? 7. LIGHTAND GLARE. Will the proposal produce new light and glare? _X_ 8. -LAND USE. Will the proposal result in substantial.alteration to the present or planned land use of an area? X 9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any - natural resource,? x b. Substantial depletion of nonrenewable�-* resources? X, 10. RISK OF UPSET. Will the,proposail 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? X .b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan, or an emergency evacuation plan? x 11. POPULATION-. Will the proposal.alter the location., distribution, density ',.or growth rate of the human population'of�an area? X 12. -HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? '13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal -result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular traffic?. x b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems'? x d. Alteration to present pAtterns.of circulation, ormovement of people and/or goods'? X e. Alterations to.waterborne,,rail, or air traffic? X., f. Increase'An traffic hazards..to,.,m6t6r,- vehicles, bicyclists,.. or., pedestrians? - X. 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? X b. Police protection.? x c. Schools? X_ d. Parks. -and recreation? X e. Other government services? _x_- 15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or. energy?, b. Substa ' ntial. increase or demand upon existing.sources of, energy., or -require development of new sources of energy? X 16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in -a need for,new systems, or'substantial alter- .ations to the following utilities: a. Power.,or natural gas? _X_ b. Communication systems'? _x_ c. Water? x d. Sewer or septic tank? e. Storm water drainage? X_ f. Solid waste and disposal.) X 17. HUMAN.HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any bealth.haza.r.d or potential health�hazard, excluding,merital health? X' b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X, 18. AESTHETICS. Will the -proposal result in the obstr.uction-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?, X 19. RECREATION. Will the -proposal result in' an impact upon the quality.or quantity of existing recreationalopportunities? X 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES. a. Will the proposal. result in the alter' ation of or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a pre- historic or historic building, structure or object? x 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? C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. EARTH: The extension of the runway, relocation of the Fixed Based Operator*and the general,expansion.of the airport to accommodate a'larger tie -down' area for the airport will require soil disruption, compaction and covering with. -asphalt surfaces. These activities.will create dust impacts and reduce the amount of impervious surfaces creating additional run-off. These type of impacts�will be mitigated by using water trucks'to spray the surface during grading and by complying with standard City drainage requirements for handling,run-off. Since the oroville area includes a fault zone, �and experienced an earthquake in August, 1975, there is Always the possibility of additional' earthVaike-exposure to . people and property. The exposure cannot be mitigated but impacts as a result of an earthquake. can be mitigated by the preparation and implementation of a*disaster managementpldn. The City of oroville has such a plan -which is in a continuous cycle of refinement based -upon bi-annual -disaster preparedness exercises. 4. AIR:, Air emissions will increase slightly as the tie-rdown area is moved further away from Oro Dam Boulevard and more pilots begin using the airport. However,' these.impacts are considered insignificant. 5. ANIMAL LIFE: Shifting -the "clear zones" to the.south towards the Afterbay and State Wildlife Refuge will obviously bring aircraft in closer contact with animal life in- these areas. However, due to the size of the aircraft to be accommodated it.does not appear that there would be any significant impacts. 6. NOISE: The ability to accommodate a larger number and size .of aircraft will result in an increase in area noise levels. This impact will be mitigated by expanding clear zones around the flight pattern approaches and by 'limiting residential uses in -the vicinity of the airport. - 8. LAND USE: The proposed shifting of the clear zones will, require the purchase of portions of -an old subdivision outside the City limits which was never developed. Named Afterbay Estates, it was envisioned as a single family subdivision -zoned for 10 acre minimums. To date only one home exists within the subdivision. The recommended clear zone aciuisition affects all.or a portion of twelve of the twenty parcels in this subdivision. With an eventual expansion of airport activities, it *is conceivable that residential land use will not materialize. Other adjacent properties are zoned -a mix of commercial and industrial and will probably remain as such. The Oroville Airport land is presently zoned "011 (Open Space) and CLM (Commercial -Light -Manufacturing) with uses- limited to airport related.uses. With the adoption of a revised master plan it is anticipated that portions of the airport may be rezoned -to accommodate a mix of office,. commercial and light industrial uses or that an airport overlay zone be created in order to accommodate a wider range of uses. The nature of these impacts will be analyzed either in conjunction with the E.I.R. prepared for the General.Plan Revision or at the time specific developments are reviewed.. 10. RISK OF UPSET: It is anticipated that aircraft -fuel will be dispensed from above ground tanks due to the existing restrictions on below ground tanks. With this scenario there is always -the possibility of a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident. However, this risk is probably no more apparent than a similar risk at a gas station and will reduce 'the risk of leaking and contaminating the soil. No mitigation is proposed at this time. 11. POPULATION: Acquisition of. additional clear zone area will reduce the anticipated. distribution and density of the residential population anticipated in this area at the time the Afterbay Estates Subdivision was approved. This reduction will most likely be shifted to areas further away from the airport. 12. HOUSING: The expansion of the clear ' zone area is I -intended to reduce any adverse affect on existing housing. in the area. This project itself will not create a demand.. for housing, but the City's intent of using the availability of an airport'as a cornerstone in its economic development strategy will create a demand for housing if,.businesses and companies relocate to Oroville and bring portions of their workforce with them. This impact will. be mitigated by encouraging the p rovision of a wide range of -housing choices. 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: Additional a * ircraft usage. at the airport will naturally bring in more vehicular traffic and a demand for new parking. And, the expected expansion of the airport will bring. in new businesses that will generate parking requirements and generate more traffic on Oro Dam Boulevard and Larkin Road. These impacts will be mitigated by requiring new businesses to provide adequate parking for employee/customers as they. develop :and by implementing required improvements to the Oro Dam Boulevard and Larkin Road -arterials as -needed -as the City grows. Where 'there is traffic there are traffic hazards: to motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians. These impacts will be mitigated by providing a sufficient number of travel lanes, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and bicycle lanes on Oro Dam Boulevard and Larkin Road when needed,. as the airport and its environs develop. 14. PUBLIC'SERVICES: There will be impacts relating to fire and police protection as additional aircraft begin using the facilities and new businesses open in and around the airport. An increase in police surveillance and response to fire alarms will create additional demands on the staff of these two departments. These impacts will be mitigated by increasing staff over a period.of time, incorporating crime prevention designs into the * review of new developments, and insuring that new developments adhere to ISO and Fire Department regulations. The impacts on schools, parks and recreation and other governmental services are secondary impact -s that will occur, not as a result of this project but.. as a result of the new growth that may be attracted to the area due to the airports development. New businesses with new employees will generate a demand for housing, parks and recreation and a wide range of municipal services. These impacts will be mitigated by providing the new housing, parks and municipal services in conjunction with their demand. 16-. UTILITIES: Existing utilities - water, sewer and storm drainage facilities are currently available to the airport along Oro Dam Boulevard West. As properties-develop.within the airport environs developers will be responsible for extending and/or constructing the necessary water, and sewer lines and storm drain facilities. This prevents a potentially adverse impact from -occurring. 17. HUMAN HEALTH: The operation of.an ai rport an here.create-s Yw. and exposes people to potential harm from air 'crashes. While air traffic is still the safest. form of transportation, 'air mishaps stilloccur. occasionally.. There is no way this can be mitigated by the City, other�than to ..insure. that all airport equipment- and, facilities* are operating efficiently,� and hope -that all pilots are -trained adequately to handle the aircraft they're flying. 18. AESTHETICS: Since the airport environs are fairly flat and sparsely developed, scenic..views of Table Mountain and the Sutter Buttes exist. As development occurs this openness will obviously be lost -,'and depending upon thedesign of new structures views of:Table Mountain and the Sutter Buttes could be -affected. This impact will be reviewed during specific project review and mitigated if necessary. 19. RECREATION: The nature of growth Atself will. generate a secondary impact..upon existing recreational facilities. A new City General Plan will,address,the need and location for* the expansion of recreation.facilities. 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 is warranted. 2. We find that ' although the project could have , a significant effect.on theenvironment 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 is warranted. X 3. We find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect oft the environment,. and an 'ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACT REPORT is warranted.. 0 1� %I �, A ..w 1615 15114 AR -5 AR -10 BUTTE COUNTY CAUFORNIA �ONING DISTRICT MAP -CITY OF OROVI LLE 7. BY I OM UTE BY AR -10 2021 1 22 29 2 .28127-iX L R A-40 INDEX MAP - - - - - - - M SCILE rz R -C 7 AR'�5 THERMALIT ik ��M� -51 � 4 4.imm cl Ono ��M� -51 � 4 4.imm stll- PIL L 1735 MONTGOMERY STREET,* OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-4897 PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION ab TELEPHONE: R A -2420 (.916) 538 December 2, 1991 Dave Hironimus Butte 6ounty-Airport-Land Use,Commi'ssion 7 County'Center Drive Oroville, California,95965 OROVILLE-AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN Dear Dave: With. the Council's adoption of.the-oroville Municipal Airport Master� Plan' there have be'en several changes,tothe dimensions of the three safety..areas, of the -airport, as 'designated in, the Airport'Land Use Plan. Please note that on the ait�ached.map'we'havo 'highlighted each of t -he throe safety areas, (clear zone, approach zone.and overflight zone), in different colors. I feel that thd A.L.U.C.-,Is planning boundaries should be revised to reflect the' -new dimensions,'as adopted bythe Council. Please call me -if you hav,e-any questions.- SSincer ly, Mike Crump Public Works Director. ict Attachment xc: 'Mike Leana Jim Ros-sas DEC 4 1991.. It DEPARTM NT BUTTE PLANNIb ILLEtAUFORN 1735:MONTGQMER-Y STREET OROVILLE: CALTORNIA 95965-4897 PUBLIC V�ORKS Q ADMINISTRATION. -CO ,q Qb Rk TELEPHONEt gi­ (916) 538-2420 August- 12, 1991 Betty Kircher Director Butte County Planning Department 7 County Center Drive Oroville,,Californiai .959651, OROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT -�LAYOUT.,PLAN. Dear Ms.'Kircher: Enclosed for 'your review and acceptance are.three-copies of the recently revised 'Airport Layout Plan for the-Oroville Municipal Airport. Pleasenote that -on one'.of the prints I have highlighted the changes incorporated in this revision. Sincerely, Jacob s A ssoc SSoCi e Civil Engineer .jj/cl Enclosures 3, Vt AUG 13 44 rl t-, DE?ARTMENIT G Btj-TE Co PLANNI FORNIA CROVILLE, IL �Wo r %V tJ785 MONTGQMERY STREET OROVILLE, CAL.WORNIA 95965-489.7 PUB'LIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION -TELEPHONE- ro�PORA (916) 538-2420 July 29, 1991. Dave Hironimous Bxitte'County Planning 7 County Center ' Drive, -Oroville, California 95965- OROVILLE AIRPORT'LAND USE PLAN Dear Dave: With the dity's adoption of a new Airport Master Plan, the approach zone ' tb 'Runway 19.ha ' s been extended beyond its original limit., Correspondingly, the airport area of influence now extends. further to the'north than it did previous to'the new Master Plan. As shown on the enclosed print, the new approach zone is 10,000' feet in length. With the next revision to the Airport Land Use Plan, the map showing Oroville Airport Area of Influence (Exhibit 1) should be revised -to -show the new -limits. Sincerely, )Jacob Ja. /s soc ,,,Associ Civil Engineer Jj/Cl Enclosure fl JUL 30 1991 ��NING DEPARTMENV BUTTE -CO. PLA OROVI-L-L-Ef CALIFORNIA e 4ILL c oil A, 01 0 .1735 Montgomery Street. Orov'ille, California, 95965-4897 ARE� COPE (916) 533-4764 . - Buffe Co. Planr4nq Comim. CORPORA110 �906 DEC 15 1987 Oroville. CafiforWa December 11, "1987 Airport Land Use Commissi on Attn. Dave Hironimus #7 County Center DriVe OroVille-,!CA. 95965 .7. Dear Commissioners: I- would like to take this opportunity to -thank Mr.' Walter for - his. lead, on- a technician who may.po'ssibly service the- non - directional beacon (NDB) at Oroville's ' airport. 'We's'hare y6ur*-. concern' on the progress (or lack of) concerning activation- of. this beacon., so -I, would like toibring Ybu up..,to. date by summarizing,the events -leading up to the'present.,-' The City opened bids on installation of the NDB May'7, 1985 . -an& awarded the contra ' ct on June -3, 1985., The agreement was'signed, ,,by 'the Mayor on June,13, and a Notice to Proceed wa"s"issued- on June 18, 1985. A.request for frequency -,from the FAA was made July -1,-,1985. :the FAA approved propos.ed antehnas,,on- December. 11., '198.5. Applications- for -the NDB were mailed'to the FAA. -.and. FCC on September 9, Copies. - o f. application were sent -to th'e FAA and FCC on June �4, 198 - 6,- - -with a requ6st-for a 4t:atus',r4ort-' 'on June i2, the FCC called say they could'.not process the, application' until they, had the-Ineces.sary paperwork from the FAA. On'- Jun6 19, 1986,' Jeff Cor�ette of. Brandley's -.-'of f ice (our. - Consulting Airport Engineer)",- called.. .�He­said.h(�'I�ad.talked with the -FAA dnd:that th6,.,had granted approval.of.the.-.NDB"arfd,-tha't we would'probdbly have FCC approval in about a i�onth.'" On.July 15,_ Al Cowan of -Aviation Systems,..inc'..J, called. His.' informant stated that FAI� approval had been granted,June 13, and he felt we would have -FCC approval within two,weeks.. On.August 5, 1986� we received the'FCC'license'for �h� NDB. In February of .1987, we received approval from the FAA to, activate the NDB on a test basis only. In March, the NDB -was activated on a test basis. In June of 1987, the NDB malfunctioned due a defective part, which was' returned to the manufacturer for repair. The defective part for the NDB was not returned until October of 1987. At this point, after receiving the repaired part, we attempted to locate a technician who was licensed and certified by the FAA to install the part, and activate the beacon. To date we have been' unable to find someone who could do this work for us. We have contacted the FAA many times with,no results; we have contacted most northern California airports looking for leads, with no results; we have requested assistance from our Consulting Airport ''Engineer, Reinard W. Brandley, on -locating a qualified individual, with no results. Hopefully, Mr. Walter's lead will give us the results welwant. I have contacted the manufacturer of the equipment for the NDB and arranged for them to come to Oroville Airport and get -'this beacon activated, however, when this happens we will still be restricted to transmittingon a test basis only. The FAA has yet to commission this beacon so we can activate it on a full time basis. It is my understanding that although they -have completed an instrument flight procedure for this beacon, they have yet to do a ground check or a flight check. I will continue to contact FAA officials in an attempt to speed up their procedure. Hopefully this matter will be resolved shortly to the satisfaction of,all., Sincerely, h le Mike Crump Public Works Director MC/kis Attachment 1-12e rosI14,1. s I'd I-ezw,7,1 ll -;e C xr//l c 'e" eeltz -e Ve v1 . Ile Aeve /-p aw o-t,4,o� eA,�P, alee. 77 --Iwl�llelv 7e-e— /is t I.,e ra, //,,'s 'o.) C-7e,7e Rl*cl?a.,-els ce oO 2,376 73 11-.-I�;-ee .4e ka6u1W, Alaw eof. /C e 12,e Ze 4v;lll 171 Id 41-161. 4C :2WW 4a 17 .-ee, 7'o C7 1`7 a I—eet�lle;e? /X &0, OW �7 6,,z k-1 BUTTE COUNTY ZONING 'DISTR�� THERMALITO mom I fl� LE j 41 NEW 1 7 - 'CITY OF OROVILLE "mi fflzm� surTE COUNTY CAUFORNIA ZONING DISTRICT MAP. ilk ZZ -1.0.1 Z_ lg= �yEl S,�I F/A If j 7 7 7 -lot e 14, _V� 22 zs 124� cl ry 0A* A -R' opol-LE BUTTE COUNTY CALFORNIA ZONING DISTRICT MAP THERMAUTO cl ORO C, Ext Wm "T9 8, Ug MARS Q --- tu A�4,0 IL _A -A LA -40 Fk 2. L 23 It _c 'INDEX MAP ame A X\j H Ala 7 tt THERMALITO -$MIT' 01 �tMMwtv r. i lu F, BUTTE COUNTY CAUFORNIA ZONING DISTRICT MAP EX i AR -5 &7- R -C 34 36 TIMMAUTO AFTERELAY 0 R -C RIM INDEX MAP NO SCAU �T INIJ 8�e 9 IL L ------- A- 40 13 -ERIALITO- FOR— -T; 4 A-: 160 BUTTE COUNTY CAUFORNIA P-0 u ZONING DISTRICT' MAP THERMALITO OR. —E .1 0- DATA E. c6s L! I. c L P -Q I A i4i A ---------- R-5 F -C - -, �- I � - i I it - -% !j! INDEX MAP IIALC' V 461 16.6 W �r I A 11P E CITY' OF OROVILLE AR -10 OROVILLE AIRPORT 16 IE 15 14 -TA 21 2J .1 I I I OROVILLE .MUNICIPAL IRPO�Rl" GENERAL -PLAN CITY OF'OROVILLE GENERAL -PLAN UPDATE FOR THE OkOVILLE'MUNICIPAL AIRPORT NOVEMBER 18, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 4001 PREPARED FOR CITY OF OROVILLE CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION --- ---------- Jana Wilson, Mayor George Rob.ison, Chairman Wayne HOUSeWOrth, Vice Mayor Barbara Joplin, Vice Chairman Norman "Buss" Roberts Fran�---. Glazews�--:i James Rossas Paula Leasure Susan 'Sears Raoul Le Clerc Steve Streeter Michael Olivieri Nancy Trinidad Susan Sears ADOPTED NOVEMBER 18, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 4001 STAFF William Randolph, City Administrator [-.:".irt M. Hunter, P ublic Work. -s Director David Cawthra, Oroville Aviation Harold ing May -field, C0171SUIti Engineer TABLE OF CONTENTS I TEM List of Exhibits I ntrodLkCti on Conclusions and Recommendations Existing Facilities Location and Access Development. Utilities Wind Noi se Airport Master Record Airport Use and Capacity Industrial -Development 2"o Year Development Proj'ection's References PAGE 7XHIBITS. DESCRIPTION/EXHIBIT NUMBER �,PAGE. Noise L'evel.Contours Exhibit. 1 21 Effects of -Noise on People - Exhibit 2 22 Noise Levels Related to Health Exhibit 3 241. Land Use Compatible with Noise - Exhibit 4 .27 Airport Master Record Exhibit 5 30 Zoning Adjacent to Airport - Exhibit 6 7.4 20 Year Capital Uprovement Projects -.Exhibit 7 .755 Existing Facilities Plan Exhibit 37 20 Year Development Plan Exhibit 3e 4 INTRODUCTION In February 1972,- the -Droville City Council retained Lampman and Associates, Municipal Planning and Engineering Consultants, to,ptepare a 'General Plan for the.City of Oroville and an Airport General Plan. Since 1972; sufficient development and change has -occurred to require a complete update of these documents. An�February 1183, a complete update and revision of the General Plan for'the City of Oroville was completed by Cook Associates, Engineering -,Consultants.. The new Oroville General Plan.addressed development,. useV and operational information that effectively revised and updated some concepts�of the 1972 Airport General Plan. The Bette County Airport 'Land Use Commission has adopted an Airport.Land Use'Plan.a6d Environs Study for the Oroville Municipal Airport. Clearly it.is time for a complete update of the Airport GeneralnPlan. The basic philosophy used in this.Airpmrt'General Plan update is 'that the airport will continue to be a valuable asset to -the City of Oroville and Butte County, and that timely, -expedient development of surplus airport property willi.contribute signIfidantly to the economy of Oroville. CONCLUSIONS AND'RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSIONS, 1. -The City.of Oroville Municipal Airport has the potential to be one of the best general.aviaVion airports.in Northern California. 2. The number of operations at the City 6+*Oroville:Municipal Airport, has increased during the past 12 years. The 90,100 operations during the year preceeding March'1984 almost equal those a+ the Chico and Redding Airports. 3. The City of Oroville Municipal Airport should reach its capacity of 200,000 operations per year within 20 years. 4. No airspace conflict exists between the City of Oroville Municipal Airport and any other airport or designated air traffic route, nor is an airspace problem anticipated*in the 20 year study period. 5. With proper maintenance and construction of certain phased improvements, the airport will accommodate future traffic needs and will become and even greater asset to the City of Oroville.. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The City should encourage private, light industrial us6s and development of the 200 acres of surplus airport property. 2. Capital improvement projects should be actively pursued,- including 5 . I financial partici'pation by the City, State,.and Federal Government. The runways should be maintained in order,to accommodate general av,.ation aircraft including business Jets, 'commercial -jets, and transports. 4. Continue to establish policies and procedures for avigation easements with.the* County Of Butte and.aff'ected property -owners. 5. Obtain Federal rel-ea,se of surplus 'land to. expedite indUstri al development. 6. Establish rU1 es an d regUlat*ions for industrial use -of SUrp I us property to preserve, protect, and enhance airport uses so that each part will be compatible and complementary to the other. 7. All funds derived from use of airport property should. be–used exclusively to operate, maintain, and improve airport property. NOTE: Construction of a hydroelectric power generation plant by the State Dep,=�rtment of Water Resources has been abandoned— The power plant was to have been located on the -Thermalito Forebay Out-letl southwest of the airport. The proposed.,project included .34.51%.V electric transmission lines to.be located within 4,500 feet of t -he runways. Although the Stat2.has abando'ned'the project, the site is available for other agencies or private firms to construct a similar power plant. . The site should be monitored by the City to assure that such construction and location'of..transmission lines do not have a detrimental effect on.airport operations -and development. EXISTING FAC,I.LIT.IES (See Exhib it 8) I. GENERAL. The City of Oroville acquired the original 188 acres for airport purposes in 1936. 'In 1941, the runways were extended in length by the Citv and Works Proiects Administration; and the airport land area was incr'eased'to 42`8 acres. On May 1, 19421, the United States Army comandeered the -field for the duration of -the war and improved the runways to 'their present Wi dths and lengths. In May 1947, the Army returned airport jurisdiction to the City. Certain properties Surrounding the 428 acres have since been acquired to account, for the airpor.t-'s present size of - approximately 804 acres. The runways have been extended to 4,33225 feet and 5,925 feet Approximately -]7,*C)C) acres are leased -For Various uses inclLodino a. QOlf COUrSe, riding arena, fixed base operator, helicopter facilities, and R MOS,qUitO abatement dist,rict complex. A single bay Fire Department SUbst at i on And light duty truck provides immediate i r e protection. 6 Over '2�00 acres are Surplus-, vacant land. The two runways are 12--30 and 1-19. Runway'127­.3�'Uis most -frequently used by light aircraft. It is 4-,285 feet long with an effective gradient ' of 0.-37 percent. Runway 1-19 has aneftective gradient of 0.57 percent, i.s less desirab.le-than Runway 1-2-3C-) but is�within the limits for runway grades set by the Federal Aviation Administration. Runway 1_191 -because of its*'5,'925 foot length, is preferred by business jets and transports. Both runways are 1,50 feet wide and in good condition. The two major taxiways were contructed by the military. The main taxiway parallels Runway .12-.7-50 on the . northeast. The taxiway- on the south end of the property connecti*ng the thresholds of Runways I and 30 have been abandoned. There are several. military hardstands and minor taxiways on the.sputh side of the property that are no �.longer used. A ' portion�of the golf Course road S ' OUth of the clubhouse area has been ' abandoned but A-5 used -as -a ' t.axiway 11,elading to a tiedown apron near the gol.f Course parking lot. This apron is unimproved, but used frequently by flying golfers. The runways, taxiways, and majority of the aprons are constructed of -asphaltic concrete . pavement on aggregate' base (app.roximatel� Y million square feet). Portland c-ement concret-e was used for the aprons near the terminal bUil-di:ng. Runways 1 -19 -and 12-'30, *and the taxiways were constructed of asphaltic concret' on aggregate base. Both runways have pavement strength in excess of the wheel loads imposed by business jets and transports t.hat.-Frequent the City of .0roville Municipal Airport. In addition to construction done by the military, several areas have been paved to.provide additional taxiways and aprons, The pavement is in good condition, but is in need of some maintenance work- involving patching and Surface sealing. If the pavement is not properly maintained, it will eventually deteriorate to the poi.nt where costly construction will be necessary.' Runway 12--]X_) operates with medium intensity runway lights.' Runway 1- 19 is not lighted. The taxiways are not liqhted except at the intersections of. Runway 12--7.0. Runway i's eqUIpped,with slope indicate (VASI) lights -for niqht and low visibility Tandings.- The wz-,tt beacon is approximzately 10 feet hiqher than the terminal*bUildingj but should be raised 1(_-) to 15 feet i n height and increased to '_2(__)()C) watt intensity. . Other l'iqhts include threshol d lights on 12 -.--: r C) I seqmental -circle lights, a n d outdoor security lights. Additional lighting,is discussed under 2:� C-) Year Development Projections, and proposed when aviation activity I L increases. II. LOCATION AND ACCESS The airport is located approximately. three miles Southwest of centrall Orovi 11 e. Oroville Dam Boulevard (1-3tate ROUte 162) runs along -the north boundary of the airport and connects State Highway ?9E to the west with Highway 70 -F-.o the east thereby providi ng good access frow, I Oroville and its environs. The access road leading from Oroville Dam Boulevard to the terminal building is a t-wo—lane asphalt surfaced roa d in good condition with unimproved shoulders. The road terminates at the south end of the exist.ing apr-on-area. I . he.park.ing lot adjacent to the terminal fronts on the access road. —The access road and parking lot are adequate for.present needs. There are no hazardous obstructions to aircraft USing the airpor t. The airspace in the vicinity of the airport was checked and no violations of Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 771) were found. I t should be noted that in performing an inventory of the existing airport facilities, no violations -of the Federal Aviation Administration or California Department of Aeronautics rules and regulations were noted,, Problems that could affect the future use of the air -port relate to building heights, density of buildings and people, smok.e, a-nd glare. Development on or near air..port property -sh0U*l d. be moni tor -ed t -o avoid any adverse impact on the airport. In November 1984, the City Counc.il amended the polices and procedures for conveying avigation easements to the City for private property in the vicinity of the airport and within the 55 db(A) contour line. Similar policies and procedures have.been adopted by Butte County since some of these areas involve propert.y located Outside the City Limits. III. DEVELOPMENT There are a number of buildings on the airport property used for a variety of purposes. The terminal building is a. modern and attractive strUCtUe built in' 1965. It consists 'of a lounge area, and administration section, classrooms, restrooms and repair hangar., The repair hangar is operated by one of the fixed base operators. A relatively new building is a steel framed structure at the north end of the airport Occupied by a helicopter service. The mosquito abatement lease fronting on Larkin Road is developed with a complex of modern buildings. The tee hangars north of the terminal building are constructed of corrugated metal and are in good condition. . The tee hangars are all occupied and there i -s a demand for additional tee hangars. No development has OCCUred on the remaining Plus acres of ai rport property. However, prelimin,��try, work for future development has been completed. This work includes zoning of available sites, laYOUtS 0 -1. - future roads, and building lines. The City has completed a Layout Plan that includes f U t L, r F--, tax i ways, runways, and access roads. This Layout Plan is current -=knd was approved by the Federal Adviation Administrati,on or, April 1 984. Some revisions to this Layout Plan have OCCUred as a result of this updated General Plan and Airport Environs Study. I I UTILITIES !!:ephone, gas, water, and electricity are provided by public utility companies. These services can be readily extended and modified .+or - future growth at the airport. No public sewer system serves the airport. Sewage disposal is by underground septic tanks and leach lines. The nearest public sawer is located 2,200 feet easterly of the airport across Larkin Road, and runs down Fresno Avenue to Harlan Avenue. Construction drawings and layouts for sewer extension have been prepared in conjunction%with a private subdivision. This development would require extension of sewer facilities between Larkin Road and Harlan Avenue. DeveloAment of the airport property will require construction of off-site "ewer facilities.. Extension of sewer facilities to the airport should be deferred until there is a demand, or until grant funds are avail.able from the State and/or Federal Government. Development -of 'private property may cause construction of part or all of the -facilities by private developers which would result in significant savings 'to the City. Storm water is disposed of, through a system of catch :basins, underground pipes, culverts, and open ditches that discharge into established natural drainage courses.. The existing system is adequate for present use, and' can be expanded when additional airport development occurs. Miscellaneous grading is needed to improve.. surface drainage in low and ponding areas. V. WIND A comprehensive analysis of airport winds has bee ' n made. This analysis was compared to the Wind Rose that was prepared as part of the Oroville Airport Plan in 1965. Only minor deviations were noted. The'Wind.Rose shown on -the Existing Facilties Plan indicated that 'the runways are ideally oriented for winds observed. Coverage for the two runways was -computed on the basis of cross wind components not exceeding 15 miles per hour in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration criteria. Runway 12-50 provides 97.6 percent coverage, and Runway 1-19 provides 94.8 percent coverage; The combined toverage an the two runways is excellent, 99 percent or greater., VI. NOISE The noise impact on surrounding areas is modest under the current level of airport operations. The 55 db(A) (Community Noise Equivalent Level) contour extend, approximately 1,000 feet beyond the airport property line on the Runway 1-19 centerline extension. The arez( within this contour is currently uninhabited but could be developed with residence's at rural densities, light industrial uses, etc. The level of operations at the airport has been increasing 2 to 5 percent per year. At this rate, 150,000 to 200,000 operations. per year can be expected by the Year 2000. About 500 of these operations 9 I :Tyld be corporate jet aircra+t. Approximately 80 percent of jet cra+t operattons-are expected to use Runway 1�19. As-ainpurt.operations increase, the 55 dbVA) (level day-nigKt) contour will extend about 3,000 feet beyond the airport property boundary. .This extended contour would partially or totally enclose 15 of the'20 lots in the subdivided area located immediately southwest of the airport. The 'approximate contour' positions for various operation 11 levels are shown on Exhibit 1. Some precautions should be taken in using this coutour: 1. This analysis -presumes that 90 perceyt*of aircraft operatinns are during daylight hours. This assumption is enforced by the present lack of runway lighting on Runway 1719- However, increased nighttime airfreight and air taxi service is expected because VASI lighting -is scheduled for Runway.1-19 in 1986; with runway lighting scheduled between 1989 and 1991. '2. 7he'contour position ca lcuiations are based on noise energy, but do not acknowledge that aircraft noise is particularly intrusive. A Ldn level of 55 db(A) created by aircraft noise is considered less acceptable than an equal level generated by lest obtrusive noises of similar energy content. 3. Propeller' aircraft,operations dominate the noise contours. 'Jet aircraft operations, while not domin ' ant,in determining noise contours," will produce significant individual intrusive noise occurrences. 4. The analysis assumes no-signifitant jet transport operations. The addition of a scheduled passenger service using large jets -would move the 55 CNEL line outward. The noise impact of jet operations has been addressed in the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan. The noise impact of large jet traffic has been adequately represented by a computer model of the noise contour using data provided by the State Department of -Aeronautics. Such operations, though infrequent, will cause isolated noise events at significant levels. A. Noise Criteria and Standards - There is an inherent conflict ,between land use and noise generation. ' A quiet parcel of land has a wider range of potential uses, all other factors being equal. As noise level! increase, the choice of an appropriate use narrows. . The effeci of increasing noise levels on residential areas is shown iq Exhibit 2. Noise abatement has a price, sometimes a very high price. Thus planning for land use involves a balance between'a maximum range of use choices and an acceptable level of allowed noise. The criteria shown in.Exhibit 3 is- based on prevention of hearing loss or uninhibited activity periormance. A more.widely referenced criteria is'shown in Exhibit 4. Note D in Exhibit 4 is of considerable local relevance. A quiet outdoor environment is considered one of the assets of the Oroville Area. The maintenance of this asset will require more strinqent noise standards than may be applied in noisier urban areas. B. General Noise' Control Strategies - (1) noise should be considered -as a basic aspect of planning, zoning, and building permit actions; (2) see City of Oroville Ordinance No. 13780; (71'.) noise generated by transportation systems shOLtld.be anticipated to. allow Sufficient lead time to'develop mitigation measures-, (4) enforce vehicle noise emission statutes; and (5) promote a public awareness of noise problems. C. Policies - (1) discourage residential development in areas with an actual or anticipated day -night average level (Ldn) of noise exceeding 55 db(A); (22) require sound insulation and/or other SOUn.d barriers in areas with an actual or anticipated noise level of 55 db(A); (3) encourage infilling of vacant sites surrounded by development to lessen growth of traffic related noise; (4) consider and mitigate the noise impacts of all development, particularly in noise sensitive areas; (5) see City of Oroville Ordinance No. (6) coordinate City I planning activities with the Oroville Airport -Land Use Plan prepared by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission.(BCALUC . ), including comprehensive plans, for noise compatible land use and appropriate zoning controls; (7) promote preparation of an area transportation Study to assist in defining traffic related noise problems;. (e) mitigate existing traffic noise through -the enforcement of Vehicle noise e , mmission Statutes. both for on - and off-road uses;. and (9) encourage a broader public Understandinq of the detrimental effects of noise, and methods of its reduction and prevention. VI. AIRPORT MASTER RECORD The Airport Master Record prepared by the Federal Aviation Administration of the U. S. Department of Transportation, based on an inspection performed on March 20, 15/341 is included herewith as Ex h i b i t 5. VII. AIRPORT USE -AND CAPACITY Use of an aiport, the size and type of Oroville's, depends on many factors. The Airport Master Pl.an, Ex h i b i t 6, shows 01C.), 1C)CJ aircraft operations for the 1-�, 2 month period ending March '28, 1984. It is estimated that 150 to 5(-)(--) of the operations were business jets. Business The runways jets normally- use Runway 1-19 because of its lengt h. can accommodate the 20 year projected traffic demands including and increase to 5C)C) in business jets. The estimated maximum capacity of the airport, considering the improvements proposed by the City, is 15C) 000 to -:10C) ) ) I � - I 0C C op er at i on s an n Lta 11 Y. The City has developed a Capital Improvement Program intended to phase . and coordinate projects with need, Exhibit 7. Installation of runway lights and visual approach slope indicator (VASI)*lights within two Ers will improve Runway 1-1? significantly. In addition, asphalt crete surfacing and a low frequency navigation beacon (ADF) Was pleted in the 1?85/36 fiscal year. Additional tiedowns, ramp spacel. and hangars will be needed as airport use continues to �grow. These facilities will be constructed as a joint effort between -the Eity and the user as the need arises, and requests are made. The Current Layout Plan shows future taxiways,- access roads, and a parallel runway (50 feet x 2,700 feet) located -on the westerly tide of and parallel to Runway 12-30. ThisJuture runway was inteRded for ultra -light use. The runway has been eliminated on the 20 Year Development Plan. The zoning and -building lines have been Adjusted -accordinly. These, changes were approved by the Federal Aviation Adminintration. The tiedown area near.the during the summer of 1985. slated for realignment and 19e6. golf course was regraded and resurfaced The southerly taxiway of Runway 1-19 is reconstruction during of the Summer of .Expected increases in air traffic volumes and industrial development over the next 20 years indicates substantial improvements in fire protection will be needed. These improvements will include: one heavy duty airport crash unit, one structural -fire pumper, two fire personnel, expansion of water main aNd fire hydrant system, and two bay substation. The substation could be a joint use facility. to generate income to recoup some fire protection costs. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT Surplus, vacant land within the airport boundary exceeds 200 acres. For the economic benefit o+.the City, the best use of this property is commercial light manufacturing. Transportation and circulation elements �complement_this.locatiwn' Jn&_ldQht_industry use ai follows: (1) light industry is -compatible and complementary to normal airport development; (2)' -good vehicular access by Oroville Dam Boulevard (State Route 162).which connects Highway 99E K miles to the west) to Highway 70 (2 miles to the east); and (3) a Union Pacific Railroad -line is located 3-1/2 miles easterly,viaZroville Dam Boulevard. Approximataly�180_acres -of surplus.lnnd-is zoned for industrial sites., There are about 72 acres, east of the easterly taxiway of Runway 12-!0 available for industrial development. The triangular shaped area between the runways is zoned for commercial light manufacturing, and shows a future access road. The 20 Year Development Plan eliminates the previously proposed runway (50 feet ;.-, 2,700 feet) located westerly of and parallel to Runway 12-30. This has increased the area available -for light industrial use between the runways to approximately 95 acres. The need for this additional acreage is not anticipated within 20 years. No public sewer system serves the airport. Sewage disposal 'is. by underground septic tanks and leach lines. The nearest public sewer is 12 Fo k 9 0 rn jm� I;v I m 1-0 10 im 4 C= VACATION SICK LEAVi' LEAVE WAY LEAVE W/O PAY JURY DUTY jm� I;v I m 1-0 10 im I oc at ed 2"'200 feet easte�-ly of the airport across Larkin Road, 'arid runs down Fresno Avenue to Harlan Avenue. Construc-1-ion drawings and layouts for sewer extension have been prepared in conjunction with a private Subdivision. These drawings may have to be modified prior to construction. This development would require extension of sewer facilities between Larkin Road and Har ' lan Avenue or the Ruddy Creek Lift Sta ' tion. . Development of *the ai.rport property will require construction of sewer'facilities. Development of private property may Cause construction of part of these facilities by private developers which. wo.u1.d.r_e.S_U.lt in si-gn.if-i.cant -say.ings t.o the._C,i_ty_.- It has been demonstrated that industrial plants are more attracted to communities with planned industrial air parl---s *than to those communities lacking plans and negotiating solely on the basi-s of.good faith. To this end, the Airport General Plan has been developed to meet the needs of aviation functions of the airport, and proposed industrial development of Surplus lands. Cost estimates for all improvements have been prepared. Priority items are listed in a Capital Improvement Program. Phasing development of Surplus airport lands to keep pace with the need for industrial property would be more feasible economically. The 72 acre parcel zoned C -L -M (Commercial Light Manufacturing), located east of the easterly taxiway of Runway 12--3*0 and the airport access road, is the most loqical'site'to devel.op first. This parcel is considered the "core",arba of the airport and, 'as developed, would serve as a seed effect to encourage further industrial development. The parcels fronting Oroville Dam Boulevard could be developed commercially. This option is delineated on the plans. A Capital Improvement. Program has been prepared for the development of the 72' acre "core" area. The cost of water-, sewer,.and street improvements needed to develop this area is addressed in the 22f) Year Development Projection Section -and Plan. The Plan also discusses the costs involved�to extend sewer lines to connect to the Thermalito Irrigation District system or to the Ruddy Creel:: Lift Station. These improvement costs,range 'between $12.,1000 --and $15,000 per. acre which is not unusual for an industrial park. A map depicting zoninq adjacent to the airport property is attached as Ex h i'b i t _ 6. Development allowed by this zoning could affect the -future of -the airport, and Could be impacted by aircraft operations. To adequately- protect -the airport and adjacent l'ands, City zoning and land use Must be coordinated with 111-.e efforts of the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission. Development of properties at* the air -port Must be car-efull'y; r a g U I at ed so that each part. will be compatible and complementary to the other. Studies conducted by the Federal Aviation Administration show that industrial developers recognize the desirability of locating on regulated sites. Developers expect their investment in an industrial plant to be protected 'from intrUSion of incompatible uses in the. same manner that an investment in a f-ine home is protected by zoning and other restrictions. It is equally important that the airport be preserved and protected by reqUlating 'the type of development, building height, smoke emission, and night.lighting. I . r The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (BCALUC! has recently completed and.adopted the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan. The basic. goals of this plan are as followsi (1) preservation of navigable airspace around airports; (2) general safety of people and property around airports; and (3) mitigation of aircraft noise impacts. These goals are consistent with the recommendations set forth in this Plan. Policies and procedures for avigation.easements within the 55 decibel noise contour line of the airport have been adopted by the City and Butte ' County. Enforcemen! of the restrictionsset forth in the avigation,easements will ensure compliance with established goals. However, enforcement may be difficult because some of� the affected properties are zoned and subdivided for uses that conflict with goals and restrictions. In order to accomplish the.goals.of this -Plan and the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan, t he -City and Butte County must closely monitor and regulate uses on these properties. 20 YEAR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS The 20 Year Development Plan, Exhibit 9, was prepared to show improvements and development of airport property that could realistically be constructed and operational within 20 years. Exhibit 7 shows -projected timing and the costs involved for various phases and stages of development. Major assumptions were made in preparing this exhibit, i.e. availability of financing, demand for development sites, and increases in aircraft operations. The 20 Year Development Plan is not in total compliance with the current Layout Plan approved by the Federal,Aviation Administration on April 16, 1994. The Federal Aviation Administration approved Layout Plan shows a Pfuture ru6way"-runniag parallel and westerly' of Runway 12-50; and a 4uture -taxdway"- running easterly ot Runway 12-30. The runway and taxiway -have been eliminated on the 20 Year Development Plan. The building setback line has beep adjusted accordingly. The Layout Plan has been revised to coincide with the 20 Year Development Plan.and Federal Aviation Administration approval hap been obtained for the revi sh'ons. For convenient reference, the 20 Year Development -Plan shows hexagon -,enclosed numbers that coincide with project numbers in Exhibit 7. The City 4, and.7. has budgeted +unds to purchase City labor and equipment will materials for Items be used. City cost I through for labor And equipment are not reflected in Exhibit 7. Item No. 1, Miscellaneous Grading/Drainage grading and piping to solve minor drainage problems associated.witb Items 1 through 4. Item No. 2, Airport Road Improvements minor Widening and surface Z1. repai r from State Highway 1.62, 1,80W) feet South 'to the AG a i r c r a. AF service building. UCLtre Item No. 3, Pioneer Industrial Street.- rOUQh- qradinq for Z 4 - industrial roads in Area A; and-grading.of adjacent-- areas as necessary to provide proper storm drainage.. Item No.. 4, Go lf Course Taxiway and.Tiedown Area COnStrU CtiOn Of taxiway between Runway 1-19 to a small parking ara South of the golf course parking lot; and regrading, -paving,-_ and in.sltal.l all ion -of tiedowns in this area. Item No.7, Resurface Vehiele-Parking-Area reS Ur -Face vehicle parking area adjacent to terminal building. �The City anticipates performing ..alll pay.in.g -in con-Junct.4 ion with the surfacing of Runway 1-19 (Item No. 5). Item Nos. I through 4' and 7 are totally.Ci4tv funded without State participation. Item Nos. 5 and 6., A.C. Surfac.in-g/Runway 1-19 and ADF Beacon on 1-19 - Federal participation projects; Runway 1-19 Was resurfaced in the Summer of 1985. The pavement work'involved to -,:� inches of asphaltic concrete; to eliminate drainage problems,. provide a,* smooth'. even g! -adient, and provide the Structural strength required for anticipated use for the next 10 years or more.. 2000 Foot Security Fence, South Boundary - repair and/or Item No. 8, replace. security fence primarily along southerly and L=�rkin Road boundary 1 i nes (parti ci pati on '- State 9(_-),%., ci ty ICI'Z.�) Item No. 9, Construction Washdown Apron - construction of washdown apron, precise location for this facility has not been established. The area east of the e,.,,i,stinq hanqars, north of the terminal, appears to-mee-11- the -size, ---convenience-, and drainage requirements for the least cost (may be eligible for State participation). Item No. 10, VASI Lighting on 1-19 scheduled for 1'986. Asi a part. of - this project, increase the height.and intensity of the I t 4 ot a t i n g beacon by 10 feet and 2CCC e t V and n s a Wa4-t=- re�,p..0 ,al." 1 W�'-.Y lights" at intersections with RUF_1W,_AV I ic , ?. h i s W ,.D r 4-- 1. 0 r P o s s i b I e ZS ta t e _S:hOL_1,l1d be inclC-,dF_-,d _wit -11-1 -and- 9 e" p ar t i c i pa t ii c. n Item Nos. 11, 12", 13-7, and 14,.Infrastructure Necessary to Utilize Area A - preliminary gradinq of roads and minor drainage improvements wil I be accomplished under Items I and Major drafnaqe facilities, a n d cost thereo*+ , arc, included under Item 114o. 1.3!'. it is recommended that the major d-.ainaqe improvements be completed Prior to develop.-ri-ient of .this area. The'7.2 acre area is zoned C -L -M (Commercial Light ManUTFaCtUrinq). C_ L -M allows a wide variety -of ' commercial and light industrial uses. This area has been divided into parcels which may br=? leased +r c. irn "he 15 City. Long-term, renewable leases areavailable. Because this area is intended for industrial development, the internal ntreets,must be constructed primarily for truck traffic. Wid6r streets and longer radii will allow trucks to maneuver and park more safely and conveniently., Provisions should be made to widen Larkin Road and install a traffic signal at its intersection.with State Route 162.. A left turn pocket should be installed on Highway 162 at the Air'port Road intersection. It is recommended that an assessment district be estatlished-to. pay for this work. Thermalito Irrigation District CTID), a public utility, owns and maintains the water main located in Airport Road. - This main caR, readily be extended to provide service -for additional development on airport property. Pacific Gas.and Electric Company and Pacific Bell provide service to the airport properties. Extension of these services must be underground.' No public sewer system serves the airport property. Sewage disposal is by underground seRtic tanks and leach lines. The nearest public sewer is located 2,000 feet easterly of,the airport across Larkin Road and runs down Fresno Avenue to Harlan Avenue. This line is owned and maintained by Thermalito Irrigation District. It is obvious ' that the.airport industrial areas cannot be developed. until public sewer service is available. Studies and layout designs have been prepared for sewer extension to the airport as follows: 1 . A 10 " Subdivision Avenue. gravity system crossing the proposed Quail Run to 18th Street� thence down Fresno Avenue to Harlan The existing-S".sewer main in.HarLan Avenue may not be adequate to handle:the additional wastes from the airport and the Quail Run Subdivision. If this line is inadequate, the sewer will have to be extended north in Harlan Avenue about 1,650 feet and east in Highway 162 about 750 feet to an existing pump station owned by Sewerage Commission - Oroville Region' (SC -OR). Development of the Quail Run Subdivision would require extension of these lines by the developer;, the.cost savings to the City for Airport sewer line extension would-be considerable. 2. A gravity system north in Larkin Road about 1,5PO jeet , and east in Highway 162 about 800.feet to a new pump Atation and force main easterly about 2,300 feet in State.Highway'162.% Thermalito Irrigation District, Sewerage Commission-Oroville Region, private developers, and* the City all have an interest in ofi-site sewer facilities in this area. Providing these facilities to the satisfaction of all concerned may be difficult" Construction of the Quail Run Subdivision is the obvious solution to the problem, however.' timing.is unknown - development could be delayed or never occur. 16 The cost of constructing this system is the major problem. TID, clrl_ OR, and the City have established sewer c.onnectibn fees and -service charges, 'however, these fees are earmarked for system maintenance not for reimbursement of construction costs. These costs can be recaptured as connections are made, bull connections may not OCCUr for many years after system construction. Therefore, interim financing is necessary. The City and TID should actively _.pUr.SUe alter -nates lFor const- rUCti on o+ sewer facilities in the event Quail Run does not develop in a timely manner. The preparatory work.will -enable c-on-struction,,41­o, proceed in an efficient and timely manner when 'lease activity of airport properties warrants the extension. The timing shown. in Exhibit 7 i.s flexib.le because i.t depends on many factors. Improvements will be constructed in phases as financing is available and the need occurs. It is anticipated that monies expended for streets, sewers, 'and drainage improvements will ultimately be recovered from the lessee or user. Therefore, an effective promotional program to attract industry is vi.tal. Lease agreements containing rules, regulations, and procedures that address City concerns and interests should be prepared as soon as possible. The agreement should include specific costs that the lessee is expected to share, i.e. utilities, streets, drainage, improvements to Airport and Larkin -Roads, traffic signal at Larkin Road and Highway 162, and left tUrn"'poc�.-:ets at Airport Road and Highway 162'. This report addresses traffi ' c increases on -Larkin Road, Airport Road, and Highway 162 that can be anticipated by airport development * Development of private property along Larkin Road and 20th Street during the next -20 years will also contribute to traffic increases and ..problems. .. Widening Larkin Road to perhaps -4 Janes, traffic signal .installation, speci.al.-turn-lanes and*pockets-*will be costly. These .costs -should not be assessed only to airport property development but shared by private -property.-.developer-s -as well. This can be accomplished by requiring private developers to construct a portion of the -.improvements as a -condition of project approval, or by collecting ,a "fair share" improvement fee when bUilding permits are issued. r Butte— County _sh0Ul.d be enCOUraged to follow the same- procedures TO, - development of private property as,it Occurs Outside the City.Limits.. Item No. 13, Storm Drainage System - underground piping, ditch realignment, and grading for Surface drainage, entire airporz property. The most critical drainage work is rel . at -ed to development o+ Industrial Area A, the ope ' n air recreation area, and Gol-+ COUrsie Road. This WOrk Would normally coincide with other improvements in these areas, however, it may be advisable to complete this work prior to construction,of streets and installation of utilities. Grading and installation of drainage improvements will make the land available for industrial sites more desirable. Item No. 15, Open Air Recreation Area - drainage and -grading. This area is planned for recreation uses Such 'as a go -car', mi.niatLlre 17 I gol f course , or pistol range. Any or 'all of the.se Uses WOUld - be compatible with the drag strip that utilizes the southerly access road between the 2, runways. Drag. strip use should not -be aft-ect.ed in the next 220 years, Since the area now 'used by-the.rode*o is planned for commercial and industrial development, this recreation area Would be ideal for relocating the rodeo. Initially, grading and drainage improvements will be required in this area. When definite uses are determined, fencing, -gravelled or paved parking, and driving areas may be necessary. The lessees would bear the majority of these improvement.costs. Item No. 18, Slurry Seal on"Taxiways, Aprons, and Hardstands - in order to preserve the.asphalt ' surface of these i mpr-ovef-iients., Sl Urry sealing will probably be required in 19e7 or 1988. A Similar project can be -anticipated 10-12) years later.. Fund i n g. C i t y AS -1L.a t.e Item No. 19, Runway Lighting on 1-19 - this project Could commence as early as 1988. Timing is dependent upon the increase in business and commercial jet traffic and funding available. Funding- City/Federal/State. Item Nos. 16, 17, and 20, Additi-onal Tee Hangars (40), Additional Tiedowns, and Parking Areas - the existing.14 tee hangars north of the terminal -building do -not meet the present demand. 1C,) more Could be used immediately. These -could be constructed north of the existing hangars and Would sa-11-isfy.short-terfr. demand. The existing 75 tiedowns and. parking areas adjacent to-the--termihal building are adequate at present. Additional tiedowns and parking areas 'will be constructed as the need arises. Funding: City/Private/State. As demands for tiedowns, par�::inq a*reas, and tee hanqars increase, Area 2`0 will be utilized.first, then Areas 16 and.17. It. is not anticipated that all areas will be needed w ' ithin the next 2(Y years, but ..designating these -areas- at this time is --good airport planning. Area -20 and part -of --Area 16 will be used +or tiedowns and -parking. The costs shown in Exhibit.7 are based on 5C) ti-edowns and 2-2 par�.-:ing- spaces. Build 4 ing SUppliers --will furnish tee hangars on a rental, purchase, . or leAse-purchase. basis. A prerequisite to installati.on i.s that the site be graded, properly drained, base rocl-:-ed or paved. The costs shown for tee hangars is ONLY for site -preparation for 40 hangars. Item No. _22, Golf Course Road Improvements - this improvement is necessary to provide access and enCOUrage development of the 121 acre - triangular shaped parcel West Of ttle- runway crossing. The. size o+ this parcel and i t- s location in relation to the golf c ou, r s e a n d airport render it ideally suited for a variety Of uses common in other C OMMUn i t i es I e. restaurant, flying club, aviation. SUpply, hobby, repair and service shops, minor wood, lea.ther or metal M-DnUfaCtUril-1q. Actual use. of the property and timing of development cannot be predicted at this time. Prior to development, it will�be necessary to widen Golf Courc5e Road to 4() -Feet,- grade the� Site, UndergrOUnd and realiqn drainaqe. 18 it em No. 21, New Taxiway and LioMting use of the airport by heavier aircraft and an increase in traffic volumes is expected by 1995. At this point,� new taxiways and lighting will- be, required. Taxiway lighVing should be installed from this taxiway to the, tiedown area near the terminal. If air tra+4ic does not increase as expected, it may be desirable -to construct the taxiway to the, intermediate intersection and defer the-remaYnder until the need arises. :This increase may occur by the Years 2000 to 2004 at which'time additional asphalt surfacing should be installed for structural strength. Alth'OUgh not inclmded in th.10 Year Development.Plan, increasing the structural strength of Runway 1-19 to accommodate increased traffic volumes and heavier aircraft must be consfdered a' nd anticipated—, Funding:' Federal/State/City. 19 REFERENCES I' "Information'of Levels of.Environmen-1--al,Noise ReqUi-Site to Proi6ct- Public He�alth and Welfare with and Adequate Margin -o+ Sa-fetyll,, u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report No.'_55:70/9--�74-0()4, March 1974. "Community Noi,se", Special -Technical PLiblication,No. 692', American .2. Society. *for Test�ng and Mater.ia�s, R.J. Peppin adn C'.W. Rodman, Ed.-, 1979z H -Highway Traffi c Noi se 'Pred i'ct.i.on - Model U. S. Department oT' WA Transportation, Federal Hi-ghway,Admi"nistrati.on, Report.No. -FHWA-RH- 108, December 197G.- 4. "Developing Noise Exposure Contours.for-General Aviation -Airport" 'S. Departmen-t--of Transportation,-Fe.deral.Avia4�-i,on-Adm'inistration, Report -No.. FAA-AS-75-rl, December 1973. 5. "Guidelines for Considering Noise in*Land Use Planning and Control", Federal.'Interagency Committ-ee on Urban Noise, June 19eO. 6. Final Butte County Gener�al'Plan,,Noise Element, March.,1977. .1 '2 C) &Z (> 7L 15 ly. 7), 15 6.9 0 '0 R4 UNIr 17�f 22 un ICIRY rt L---5fr rHER amp her I to Mar -ji: . ftl:j J. I, z000' t L + E D E EX�,ISTING ;�o , EEEi? w - IL2kl 0 1-7 PROPELLOR OPERATIONS ONLY YEAR 2000 2 % per yr. 41� 5 % per yr. I J-23,; 'N E S S Ox x x x 5 "/o NIGHT OPERATION), %jr—T ONILY RUNWAY 12 ONLY "(R. 2000 Of "A i OROVILLE MUNICIPAL '06 + Z, \ \\--,( — — AIRPORT L 55 db (A) 14 34 DN .a CONTOURS — — — — — — 2'1 — EXHIB T EXHIBIT 2 EFFECTS OF NOISE ON PEOPLE .(RESIDENTIAL LAND USES ONLY) EFFECTS* HEARING .-LOSS-. SPEECH JNTERFERENCE- -ANNOYANCE** INDOOR OUTDOOR DAY -NIGHT 100% DISTANCE IN ..OF AVERAGE SENTENCE METERS FOR POPULATION .SOUND.LEVEL QUAL 'I -N IELLEGI- 915% SENTENCE' HIGHLY IN,DECIBELS ­DSCPT BILITY 'INTELLIGIBILI�y ".ANNOYED*** May Beg 3.1' 75 and to I I 98% o.5 :37% ,Above Occur AVERAGE COMMUNITY kEACTION****:'Very Severe GENERAL COMMUNITY ATTITUDE TOWARDS AREA: Noise is Iikely to'be,the most important of all adverse aspects of the community environment. -22- Will .60 Not 100% Occur Not. 70 lWill Li kel y 1'. 99% 0.9 Occur AVERAGE COMMUNITY REACTION****: Severe GENERAL-COMMUNITY"ATTITUDE TOWARDS,AREA:,­-.Noise is onezof the most i,mpor-. tant adverse aspects of'the community e hvironment. Will 65 Not 100%, 1. 5' Occur AVERAGE CbMMUNITY REACTiON****. Signifi-cant GENERAL COMMUNITY'ATTITUDE TOWARDS AREA: Noise is one of the important adverse aspects environment. of the community -22- Will .60 Not 100% Occur -22- EXHIBIT -2:.'(CONTINUED) will -55 A Not 4% nd .100% Bel ow Occur- -AVERAGE -COMMUNITY REACTION**-i�*.: Moderate to Slight GENERAL COMMUNITY ATTITUDE TOWARDS AREA @ 60: Noise may be considered an ..adverse, aspect of the c,ommunity environment - .GENERAL COMMUNITYATTITUD . E TOWARDS AREA @ 5': Noise considered no more 'Important than varl-OUS 'other environmental -factors. "SpeechInterfer-ence" data are.drawn,.from the following tables in EPA's "Levels Document: Table 74�', Fig. D-1, Fi g. D-12',-Fig.D-_3. All * other data from National Academy of Science 1977 Report "Guidelines for Preparing.Env'ironmental Impact Statements'on Noise, Report of Work ing Group 69 on.Eval-uation of Envi-r,on-mental Impact of Noise". Depends on attitudes and 'other factors. The percentages of people reporting -annoyance to lesser extents are higher in each case. An unknown of percentage people will report being "highly annoyed" even in the qUietest surroundings.' 0 . n reason is the difficulty all people have in integrating annoyance over a. very long time. Atti tUdes' or *other non -acoustic f actors can'. (Tiodi +y. thi s., Noise at 'low levels -can still be an important. -problem, particularly when i t intrudes into.a quiet environment. NOTE: Research implicates -noise as a fact,or producing stress-related health effects such as heart disease, high blood pressure and stroke, ulcers and other digestive disorders.' The relationship between noise and these.effects,..however,.have not as yet beer-, quantified. �23- EXHIBIT 3 YEARLY AVERAGE* EQUIVALENT SOUND LEVELS IDENTIFIED AS ....REDUI,SI.TE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY..WITH AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY -24- Indoor To Protect Activity -Hearing Loss Against Measure Inter- Cons*idera- Both Ef- f er-ence -.t1on fects (b) .Re.s.i.dent.i,al wi th'-Out- Ldr! 4 5 45 side Space -and Farm ResIdences Leq-(24) 70 Residenti-al with- No Ldn 4 5 45 Outside Space. Leq(24) 70 Commercial,. Leq (224) (a) 70 70 �c) Inside Transportation Leq('::.4) (a) 70 (a) Industrial Leq (224) (d) (a) 7C) 70 (c) Hospitals Ldn 4, 15 45 L e q ('2' 4 70 Educational Leq(24) 4 15 Leq (24.).(d). 70 Recreati onal. Areas Leq(24) (a) 70 7o(c) Farm;Land -and . Leq (24) General UnpOp Ul at ed Land -24- EXHIBIT 3 (CONTINUED.) Outdoor To Protect Activity Hearing Against Measure' Inter'- Con s i d er a---� Both�Ef- ferente tion (b) 'Re*,:si dent i'al with 'Out-, Ldn '55 '55 side Space -and Farm Resi-dences Leq ('24) 7_) 'Residential with No, Ldn Outside.: Space Leq (24.) Commercial Leq(24) 7C_) 7C_) (c) �..Inside Transportation 'Leq (214) Industrial Leq (224) (d) 70 70 (c') Hospitals.- Ldn Leq(24) 7o Educational 'Leq(24) Leq(24) (d) 7o 'Recreational Areas Leq (24) a 70 7C) (c) Farm.Land an*d.. Leq ('24) (a), 70 (c) General UPPOPUlated Land IBIT :3 (tONTINUED) CODE: a. Since different types of.activitie, appearto be associated with.jif--' +erent level ' s, indentification of a maximum level of activity I inter- ference may be difficult except in -those circumstances.wkere speech communication ' is a critical activity. (See Figure D-2 for noise levels as a function of distance which allow . satisfactory communica- tion.) b. Based on lowest level. C. Based only on -hearing lops. d-. An-Leq(8) of 75 dB may be identified in these situations so tong as the exposure -over the remaining 16 houqs,er day is low enough to result in a negligibleAontributinn to -the 24-hour average, i.ei-no greaterothan an Leq of 60 AB. NOTE: Explanation of identified level +or -hearing loss: The exposure period which results -in hearing loss at the identifind level is a period of 40 years. Refers to energy rather than arithmetic averages. :-26- I EXHIBIT 4 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS d� -27- COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE Ldn OR CNEL, dB LAND, -USE CATEGORY 5 15 60 65 70 75 80 RESIDENTIAL LOWDENS-ITY SINGLE FAMILY, DUPLEX, MOBILE HOMES RESIDENTIAL MULTI. FAMILY Mom TRANSIENT LODGING --MOTELS, HOTELS . .................... ........... .................. ................... ...................... ................. . ....................... ............................. SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, -CHURCHES, - HOSPITALS, NURSING HOMES ,AUDITORIUMS, CONCERT HALLS, 'AMPHITHEATERS SPORTS.ARENA, OUTDOOR SPORTS airSPECTATOR PLAYGROUNDS, 'NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS GOLF COURSES, RIDI'NG'STABLES-� ...... -WATER-RECREATION, CEMETERIES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ... .. ... . OFFICE BUILDINGS, BUSINESS, COMMERCIAL, PROFESSIONAL REM&= INDUSTRIAL, MANUFACTURING, UTI-LITIES3, AGRICULTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -27- EXHIBIT 4 (CONTINUED) INTERPRETATION 1r:7:77::.: -"A NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE Specified ..land use is.satisfactory, based upon the assumptions that any buildings involved are- of normal conventional -construction, withO Ut any special-n�oi-se insulation requirements. CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE New construction or -development should be undertaken only after a detai.led anal ysi-s---o-F -the noise reductrion requirements is made ..and needed noise insulation f-eatures included in the design.. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air Supply Systems or air conditioning. will normally suffice. NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE. New construction or development should generally.be discouraged. If- new construction'or development does proceed, a I detailed analysis. of the noise reduction r.equirements Must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE' New construction ...or -.development should -generally not- be -en. underta[.-. CONSIDERATIONS-IN'DETERMINATIOI\I OF'NOISE-COMPATIBLE LAND USE A. NORMALIZED NOISE EXPOSURE INFORMATION DESIRED Where sufficient data exists,- evaluate land:USe S;Uitz:%bility with respect to a "normalized" Value Of CNEL or Ldn. Normalized values are obtained by adding or Subtracting the con ' stants described in Table I to the measured or calculated value of CNEL or- Ldn. B. NOISE SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS The land use noise compatibility recommendat-ions, ShOUld be viewed in relation to the speclifit Source Of the noise. For example, aircraft and railroad noise is normally'made up Of higher sing.le noisj_-, events than RUtO traffic but occL".trs less,.frequently. Therefore, d.iffL-M'r-ent SOUrces yielding t6 same composite noi,se ex'POSLIre do not 'ne�cessaril-y'cre_ 'ate the-sc`ime noise envi ronment. The State Aer-01-IaUtiCS Act uses 65 dEA' CNEL as the criterion -28- EXHIBIT 4 which airports Must -eventually meet to protect existing residential communities from unacceptable.exposure -to aircraft -noise. In order to - facilitate the purposes of the Act, one of which is to encourage land uses compatibl.e with the .65 dB CNEL criterion wherever possible, and in. order to facilitate the ability of airports to'comply,with the Act, residential uses ' located in ComfTiunity �4oise ExPOSUre Areas greater than '6,15 dD ShOL11 d be discouraged and considered located within normaily acceptable areas.. C'. 'SUITABLE 'INTERJOR'ENVIRONMENTS One objective, of locat-Ing residential' units relative.to a know'n noise sources is to maintain a suita * ble interior noise environment at no. greater than ' 45 dB CNEL of Ldn. This requ * irement, Coupled with the Measured calculated -noise -reduction ' performance oft -he type of structure under consideration, should govern the..minimum, acceptable distance to a noise. source. D. ACCEF'TABLE.OUTDOOR*ENVIRONMENTS Another consideration, which in SOMe.COMMLtnities is an-overriding.f,actor, .is the.desire for an acceptable out -door noise environment. When this is the case, mor -e restrictive standards for land LISe.-COMpatibi-lity, typically below the ma-imum considered "normally.acceptable"for that land USe category, may be appropriate. -29- ri 0 JIG" ji, go 0 r- -n IN tin ez 10 10 co, 00— iAi, m cp M > 31- AIRPORT MASTER RECORD U. S., DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION PRI'NT'DATE; -05/2-1/85 I. ASSOC. CITY.: OROVILLE 2. AIRPORT NAME: OROVILLE MUNICIPAL CBD TO AIRPORT (NM): 0_3 SW 4. STATE: CA FAA SITE NR: ol9-9E3.A 5. COUNTY: BUTTE CA 6.. REG/ADO: -AWP/SFO 7. -SECT AERO CHT: SAN.FRANCISCO GENERAL 10. - OWNERSHIP:. PUBLIC 1.1. OWNER.: -C.ITY OF DROVILLE - 13.. ADDRESS:. -17-_._-) MONTGOMERY STREET, DRO-VILLE, CA'95965-4897 PHONE NR: 916-5-331-4/64 14. MANAGER: i --:'IRT HUNTER 15. ADDRESS: 17-35 MONTGOMERY STREET,'-OROVILLE, CA 95965-4897 16. PHONE NR.- *0116-57�_]r-4764* 916-533-13.13 17. ATTENDANCE SCHEDULE. MONTHS DAYS HOURS ALL ALL 0800-1700 le. AIRPORT USE: PUBLIC 19. ARPT LAT:' 3-9-29-3CN ESTIMATED 20, ARPT LONG: 121-37-05W 1. T ARPT-ELEV: 199 ESTIMATED ACREAGE: 7915 RIGHT TRAFFIC: NO 24. -NON-COMM LANDING FEE:. NO NASP/FEDERAL AGREEMENT: NGPRY 26.. FAR 139 INDEX: N RUNWAY DATA, RUNWAY IDENT: 011/19 .11. LENGTH: 5-960 4 83 4 5 WIDTH: SURF TYPE COND- ASPH-G A S PH -- F SURF'TREATMENT.-. .-,.5. GROSS WT: OW 90 4,--' (IN THSDS) DW 1() - 65 DTW- 19C-) 11 15 8 DDTW LIGHTI'NG/APCH "AIDS C), 1 1 1 -T,) 40. EDGE INTENSITY lflED 41. 'I%AOW ELEMENT 81 4..::.. RWY 111ARI%'�- TYPE-COND� *NSTD-F*/NSTD-F B S C F /EjSC--F' 4 VASI N ..'/N V22L /V2L 31- Z72 /32 AIRPORT M ASTER RECORD (CONTINUEDj 44. THR CROSSING HGT -N 45. VISUAL GLIDE ANGLE /N -N 46. CNTRLN-TDZ N N/N 47. RVR-RVV N /N N 4e. REIL N 49. APCH LIGHTS 01/1? OBSTRUCTION DATA 12/30 50. FAR 77 CATEGORY A (V) 51. DISPACED-THR- /556 52. &TLG OBSTN 53. OBSTN MARKEDtLGTD /ROAD 54. HGT ABOVE RWY END 55. DIST FROM RWY END 17 /7 56. CNTRLN OFFSET 200 57. OBSTN CLNC SLOPE *5 511 OLOSE-IN OBSTN *N oil /0:1 *0:1 /2:1 20:1 LANDING LENGTH *Y 60. LANDING RWY-LENGTH oing, CTLG OBSTACLE 62. HTG-ABOVE THR �3. 64. DIST FROM THR CNTRLN OFFSET SERVICES 10OLL 7o.'- FUEL: SK 71. AIRFRAM RPRSg MAJ OR '--'--'-72.�;_-PWR PLAN RPRS: MAJOR 73�--BOTTLE OXYGEN:. NONE.. 74% OXYGEN: NONE 75. 76�- TSNT STORAGE: TIE- OTHER SERVICES: CHTR -�NTL SALES INSTR FACILITIES 80. ARPT BCN; CG 81. APT-LGT SKEDs *DUSk"DAWN 82. UNICOM: 122.800 .87.. WIND INDICATOR� YES -L __84. SEMENTED CIRCLE: YES 85. CONTROL TWR: NO 86, FSS: RED BLUFF 87. FSS ON ARPT: NO 88. FSt PHONE NR: .916"527-0242 89.' TOLL FREE.NR: _1-800�327-960*16 -32- Z72 /32 3.00 /3.00 -N /N -N N/N /N -N -N /N -N N/N /N -N /N N /N 01/1? 12/30 (V) /A (V) (V) /A (V) /556 �460 /22o .'/ROAD- ROAD /ROAD /19 17 /7 /200 200 /215 oil /0:1 *0:1 /2:1 /Y *Y /N oing, 12/30 IRPORT MASTER RECORD (CONTINUED) BASED AIRCRAFT 90. SINGLE _ENGv A0 91. MULTI ENG: 2 92. JET: —0— TOTAL 42 93. TV. HELICOPTERS: GLIDERS: 95. MILITARY: 96. ULTRA—L-IGHT; OPERATIONS 100.. AIR ACARRAR.-. .101. COMMUTER: 102. AIR TAXI: 5000 107, 104, G,A LOCAL: 55000 G A ITNRNTA 300W 105. MILITARY: 100 TOTAL: .90100 OPERATIONS FOR -11 MOS ENDING 11FEB85 110. REMARKS: A014- DIRECTOR—DEPT ON PUBLIC WORKS' A016 -ARPT PHONE: 916L533-1310 A042 RWY OVAND 19 NO CNTRLN MARKING. RWY 01 NO RWY A057 RWY 12.APCH RATIO 301 FROM DSPLCD THR. �NPS. A057 RWY 19 APCH RATIO 44:1 FROM DSPLCD THR. A057 RWY 30 APCH�RATIO 50:1,FROM DSPLCD THR. FENCE 95�-FROM.EAVOF RWY ON CENTERLINE. P��A058:±RWY�12�W AO% _RWY 49 +4,-FENCE:95n5ROM'END OF RWY ON CENTER*LINE. A0611 FOR MIRLAWY 19/30 KEY 122.S. 5 TIMES. AR -5 AR�10­ --------------- 1w wwo a CY 0 I I I CL a/l I �n 10 DAM 'BLVD. WEST _CL ja 18 21 zz R -P PQ RMH-1 0 CLm­ 0 ILI 0, -_L__J1 L -LEGEND A�-;10 CITY BOUNDARY 0 OPEN'SPACE -5. -AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTI AL 5 ACRES --'AGRICULTURAL- RESIDENTIAL /0 ACRES AR'10' CLM ' COMMERCIAL LIGHT MANUFACTURING M-1- LIMITED]NOUSTRIAL M-2 INDUSTRIAL PO PUBLIC or QUASI -PUBLIC R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RMH-1 RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME EXHIBIT 6 DRAWING NO. fNED BY H.G.M. N BY C.M.H. city of oroville ZONING ADJACENT 'PROVED BY PUBLIC WORKS 10/31/84 TO AIRPORT 1E I" = 1,500' department -34.-. SHEET OF ' EXHIBI'T-7 ' OROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT N� 20 YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT/DEVELOPMENT COSTS N� PROJECT NUMBER/ ��. -_-----_-_ N� - u���w�p//um � YEAR(S) FINANCING AMOUNT** �p 1. Misc. Grading/Drainage 1985 C $ 3,00» 2. Airport Road Improvement 1985 1985 $ o� 5 A.C~' Surfacing Runway 1-19 .0 -5,000 N� 3. Pioneer Industrial Street _ 1985� C $ 3,000 �N . 4. Golf Course Taxiway and ` Tiedown Area 1985 C o� 5 A.C~' Surfacing Runway 1-19 1985 C/F N� 6. ADF Beacon Runway 1-19 1985 C/F 7. Resurface Vehicle Parking Area 1986 C 8. 2000' Securit' Fence - South / Boundary 1986 C/S Construction Washdown Apro*n 1986 10. ' VASILighting Runway 1_19 1986 ' C/S .. 11. On-Site/Off-Site Sanitary Sewer 1986-96 C/P Inter`:ipr Industl�`ial �Streets 1986�96C ' ' 13.. -Storm Drainage System '� ' 1986�96 'C/S ` N� 14., -On-Site Water Maibs-- - - 19B6-96 � C/TID/P 15. Open Air Recreation Area - Drainage/Gradi)ng 1986-96 -�C/P .� ^ 16/17. Additional Tee Hangars (40) 1986-95 C/ P, N� 18. Slurry Seal Taxiways, Aprons, Hardstands 1988 C/S N� 18a. Slurry Seal Taxiways, A �rons, , Hardstands _ 2000 C/S 19.:-. Runway Lighting' -on- 1-19� ��� 1989-91 C/F 20. Additional Tied��wns and Parking Areas 1989-91 C/S ' -35- $ 3,000 $ 500,000 $ 43,0�0 $ B4O00 $ - 1,500 $ 15,000 $ 360�000 $360,00,0 $ 100,000 $ 120,000 $ 40,000 $ 72,000 $ 10,000 ' 110,000 $ 150,000 21. New Taxiway and Lighting 1995-99 C/S 1w,000 21. Drainagei Grading and Improve- mont",to,6ol* CourseoOwd 1986-96 C/P .4 0,000 23. 'Heavy Duty Airport Crash Unit 1995 C/F 200�000 24. Structural Fir& Fumper A990 -q5- C/P I . 50,00W 25. Two -bay -Substation .,2005 LIP 144,000 1984 Cost Estimates C City F Federal P Private S state T.ID­ Thermalito Irrigation District 736- I AM LNIM dift PARCEL F. -PARCEL 19 ---OAR' D A .'P A R C E L 0 E RCEL C RCEL P Ai A�. at� _i� RCELZ tj .7 PARCEL ..PARCEL RCEL A PAR C, L K f : CEL M PAR .7. L dA P , T Zh V( e R. r_ cc) ollf. 6) & s P. 0 E L S PA CEL R PARCEL 0 PARCEL T PAR C PARCEL P 0, BAY .. . .......... PROPOSD LEAR ZONE" .30-29-24 .30-29-16 -`;eV _Mw Fly