Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHICO AIRPORT (FAR PART 150)V� mow', BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of .December 20, 2000 A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Chair Rosene, Commissioners Grierson, Wallrich, Causey, Harp, and Alternate Commissioners Papadakis, and Greenwood. Commissioner Hatley, and Alternate Commissioners Hodges, and Ward. Others Present: Commissioner Lambert (seated in audience) ' Alternate Commissioner Baldridge. Alternate Commissioner Hennigan M. A. Meleka, Principal Planner Craig Sanders, Senior Planner Cheryl Spoor, Secretary I Tom Parilo, Director of Development Services Ken Brody, Shutt Moen Consultant Larry Thelen, Legal Counsel to ALUC Kim Yamaguchi, Butte County Supervisor -Elect Kim Seidler, Planning Director, City of Chico C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE NOVEMBER 15, 2000 MEETING Commissioner Grierson requested a correction on page 5, line 38 changing wording in the . draft from "2000 -foot extension to the north plus a 1000 -foot safety ramp" to "2000 -foot extension to the north plus the required 1000 -foot runway safety area." . It was moved by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by Commissioner Wallrich, and unanimously carried to.adopt the minutes of November 15, 2000 as corrected. D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA Chair Rosene requested that the Commission consider reviewing Issues #3 and # 15 of the matrix at the same time, since both items concerned Zone- B-2 on the southeast side of the Chico Municipal Airport. It was moved by Commissioner Harp, seconded by Commissioner Wallrich; and unanimously carried to accept the Agenda as revised. E. BUSINESS ITEMS ITEM WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARING 1. Adoption of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Negative Declaration, continued hearing from November 15, 2000: a. Review recommended changes to the Draft 2000 Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Addendum based on all the comments received during the public comments period ended on November 22, 2000. Accept public testimony on the recommended changes. The draft Airport Compatibility Plan contains a comprehensive review of the compatibility criteria applicable to each of the County's public -use airports: the Chico Municipal Airport, the Oroville Airport, the Paradise Skypark Airport, and the Ranchaero Airport. b. After reviewing recommended changes and public testimony, the Commission. will consider formal action including adoption of the referenced Plan and the Negative Declaration in accordance with CEQA requirement. COMMENT/RESPONSE MATRIX Mr.-Meleka informed the Commission that Issues #1 & #3 were the remaining issues from the last meeting to be discussed. These two issues had initially been reviewed at the November 15,2000 ALUC meeting and had been deferred to the December 20, 2000 ALUC meeting for a decision. Following review of these issues, he added, Mr. Brody would review Issues #11 through #25, and respective recommendations. Mr. Meleka further stated that it was the desire of Chair Rosene that each comment on,the matrix be addressed thoroughly and felly by this Commission. Mr. Brody started with issues #1 and #14 as follows: Issue #1—Chico Municipal Airport Compatibility Map: Zone C, East Side of Airport (Jon H. Bechtel; Hefner, Stark & Marois/George Kammerer; City of Chico/Kim Seidler) Deferred from the November 15, 2000 meeting to this meeting for a decision. (Issue#14 is a continuation of Issue #1) (City of Chico/Tom Lando; Hefner, Stark & Marois/George Kammerer; North Valley Pilots Assn./Rick Thompson, President; Butte County Board of Supervisors, Jane Dolan, Chair) Chico Municipal Aimort'Compatibility Mai Zone C East Side of Aimort – (Issue #11 The following was requested under this issue: (1) Reduce the width .of Zone C on the east side of the airport from 7,500. to 6,000 feet in order to match the west side of Zone C. (2) Apply C-2 designation and criteria instead of C-1 on the east side of the airportwithin the central portion of the zone. It was.noted that correspondence from the City of Chico Planning Department dated 10/9/00 indicated that the City did not have any objections to Mr. Bechtel's request for the application ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 ■ Page 2 ■ 1 A" • of Compatibility Zone C-2 on the east side of the airport if the ALUC determines that the modification is consistent with the purposes of the CLUP. Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: There are two interrelated components to this issue: (1) the zone boundary, and (2) the criteria to be applied within the zone. (1) Zone C is 1,500' wider east of the Runway 13L -31R than it is west of Runway 13R -31L because of the difference in the types of aircraft using each runway. Larger aircraft primarily use the longer runway, 13L -31R. Even with the contemplated extension of both runways, this circumstance is expected to remain. Because Zone C is defined as encompassing the principal traffic patterns, its eastern boundary should remain as currently proposed. (2) Within the context of the countywide compatibility criteria set forth in the draft plan, there are three options worth considering with regard to 'the compatibility zone designation for east of the airport. These choices are: (a) Keep the C=1 designation as currently proposed in the plan addendum. The residential density criterion for this zone is < 0.2 dwelling units per acre (average parcel size of < 5.0 acres), the same as in Zone B-2. A C-1 designation provides the greatest long- term compatibility protection for the airport., (b) Switch to a C-2 designation for all or part of the area as indicated in the comment. Residential development would then need to have a minimum density of 4.0 dwelling units per acre. (c) Designate the area as Zone C, thus leaving the density choice to the land use jurisdiction (currently Butte County) and the landowners. This is the concept originally set forth for this location in the March 2000draft plan. It also is the designation proposed to be applied in the area southeast of the Chico Airport and universally at the other three airports. Mr. Brody's recommendation: From a compatibility standpoint, two factors affecting the area east of Chico Municipal Airport need to be considered with regard to determining the best response to this issue. These are: (1) the regular overflight of the area by fire attack and other large aircraft; and (2) the rising terrain. Given these factors, maintaining the current undeveloped or very -low-. density residential character is the ideal choice. If this option is not tenable, then a Zone C designation seems to be more logical than C-2. By leaving the . density choice open, landowners theoretically could divide a large parcel into 5 -acre lots rather than being • required to create 0.2 -acre lots if they choose to develop their property. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 0 Page 3 ■ . Chico Municipal Airport Compatibility Map: Zone C East Side of Airport — (Issue #14 Continuation of Issue #1) Following are comments made to ALUC and were combined under this issue: • (Chico) Designation of area as C-2 would allow for potential development and not be inconsistent with purposes of Compatibility Plan. • (HS&M) Confirm that the straight Zone C designation is equivalent to a Zone C-2 designation. • (HS&M) Reduce the Zone C width east of the airport to 6,000 feet. • (NVPA) Areas west and east of runways should be designated Zone C-1 due to noise and safety factors. • (County) Document that fire attack and other .large aircraft use the traffic pattern east of the airport and the rationale for Zone C-1 size and land use restrictions. • (County) Eliminate separate mapping of Zones . C-1 and C-2 in favor of a Zone C allowing either C-1 or C-2 option. Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: As shown on the accompanying "Compatibility Map Options" drawing, fire attack aircraft tracks and the noise associated with them affect a large area east of the runway's south end. Factors to be considered include the frequency with which various tracks are utilized, the • altitude of the aircraft, and the high terrain in portions of the area. As indicated in the Issue #1 discussion,'continuing to designate the area east of the airportas Zone C-1 remains the ideal response to this issue from a land use compatibility standpoint. However, in. recognition of the comments received, three other options can be identified. • As previously discussed, one is to return to a single Zone C designation either just on the east side or in the entire airport influence area. This option would allow either high- or low-density development choices at the discretion of the land use jurisdiction. • A second option, as discussed at the 11/15/00 ALUC meeting, is to establish a Zone C-2 in the area lateral to the runway between Mud Creek on the north and a line perpendicular to the south end of the runway. To better reflect the impacts of fire attack aircraft flight tracks, this option could be refined by extending the remaining southern portion of Zone C-1 eastward to the 230 kV transmission line. The accompanying drawing shows the resulting configuration. • A third option is a combination of the preceding two. .Except for the southeastern C-1 piece, all C-1 and C-2 areas could be combined -into a Zone C allowing either choice. The southeastern C-1 area would then be added to the adjacent Zone B72 which has the same residential density criteria as C-1. Mr. Brody's recommendation: Keeping the area as Zone C-1 remains the preferred choice, but the other options are marginally acceptable: 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 ■ Page 4 ■ • Mr. Brody addressed Issues #14 & #15, east and southeast of Chico Municipal Airport. To, clarify his understanding, Mr. Brody stated his assumption that noise abatement was the issue here, and asked Commissioner Grierson whether the two major flight paths for departing tankers were evenly divided between left turns toward the southeast and the other potential direction. Commissioner Grierson responded that tanker tracks as. depicted are consistent. Alternate Commissioner Hennigan also concurred, stating that 55% of tanker flights followed Sycamore Creek. Commissioner Grierson then added that the B-2 Zone to the southeast of the airport is the most critical corridor. • Mr. Brody projected a map, including. the compatibility zones around the Chico Municipal Airport, with a new boundary line drawn within the southeast area, based on the Commission's direction from the last meeting. There was much discussion regarding the appropriate placement of the boundary taking into consideration noise and safety issues. The line on the mentioned map was drawn at approximately 500' south of Sycamore Creek, measured from the centerline of the Creek. Mr. Brody asked the Commission to consider whether to continue to have C -1/C-2 zones or all C, leaving administration of the consistency criteria to the jurisdictions. Chair Rosene suggested reviewing each area separately and asked whether more discussion would be needed relative to the east side of Chico Municipal Airport. Commissioner Greenwood asked why some of the area north of Bidwell Ranch, now in the C- 1 zone, was not designated as B-2. Mr. Brody replied that from a residential standpoint, the densities would be the same for either C-1 or B-2; he added that if the C -1/C-2 is redefined as C, the Commission may then choose to further protect the area by designating it B-2. Commissioner Greenwood concluded that it might be better to leave the area as designated to maintain the proposed density. .Then he distributed a map including compatibility zones boundary for consideration and discussion. Alternate Commissioner Pap adakis pointed out that while it was conceded that CDF and their flight tracks were most important, he also felt it was important to be cognizant of other flight activity at the airport such as U -2s, Coast Guard instrument approaches, flying schools, and agricultural -related, all of which could be sources of noise and safety concerns. Commissioner Grierson commented that increased flight activity was a valid point; he further stated that the airport had experienced continuing increases in flight activity including 3 business jets daily, military activity, U -2s, and other documented activity. Chair Rosene read the requirements of the Plan that related to the east side of the Chico Municipal Airport. He said that if the Commission changes the C -1/C-2 designation on the east side to C, this would be in conflict with the City's General Plan. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public for comment. 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 ■ Page 5 ■ Mr. Kammerer spoke on behalf of his client, Mr. Bechtel. He related that he had met with Mr. Meleka and also had met with Tom Parilo to discuss plans for his client's property. Mr. Kammerer confirmed an assumption from the prior meeting, stating it was Mr. Bechtel's desire not to have his pre -development results in the Plan disseminated. He further stated that Mr. Bechtel had been working with Heritage Partners, and ultimately had incurred in excess of $200,000 in pre -development expenses to date. Mr. Kammerer asserted that the City of Chico, in the October 9th letter from Kim Seidler to the Commission, gave its support and he added that it had Tom Lando's "blessing." He further asserted that his client's proposed development is fully consistent with the City's General Plan and urged acceptance/adoption of the C-2 designation or C if this would be more tenable. Chair Rosene then asked for specifics of the proposal, questioning whether any residential development was planned. Mr. Kammerer replied, "There is residential development shown on a portion of those plans. The stuff closest to Cohasset Rd., up front, along Cohasset, is primarily proposed for industrial, which is exactly what we showed in the plans,. but immediately behind that is planned for residential." Mr. Kammerer then summarized his comments and asked the Commission to support the C-2 designation or C. He further asked the Commission to provide a reasonable solution, stating that Mr. Bechtel would look at an override if this was not done. • Chair Rosene said that he had listened to the tapes from the Nov. 14 Board of Supervisors' meeting and wished to discuss concerns from that meeting. He said that Supervisor Houx had questioned why the C area was wider on the east side than on the west side. Commissioner Grierson responded to comments made by Mr. Kammerer at the November meeting of the Board of Supervisors, in which he stated that the Chico Municipal Airport experienced infrequent flights and, in his opinion, that the CLUP dramatically overstated the frequency and noise issues affecting the area. Referring to the 1978 Master Plan, Commissioner Grierson said that it had figures in it that were relatively overstated. He gave a brief history of the changes in types of aircraft, sizes of aircraft, noise levels, as well as the resulting effects. In addition, Commissioner Grierson related that documented activity at the airport had been,increasing steadily at a rate of 18% per year, with air cargo growth activity substantially higher than the national average. Alternate Commissioner Hennigan stated his concern regarding tanker logs were being ignored which he said documented more than 1000 flights per year. He believed that the noise contours and findings should be objectively evaluated. Mr. Parilo spoke on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, commenting on concerns in. their letter of November 20 to the Commission. He said the Board had asked the Commission to consider eliminating the split C area to the east of the airport, in favor of a C designation. • The public hearing was then closed. 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 0 Page 6 ■ • Alternate Commissioner Papadakis asked Mr. Brody for Shutt Moen's recommendations relative to the east side of the Chico Municipal Airport. Mr. Brody stated their recommendation as maintaining C-1 on the east side; however, he said he could see other possibilities. supported, mentioning Mr. Kammerer's earlier comment that Mr. Bechtel had been approached regarding the possibility of a golf course. He added that perhaps some proposals incorporating creative planning, such as a golf course, might open development possibilities. Mr. Brody proceeded to outline options regarding the future anticipated development of the runway extension to the north at Chico Municipal Airport and potential impacts to be taken into consideration. He further commented that noise contours (and sources) give some indication of impacts; however, he added, since this is a relative issue, there is no clear answer. Variables include ongoing replacement of individual aircraft with higher performing aircraft and lessening the noise impact; however, it is unlikely that CDF will be replacing their larger, heavier, noisier aircraft quickly. Mr. Brody concluded by saying that timing for the implementation of the north runway extension is also an unknown variable at this time. Chair Rosene called for a break from 10:40 a.m., reconvening at 10:50 a.m. Chair Rosene again opened the hearing to the public for comment. Mr. Kim Seidler, Planning Director for the City of Chico, addressed the Commission and asked • whether the changes made at this meeting were included in the prepared compatibility document. Mr. Meleka replied that the proposed changes fall within the general parameters of the specifications in the document. Mr. Brody concurred. There being no further public comment, the hearing was then closed to the public. A motion was made by Commissioner Harp, seconded by Commissioner Wallrich, and unanimously passed to change .Figure 3-A to include Zone C as a replacement of Zone C-1 depicted in Exhibit 1 that was distributed to the Commissioners and the public during the meeting. The northern boundary of this zone coincides with the Mud Creek/Richardson Springs Road and the southern boundary follows the property boundaries as illustrated in Exhibit 1. The attached Exhibit la illustrates the final modifications to the compatibility zones and boundaries. Issue#2—Chico Municipal Airport Compatibility Map: Zone C, West Side of Airport (Webb Homes/Greg Webb 10/24/00) The following was requested under this issue: The request that 83 acres south of Sycamore Creek and north of Eaton Road (AP #007-020- 123) and land at the southwest corner of Sycamore Drive and Hicks Lane be designated as C- 2 rather than C-1: • This request is based upon the following factors: • The areas have limited safety risks. ■ Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 0 Page 7 ■ 11 • They are located outside identified noise contour lines. • Direction from the ALUC has been for boundaries to follow natural features and parcel lines to the extent possible. Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: The center of this property is situated approximately 4,000 feet laterally (southwesterly) of the extended centerline of Runway 13R -31L and 3,000 feet beyond (southeasterly) of the existing runway end. The proposed southeastward extension of the runway would reduce the latter distance to about 1,500 feet. With the runway end in its present location, the property is roughly where small aircraft begin to turn from downwind to base when landing on Runway 31L. Aircraft turning right after departing from Runway 13R also may overfly the property. The proposed runway extension probably would move the traffic pattern base leg over existing development south of Eaton Road, although the downwind leg would remain over the property in question. The options with regard to this location are the same as with the issue concerning Zone C east of the airport—designate the area C-1, C-2, or an either/or combination of the two. Mr. Brody's recommendation: Leave the property designated as Zone C-1 pending City of Chico adoption of the airport master plan and a determination as to when a runway extension might be constructed. Chair Rosene opened the hearing top ublic comment. Mr. Greg Webb spoke in support of the mentioned request. He indicated that the City of Chico is experiencing a housing crisis. He further stated that because of environmental constraints and other land use -related issues in Chico, there is not enough land to accommodate the housing need. In addition, he questioned the need for expanding the airport at this time because the resulting impact would exacerbate the housing conditions in Chico. He requested the Commission to delay their adoption of the Plan until the City completes its planning process. There being no further public comment, the hearing was closed. It was the Commission's consensus to concur with Mr. Brody's recommendation. Issue #3—Chico Municipal Airport Compatibility Map: Zone B-2, Southeast of Airport (City of Chico/Tom Lando) (Issue #15 is a continuation of Issue #3) City of Chico/Tom Lando; Rural Consulting Associates, Jim Mann; Hefner, Stark & Marois/George Kammerer; Caltrans Aeronautics Program, Sandy Hesnard, Environmental Planner) 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 0 Page 8 ■ Issue #3 The Compatibility Map for the airport appears to show the southern boundary of Zone B-2 on the southeast side of the airport. lying south of Sycamore Creek. Previous direction by the. ALUC has indicated that boundaries of the compatibility zones should follow existing boundaries and 'natural features to the greatest extent possible. In this case, however, the boundary appears neither to follow the creek itself nor any existing parcel boundaries. The City requests that the map be adjusted to show Sycamore Creek as the southern boundary of Zone B-2 at this location. Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: The intent of the Zone B-2 shown southeast of the airport is to encompass the noise -abatement flight track utilized by fire attack aircraft. If these aircraft generally fly well north of Sycamore Creek, then the creek alignment is a suitable boundary for the zone. However, if aircraft tend to fly more directly over the creek, then Zone B-2 should extend south of the creek in order to provide a suitable buffer. Given the large size of the parcels in that area, placement of the zone boundary on a distinct geographic feature may not be practical. In such case, the line could be drawn at a set distance from the creek or tied to an offset from nearby roads or other geographic features. Mr. Brody's recommendation: For purposes of clarity, some modification of the boundary line appears to be appropriate. The ALUC should examine this issue and make a determination as to the most logical basis for positioning the line. Issue #15 — (A continuation of Issue #3) The following are comments made to ALUC and were combined under this issue: • (Chico) It is premature for the City to amend its General Plan for Bidwell Ranch in that no decision has been made on future use: • (Chico) The B-2 zone boundary should follow Sycamore Creek'or the line designated by the Army Corps of Engineers as buffer south of the creek. • (Rural Consulting) There is no ascertainable evidence of residential development south of the airport should be limited to the extent proposed: building design can reduce interior noise to 45 dB -CNE L, aircraft (including fire attack) are getting quieter; accident potential is low. • (HS&M) Shift the B-2/C zone boundary southeast of the airport north to follow Sycamore Creek. • Caltrans) Zone B-2 southeast of the airport should be expanded to include the adjacent undeveloped area proposed for Zone C; for noise and safety reasons, -fire attack aircraft need a relatively uninhabited area beneath their departure.track. • Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 0 Page.9 • According to airport management,, the typical current fire attack flight track toward the southeast closely follows Sycamore Creek. However, the noise impacts of aircraft following this route extend well south of the creek. Accordingly, the Zone B-2/C boundary thus should be positioned south of the creek. At such time as the runway is extended to the north, this flight track may shift northward from its present location, although noise impacts would still extend south of the creek. Mr. Brody's recommendation: Given the above factors, an approximately 500 -foot buffer measured south of Sycamore Creek's centerline is proposed as shown in Exhibit 1. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public for comment. Mr. Pete Giampaoli addressed the Commission with concerns relative to development of a property he owns located in the vicinity of Sycamore Creek. He requested that the Commission reconsider placement of the proposed 500' buffer area, suggesting the boundary follow the top of Sycamore Creek, and not located 500' from the centerline of Sycamore Creek. This would allow him .to proceed with residential development as he had planned. The current proposal would reduce his development by 10-20 parcels. Mr. Kammerer spoke on behalf of Mr. Giampaoli, citing the rationale for consideration of his client's request. Mr. Seidler, representing the City of Chico, appealed to the Commission to consider delaying the adoption of the CLUP until such time as planning for Bidwell Ranch had been completed. He commented that no determination had yet been made by the City as to its ultimate disposition, but he stated that, at this time, the City was opposed to the B-2 Zone as proposed for the Bidwell Ranch area. The public hearing was then closed. In concurrence with Mr. Brody's recommendation, Commissioner Papadakis made a motion, seconded by Alternate Commissioner Greenwood, and passed with one abstaining vote from Commissioner Harp to incorporate a 500 -foot buffer measured south of Sycamore Creek's centerline as depicted in the schematic, Exhibit 1. Mr. Meleka drew a schematic on the board outlining details for depicting the boundary between B-2 Zone to the north of Sycamore Creek and C to the south of it. These details are related to the most western stretch of the boundary line. This line follows East Lassen to its end, then joins with a line that is drawn 500 feet south of the Creek's centerline. The following schematic illustrates these details. 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 ■ Page 10 ■ 1 Chair Rosene adjourned the meeting from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. for a lunch break, at which time the meeting reconvened. : (Issues #4410 ALUC provided its direction regarding this issue at the November IS, 2000 meeting; therefore, these issues were not discussed at this meeting.) Issue #11—Open Land Requirements (Fred Gerst) This issue is related to the implementation of open land requirements. Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: The revised Policy 4.2.5(c) (see Addendum) describes how open land criteria are.to be applied. The checklist of general plan consistency requirements in Appendix H -I further describes local jurisdiction options for implementation of the open land criteria. Mr. Brody's recommendation: Leave policy as proposed in the Addendum. . Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. There being no comments, the hearing was closed. The ALUC Commission concurred with Mr. Brody's recommendation and unanimously agreed to retain the revised Policy 4.2.5(c) as it appears in the Addendum. Issue #11.a.—Desi2nation of ALUC Secretary (ALUC) Chair Rosene said he wanted to avoid past history with regard to some issues that should have come before this Commission, however, the Commission had been bypassed. Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: In accordance with Section 21671.5.(c) of the Public Utilities Code, staff assistance to the ALUC should be provided by the County. Nothing in the law indicates that the ALUC has any authority over the selection of ALUC staff. In any- case, thisis not .an issue for the Compatibility Plan, but it should be addressed through the ALUC By - Laws or a separate MOU with the Director of Development Services. Mr. Brody's recommendation: Leave policy 1:2.5. as drafted. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of December. 20, 2000 ■ Page 1 l ■ Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. There being no comments, the hearing was closed. There was a consensus to add the following to the end of the' definition of ALUC Secretary in Policy 1.2.5.: "...and with the concurrence. of the ALUC Chair." Issue #12—Relationship to Chico Municipal Airport Master Plan (Building Industry Association of Superior California) Issue #13-1telationship to Oroville Municipal Airport Master Plan (City of Oroville—Council Resolution 11/22/00) Mr. Brody reported that issues 12 and 13 were previously discussed. This had resulted in additional language added to the Addendum. Mr. Brody .further commented that there was general acceptability of what had been proposed. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. There being no comments, the hearing was closed. The. Commission confirmed Mr. Brody's recommendation. (Issues #14 & #15 - Refer to Issues #1 & #3, respectively for conclusions) Issue #16—Chico Municipal Airport Compatibility Map: Zone C, West Side of Airport (City of Chico/Tom Lando and Butte County Board of Supervisors/Jane Dolan) (Continuation of Issue #2 discussed at the November 15, 2000 meeting.) The following are comments made to ALUC and were combined under this issue: • The C-1 designation on property north of Eaton Road would reduce the number of residences from 550-920 allowed under city zoning to 11 under the C-1 designation. Under this issue, the City contended that the mentioned impact had not been addressed in the initial study. • The County requested that the Commission reconsider the proposed Compatibility Zone C-1 area north of Mud Creek within the North Chico Specific Plan. The SR -1 zoned lands within the mentioned area were previously found to be consistent with the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. The urban densities within the town center of the North Chico Specific Plan was the subject of the County's override of the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. The draft 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan has recognized the planned urban portion of the North Chico Specific Plan as being compatible,and the SR -1 area as being incompatible.. Section 2.4.4.f of the Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility. Plan allows ALUC to, recognize specific situations where incompatible uses, due to extraordinary factors or circumstances, can be found to be compatible. The Board believes that for the reasons ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 P Page 12 ■ f stated above that this area within the North Chico Specific Plari should be recognized by ALUC to qualify as a special circumstance. Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: The effect of a Zone C-1 on this property was included in the housing impacts analysis summarized in the revised initial study dated September 1, 2000. Mr. Brody also started discussion regarding the issue of North Chico Specific Plan area north of Mud Creek (zoned for 1 -acre parcels). This issue was -referenced in the Board of, Supervisors' letter distributed at this meeting. -He mentioned that 1 -acre development existed in the northern portion of the C-1 area and that the North Chico Specific Plan allows 1 -acre parcels in most of this area. Mr. Brody referred to the proposal that had been drafted to address the Board's concern regarding the North Chico Specific Plan area to the'north of Mud Creek. He read a portion of this proposal in the event . that the Commission would choose to incorporate it: Notwithstanding the Compatibility Zone C-1 designation and its associated requirement limiting the density of residential development to a maximum of 0.2 dwelling units per acre, a density of up to 1.0 dwelling units per acre shall be permitted within the area marked on the Chico Municipal Airport Compatibility Map (Figure 3A). If the anticipated configuration of runway extensions is revised as part of the forthcoming airport master plan, modification of this special exception policy may be warranted. Mr. Brody said that although he may not fully support the proposal, the Commission may still consider it as an alternative approach. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. Mr. Parilo spoke in support of the proposal and urged the Commission to maintain the consistency status of S -RI as included in the 1978 Plan. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Grierson . made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Causey, and unanimously carried to maintain the C-1 designation to the north of Mud Creek, within the North Chico Specific Plan area. Issue #17 * efinitioa of Existing Land Use (Butte County Board of Supervisors/Jane Dolan, Chair 11/21/00) The Board requested that the planning or zoning for land where major infrastructure has been installed, funded, or accepted by a public entity should be recognized as an existing land use. This particularly applies with regard to the North Chico Specific Plan area north of Mud Creek. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 0 Page 13 ■ Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: The opinion of both the ALUC legal counsel and another land use attorney contacted by the consultant is that. the ALUC has jurisdiction over vacant properties with infrastructure in place because these properties have not yet been devoted to any specific use.' However, the ALUC also has the authority to treat such properties equitably by allowing optimum use of that infrastructure, consistent with the constraints of airport protection. The fact that the North Chico Specific Plan was the result of a long planning process is not relevant to this issue. Moreover, it would appear that airport compatibility concerns were either overlooked or greatly downplayed during that planning process. . Mr. Brody's recommendation: Keep the policy defining existing land use (1.2.10) as previously written in the Addendum. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. There being no comments, the hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Wallrich, seconded by Commissioner Causey; and unanimously passed to retain Policy 1.2. 10 as it appears in the Addendum. Issue #18—Effects of Intensity Limitations on Existing Businesses (Butte County Board of Supervisors/Jane Dolan, Chair 11/21/00) Under this issue, the Board stated that the effect of proposed intensity limitations on existing . nonresidential uses could not readily be assessed. The ALUCP, the Board added, could constrain expansion of existing businesses and attraction of new development. Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: The Compatibility Plan has no effect on existing land uses, either residential'or nonresidential, even if such uses are not conforming with the compatibility criteria. As indicated in Policy 2.4.4(b) a nonconforming nonresidential development may be continued, modified, transferred, or sold provided that its usage intensity (the number of people per acre) is not increased.. A proposal to expand a nonconforming use would be evaluated by the ALUC in accordance with Policy 2.4.4(f). Mr. Brody's recommendation: Keep policies as set forth in the March 2000 draft plan. Commissioner Grierson, stated that the airport flight paths are well accommodated in the C and B-2 Zones and he sees no problem now. For the record, he further stated that the Commission's focus is to encourage and foster industrial development at the appropriate 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 ■ Page 14 ■ intensity. Chair Rosene concurred saying that it is the intent of this Commission to encourage and support businesses at the airport. Commissioner Grierson asked in what manner the Commission would communicate to the Board of Supervisors its conclusions following review. anddiscussion of the Board's stated concerns. Commissioner Harp suggested that the responses be detailed and specific. Chair Rosene concurred stating his interest in providing information which would contribute, to a genuine. understanding. In addition, Mr. Meleka suggested using the matrix and adding ALUC direction to this matrix which already does spell out in detail the issues, concerns, analysis, and recommendations. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. There being no comments, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Wallrich made a motion, . seconded by Commissioner Grierson, and unanimously carried to modify Policy 2.4.4(c)(2) and (4) to allow reconstruction of a totally destroyed building to the previously allowed intensity provided that construction must begin within 12 months, of the date that the damage occurred. Issue #19—Intensity Criteria (City of Chico/Tom Lando) The City raised the following concerns: • People -per -acre criteria cannot be calculated consistently and fairly. • There is no need for such limitations in much of the urbanized area covered by the plan. Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: As a measure of risk, usage intensity provides the best common denominator among most nonresidential uses. ALUCs and affected communities sometimes consider higher intensities to represent an acceptable risk within existing urban areas, but limitations are nevertheless appropriate. Even in urban areas, high-intensity uses present the prospect of a catastrophic outcome in the event of an aircraft accident and thus need to be avoided.. These factors notwithstanding, it is recognized that people -per -acre is not a common measure in land use planning and, therefore, may not be easy to implement. Consequently, the Compatibility Plan does not, require that local jurisdiction adopt the identical criteria when modifying their general plans for consistency with the ALUC's plan. As long as a correlation between an alternative set of criteria and usage intensity.can be identified at the time that a general plan is submitted for consistency review, the alternative can pass.the consistency test. For example, . some jurisdictions in other counties have established nonresidential development limitations in which the number of required parking spaces is used as a surrogate for usage intensity. Mr. Brody's recommendation: 0 Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 0 Page 15 ■ Keep people -per -acre compatibility criteria as currently proposed. Allow jurisdictions reasonable latitude in developing alternative methods of assuring that unacceptably high land usage intensities are avoided. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. There being no comments; the hearing was closed. There was a consensus of the Commission to concur with Mr. Brody's recommendation. Issue #20—Prohibited Uses (City of Chico/Tom Lando) Under this issue, the city is concerned that it does not have control over some uses listed as prohibited (e.g. schools and daycare); The City requested that the ALUC should allow some flexibility in case-by-case review. Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: It is recognized that local jurisdictions do not have full control over all such uses. Nevertheless, the fact remains that these uses should not be located where they would be incompatible with airport. activities. Thus, to the extent practical, local policies should discourage such development. The Compatibility Plan allows the ALUC flexibility in evaluating such policies (see Policy 2.4.4.f). Mr. Brody's recommendation: Generally keep policy language as set forth in the draft plan; modify note in Table 2A with regard to daycare centers. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. There, being no comments, the hearing was closed. It, was the consensus of the Commission to implement Mr. Brody's recommendation. Issue #21—Inflll (City of Chico/Tom Lando; Butte County Board of Supervisors/Jane Dolan, Chair) (Continuation of Issue #9 discussed at the November 15, 2000 meeting) The following are the comments made to ALUC and were combined under this issue: • (Chico) Once an area is found to qualify for infill, the only limitations ALUC, should consider are the existing zoning and Table 2A—prohibited uses. • (County) -The ALUC should consider all lands of 20 acres or less to be bound by the same infill criteria. 6 • Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 ■ Page 16 ■ The objectives of the infill policy are two -fold: (1) to be fair to owners of undeveloped or underdeveloped land whose property lies in the midst of more highly developed parcels; and (2) to assure that a reasonable degree of airport land use compatibility is maintained. The issue is where to strike the balance between two objectives. In this regard, it should be recognized that, by its very "nature, the infill policy is permitting additional development of a type which would otherwise by regarded as incompatible with. airport activities. Both of these comments, though, would, in effect, remove most restrictions from the residential densities and nonresidential intensities allowed in infill areas. As the policy currently stands (see Addendum -page 4), residential infill on less than 10 acres would be permitted- to have a higher density than if the affected area is between 10 and 20 acres in size. Basically, the smaller area is allowed to develop to an intensity equal to the average of nearby parcels while the larger area is limited'to no more than double the density set by the primary compatibility criteria table.. For nonresidential uses, new development is limited to 50% above the intensity in the primary compatibility criteria table. Any relaxation of the infill criteria currently proposed would .be contrary to the direction provided by the ALUC at the 11/15/00 meeting. However, if any further compromise is to be made, it might be to establish two tiers of intensity criteria for nonresidential uses similar to the two tiers now provided for residential development. Mr. Brody's recommendation: Modify Policy 2.4.4('a)(3) to allow nonresidential development infill of 10 acres or less to equal the average intensity of surrounding development (see Addendum). Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the .public. There being no comments, the hearing was closed. A motion was made by Alternate Commissioner Greenwood, seconded by Commissioner Harp, and unanimously carried to modify Policy 2.4.4(a)(3) in concurrence with Mr. Brody's recommendation. Issue #22 -Nonconforming Uses (City of Chico/Tom Lando) The issue under this item is that policies on nonconforming uses and reconstruction remain unclear. For example, is an otherwise permitted and conforming use that exceeds the maximum number of people per acre considered nonconforming -for the purpose of construction? Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 e Page 17 ■ By definition, if an existing use exceeds the density, intensity, or other compatibility. criteria _ set forth in the Compatibility Plan, it is a nonconforming use. A nonconforming use which is fully or, partially destroyed may be rebuilt, subject to the ' limitations outlined in Policy 2.4.4(c). Mr. Brody's recommendation: Leave policy as indicated in the draft plan unless a more specific need for clarification is identified. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. There being no comments, the hearing was closed. There was a consensus of the Commission to leave the policy as indicated in the draft plan. Issue #23—ALUC Review of On -Airport Development (City of Chico/Tom Lando) The City's issue is related to the determination of whether it is solely up to the City to decide if an on -airport use is aviation -related or not, not the ALUC. Mr. Brody. provided the following analysis: • For the purposes of the Compatibility Plan, an aviation -related use is intended to mean facilities and activities directly associated with the operation, storage, or maintenance of aircraft. . Such uses specifically include runways, taxiways, and their associated protected areas defined by the Federal Aviation Administration, together with aircraft aprons, hangars, fixed base operations, etc. Mr: Brody's recommendation: a. - . Policy 1.5.3(b) should be expanded with a definition to this effect (see Addendum, page 2). Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. There being no comments, the hearing was . closed. Commissioner Grierson made a motion, seconded by Alternate Commissioner Papadakis, and unanimously passed. to add the following to Policy 1.5.3(b): "For the purposes of the Compatibility Plan, an aviation -related use is defined as any facility or. activity directly associated. with air transportation of persons or cargo or the operation, storage, or maintenance of aircraft at an airport or heliport. Such uses specifically include runways, taxiways, helipads, and their associated protected areas defined by the Federal Aviation Administration, together with aircraft aprons, hangars, fixed base operations, terminal building, etc.". . Issue #24—Adequacv of Environmental Review (City of Chico/Tom Lando; Building Industry Assn. of Superior Califomia/Jim Mann) ■ Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 0 Page 18 ■ The following are comments made to ALUC and were combined under this issue: (Chico) The city still has some concerns about adequacy of environmental review, although they are diminished to the extent that changes to the draft have diminished the potential for significant environmental impacts. (BIA) Why is an EIR not required? Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: The ALUC legal counsel responds that there is some question as to whether CEQA is applicable at all to adoption of a compatibility plan. The principal reason which has been given in support of a conclusion that such an action. is not a project for the purposes of CEQA is that compatibility plans are primarily advisory documents subject to rejection by the local government entity having land use jurisdiction. Also, compatibility plans can be considered as functionally equivalent to an environment document in that their sole purpose is to limit uses which would adversely affect the airport environment. .This point of view notwithstanding, the Butte County ALUC has elected to prepare an initial study. After so doing, the ALUC determined that nothing .in the Compatibility Plan could cause an adverse impact on the environment and accordingly -completed a draft negative declaration filed with the state's Office of Planning and Research. The Compatibility Plan neither authorizes any specific development, nor totally. precludes development. It merely sets in place density, intensity, height, and other limitation development. Mr. Brody's recommendation: Approve negative declaration as drafted. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public Mr. Seidler questioned the adequacy of the environmental document and also asked that the Commission delay adoption of the Plan. Mr. Thelen said, commenting on the adequacy of the environmental review, "You've got to keep in mind that the purpose of CEQA is to deal with the adoption of a project which is to say constructing something. The first question you have when you are putting together an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is what is it, if anything, you are proposing to construct, and in the case of your plan, you're proposing to do exactly the opposite. You are proposing in every case to constrain the extent to which development can go on by others. There is a question as to whether or not a CLUP is -even subject to CEQA and lawyers are divided on that.,, He added that the environmental document, included in Appendix D, analyzed and answered all environmental -related questions and concluded that there is no possibility of an impact on the environment. Mr. Thelen, therefore, concluded that the environmental document is adequate. 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 ■ Page 19 ■ Alternate Commissioner Papadakis made a motion to approve. the Negative Declaration, seconded by Commissioner Wallrich, and unanimously carried. Issue #25 --Adequacy of Public Notice (Building Industry Assn. of Superior California/Jim Mann) The following are comments made to ALUC and were combined under this issue: • Property owners have not been properly noticed regarding proposed changes to currently prescribed or intended land uses. • Changes to land zoned or prezoned for residential development should not be made without discussion with property owners. Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: The draft Compatibility Plan has been the subject of numerous publicly noticed meetings of the ALUC, as well as formal hearings. Many of these meetings have been attended by property owner representatives. The plan has been the subject of several newspaper articles and the public hearings were formally noticed in these newspapers. Additionally, the plan has been presented to and discussed by the elected bodies of the four affected jurisdictions. Lastly, the ALUC legal counsel notes that the commentor cites no statute that the ALUC may have violated with regard to public notice requirements. Mr. Brody's recommendation: No additional action appears to be necessary. Mr. Thelen addressed the issue of adequacy of public notice during the planning process. He indicated to the Commission that they have given far more than 10 -day notice and timely posted notice of several meetings. He also pointed out that the public notification was made, during this process,. in a manner that was totally consistent with State laws. Chair Rosene asked Mr. Thelen, "In reviewing our public comment periods, the length of them, the adequacy of notice, do you find any potential legal problem where we or staff have erred." Mr. Thelen answered, "No, and in fact, it's actually the other way around. I think the staff has demonstrated an extreme thoroughness, directness, and candor in addressing the various comments that have been raised." Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. There being no comment, the hearing was closed. It was the consensus of this Commission to concur with Mr. Brody's recommendation. Chair Rosene opened the hearing for any additional public comments. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 ■ Page 20 ■ Mr. Hennigan distributed a document describing the Airport Land Use Compatibility Concept and requested that the Commission incorporate this document in the Appendices of the Plan. Also, Alternate, Commissioner Greenwood provided the Commission with . a flow chart describing the Airport_ Land Use Planning process and asked that this chart be incorporated to Appendix H of the Plan. A motion was made by Alternate Commissioner Greenwood, seconded by Commissioner Harp, and unanimously carried to incorporate in the Plan the mentioned flow chart and the Concepts. The Commission then discussed the McClintock—Becker Part 150 Study. Since the Commission has repeatedly reviewed this study and considered its inadequacy, particularly in relation to air tanker activity at the Chico Municipal Airport, it was the ALUC consensus to incorporate into these minutes the attached document (labeled as Document I) to reflect the Commission's findings. There being no further public comment, the hearing was closed The hearing adjourned for a 10 -minute break, reconvening at 4:50 p.m. Alternate Commissioner Greenwood requested a full-size Compatibility Map for the Oroville Airport. Mr. Meleka agreed to provide a full-size map this week as requested. • Mr. Brody commented that a final check -print would be provided prior to the final printing of the CLUP document and subsequent distribution. Chair Rosene requested a 3 -hole binding which was the consensus of the Commission. The Commission agreed to appoint a Subcommittee to review the final check -print of the adopted Compatibility Land -Use Plan with staff prior to the final .printing. CLUP Adoption Commissioner Wallrich made a motion, seconded by Alternate Commissioner Greenwood, and unanimously passed by vote as recorded at the end of the motion which follows: THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION OF BUTTE COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CONCERiNING ADOPTION OF A PROPOSED AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN AFFECTING THE CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, THE RANCHAERO AIRPORT, THE OROVILLE AIRPORT, AND THE PARADISEK SKYPARAIRPORT, AS WELL AS SURROUNDING AREAS, AND ALSO OTHER POLICIES THAT APPLY WITHIN THE BALANCE OF BUTTE COUNTY, recognizes the need to protect airports and their planned operations from development in surrounding areas 'that may interfere with those operations. The State Legislature has enacted enabling legislation under the California State Aeronautics Act (ref. Public Utilities Code Section 21670, et. seq., and Public Utilities Code Sections 21661.5 and 21664.5, State ALUC ■ Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 0 Page 21 ■ enabling law) to provide for airport land use compatibility planning to be conducted at the local level; the purpose of airport land use planning is to: • Provide for the orderly development of each public use airport and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems; • Protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. Also, State ALUC enabling law provides that each Airport Land Use Commission, including the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission, shall provide for a comprehensive land use plan that will provide for the. orderly growth of each public airport and the area surrounding the airport within the jurisdiction of the commission, and will safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general; the Commission plan shall include and shall be based on a long-range master plan, as determined by the Division of Aeronautics of the California Department of Transportation that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years; State enabling law requires that the Commission review the plan as often as necessary in order to accomplish its purposes; In addition,. recognizing the need to update and improve the airport land use compatibility plans for the mentioned four public -use airports within the County, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) tasked the consultant and staff to develop an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan including Comprehensive Land. Use Plans for the four public -use airports: The Chico Municipal Airport, the Ranchaero Airport, the Oroville Airport,.and the Paradise Skypark Airport and policies within Butte County in general; Staff was aided in the formulation of the Plan proposal. by a planning consultant with aviation and airport land use compatibility expertise; staff and/or the consultant consulted with the local agencies and concerned parties/individuals including the Cities of Chico, Oroville, and Paradise. After prior notice having been issued, staff and consultant conducted a series of public workshops in March and October, 2000 that reviewed the Draft Plan and accepted public input. Two Public Comment Periods were scheduled. The first started on March 25, 2000 and ended on June 9, 2000. The Second Public Comment Period started on October 5, 2000 and ended on November 22, 2000. After notice was issued in accordance with law, many hearings were scheduled on the proposed plan before the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission, in April, May, June, July, September, and November, 2000, at which time all interested parties might appear and testify. In compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State and County CEQA Guidelines, consultant and staff prepared an initial study on the proposed plan which determined that the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts, and on October 5, and November 18, 2000, a Notice of Intent and time extension to November 22, 2000 to Adopt a Negative Declaration for the project were posted as required by law. At the December 20, 2000 hearing, testimony was again accepted from all interested parties,.and at which time the hearing was closed. 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 0 Page 22 e The Commission having considered all evidence and testimony submitted in this matter, RESOLVED, that the Airport Land Use Commission of Butte County finds that on the basis of the whole record before it there is no substantial evidence that the ro osed plan -will have a significant effect on the environment; the proposed Negative Declaration determination is consistent with the requirements of -the California Environmental Quality Act; therefore, the Commission finds that the Negative Declaration determination is appropriate and ADOPTS said determination for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act;. and the Negative Declaration reflects the Commission's independent judgment and analysis. The Commission, hereby, and in accordance with Section 21675 (a) and (c) for the establishment of planning boundaries and adoption of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan for each .of the County's four public -use airports ADOPTS the proposed March 2000 Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Butte County as amended by Addendum No. 2, as the Compatibility Land Use Plan for Butte County, excluding any discussion in the Addendum document (Just corrections to the body of -the Draft). This adoption also incorporates all modifications made by the Commission at the December 20, 2000 hearing including: the changes to Figure 3-A regarding Zone C east of the Chico Municipal Airport, the boundary between B-2 and C to the southeast; Policy 2.4.4(c), 2 & 4 regarding the nonconforming nonresidential development to be allowed to rebuild to previously allowed intensity if totally destroyed provided that reconstruction must begin within twelve months of the date that the damage occurred; accepting the fire attack aircraft flight tracks information; changes on page 2 of the Addendum #2 regarding Policy 1.5.3(b); adding one additional appendix that incorporates the Airport Land Use Compatibility Concepts; and adding_ a chart depicting the Airport Land Use Planning process to Appendix H. The Commission further directs staff to publish the Plan and forward copies of the adopted Plan and notify local agencies within Butte County including the Cities of Chico, Oroville, and. Paradise, and the County of Butte County that pursuant to Government Code Section 65302, they are required to review their respective general plans, and any applicable specific plan to make them consistent with the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan by (180 days from the date odistribution of the adopted Plan); should the respective City/Town Councils and Butte. County Board..of Supervisors not concur. with any provisions of the Plan required under Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code, ten it may satisfy the provisions of this Section by adopting findings pursuant to Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code. Staff is further directed to file with the County Clerk's Office a. Notice of Determination relative to the Commission action on the CEQA determination and on the adoption of the proposed Plan. The decision of the Airport Land Use Commission, Butte County, State of California was given by motion of the Airport Land Use Commission on December 20, 2000 by the following vote: ■ Airport Land Use Commission M Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 0 Page 23 ■ AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION M. A. MLEKA; Principal Planner Minutes prep red by Cheryl Spoor, Secretary I 0 Airport Land Use Commission ■Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 ■ Page 24 0 AYES: Commissioners --Chair Rosene, Grierson, Wallrich, Harp, and Causey; Alternate Commissioner Papadakis (sitting in for Commissioner Lambert), and Alternate Commissioner Greenwood (sitting in for Commissioner Hatley). NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 Chair Rosene opened the meeting to the public for any final comments; there being none, the hearing was closed to the public. F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT None. G. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS None. H. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS None. I. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA Alternate Commissioner Hennigan asked that the attached document (Document I) be incorporated into these minutes. J. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION M. A. MLEKA; Principal Planner Minutes prep red by Cheryl Spoor, Secretary I 0 Airport Land Use Commission ■Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 ■ Page 24 0 COUNTY OF BUTTE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of August 19, 1998 1 7. ALUC Response to City of Chico Letter dated July 2, 1998 regarding Chico Municipal 2 ,Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program 3 4 Commissioner Koch submitted an additional letter to the Commission regarding an error in the City 5 of Chico's review of the Chico Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program. A 6 Notice of Correction is attached which was mailed to the FAA, explaining the error, and clearly 7 showing that the ALUC has not approved the study. The City also requested that the FAA advise 8 the City of Chico if there are any impacts on the Record of Approval for the FAR Part 150 Studies 9 as a result of these corrections. Commissioner Koch told the Commission that when the City gets a 10 response back from the FAA he will inform the ALUC. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of August 19, 1998 ■ Page 1 ■ Cmo raiz P.4xv /s -Z) 'C"/ OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 411 Main Street �� P.O. Box 3420 INC.187Z CITYoChico, CA 95927 87Z (530) 895-4800 FAX (530) 895-4825 ATSS 459-4800 G-GA-2-10/Chrono August 18, 1998 Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 RE: Correction of Record - Approval Process for Chico Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program. Dear Commissioners: In response to concerns previously expressed by Commissioners regarding the approval by the FAA of the Chico Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program (NCP), and the impact that certain erroneous information stating that ALUC had approved the NCP may have had on such approval, City staff reviewed our files to determine how the FAA could have arrived at such a conclusion. By letter dated July 2, 1998 to Chair Hennigan, I indicated that our staff review and questioning of our consultant had indicated that neither the City nor its consultant had represented to the FAA that ALUC had approved the NCP. A copy of such letter is included in the agenda packet for the Commission's August 19, 1998 meeting. Also included with the agenda packet regarding this matter is a copy of an August 11, 1995 letter from City Manager Tom Lando to John Pfeifer of the FAA District Office in Burlingame, CA which transmitted a revised Chapter III of the NCP, which was revised to address certain concerns that the FAA had raised with the City's consultant. As is indicated on the agenda memo for this item, the first paragraph on the top of page III -8 of the document contains the erroneous information that the ALUC had adopted the Airport's NCP. It unknown why this language was included in the redrafted Chapter III that was sent to the FAA when ALUC had not approved the NCP. It can only be assumed that the City's consultant who drafted the language was under the impression that such approval had been given, or the technician who made the changes in the document changed the "should" tense of the document to the "have" or "will" tense to be consistent throughout. In addition, City staff review, both prior to sending the document to the FAA in 1995, and during our recent file review in response to Commission concerns, failed to discover this error. The document does exist in City files and the erroneous language was simply overlooked during the g�& Made From Recycled Paper Butte County Airport Land Use Commission August 18, 1998 Page 2 review process. To correct the FAA's record of approval process for the NCP, the City has directed a letter to the Manager of the Airports District Office, John Pfeifer, explaining the error. A copy of such letter has been attached to Commission copies of this letter for information and reference. A copy has also been provided to ALUC staff for the permanent record. The City regrets the submittal of the erroneous information to the FAA, and my previous assertions (verbal, and in the July 2 letter) that the City did not represent to the FAA that ALUC had approved the NCP. If you have questions regarding this matter, I will be able to address them at the August 19, 1998 meeting. incerely, Robert E. Koch Risk Manager c: City Manager OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER w� August 18, 1998 John L. Pfeifer, Manager Airports District Office ' Federal Aviation Administration 831 Mitten Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: NOTICE OF CORRECTION = CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FAR PART 150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM. Dear Mr. Pfeifer: By letter dated August 11, 1995, a copy of which is enclosed herewith for reference, City Manager Thomas J. Lando transmitted a revised copy of Chapter III of the Chico Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) which more clearly identified the City's intent to implement the noise compatibility measures recommended in the NCP. These revisions were indicated by strikethrough deletions and underlined italic additions. '. Recently, it was brought to the City's attention that the revised Chapter III included, on the top of page III -8, the erroneous statement that the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission' (ALUC) had adopted the Land Use Plan and standards included in the NCP as the official Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) for the Chico Municipal Airport. While the City did, on one or more occasions, request the ALUC to adopt the NCP as the ALUP for the Airport, the Commission declined to do so. As far as can be determined, this error was caused -by a misunderstanding by the consultant who prepared the revised copy, and by a staff oversight' during the review process. I This is a matter of current concern because the Butte County ALUC is concerned that this error indicating its approval may have influenced the outcome of the FAA's Record of Approval for the NCP. I -have also enclosed for your reference a copy of Section H.B. of the Record of Approval (see the next to last paragraph, just above the "Approved." paragraph) which includes a reference to erroneous ALUC approval language. Again, the purpose of this letter is to correct this matter. The Butte County ALUC has not approved (and has subsequently again indicated that it will not approve) the NCP as the City's ALUP. ALUC is preparing its own land use plan for the Airport. Please review this matter and advise me of any FAA concerns regarding this matter and any %��� Made From Recycled Paper 411 Main Street P.O. Box 3420 CITYoFCHICO Chico, CA 95927 wc. yen (530) 895-4800 FAX (530) 895-4825 ATSS 459-4800 4 PS-90-4/Chrono August 18, 1998 John L. Pfeifer, Manager Airports District Office ' Federal Aviation Administration 831 Mitten Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: NOTICE OF CORRECTION = CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FAR PART 150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM. Dear Mr. Pfeifer: By letter dated August 11, 1995, a copy of which is enclosed herewith for reference, City Manager Thomas J. Lando transmitted a revised copy of Chapter III of the Chico Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) which more clearly identified the City's intent to implement the noise compatibility measures recommended in the NCP. These revisions were indicated by strikethrough deletions and underlined italic additions. '. Recently, it was brought to the City's attention that the revised Chapter III included, on the top of page III -8, the erroneous statement that the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission' (ALUC) had adopted the Land Use Plan and standards included in the NCP as the official Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) for the Chico Municipal Airport. While the City did, on one or more occasions, request the ALUC to adopt the NCP as the ALUP for the Airport, the Commission declined to do so. As far as can be determined, this error was caused -by a misunderstanding by the consultant who prepared the revised copy, and by a staff oversight' during the review process. I This is a matter of current concern because the Butte County ALUC is concerned that this error indicating its approval may have influenced the outcome of the FAA's Record of Approval for the NCP. I -have also enclosed for your reference a copy of Section H.B. of the Record of Approval (see the next to last paragraph, just above the "Approved." paragraph) which includes a reference to erroneous ALUC approval language. Again, the purpose of this letter is to correct this matter. The Butte County ALUC has not approved (and has subsequently again indicated that it will not approve) the NCP as the City's ALUP. ALUC is preparing its own land use plan for the Airport. Please review this matter and advise me of any FAA concerns regarding this matter and any %��� Made From Recycled Paper John L. Pfeifer, Manager FAA Districts Office ` August 18, 1998. Page 2 additional measures that may be required to correct the record or the NCP approval process. The City regrets this error and any inconvenience that it may cause for the FAA in the NCP approval process. If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact City Manager/Airport Manager Tom Lando at (530) 895-4802 or me at (530) 895-4820. 4cerely, Robert E. Koch Risk Manager c: City Manager Butte Co: ALUC TF: 8/31/98 III. AIRPORT NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM (Adopted by City of Chico, 12/21/94 --deletions indicated by strikethrough, and clarifications of responsibility and intent by underlined italic] LNTRODUCTION This chapter details the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program pfoposed aooroved for Chico Municipal Airport. Implementation measures to manage both exis n and future noise problems and land use issues are set forth. Emphasis has been placed on achieving noise control through the combined continuation of Airport operational procedures and application of new land use and development measures. The noise control measures set forth in this chapter combine the aircraft and airport operational measures established in the FAA's existing noise. abatement program, along with additional means to enhance the effectiveness of the existing program. These measures were arrived at after consultation with the FAA, airport users, representatives of affected communities, and concerned organizations and individuals. The feea�ended measures adoored to deal with aircraft noise issues at Chico I,.Iunicipal Airport are varied and reflect applications of strategies to both prevent future problems and remedy existing difficulties.. As airport operator, the City is acutely aware of the fact that the only way the proposed Airport Noise Compatibility Program can be successful is through the cooperative efforts of local public agencies, airport users and concerned citizens. It is neither up to the FAA nor the City alone to ensure the success of this program. Successful implementation of the recommended noise abatement program will require a cooperative effort among the City of Chico as well as the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission, airport users, the FAA and the interested public to implement a program of preventive land use controls together with enforcement of existing. operational procedures. The benefits of these combined efforts will include both a substantial reduction of aircraft noise effects on nearby communities and neighborhoods and, ultimately, limit the effects of aircraft noise on new development within the Airport environs. This FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program has resulted from the exami- nation and analysis of several airport operational and urban planning alternatives (described and analyzed in Chapter II) and has focused on those alternatives that are as equitable as possible for those affected and, above all, are capable of being imple- mented without invoking undue financial or economic hardship. They are nondiscrimi- natory, and do not place an undue burden on interstate commerce. The adoption of the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program for Chico Municipal Airport will result in the clarification, expansion and enhancement of the previous Airport noise control program, reduce existing noncompatible uses, and prevent the introduction of new noise sensitive land uses in the Airport environs. The FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program for Chico Municipal Airport consists of two basic elements. These are (1) the retention of key operational noise abatement measures developed by the FAA in cooperation with the Airport and (2) land use control measures for local implementation together with adoption and implementa- tion of key non -capital Airport management policies. EXISTING NOISE CONTROLMEASURES TO.,BE'RETAINED As noted in Chapter II the Cityof Chico, in concert, with the FAA, had previously developed an airport noise reduction program featuring effective airport/aircraft opera- tional measures and restrictions which have benefitted residents of the Airport environs. The retention of these aircraft operational restrictions and certain other management policy measures. are key -to the successful implementation of the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program as required by FAR Part 150, the measures are set forth below in terms of implementation authority. Alternatives for Which the Airport Proprietor has Adequate Implementation Au- thoritv The. City of Chico has established airport management and operational policies which have served to control the effects of noise from Chico Municipal Airport operations. These measures ara-pFoposed-4e will be retained and are as set forth below. The standard traffic pattern altitude for most aircraft is 1,500 feet NISL. Single engine aircraft must observe a 1,000 foot pattern altitude. Approaching aircraft should maintain as high as possible altitude until commencement of final de- scent. Posted signs directing, on departure from Runway 13L, high performance turbojet and heavy propeller driven aircraft to. turn to a 080 -degree heading until reaching 3,000 feet MSL (Mean" Sea Level) to avoid direct overflight of central Chico. Similar signs direct aircraft departing .Runway 31R to climb straight out until reaching 3,000 MSL before turning. — Requirement for avigation easement dedication within areas impacted by noise levels equal or greater than CNEL 55dB. Contribution to Pro;ram. Continuation of existing noise abatement policies and proce- dures will help to limit the noise impacts of local air traffic on communities adjacent to Chico Municipal Airport. P4tei� ILand use control measures which eould will be implemented by the City of Chico are discussed in the following subsection. Alternatives for Which 1=1ementation Authority is Vested in Another State or_ Local Agency or Subdivision Both the City of Chico and Butte County have land use control authority over the Airport environs and measures under this heading pertain to the City -of Chico as well as Butte County. - Plannins and Control of Land Use through Zoninz and Other Land Use and Develop- ment Controls. The City of Chico can influence the policies of cooperating agencies which play various roles in the implementation of land use controls. The City of Chico sheu-ld will work TTT-1 with Butte County and the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission to protect Chico Municipal Airport from encroachment by noise sensitive or other noncompatible land uses. Local agencies shot4d will also require avigation easements from all new noise sensitive development in the airport environs. Zoning. The City of Chico and Butte County have direct responsibility for the planning and zoning of land within the Chico Municipal Airport environs. As in the past, consideration of such factors as aircraft noise and overflight will continue to be undertaken when reviewing development proposals in the airport environs. Easement dedication. The City of Chico currently requires the dedication of avioation easements for new noise sensitive land uses within _ areas impacted by noise levels of CNEL 55dB or greater. The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has adopted the 1978 "Airport Environs Plan, Chico Municipal Airport"' as their comprehensive airport land use plan (ALUP) to'provide for the orderly growth of unincorporated areas around the Chico Municipal Airport. The plan does not currently require the dedication of easements. - Contribution to Program. Continued implementation of planning and zoning controls will prevent noise sensitive land uses from being subject to high levels of aircraft noise. Modifications to defined impact areas are proposed to reflect changes in forecasts and current aircraft activity. Continued implementation of the City of Chico's requirement for easement. dedication will insure protection for the airport within those areas over which the City has jurisdiction. The FAA has implementation authority over the existing noise abatement departure routings noted previously. The FAA has no other formally established operational noise abatement procedures for operations at the Chico Municipal Airport. NEW NOISE ABATEitilENT Itii IPLEi fF_ANTATION MEASURES Because existing measures recommended by the FAA in cooperation with the City have formed the framework for an effective program to deal with the operational factors in- fluencing community noise exposure, new noise abatement measures will focus primar- ily on actions which will either enhance existing noise abatement provisions or improve coordination among those agencies and individuals with responsibilities to implement off -airport noise abatement measures. Reedmmreaded-ne-wrip oved noise control program measures are set forth below in accordance with FAR Part 150 requirements. 1. Discussions With Butte County ALUC stsfT. Alternatives for Which the Airport Proprietor has Adequate Implementation Au- thority Airoort Management Policies. Periodic Noise Modeling: The City of Chico slto�Ad ivill prepare updated noise expo- sure maps for Chico Municipal Airport at key air service milestones to reflect changes in aircraft operational activities and fleet mix. Contribution to program. Updated noise exposure maps for Chico Municipal Airport will allow the City and other public agencies to track the performance of Chico Nfunicipal Airport in maintaining its compatibility with the surrounding communities, and identify any significant increase (or decrease) in noise impacted areas. Planning and Control of Land Use Through Zoning and Other Land Use and Develop- ment Controls. Zonin}controls. As forecasted noise impacts are less than those forecasted during the development of the 1978 "Airport Environs Plan", land use restrictions imposed by said plan will be modified to reflect impact areas as identified in the "Noise Exposure Map Report": 'Specifically it-is-rec��-Eh-a-E land use compatibility standards contained in Table I of FAR Part.150 , will be modified to reflect the relatively low ambient noise levels in the Chico area and be applied to the _ appropriate noise impact areas. The modified compatibility standards utilize the 60dB CNEL noise_ contour to determine compatibility as opposed to the 65dB noise contour. utilized in FAR Part 150. Said standards are reflected in Table III -1 and implementation areas are depicted in Exhibit III -1., I:-is-also-eom�xert; i1n response to concerns regarding overflight activity, that the development of new residential uses will be prohibited in the area defined in Exhibit III -1 as Zone A. This is the area subject to most low altitude overflight activity. Existing residential uses shall be permitted to remain in Zone A, and infill of the existing residential area would be allowed only in the area designated Zone Al. The area defined as Zone B is subject to less intensive overflight activity. In Zone B k s race�nded-{hat no new single family residential uses will be permitted. Any approval of multiple family residential uses in Zone B shall contain conditions requiring 6e dedication of avigation easements to the airport operator and notification of potential tenants of overflight activity. Zone A and Zone B together represent the defined "Overfliaht Protection Zone" (OPZ). When a development proposal is reviewed for compliance with the restrictions proposed for the Overflight Protection Zone and those proposed in' Exhibit 111-1 and Table 111-1, it is imperative that the more restrictive criterion be applied to insure . long-term protection for the airport and area residents. Table III -1 Recommended Land Use Compatibility Designations Chico Municipal Airport ' 4 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) Land Use Class: In Decibels Below 60 60-65 65-7n 7n-75 75 -Rn nvor Rn Residential Residential Y N(a) N(a) N N N Mobile Home Paries Y N N N N N Transient Lodgings Y N(a) 'N(a) N(a) N N Public Use Schools Y N(a) N(a) N N . r N Hospitals & Nursing Homes Y 25 30 N N N Churches, Auditoriums Y 25 30 . N N N Concert Halls Y 25 30 N N N Government Services Y Y 25 30 N N Transportation Y Y Y(b) . Y(c) Y(d) Y(d) Parkin Y Y Y Y(c) Y(d) N Commercial Use Offices, Business & Profess. Y Y 25 30 N N Building Material Sales Y `Y Y(b) Y(c) Y(d) 9 Hardware Sales Y Y Y(b) Y(c) Y(d) N Farm Equipment Sales Y Y Y(b) Y(c) Y(d) N General Retail Trade Y Y 25 30 N N Utilities Y Y Y(b) Y(c) Y(d) N Communication Y Y 25 30 N N Manufacturing & _Production , General Manufacturing Y Y Y(b) Y(c) Y(d) N Photographic & Optical Y, Y 25 30 N •N Agriculture & Forestry Y Y(f) Y(g) Y(h) Y(h) Y(h) Livestock Farming & Breeding .' Y Y(f) Y(g) N N N Mining & Fishing Y Y Y Y Y- Y. Resource Product.& Extract. Y Y Y Y Y Y. Recreation Outdoor Sports Arenas Y Y(e) Y(e) N N N ,Spectator Sports Y Y(e) Y(e) N N N ' Outdoor Music Arenas Y N N N N N' Nature Exhibits &Zoos _ Y Y N N N N Amusements, Parks, Resorts & Camps Y Y Y N N N Golf Courses, Riding Stables, & Water Recreation Y Y 25 30 N N , *Y N NLR A 25, 30 or 35 (a) (h) KEY TO TABLE III -I Yes, land use and related structures compatible without restriction. No, land use and related structures are not, compatible and should be prohibited. Noise Level Reduction (outdoor to .indoor) to , be achieved through incorporation of noise attenuation into the desi;n and construction of the structure. s Land uses and related structures generally considered compatible; measures to achieve NLR of 25, 30, or 35 must be incorporated .into design and construction of structures. Where the community, determines that residential uses -must be allowed, measures to achieve out door to indoor Noise Reduction Levels (NLR) of at least 25 dB and 30 dB should be incorporated into building .codes and be considered in individual approvals. Normal construction can be expected.to provide a NLR of 20 dB, thus, thexeduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10, or -15 dB over standard construction and normally assume mechanical ventilation and closed windows year=round. However, the use of NLR criteria will not eliminate noise problems. Measures to. achieve INLR of 25 must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is recieved, office areas, noise sensitive areas, or where normal noise level is low. Measures to achieve NLRof 30 must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is recieved, office areas, noise sensitive areas, or where normal noise level is}low. Measures to achieve NLR of 35 must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is recieved, office 11 areas, noise sensitive areas, or where normal noise level is low. Land use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed. Residential buildings require and NLR of 25. Residential buildings require and NLR of 30. Residential buildings not permitted. m n > -n Z 0 > < 0 > 0 > om z z C) --j -i :0 > Z > 0 (n z m0 rm rm O 0 0 CA '0 gm o 46 m n > -n Z 0 > < 0 > 0 > om z z C) --j -i :0 > Z > 0 (n z m0 IE-is-Feeem-meaded -mat-6he City of Chico and the Butte County ALUC have adopted the Land Use Plan depicted in Exhibit III -1 and the standards reflected in Table III -1 as the official Airport Land Use Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport. It must be noted that the development standards proposed adopted in this document are not intended to encourage development in the various impact areas. The standards are intended to assist evaluation of potential development projects in various impact areas. Also, noise contours, due to their nature, are not finite concrete lines on the ground. When evaluating impacts to a specific piece of property it should be assumed that if a portion of a property is impacted, that entire property is most likely impacted. Easement dedication. While overall noise impact areas are. forecasted to be less than predicted in 1978, the areas subject to overflight remain constant due to the lack of change in flight track geometry. Even though these areas may be impacted to a level less than CNEL 55dB, it-ii-r-eeox3meaded -hat avigation easements will be secured for new noise sensitive uses located in areas subject to overflight. As such, 4-3s reee-nded-thaE both the City of Chico, Butte County, and the Butte County ALUC will adopt policies that require the granting of avigation easements for new noise sensitive land uses beneath both Zones A and B of the defined "Overflight Protection Zone" depicted in Exhibit III -1. The policy would will require that the proponent dedicate an easement combined with a non -suit covenant that attaches to property title as a perpetual deed restriction. The implementation mechanism would be triggered by the development review process and enforced by the appropriate City and County departments. _ Height restrictions. Although not a component of the Noise Compatibility Program, the height of objects around airports is a concern that should be addressed. As such, R rs-reoeiitmecrded--hal the City of Chico, Butte County and the Butte County ALUC have adopted the FAR Part 77 surfaces, "Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace", as the height limit criteria for the airport environs. These restrictions shote have also been adopted as part of the Butte County ALUC Airport Land Use Plan for Chico Municipal Airport. These surfaces are depicted in attached Exhibit III -2. Contribution to Program. These measures will protect the City of Chico, as Airport proprietor, by limiting the legal liability associated with aircraft noise and overflight and will ensure that structures do not impact aircraft operating at the Airport. In addition, under provisions of the State of California airport noise standards, properties covered by avigadon easements may be excluded in the computation of the airport's noise impact area. Requirement for notice of airport noise. Local planning agencies (i.e.. City of Chico �h and Butte Counrv) will shotM. encourage the Butte County Board of Realtors to adopt a fair disclosure requirement for the sale or lease of homes or other noise sensitive real property within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) as depicted in Exhibit III -1. Whenever such property is offered for sale, rent or lease, the seller; lessor, broker, or agent should will notify the prospective owner or tenant that the property is located in an area subject to potentially high levels of aircraft noise. Appendix C contains a sample form of real estate disclosure statement. 111-R Ij .20:1'- 411 Transitional Le Surface. I $ -40-1 A Ppr Or- !' -Surface Note) b: (Sei; WOT s5� 61 C3 o tj z 0 s m n > -n z 0 > < -.0 XK o > 0 > > z z Q --j --i M En 0 M -0 > r- gr -0- > (n LTI z m 0 Contribution to Program. Requirements for appropriate notice of airport noise to the purchasers of real estate and prospective residents in the areas near airports can mitigate certain legal aspects of the airport noise compatibility problem. Furthermore, by informing prospective purchasers of property within the AIA (Exhibit III -1) prior to close of escrow, this measure is expected to reduce future noise. complaint activity within the Airport environs. Reouirement for Acoustical Studies Within Areas Subject to Aircraft Noise Levels of CNEL 55dB and Above. The purpose of this measure is to ensure that all proposed new noise sensitive land uses located within the CNEL 55dB noise contour (see Exhibit I-2) will be. compatible with both California Noise Insulation Standards= and local noise standards. Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations specifies that proposed new.hotels, mo- tels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings within the CNEL 60dB noise exposure area are required to have an acoustical analysis _. showing that the structure attains an interior noise level of CNEL 45dB. 1.ee-�g�aeie�-old The Citv of Chico and Butte County will supplement the provisions of Tide 25 by requiring acoustical analyses for single-family detached dwellings within the CNEL-60dB noise contour. -Through this process, builders and contractors will be notified early that an acoustical analysis will be required for all new noise sensitive land uses, including single-family. homes, as a condition of building permit approval in areas exposed to airport.noise levels of CNEL 60dB and above as set forth in the 1997 noise exposure map; Exhibit III -1. Potential builders would will be required to ta-ke the steps necessary to achieve the desired interior noise level of CNEL 45dB. For a typical dwelling unit of standard construction in California, the difference between exterior and interior noise levels is 15dB to 20dB. As an alternative, the requirement for an acoustical 'study may be waived if, in -the opinion of the local building official, no additional*noise insulation materials or measures would be required beyond that already required by state energy conservation statutes. Contribution to Program. This measure will ensure that new noise sensitive residential development within the CNEL 60dB and above noise contour will be pro- vided with an interior living environment of CNEL 45dB or less. In general, the use of the above-described land use and development control measures is preferable to outright acquisition of noise sensitive land uses and other more costly and disruptive measures. 2. State of California, Code of Regulations. Title 25, Housing and Community Development, Chap. 1 'Sute Housing Law Regulations and Earthquake Protection Uws and Regulations — Noise tnsuluion Sundards,' Subchspter 4, Section 28, as amended. MAO Alternatives for NVhich a Federal Agency (Principally the FAA) Has Requisite Im- plementation Authority in Response to an Airport Proprietor's Request The noise compatibility program Fec zltds-reten6erti-ef retains all existing published noise abatement measures. These measures are described under the heading "Existing Noise Control Measures to be Retained" at the beginning of this chapter. Preferential Aooroach and Departure Flight Tracks. Runway use patterns, driven by meteorological factors, including winds, establish the fact that the great majority of de- partures occur to the northwest utilizing Runways 31L/R. The area beneath the departure track is sparsely developed with scattered rural residential uses. Currently, under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions, turbojet and large propeller aircraft departing Runway 13L are requested to turn left to a heading of 080 degrees (magnetic) to avoid overflights of central Chico. This procedure benefits residents along the runway heading who would otherwise be routinely overflown by large aircraft. This procedure cannot be used during Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) conditions due to a lack of required terrain clearance to the east of the airport. Contribution to Program. Implementation of this measure is recommended as a means of mitigating the effects of aircraft noise from large turboprop and turbojet' aircraft utilizing Runway 13L. Flight Procedures. As previously . noted, correspondence received during the preparation of the "Aircraft Noise Exposure Map. Report" suggested modification to the VOR approach to Runway 31R.3 'Specifically, it was -suggested that the glide slope _ angle of the approach be raised to keep aircraft at higher altitudes during the approach, thus lessening noise impacts. While it must be noted that VOR approaches utilize a series of step-downs rather than a continuous glide slope angle, the idea of raising the altitudes of the various approach segments does have merit. Whether or nor this can be done while maintaining the clearance standards required for instrument approaches must be determined by the FAA. Currently most traffic pattern activity is located' east of Highway 99. eoRsidzea{:ort--� ul�- --o err-{&-_pub�ip, 1Votices will be published in various aeronautical guides either encouraging or restricting traffic pattern activity to that area east of Highway 99. This will insure that overflights at. pattern altitudes do not occur west of the highway. Contribution to Program. Modification of the VOR to Runway 31R could would lessen the noise impacts from aircraft utilizing the procedure. In evaluating the relative contribution of this type of measure, the fact that less than 5 % of amvals utilize the procedure must be considered.' It must also be noted that this type of modification would have the most effect several miles from the runway complex, but would not lessen impacts to areas within a mile of the runway. Restrictions on pattern activity west of Highway 99 will eliminate overflights at pattern altitudes west of Highway 99. Letter from Ruben Kenn;* an to Thoaus J. Undo, undated. *AIC,nft Noise Exposure %lap Report, Chico Municipal Airport', Table V•S. N Airoort Management Policies. Establish Interasencv Coordination Procedures/Maintain Public Information Prouam. As discussed in Chapter II, the City of Chico shetrld will take the lead in formulating an ongoing working relationship with local and regional planning agencies. The Airports Commission should will serve as the forum for such procedures. Contribution to Program. Effective communication between agencies responsi- ble for land use planning in the airport environs and the Airport is essential for success- ful plan implementation. These procedures are designed to facilitate such communica- tion. Signs. The Airport sheL4d-eeflsideF-pos6i-will post informational signs at the takeoff end of Runways 13L/R advising pilots of noise abatement procedures and to avoid noise sensitive areas, per the following example: NOISE SENSITIVE AREAS Residential area immediately. southeast -of Airport is noise sensitive., :Observe published noise abatement procedures. Contribution to Program. By informing pilots of noise sensitive areas and noise abatement procedures, Airport/coinmunity relations will be improved. Noise Abatement Advisories. -The Airport is-eneeuFa d-­ta will update and dis- tribute noise abatement information to pilots, flight instructors, and fixed base opera- tors consistent with current publications. Contribution to Program. As above. Flight Traininz/Compliance. All Chico Municipal Airport flight schools should tivill continue to include noise abatement techniques in their curricula, and the Airport should continue to ensure familiarity with such procedures and the location of noise sensitive areas through frequent coordination with FBOs and flight schools. Contribution to Program. Such pilot familiarization with noise abatement pro- cedures will continue to ensure good relationships between the Airport and the sur- rounding community. Increased Pilot Awareness. As discussed in Chapter II, the Airport sired will inform users of the important noise abatement procedures in effect at Chico Municipal Airport. Contribution to Program. As above TTT 1') SLTVD[ATION OF ANTICIPATED'PROGRAM EFFECTS AND BENEFITS EXPECTED Implementation of the recommended Airport Noise Compatibility Program is antici- pated to have several beneficial effects. It would: CP G Result in avigadon easements for all future noise sensitive construction in the -immediate Airport environs; C Limit the introduction of new . incompatible land uses within the Air- port's projected CNEL 60dB noise impact area, and reduce the probabil- ity of the establishment of future noncompatible uses in areas subject to high levels of aircraft noise and overflight; C Foster more effective communication between the Airport, its users and the adjacent communities; • Yield a reduction in complaints concerning noisy or low-flying aircraft; • Improve the ability of the Airport to respond to the aviation needs of Butte County without compromising local community goals and the quality of life for residents of, the.. airpo rt. environs. 4 . ' � . 4 `Similar signs direct aircraft departing Runway 31 R to climb straight out until reaching 3,000 MSL before turning. (Exhibit IV -1, NEM) Approved. Maintaining these existing operational procedures is approved as voluntary when air traffic and weather conditions permit. B. Land Use and Development Controls The city of Chico can influence the policies of cooperating agencies which play various roles in the implementation of land use controls. The city of Chico will work with the Butte County and Butte County Airport Land Use Commission to protect Chico Municipal Airport from encroachment by noise sensitive or other noncompatible land uses. Local agencies will also require avigation easements from all new noise sensitive development in the airport environs. Zoning. The city of Chico and -Butte County have direct responsibility for the planning and zoning of the majority of land within the Chico Municipal Airport environs. As in, the past, consideration of such factors as aircraft noise and overflight will continue to be undertaken when reviewing development proposals in the airport environs. Easement dedication. 'The city of Chico currently requires the dedication of avigation easements for new noise sensitive land uses within areas impacted by noise levels of CNEL 55dB or greater. (Exhibit V,-1,..NEM). 7he.city proposes"to maintain this r requirement. 'in addition, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC).has adopted the 1978 "Airport Environs Plan, Chico Municipal Airport" as their comprehensive airport land use plan (ALUP) to provide for the orderly growth of unincorporated areas around'the Chico Municipal Airport. The plan does not currently. require the dedication of easements. Approved. This action is within the authority of local government and will result in the prevention of the creation of new incompatible land uses. H. Implement New Noise Abatement Procedures. A. Periodic Noise Modeling (Pages 11-4,. 111-4, NCP) The City of Chico should prepare updated noise exposure maps for Chico Municipal Airport at key air service milestones to reflect changes in aircraft operational activities and fleet mix. Approved. This action is within the authority of local government and is,intended to prevent the introduction of new noncompatible land uses.' B. Zoning controls (Pages 11-5, 111-4 through _III -8, NCP) r V As forecasted noise impacts are less than those forecasted during the development of the "1978 "Airport Environs Plan", land use restrictions imposed by said plan will be modified to reflect impact areas as identified in the "Noise Exposure Map Report". Specifically, that land use compatibility standards contained in Table 1 of FAR Part 150 will be modified to reflect the relatively low ambient noise levels in the Chico area and be applied,to the appropriate noise impact areas. The modified compatibility standards utilize the 60dB CNEL noise contour to determine compatibility as opposed to the 65dB noise contour utilized in FAR Part 150. Said standards are reflected in Table III -1 and implementation areas are depicted in Exhibit III -1. In response to concerns regarding overflight activity, the development of new residential uses will be prohibited in the area defined in Exhibit III -1 as Zone A. This is the area subject to most low altitude overflight activity. Existing residential uses " shall be permitted to remain in Zone A, and infill of the existing residential area would be allowed only in the area designated Zone A1.(outside of the CNEL 55dB contour). The area defined as Zone B is subject to less intensive overflight activity. In Zone B, no new single family residential uses will be permitted. Any approval of multiple family residential uses in Zone B shall contain conditions requiring the dedication of avigation easements to the airport operator and notification of potential tenants of overflight activity. Zone A and Zone B together represent the defined "Overflight Protection Zone (OPZ). The City of Chico and the Butte County ALUC have adopted the Land Use Plan depicted in Exhibit III -1 and the standards reflected in Table III -1 as the official. Airport Land Use Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport (CNEL 60dB as the local deviation from the Federal table contained in 14 CFR Part 150). Approved. This action is within the authority of local government and is intended to prevent the introduction of new noncompatible land uses. C. Easement dedication (Pages II -5, III -8, NCP) While overall noise impact areas are forecasted to be less than predicted in 1978, the areas subject to overflight remain constant due to the lack of change in flight track geometry. Even though these areas may be impacted to a level less than CNEL 55dB, aviation easements will be secured for new noise sensitive uses located in areas subject to overflight. As such both the city of Chico, Butte County, and the Butte County ALUC will adopt policies that require the granting of avigation easements for new noise sensitive land uses beneath both Zones A and B of the defined "Overflight Protection Zone" depicted in Exhibit III -1. The policy will require that the proponent dedicate an easement combined with anon -suit covenant that attaches to property title as a perpetual deed restriction. +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 • AGENDA ITEM - E.7. TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: Laura Webster, ALUC Staff DATE: August 3, 1998 ITEM: ALUC Response to City of Chico Letter dated July 2, 1998 regarding Chico Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of August 19, 1998 This item was placed on the agenda at Chairman Hennigan's request. Attached for the Commission's review are documents obtained from the City of Chico's FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program files. The primary item to be discussed is the first paragraph at the top of page III -8 in the attachment to the August 11, 1995 letter from the City Manager to Mr. John Pfeifer, Manager of the Federal Aviation Administration's Airports District Office. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 1 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 411 Main Street r P.O. Box 3420 Chico. CA 95927 (530) 895-4800 FAX (530) 895-4825 ATSS 459-4800 G-GA-2-10/Chrono Bob Hennigan, Chair Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 • Planning Department J U L 0917 1998 oroville, California RE: Chico Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program. Dear Mr. Hennigan: July 2, 1998 N The purpose of this letter is to formalize the comments I made at the last meeting of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) regarding the -confusion on the part of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as to whether or not the City's FAR Part 150 program was approved or adopted by ALUC. In the FAA's Record of Approval of this program, it was noted that ALUC had -adopted the land use plan in the FAR Part 150 program as the official airport land use plan for the Chico Municipal Airport. Because it was recognized that this is not correct, since ALUC did not take such action, ALUC requested the City to look into this matter to determine how the FAA arrived at this conclusion. As I indicated at the last meeting, City staff has reviewed all correspondence with the FAA regarding the FAR Part 150 program, all of the draft reports prepared by the consultant, and questioned the consultant to determine if he made any such representation to the FAA. At no time, either in writing or orally, did the City or its consultant represent to the FAA that ALUC had approved the program. It is unknown how the FAA came to the conclusion it did. If members of ALUC have additional questions regarding this matter, I will attempt to respond to them at the next ALUC meeting. S' c rely, Robert E. Koch Risk Manager c: City Manager Made From Recycled Paper P&D Cons"/tants, /nC. Planners / Engineers 400 S. EI Camino, Real Suite 500 San Mateo, CA 94402 August 9, 1995 FAX (415) 343-9446 (415)343-0108 ACow Towrts dEwmdgvEnrmC W Mr. Thomas J. Lando City Manager n City of Chico 505 Wall Street 8 Chico, CA 95927 AUG 1 01995 G^r R,g71-GCA Ccy , RE: CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT. FAR PART 150 NCP Dear Mr. Lando: As we discussed last week, Mr. Jim Cavalier of the FAA's Burlingame Airports District Office contacted me concerning the FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program for Chico Municipal Airport. Mr. Cavalier's concern was that in adopting the NCP, the City of Chico did not make it clear that it would implement the noise compatibility measures _ identified in Chapter III of the report. This was predicated on his reading of the report wherein it said that "the City should" implement specific measures, as opposed to "the City will" implement these measures. Mr. Cavalier said that the FAA could not approve any such measures without a clear commitment for implementation on the part of the City. I suggested that such a commitment would probably not be a problem, because it was my understanding that when the City approved the NCP it was with the intent to implement all recommended noise compatibility measures. To this end I have drafted a letter to the FAA stating this, and have revised Chapter III of the NCP to more accurately reflect the City's intent in adopting the NCP. Please send the letter with the revised Chapter III to Mr. John Pfeifer at the Burlingame ADO as indi- cated. Please call me if you have any questions. ' Sincerely,. n Mi5ael R. McClintock Associate Vice President, Aviation Division Attachments CAT'S --- .vr,� :.a__nca_ .;•moi_ � M MTech CITYor CHICO INC 1872 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 505 Wall Street P.O. Box 3420 Chico. CA 95927 (916)895-4800 Fax(916)895-4825 ATSS 459-4800 August 11, 1995 Mr. John L. Pfeifer, Manager Airports District Office Federal Aviation Administration 831 Mitten Road Burlingame, CA 94010-1303 Re: CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FAR PART 150 NCP Dear Mr. Pfeifer: This is in response to concerns raised by Mr. Jim cavalier of your office concerning the FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program for Chico Municipal Airport. Mr. Cavalier's concern was that in adopting the NCP, the City of Chico did not make it clear that it would implement the noise compatibility measures identified in Chapter III of the report. This was predicated on his reading of _ the report wherein it said that "the city should" implement specific measures, as opposed to "the City will" implement these measures. Mr. Cavalier indicated that the FAA could not approve any such measures without a clear commitment for implementation on the part of the City. Please be advised that in approving and adopting the NCP, the City of Chico is committed to the implementation of all noise compatibility measures set forth in Chapter III of the document. In order to clarify the City's intent, I am enclosing a revised copy of Chapter III which more clearly identifies the City's intent to implement all of the noise compatibility measures recommended by our consultant. This revised chapter is the implementation policy of the City of Chico with respect to the NCP. Please call me at 916-895-4803 if you have any questions. sinc y, Jhomas J. Lando City Manager TJL:ps Attachment cc: M-. McClintock, P&D RM Bob Koch • CJ III. AIRPORT NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM [Adopted by City of Chico, 12/21/94 --deletions indicated by strikethrough and clarifications of responsibility and intent by underlined italic] INTRODUCTION This chapter details the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program proposed q=Loved for Chico Municipal Airport. Implementation measures to manage both existing and future noise problems and land use issues are set forth. Emphasis has been placed on achieving noise control through the combined continuation of Airport operational procedures and application of new land use and development measures. The noise control measures set forth in this chapter combine the aircraft and airport operational measures established in the FAA's existing noise. abatement program, along with additional means to enhance the effectiveness of the existing program. These measures were arrived at after consultation with the FAA, airport users, representatives of affected communities, and concerned organizations and individuals. The reeef vended measures adopted to deal with aircraft noise issues at Chico Municipal Airport are varied and reflect applications of strategies to both prevent future problems and remedy existing difficulties. As airport operator, the City is acutely aware of the fact that the only way the proposed Airport Noise Compatibility Program can be successful is through the cooperative efforts of local public agencies, airport users and concerned citizens. It is neither up to the FAA nor the City alone to ensure the success of this program. Successful implementation of the recommended noise abatement program will require a cooperative effort among the City of Chico as well as the Butte County Airport Land — Use Commission, airport users, the FAA and the interested public to implement a program of preventive land use controls together with enforcement of existing operational procedures. The benefits of these combined efforts will include both a substantial reduction of aircraft noise effects on nearby communities and neighborhoods and, ultimately, limit the effects of aircraft noise on new development within the Airport environs. This FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program has resulted from the exami- nation and analysis of several airport operational and urban planning alternatives (described and analyzed in Chapter II) and has focused on those alternatives that are as equitable as possible for those affected and, above all, are capable of being imple- mented without invoking undue financial or economic hardship. They are nondiscnmi- natory, and do not place an undue burden on interstate commerce. The adoption of the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program for Chico Municipal Airport will result in the clarification, expansion and enhancement of the previous Airport noise control program, reduce existing noncompatible uses, and prevent the introduction of new noise sensitive land uses in the Airport environs. The FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program for Chico Municipal Airport consists of two basic elements. These are (1) the retention of key operational noise abatement measures developed by the FAA in cooperation with the Airport and (2) land use control measures for local implementation together with adoption and implementa- tion of key non -capital Airport management policies. EXISTING NOISE CONTROL 1AEASURES TO BE RETAINED As noted in Chapter II the City of Chico, in concert with the FAA, had previously developed an airport noise reduction program featuring effective airport/aircraft opera- tional measures and restrictions which have benefitted residents of the Airport environs. The retention of these aircraft operational restrictions and certain other management policy measures are key to the successful implementation of the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program as required by FAR Part 150, the measures are set forth below in terms of implementation authority. Alternatives for Which the Airport Proprietor has Adequate Implementation Au- thority The City of Chico has established airport management and operational policies which have served to control the effects of noise from Chico Municipal Airport operations. These measures are-proposed--te will be retained and are as set forth below. " o The standard traffic pattern altitude for most aircraft is 1,500 feet MSL. Single engine aircraft must observe a 1,000 foot pattern altitude. Approaching aircraft should maintain as high as possible altitude until commencement of final de- scent. Posted signs directing, on departure from Runway 13L, high performance turbojet and heavy propeller driven aircraft to turn to a 080 -degree heading until . reaching 3,000 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level) to avoid direct overflight of central Chico. Similar signs direct aircraft departing Runway 31R to climb straight out until reaching 3,000 MSL before turning. _ o Requirement for avigation easement dedication within areas impacted by noise levels equal or greater than CNEL 55dB. Contribution to Program. Continuation of existing noise abatement policies and proce- dures will help to limit the noise impacts of local air traffic on communities adjacent to Chico Municipal Airport. lie gal ILand use control measures which eould IgLU be implemented by the City of Chico are discussed in the following subsection. Both the City of Chico and Butte County have land use control authority over the Airport environs and measures under this heading pertain to the City. of Chico as well as Butte County. Planning and Control of Land Use through Zoning and Other Land Use and Develop- ment Controls. The City of Chico can influence the policies of cooperating agencies which play various roles in the implementation of land use controls. The City of Chico shetrld will work TTT_7 with Butte County and the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission to protect Chico Municipal Airport from encroachment by noise sensitive or other noncompatible land uses. Local agencies shot" will also require avigation easements from all new noise sensitive development in the airport environs. Zoning. The City of Chico and Butte County have direct responsibility for the planning and zoning of land within the Chico Municipal Airport environs. As in the past, consideration of such factors as aircraft noise and overflight will continue to be undertaken when reviewing development proposals in the airport environs. Easement dedication. The City of Chico currently requires the dedication of avigation easements for new noise sensitive land uses within areas impacted by noise levels of CNEL 55dB or greater. The Butte County Airport Land Use Comnussion (ALUC) has adopted the 1978 "Airport Environs Plan, Chico Municipal Airport"' as their comprehensive airport land use plan (ALUP) to provide for the orderly growth of unincorporated areas around the Chico Municipal Airport. The plan does not currently require the dedication of easements. Contribution to Program. Continued implementation of planning and zoning controls will prevent noise sensitive land uses from being subject to high levels of aircraft noise. Modifications to defined impact areas are proposed to reflect changes in forecasts and current aircraft activity. Continued implementation of the City of Chico's requirement for easement dedication will insure protection for the airport within those areas over which the City has jurisdiction. The FAA has implementation authority over the existing noise abatement departure routings noted previously. The FAA has no other formally established operational noise abatement procedures for operations at the Chico Municipal Airport. h NEW NOISE ABATEMENT Ili IPLEMENTATION MEASURES Because existing measures recommended by the FAA in cooperation with the City have formed the framework for an effective program to deal with the operational factors in- fluencing community noise exposure, new noise abatement measures will focus primar- ily on actions which will either enhance existing noise abatement provisions or improve coordination among those agencies and individuals with responsibilities to implement off -airport noise abatement measures. Rec-extended-deryrD oved noise control program measures are set forth below in accordance with FAR Part 150 requirements. 1. Discussions with Butte County ALUC staff. III -3 Alternatives for Which the Airport Proprietor has Adequate Implementation Au- thority Airport Management Policies. Periodic Noise Modeling.- The City of Chico should will prepare updated noise expo- sure maps for Chico Municipal Airport at key air service milestones to reflect changes in aircraft operational activities and fleet mix. Contribution to program. Updated noise exposure maps for Chico Municipal Airport will allow the City and other public agencies to track the performance of Chico Municipal Airport in maintaining its compatibility with the surrounding communities, and identify any significant increase (or decrease) in noise impacted areas. Alternatives for Which Implementation Authority is Vested in Another State or Local Agencv or Subdivision Planning and Control of Land Use Through Zoning and Other Land Use and Develop- ment Controls. Zoning controls. As forecasted noise impacts are less than those forecasted during the development of the 1978 "Airport Environs Plan", it-is-reeomxiended-that land use restrictions imposed by said plan will be modified to reflect impact areas as identified in the "Noise Exposure Map Report". Specifically, A-is-rec-aminended-thet land use compatibility standards contained in Table 1 of FAR Part 150 will be modified to reflect the relatively low ambient noise levels in the Chico area and be applied to the _ appropriate noise impact areas. The modified compatibility standards utilize the 60dB CNEL noise contour to determine compatibility as opposed to the 65dB noise contour utilized in FAR Part 150. Said standards are reflected in Table III -1 and implementation areas are depicted in Exhibit III -1. R -is -also --commended iln response to concerns regarding overflight activity, that the development of new residential uses will be prohibited in the area defined in Exhibit III -1 as Zone A. This is the area subject to most low altitude overflight activity. Existing residential uses shall be permitted to remain in Zone A, and infill of the existing residential area would be allowed only in the area designated Zone Al. The area defined as Zone B is subject to less intensive overflight activity. In Zone B it -is rec�nded-that no new single family residential uses, will be permitted. Any. approval of multiple family residential uses in Zone B shall contain conditions requiring the dedication of avigation easements to the airport operator and notification of potential tenants of overflight activity. Zone A and Zone B together represent the defined "Overflight Protection Zone" (OPZ). When a development proposal is reviewed for compliance with the restrictions proposed for the Overflight Protection Zone and those proposed in Exhibit III -1 and Table III -1, it is imperative that the more restrictive criterion be applied to insure long-term protection for the airport and area residents. III -4 Table 111-1 Recommended Land Use Compatibility Designations Chico Municipal Airport Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) Land Use Class: In Decibels Below 60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 Over 80 Residential Residential Y - N(a) N(a) N N N Mobile Home Parks Y N N N N N Transient Lodgings Y N(a) N(a) N(a) N N Public Use _ Schools Y N(a) N(a) N N N Hospitals & Nursing Homes Y 25 30 N N N Churches, Auditoriums Y 25 30' N N N Concert Halls Y 25 30 N N N Government Services Y Y 25 30 N N Transportation Y Y Y(b) Y(c) Y(d) Y(d) Parkin Y Y Y Y(c) Y(d) N Commercial Use Offices, Business & Profess. Y Y 25 30 N N Building Material Sales Y Y Y(b) Y(c) Y(d) N - Hardware Sales Y Y Y(b) Y(c) Y(d) N Farm Equipment Sales Y Y Y(b) Y(c) . Y(d) N General Retail Trade Y Y 25 30 N N Utilities Y Y . Y(b) Y(c) Y(d) . N Communication Y Y 25 30 N N Manufacturing & Production General Manufacturing Y Y Y(b) Y(c) Y(d) N Photographic & Optical Y Y 25 30 N N Agriculture & Forestry Y Y(f) Y(g) Y(h) Y(h) Y(h) Livestock Farming & Breeding Y Y(f) Y(g) N N N Mining & Fishing Y Y Y Y Y Y Resource Product.& Extract. Y Y Y Y Y Y Recreation Outdoor Sports Arenas Y Y(e) Y(e) N N N Spectator Sports Y Y(e) Y(e) N N N ' Outdoor Music Arenas Y N N N N N Nature Exhibits & Zoos Y Y N N N N Amusements, Parks, Resorts & Camps Y Y Y N Imo_ N Golf Courses, Riding Stables, & Water Recreation Y Y 25 30 N N KEY TO TABLE III -1 Y Yes, land use and related structures compatible without restriction.' N No, land use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited. - NLR Noise Level Reduction (outdoor to indoor) to be achieved through incorporation of noise attenuation into the design and construction of the structure. 255,30 Land uses and related structures generally considered compatible; measures or 35 to achieve NLR of 25, . 30, or 35 . must be incorporated into design and construction of structures. (a) Where the community determines that residential uses must be allowed, measures to achieve out door to indoor Noise Reduction Levels (NLR) of at least 25 dB and 30 dB should be incorporated into building codes and be considered in individual approvals. Normal construction can be expected to provide a NLR of 20 dB, thus, the reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10, or 15 dB over standard construction and normally assume mechanical ventilation and closed windows year-round. However, the use of NLR criteria will not eliminate noise problems. (b) Measures to achieve NLR of 25 must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is recieved, office areas, noise sensitive areas, or where normal noise level is low. (c) Measures to achieve NLR of 30 must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is recieved, office areas, noise sensitive areas, or where normal noise level is low. (d) Measures to achieve NLR of 35 must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is recieved, office areas, noise sensitive areas, or where normal noise level is low. (e) Land use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are —installed. (f) Residential buildings require and NLR of 25. (g) Residential buildings require and NLR of 30. (h) Residential buildings not permitted. IL _s •. _ .1 s• .r js e . .' ,r 1 70 10 AMR _� tel. '�.:`. / i-•� .. �' 1 •'� ' `'/l': �'._ ii �'1�\:-�-�-mr-•--i-tel''' r' `��'p ///�\\(. _ ,\•••:)�� •' n ...- • •":� �_' > ,� .-• .y —•---- jam..-• -^^ :�;•' •'• !yam"`7z:., : :• ��=.,. -- ; =�o..41,�'✓_ C H I C O MUNICIPAL :._�. AIRPORT FAR PART 150 �' ', ► � 1, sl. ,,. , �...: • ...; • .; :, , ; � ,:• . >��, ,�� AIRPORT NOISE COMPATIBILITY -- \ :.;:..r; .� r PROGRAM J� "' (t,�• • �'4, � t,.;•' t AND r '. —,: ,;;:•.�, ,,"% ►"'• •�'•• , ENVIRONS PLAN SCALE /' .: .: •. fir''`:. ��`pp .• ' ti FEET NORTH 1` ; ' n4 / t , t,,, ! `�,• '' f' ►' t 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 �� > "( /.,(..'•mss t • r'. Olt ' _ I tj\ �� ��� !. -1 ) i \ • �J t Airport Boundary ., �,; . , ` 1• �., " o�; ' : •' 1 „ ), ;� - Chico Sphere of Influence •-I Overtlight Protection Zone 1;ry Sv. 4• ) •� `r l N •nort Influence Area A • • 0 It-i-s-reoe eaded 4hat- The City of Chico and the Butte County ALUC have adopted the Land Use Plan depicted in Exhibit III -1 and the standards reflected in Table III -1 as the official Airport Land Use Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport. It must be noted that the development standards proposed adopted in this document are not intended to encourage development in the various impact areas. The standards are intended to assist evaluation of potential development projects in various impact areas. Also, noise contours, due to their nature, are not finite concrete lines on the ground. When evaluating impacts to a specific piece of property it should be assumed that if a portion of a property is impacted, that entire property is most likely impacted. Easement dedication. While overall noise impact areas are. forecasted to be less than predicted in 1978, the areas subject to overflight remain constant due to the lack of change in flight track geometry. Even though these areas may be impacted to a level less than CNEL 55dB, A-i&-r-eeommeaded-4hat avigation easements will be secured for new noise sensitive uses located in areas subject to overflight. As such, A -is reeornr}xnded-that both the City of Chico, Butte County, and the Butte County ALUC tivill adopt policies that require the granting of avigation easements for new noise sensitive land uses beneath both Zones A and B of the defined "Overflight Protection Zone" depicted in Exhibit III -1. The policy would will require that the proponent dedicate an easement combined with a non -suit covenant that attaches to property title as a perpetual deed restriction. The implementation mechanism would be triggered by the development review process and enforced by the appropriate City and County departments. _ Height restrictions. Although not a component of the Noise Compatibility Program, the height of objects around airports is a concern that should be addressed. As such, it }s--recommended--that the City of Chico, Butte County and the Butte County ALUC have adopted the FAR Part 77 surfaces, "Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace", as the height limit criteria for the airport environs. These restrictions should have also been adopted as part of the Butte County ALUC Airport Land Use Plan for Chico Municipal Airport. These surfaces are depicted in attached Exhibit III -2. Contribution to Program. These measures will protect the City of Chico, as Airport proprietor, by limiting the legal liability associated with aircraft noise and overflight and will ensure that structures do not impact aircraft operating at the Airport. In addition, under provisions of the State of California airport noise standards, properties covered by avigation easements may be excluded in the computation of the airport's noise impact area. Requirement for notice of airport noise. Local planning agencies fi.e.. City of Chico and Butte Counry will should encourage the Butte County Board of Realtors to adopt a fair disclosure requirement for the sale or lease of homes or other noise sensitive real property within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) as depicted in Exhibit III -1. Whenever such property is offered for sale, rent or lease, the seller, lessor, broker, or agent should will notify the prospective owner or tenant that the property is located in an area subject to potentially high levels of aircraft noise. Appendix C contains a sample form of real estate disclosure statement. H1_8 .7 rans itional — I V urracp: "7 -,40-1 Apprb*a4 SuCfaci Bo: (See o co Jitil .. ... . ...... ON m 0 > -n Z 0 — > < -0 0M M 0 > 0 > 0 x -V ZZ --i --i > Un)o Z 0 Ln > z MO C A. dy Z A m 0 > -n Z 0 — > < -0 0M M 0 > 0 > 0 x -V ZZ --i --i > Un)o Z 0 Ln > z MO C A. dy Contribution to Program. Requirements for appropriate notice of airport noise to the purchasers of real estate and prospective residents in the areas near airports can mitigate certain legal aspects of the airport noise compatibility problem. Furthermore, by informing prospective purchasers of property within the AIA (Exhibit III -1) prior to close of escrow, this measure is expected to reduce future noise complaint activity within the Airport environs. new noise sensitive land uses located within the CNEL 55dB noise contour (see Exhibit I-2) will be compatible with both California Noise Insulation Standards'- and local noise standards. Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations specifies that proposed new hotels, mo- tels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached. single-family dwellings within the CNEL 60dB noise exposure area are required to have an acoustical analysis showing that the structure attains an interior noise level of CNEL 45dB. Lee -al- ageaeies- should The City of Chico and Beate County will supplement the provisions of Title 25 by requiring acoustical analyses for single-family detached dwellings within the CNEL 60dB noise contour. Through this process, builders and contractors will be notified early that an acoustical analysis will be required for all new noise sensitive land uses, including single-family homes, as a condition of building permit approval in areas exposed to airport noise levels of CNEL 60dB and above as set forth in the 1997 noise exposure map, Exhibit III -1. Potential builders would will be required to take the steps necessary to achieve the desired interior noise level of CNEL 45dB. For a typical dwelling unit of standard construction in California, the difference between exterior and interior noise levels is 15dB to 20dB. As an alternative, the requirement for an acoustical study may be waived if, in the opinion of the local building official, no additional noise insulation materials or measures would be required beyond that already required by state energy conservation statutes. Contribution to Program. This measure will ensure that new noise sensitive residential development within the CNEL 60dB and above noise contour will be pro- vided with an interior living environment of CNEL 45dB or less. In general, the use of the above-described land use and development control measures is preferable to outright acquisition of noise sensitive land uses and other more costly and disruptive measures. 2. State of California, Code of Regulations, Title 25, Housing and Community Development, Chap. 1 'State Housing Law Regulations and Earthquake Protection Laws and Regulations — Noise Insulation Standards,' Subchapter 4, Section 28, as amended. III -10 The noise compatibility program ree-et�ends-retenden--e€ retains all existing published noise abatement measures. These measures are described under the heading "Existing Noise Control Measures to be Retained" at the beginning of this chapter. Preferential Approach and Departure Flight Tracks. Runway use patterns, driven by meteorological factors, including winds, establish the fact that the great majority of de- partures occur to the northwest utilizing Runways 31L/R. The area beneath the departure track is sparsely developed with scattered rural residential uses. Currently, under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions, turbojet and large propeller aircraft departing Runway 13L are requested to turn left to a heading of 080 degrees (magnetic) to avoid overflights of central Chico. This procedure benefits residents along the runway heading who would otherwise be routinely overflown by large aircraft. This procedure cannot be used during Instrument Flight -Rule (IFR) conditions due to a lack of required terrain clearance to the east of the airport. Contribution to Program. Implementation of this measure is recommended as a means of mitigating the effects of aircraft noise from large turboprop and turbojet aircraft utilizing Runway 13L. Flight Procedures. As previously noted, correspondence received during the preparation of the "Aircraft Noise Exposure Map Report" suggested modification to the VOR approach to Runway 31R.3 Specifically, it was suggested that the glide slope angle of the approach be raised to keep aircraft at higher altitudes during the approach, thus lessening noise impacts. While it must be noted that VOR approaches utilize a series of step-downs rather than a continuous glide slope angle, the idea of raising the altitudes of the various approach segments does have merit. Whether or nor this can be done while maintaining the clearance standards required for instrument approaches must be determined by the FAA. Currently most traffic pattern activity is located east of Highway 99. will be published in various aeronautical guides either encouraging or restricting traffic pattern activity to that area east of Highway 99. This will insure that overflights at pattern altitudes do not occur west of the highway. Contribution to Program. Modification of the VOR to Runway 31R eceld would lessen the noise impacts from aircraft utilizing the procedure. In evaluating the relative contribution of this type of measure, the fact that less than 5% of arrivals utilize the procedure must be considered.4 It must also be noted that this type of modification would have the most effect several miles from the runway complex, but would not lessen impacts to areas within a mile of the runway. Restrictions on pattern activity .west of Highway 99 will eliminate overflights at pattern altitudes west of Highway 99, 3. Letter from Robert Hennigan to Thomas J. Lando, undated. 4. 'Aircraft Noise Exposure blap Report, Chico Municipal Airport', Table V-5. Alternatives an Airport Proprietor Can Establish in Coordination with Airport Users. the Public and the FAA Airport Management Policies. Program. As discussed in Chapter II, the City of Chico should will take the lead in formulating an ongoing working relationship with local and regional planning agencies. The Airports Commission should will serve as the forum for such procedures. Contribution to Program. Effective communication between agencies responsi- ble for land use planning in the airport environs and the Airport is essential for success- ful plan implementation.. These procedures are designed to facilitate such communica- tion. Stens. The Airport should-eo isldeF-posting will post informational signs at the takeoff end of Runways 13L/R advising pilots of noise abatement procedures and to avoid noise sensitive areas, per the following example: NOISE SENSITIVE AREAS Residential area immediately southeast of Airport is noise sensitive. Observe published noise abatement procedures. Contribution to Program. By informing pilots of noise sensitive areas and noise abatement procedures, Airport/community relations will be improved. Noise Abatement Advisories. The Airport is-eneouFaged--te will update and dis- tribute noise abatement information to pilots,, flight instructors, and fixed base opera- tors consistent with current publications. Contribution to Program. As above. Flight Training/Compliance. All Chico Municipal Airport flight schools should will continue to include noise abatement techniques in their curricula, and the Airport should continue to ensure familiarity with such procedures and the location of noise sensitive areas through frequent coordination with FBOs and flight schools. Contribution to Program. Such pilot familiarization with noise abatement pro- cedures will continue to ensure good relationships between the Airport and the sur- rounding community. Increased Pilot Awareness. As discussed in Chapter II, the Airport should will inform users of the important noise abatement procedures in effect at Chico Municipal Airport. -- Contribution to Program. As above. TTT_ 1 ) SUMMATION OF ANTICIPATED PROGRAM EFFECTS AND BENEFITS EXPECTED Implementation of the recommended 'Airport Noise Compatibility Program is antici- pated to have several beneficial effects. It would: C Result in avigation easements for all future noise sensitive construction in the .immediate Airport environs; • Limit the introduction of new incompatible land uses within the Air- port's projected CNEL 60dB noise impact area, and reduce the probabil- ity of the establishment of future noncompatible uses in areas subject to high levels of aircraft noise and overflight; • Foster more effective communication between the Airport, its users and the adjacent communities; • Yield a reduction in complaints concerning noisy or low-flying aircraft; o Improve the ability of the Airport to respond to the aviation needs of . Butte County without compromising local community goals and the quality of life for residents of the airport environs. r 1 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 400, R Pm I Q l ., t 411 Main Street CITYorCHICO P.O. Box 3420 114C. 1872 Chico. CA 95927 (530) 895-4800 FAX (530) 895-4825 ATSS 459-4800 G-GA-2-10/Chrono Bob Hennigan, Chair Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 K . ' 4 _ Planning Dt?g?are.ME;f9t J U L U97 1999 OrOW19, CaUfornia ' a July 2, 1998 RE: Chico Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program. Dear Mr. Hennigan: The purpose of this letter is to formalize the comments I made at the last meeting of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) regarding the confusion on;thepart of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as to whether or not the City's:aFA'R,Part::l50'program was approved or adopted by ALUC. In the FAA's Record of Approval of this program, it was noted that ALUC had adopted the land use plan in the FAR Part 150 program as the official airportland use plan for the Chico Municipal Airport. Because it was recognized that this is not correct, since ALUC did not take such action, ALUC requested the City to look into this matter to determine how the FAA arrived at this conclusion. As I indicated at the last meeting, City staff has reviewed all correspondence with the FAA regarding the FAR Part 150 program, all of the draft reports prepared by the consultant, and questioned the consultant to determine if he made any such representation to the FAA. At no time, either in writing or orally, did the City or its consultant represent to the FAA that ALUC had approved the program. It is unknown how the FAA came to the conclusion it did. If members of ALUC have additional questions regarding this matter, I will attempt to respond to them at the next ALUC meeting. S' c rely;'. RoberVE •Koch;:::= _4 s y -Risk. Manager...,. c: City Manager gam& Made From Recycled Paper BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1998 FAR PART 150 Noise Study Commissioner Hennigan said that regarding the previous discussion in January about the FAR PART 150 plan that was submitted by the City of Chico to ALUC, the plan was twice rejected by ALUC. Once the motion died for lack of a. second and the second time it was voted down. Commissioner Hennigan was able to see the disputed plan and found that the plan with ALUC's name on it only has 52 pages. The plan that was submitted to ALUC has more than three times that number of pages. 1 Butte County Airport Lane Use Commission minutes - February 18, 1998 - Page 1 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES January 21, 1998 Discussion of the FAR PART 150 study Commissioner Hennigan, referring to the "FAA Record of Approval, FAR PART Noise Compatibility Program, Chico Municipal Airport", Item II B, third paragraph, said the statement is incorrect that ALUC adopted the Land Use Plan of Exhibit III -1 because the document was not submitted to ALUC. He requested that staff find out the basis for the error -- was it an assertion by the City of Chico or what? There was consensus that staff should research the basis for the FAA statement that ALUC adopted the FAR PART 150 Noise Study. Commissioner Hennigan said the fifth version -- the Draft Final Report of the Noise Study indicates that it was prepared for ALUC although it was not submitted to ALUC or authorized by ALUC or paid for by ALUC. . Alternate Koch said the confusion may be because the document was submitted to ALUC but not adopted by ALUC. Chairman Franklin said the document was submitted as an Airport Land Use Plan rather than a Noise Study and ALUC did not feel the safety issues were adequately addressed -- which a complete plan should do: Mrs. Barbara Hennigan said the document submitted to ALUC was dated 1994. The document dated 1997 with ALUC's name on it, was never brought to ALUC. There was discussion that the document which was submitted to ALUC was an earlier document which included the Land Use issues. Commissioner Hennigan objected to having ALUC's name on a document it did not approve and the document being accepted by the FAA based on a misapprehension that the document had ALUC approval. Alternate Rosene noted that although ALUC may not use the document, it is being used and referred to in other documents. He did not think the Noise Study is a good study. Commissioner Hennigan said that although numerous air tankers departed during the three day study, none were included in the measurements or added into the study by computer simulation. Commissioner Hennigan was told "the DC -9's do not come to Chico anymore." Commissioner Hennigan would like to know why air tankers were not part of the document. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission - January 21, 1998 - Page 1 Chairman Franklin said ALUC does not have to use the study Alternate Koch said the study is a public document and contains the noise contours. established by the FAA. Mr. Lucas said ALUC does not have to accept the document. Part of doing the new CLUP can be a revised or new noise study that meets ALUC approval. Alternate Rosene said the Noise Study is inaccurate and he does not feel comfortable using it. Mr. Lucas suggested the accuracy of the Noise Study should be addressed at the time of doing the CLUP. Commissioner Lambert said there were some inconsistencies between the policy plan and the noise study that would need to be rectified. Mr. Lucas said the issue of the accuracy of noise contours is a separate issue from acceptable noise levels for certain types of uses. There was more discussion of the significance of ALUC's name being on the FAR PART 150 document. Alternate Koch said that the City of Chico is not at the present time or in the future creating documents with ALUC's name on them without ALUC's permission. Mr. Lucas suggested writing to the City of Chico requesting that the City no longer represent the document as being adopted by ALUC, and notifying the FAA that the document was not adopted by ALUC, since their acceptance of the document may in part be due to their belief in ALUC's approval of the document. The motion was so moved by Commissioner Hennigan and seconded by Chairman Franklin to send a letter to the City of Chico requesting them not to represent the FAR PART 150 Noise Study as an ALUC adopted document and to send a separate letter notifying the FAA also that the document was not adopted by ALUC. AYES: Commissioners Hennigan, Causey, Lambert, Alternate Rosene and Chairman Franklin NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: Alternate Koch ABSENT: Commissioner Campbell Butte County Airport Land Use Commission - January 21, 1998 - Page 2 • a �,OFFICE'OF THE CITY MANAGER ' 411 Main Street - P.O. Box 3420 �YorC 0 Chico. CA 95927 1872 (916) 895-4800 FAX (916) 895-4825 ATSS 459-4800 November 12, 1996 Marlin Beckwith Program Manager , Aeronautics Program. Department of Transportation P. O. Box 942873 Sacramento, CA 94273'-0001 Dear Mr. Beckwith:. I am writing in response to your letter of October 18, 1996. Rather than continuing with detailed letters back and forth, ' .I woul& be willing to meet with you and any members of your' staff, either in Chico or your.offices"in Sacramento, although I might suggest that holding the meetings here might be most productive, so that we may tour the facilities in question. Please contact'my secretary, Pete, at 895-4803, to arrange a meeting. I hope that we recognize that we both are working in the best - intere";ts of the airport: The airport.is extremely important to the City and to the community, and I -look forward to working with you on a positive and constructive: basis. Since Thomas J. Lando City Manager TJL:ps CC: Chico City Council PISnn1119DIVISiOn , Chico Airport "Commission, NOV 1 4 Chico Planning Commission Butte County ALUC cawft U:\WINWORD\AIRPORT\BECKWTH2.LTR L-AGR-16-9-2-3/L-AGR-16-3-6/G-GA-3-3-1-2/Chrono `�_�Made From Recycled Paper STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS, TRANSPORTAI:_...AN0 HOUSING:AGENCY PETE WILSON, Govemor D5PARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION — AERONAUTICS PROGRAM M.S. #40 1130 K STREET — 4TH FLOOR P.O. BOX 942873 SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001 (916) 322-3090 RECEIVED TDD (916) 654-4014 FAX (916).327-9093 OCT 2 4 1996 Mr. Thomas J. Lando City Manager P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 Dear Mr.- Lando: October 18, 1996 •o.tL • - • • • • UVIM,�. CITY CLERK CITY OF CHICO This acknowledges receipt of your.September 11, 1996 letter in response to our two letters to you dated August 30, 1996. I was glad to receive your written assurances -that you are protective of your own aviation facility. We are trying to accomplish the same objective of protecting the airport. And since we have that in common, it behooves both agencies to work together in a spirit of mutual cooperation. Although our agency is not authorized to make decisions about local land developments and zoning amendments, we have a responsibility to ensure that everyone is aware of the potential consequences of local decisions affecting California's airports. As such, we do not intend to create a letter writing campaign; however, we do wish to provide an abbreviated clarification to a few items in your September 11, 1996 letter as follows: 1.. The North Chico Specific Plan_(NCSP) Ibis was adopted over objections from the pilot community, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and others. Recently, we have seen an application to amend the NCSP. zoning -on what is called the Stephens property. It would change the current zoning of open space and light industrial bordering the Chico Municipal Airport (CMA) to suburban residential or medium density residential "...to adjust land uses to more accurately reflect current market demand." It continues to concern us that zoning amendment decisions are being considered when both the CMA master plan and the Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) are very old, as was indicated in our earlier letters. Our recommendation is to hold these type of decisions in abeyance until the documents are properly updated. 2. Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 The FAR Part 150 program has no authority to restrict development around the airport, rather, it creates a plan designed to mitigate noise impacts,. Placing restrictions -on land -Mr. Thomas J. Lando October. 18, 1996 Page 2 around airports through the planning process is the role that is, by law, given to the ALUC and it is accomplished through the airport CLUP and the ALUC's decision making authority. We have already discussed the status of the CLUP as being very old. We have also testified to the Butte County ALUC that the city's FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility and Environs Plan does not meet the requirements of a CLUP. To our knowledge, the ALUC has not adopted that plan. G .•t �• :_�• • .M=;J .1 0..�_t. •tit t n.•. .• While our office did not object to this'DEIR in 1986, it does not constitute an automatic approval of another project in the same location, ten years later, regardless of density. Our framework for reviewing proposals today is substantially different from ten years ago due to a variety of factors. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would also require a thorough review and analysis of each project. 4. School Sites We evaluate school sites only if they are located within two miles of an airport. Today, our school site evaluations include a statement that if the school site is not acquired within five years, a reevaluation of the site should be performed. Also, the five school sites . approved in 1986 had nothing to do with the Bidwell Ranch and Foothill Park East. developments, since these are recent proposals. Among that particular group.of five, there was a sixth location to which we objected. Enclosed is a letter to your office which clarifies our position taken on that site investigation. You will notice.that our concerns outlined in the letter also reflect those indicated in our August letters and the letter attached for item #5, all relating to adverse noise and safety impacts for concentrations of people. 5. NCSP Environmental Review Contrary to -your letter, we did review the NCSP environmental documents. A copy of our letter to. Mr. Steve Honeycutt is enclosed, The NCSP does not incorporate the area where the Bidwell Ranch and Foothill Park East developments are proposed. As discussed in our earlier letters, a special submittal to the Aeronautics Program for comments is warranted. As noted in our August 30, 1996 letter, we strongly disagree with your claim that the Bidwell Ranch is not within the "two"mile limit" stated in your letter. Two statute miles (measured from the boundary of the airport as required by law) covers most of the Bidwell Ranch project and all of the Foothill Park East project. Two nautical miles (as required by the CEQA review) covers all but a very small corner of the Bidwell Ranch project and all of the Foothill Park East project. Your statement that it is not necessary to submit the supplemental analysis for our review and comment, is not consistent with the "extensive public review and comment" explained in your letter, nor'is it consistent with CEQA requirements regarding supplemental materials to an EIR. Mr. Thomas J. Lando October 18, 1996 .Page 3 6.' California Department of Forestry (CDF) In a follow-up telephone call to Mr. Dick Tiller subsequent to receiving your letter, he stated that he is not aware of any agreement with the City of Chico which meets their concerns. CDF airtankers do not necessarily have to "consistently" fly over the Bidwell Ranch project to create overflight safety concerns. The appendix to .your FAR Part 150 study explains the reasons, as we outlined in our earlier letter., It is our sincere hope that your future actions and decisions will reflect your assurances of protection 'for your airport and its environs. Sincerely, h Leu < L MARLIN TH, Program Manager Aeronautics Program . Enclosures cc: Fred Gerst, Chairman Butte County ALUC Chico City Council c/o Thomas J. Lando City of Chico Planning Commission See address above (the PO Box) Chico Airport Commission Chico Muni. A/P School Sites (Butte Co.) A,?: i'_ 4, 19$9 Sf;. Tio=as 3. Lando Community Services Director Community Services Department City of Chico P. 0.. Box 342.0 eilico, CA 95927 Dear Mr. Lando iii res- onse to your letter of request, dated Harc1 16, 158 ; s:,i;t�itte� :lereon is clarification of the Depart' ent o= s--an3po-ta'.ion, Divisiorl of Aeronautics' position :ci8t_tlg t0 the ropose:3 church idCitltj..nt the.intersELtion of Ceres and Lassen ;>enues, southeast of . Cilica "Unicipal Airport., till proposed site $fi, +orated southeast of the ft�tu_e int= se`�ti:.n of Flocal and Lassen A'ivenues o Derart znL recormen4s against land hoes w.13ci: involve concent ratio^..� of '�'�2:3�'�19, such as churches, schoul3 x. h;Gj::- :)e�-lsity housing with respect to areas expased `t, <:� rcrast crasL hazards ar,3 noise i..,pact by cverfiights of mow flyir.-; •:-rcr::it. ;1 Septembler 1986, the State Department of Education lam: e a } ;.erueat of this Department to evaluate an.rake recoiarenaaticn ..e ftdo potential school sites within t*4c miles and southeast of the airport. 1n our recos� MdatiOn to the Stiate De rt:aQnt of Education we did not object to any of the five sites howecer,"it- was pointed out that site-. tc..sem' identities:• as a borc:e: line neztion as to V"ential safety hazard and noise impacts fron aircraft c;:eratioas.. Therefor®, . pndicatee that sitwas the :ea:.t �avocable site, of the dive sites, re_at,. n: to aircraft imc.:acts. ...x e C ars to be ?l:; fc:r the propose -4 . chl..,im mite, ft appears approxi6ately. 1/2 lime couti;:rost of school cite fib, i=lacing it c_oszr to the airport and t:la fligilt pattern.. Since th :shoo? site location Wa;; corloll.erad :=rine_, when eva'_uate tfl.C. and one-aalf years i acro, t:mZ c:louLr _'.vcatiot2 of the proposedchur..wou-c ;mitely i be cersubjected v:t.Zin sn area jai;are concentrations of pec, taou ra•�ve=�,: iiai::e and' caFety frLacts. Dazed on th& iufoc:�.�tion., .� we ree=m cndc..' against constructing a chucch at that :rite. :'Ir. Thomas J. Lando Page 2 April 41 1989 For clarification purposes, should a school, shopping center, high-density housing, church or.any other development which causes concentrations of people be considered at or near the proposed church- facility site, this Department would clearly object-to the development based on people being subjected to adverse safety and noise impacts. Sincerely, JACK D. REMHERLY, Chief Division of Aeronautics 'F. R. Riesen, Chief,. C--.Lof Airports cc: Fred Davis Dave Hironinus Robert Williams Planning Dir. bcc: Dict lRogars - Dist. 3 CES:ts. Env. General Chico Municip'@--VP.9' (Butte County) April ' 8, 1993 Mr. Steve Honeycutt 426 Broadway, Suite 205 Chico, CA 95928 Dear Mr. Honeycutt: Countv of Butte's NOP for the North Chico Specific Plan The California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, has reviewed the above -referenced document pursuant to CEQA. ''The following comments are offered for your consideration. According to the NOP, the eastern perimeter of the plan area is adjacent to Chico Municipal Airport. With airport traffic patterns to the west, a portion of the project site will probably fall within the traffic pattern and overflight zones. Since the project site may be subject -to noise and safety impacts associated .with aircraft overflights, the EIR should consider measures such as noise attenuation, avigaiion easements, buyer notification and limiting density levels within the traffic pattern zone and noise impact areas. The proposal should also be submitted to the Butte County ALUC and the Chico Municipal Airport to ensure compatibility with existing and future'airport operations. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. We look forward to reviewing- the draft EIR. cc: Chico Municipal Airport Butte County ALUC bcc: Ron Helgeson - DOTP Jody Lonergan - 3 Shesnard - DOA Sincerely, - 313�34� , SANDY HESNARD Environmental Planner SH:dbd WP51SH1 (NCSP) OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 411 Main Street . P.O. Box 3420 CITYorCHICO Chico. CA 95927 INC. 1871 . (916) 895.4800 FAX (916) 895-4825 ATSS 459-4800 L-AGR-16-3-6/Chrono September 11, 1996 -Marlin Beckwith, Program Manager CalTrans Aeronautics Program M.S. #40 P.O. Box 942873 - Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 Re: Chico Municipal Airport Environs .Plan and Master Plan; Foothill Park East and Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Reports. Dear Mr. Beckwith: This letter is in response to your two letters dated August 30, 1996, regarding -the above. referenced subjects. First let me say that the City'of Chico is,extremely proud and protective of the Chico Municipal Airport (CMA). We have an active Airport Commission that provides policy direction for the operation of the Airport, and we expend a significant amount of staff time in the administration of the -Airport. The City has anon -going program of promotion and development of both the aviation facilities and the industrial park. We are always looking for ways to improve the expand these facilities in order to provide the residents and businesses of the Chico area with the best of both facilities. However, we are also very aware Of the need to protect the Airport from encroachment by incompatible uses which would inhibit or restrict aviation operations. An example of this is extensive land use planning attention that the area around the Airport has been given in the last three years. The City recently completed the preparation and adoption of a. new General. Plan which includes this area, and the County of Butte previously spent over two years developing a specific plan for the area immediately to the west of the Airport (resulting in the North Chico Specific Plan). Both of these planning processes included extensive public review and comment, including review by the County Board of Supervisors, the City Council and Planning Commission, the Airport Commission and the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). In these Nvo processes, particular attention was paid to the protection of the Airport from incompatible land uses. Marlin Beckwith CalTrans Aeronautics Program September.11, 1996 Page 2 . Also, in order to protect the approach zones to the Airport, the City has previously .spent a significant amount of FAA and. local money to acquire.clear zones off of each end of the main runway for a distance of about one mile. We have also spent.money on the development of a new FAR Part 150 noise compatibility and environs plan which restricts residential development around the Airport. Finally, for years, the City.has been requiring avigation easements as a condition for development approvals and other entitlements. The implication of your two letters is that the City of Chico does not care .what happens around its airport and is acting irresponsibly in the review process for the two referenced property developments is patently absurd and could not be further from the truth. While I do.not disagree that the Aeronautics Program has the authority to comment on'these two developments, and generally have no problems with the. concerns being addressed.in your letters, I object strongly to the'tone of your letters, and to whom they were distributed. Further, your staff has done you a disservice by not first reviewing these specific concerns with City planning and administrative staff in order to obtain a complete understanding of these matters. I am particularly offended by your second letter in which it is obvious you.have received only one side of the story. You have apparently responded directly to comments from selected individuals without obtaining.a full picture or even researching your files. Based on my previous correspondence with your staff, we assumed that you would have had them meet with City staff to discuss this matter prior to submitting your comments. With regard to the Aeronautics Program not being directly contacted for comments regarding these two development projects, I would point out that the City.has reasonable background to assume that there was no need for special notice to your office. First, that is what the State Clearinghouse is for, and it your staffs responsibility to monitor projects of interest to your office: It is clear that they failed to do so. Further, the City has previously, in 1986, received a letter from the (then) Division of Aeronautics indicating no problems with a previous proposal for a development on the Bidwell Ranch site (Rancho Arroyo Specific Plan) which had three times the number of residential units as the current Bidwell Ranch proposal, plus an elementary and junior high school! Also in 1986, another letter from the Division of Aeronautics indicating no objection to five school sites that were proposed to be located within Marlin Beckwith CalTrans Aeronautics Program September 11, 1996 Page 3 two miles of the Airport boundary,. including five within the vicinity of the Bidwell Ranch and Foothill Park East developments! For your reference, I have attached copies of these letters. Also in this regard, when the General Plan and North Chico Specific Plans were being prepared and reviewed, to our knowledge no comments were made by the Aeronautics Program staff despite the submittal to the State Clearinghouse of all required environmental documents, the draft and final General Plans, and other specific portions of the General Plan. Since the Bidwell Ranch and Foothill Park East developments are.consistent with the General Plan, special submittal of a request for comments to the Aeronautics Program was not indicated. As you noted in your letters, the City is in the process -of securing additional studies regarding the impact on these developments by aircraft overflight and noise. This is another indication of the high. level of planning and development . review the projects in this community receive. However, since the Bidwell Ranch project is outside of the two mile limit, the City is not intending to circulate the additional study to your office for comment. Further, however, the. Foothill Park East study supplement will be circulated to you. .Regarding your comments concerning the return flights of loaded California Department of Forestry (CDF) air tankers does not make sense and highlights the lack of research that went into the letter. These tankers would not fly over the Bidwell Ranch project:area on the way back to the Airport, they instead would. come in on the most direct route, as appropriate for conditions. (Mr. Gerst,-'as a member of ALUC, knows better than to state otherwise). Further, in conversations with the CDF, their concerns have been met with the proposed designation of a non -development corridor through.and adjacent to the Bidwell Ranch development. They have also advised that, in any event, they do not consistently fly over Bidwell Ranch anyway, even though this is the established noise abatement route. In closing, let me say that I do agree with you that'no one affected by the operations of the Chico Municipal Airport should be disregarded. in any decision- making process relating to these'two developments. I believe that I have Marlin Beckwith. CalTrans Aeronautics Program September 11, 1996 Page 4 -demonstrated to you that this community bends over backwards to ensure that all ..concerns are raised and addressed. The City Council, the Airport Commission and the City staff provide extensive and competent review, comment and decision-making in projects such as these, focusing on the health of the Airport and safety of the community. For your office and staff'to imply or indicate otherwise is not only incorrect, it is irresponsible. If you wish to discuss these matters further with me, please call me. Sincerely,­— THOMAS incerely_L—THOMAS J: LANDO City Manager cc: City Council Fred Gerst, Chair, ALUC City Planning Commission Airport Commission . L -AGR -16-9-2-3 (copies w/o attachments) . M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ' ERONAUTICS PROGRAM M.S. 440 :130 K STREET - 4TH FLOOP. P.O. BOX 942873 SACRAMENTO, CA 94273.4001 (916) 322-3090 TDD (918) 854-4014 FAX (916) 327.9093 Fred Gerst, Chairman Butte County ALUC 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Mr. Gerst: May 23, 1996 In response to your inquiries and request for information regarding the Bidwell Ranch and Foothill Park East sites, we have begun an analysis of the proceedings and the actions contemplated for these developments. We will be sending our specific comments in a subsequent letter in the near future. Based upon our preliminary information, we feel that it is ,important to place within the public record that we have grave concerns regarding: The adequacy of the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport (CMA) Airport Environs Plan; The absence of clearly, defined planning boundaries as required in statute; The potential for school sites underneath heavy aircraft overflights; California Department of Forestry (CDF) tanker overflight impacts on residential development; The adequacy of the FAR Part 150 study as it relates to the CDF flight patterns; the absence of appropriate consideration of airport impacts in the Environmental Impact Report; The finding that the Bidwell Ranch Project is not in the "study area" for appropriate action by the ALUC. . We will complete our analysis of these and any other related concerns and forward our comments to you at -a later date. Sincerely, C STA- A ENGLE ( Aviation Planner Aeronautics Program cc: Chico City Council c/o Thomas J. Lando City of Chico P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 Chico Airport Commission P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA,95927 i • • �. J ,=i +srll' �� � t} f.. � ✓/ �^t_�. � �,� } w .fes 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Com OA,."VT-> r4-5 ►p Pk a,& �P&V Techfi-blogiaes�.. �an employee -owned com pany; provides multidisciplinary services to the- public and. private sectors in -the fields,of.planning, engineering, environmental, transportation, aviation, and:economics7 Employing over 200 professionals, P&D maintains corporate headquarters -iniOrdnge, California with regional and.project offices throughout the. United,_SIta.tes.,__- FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program: Aircraft Noise Exposure Map Report For Chico Municipal Airport City of Chico, California [ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT REPORT: For Review and Comment Only; Not For Publication] Prepared by McClintock, Becker & Associates A Subsidiary of P&D Technologies Foster City, California July 23, 1992 The preparation of this report was financed . in part through an Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant from the Federal Aviation Administration under provisions of Section 505 of the airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982. UOM MCCIINTOCK. BECKER 7.23. 1992 10 07 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................... S-1 I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .................................................... I-1 Introduction................... .................................................................. I-1 Background.. .......... . ............. ................... ............................ I-2 TechnicalGoals ............... ............................................ ........ I-2 Community & Agency Coordination ..................... ..............I.............. I-5 H COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT AND NOISE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS.......................................................... II -1 Local Environment and Setting........................................................... U-1 Existing and Projected Land Use.............................................................11.3 Noise and Land Use Compatibility Standards . ....................................... . ..... II -8 P. 2 III. AVIATION ACTIVITY FORECASTS..................................................::.. III -1 Introduction..........................................................................._... .III -1 Historical Aviation Activity. .............................. III -1 .... ........ Forecast Methodology ................... ........ ....... ...................................... III 2 Socioeconomic Review ......... .:..... ................. ......1—.................... III 6 General Aviation Forecast .. ....................:...............................1............ III -10 . IV. OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT : ....................................... "............... IV -1 Regional Airspace Setting ............................................. , ...... , ............... IV -1 ExistingNoise Control Program.............................................................. IV -3 V. NOISE EXPOSURE ANALYSIS..... .,..................................... V-1 Noise Analysis Methodology ..... ................:...............................V-1 Noise Exposure Conditions ............................. ................................... V-6 I-1 Regional Location Map ................ I ................ ,................................... 1-3 II -1 Airport Site ............................ ......................... .:........................ II -2 11-2 Chico Municipal Airport Redevelopment Project Boundary ....................................................... II -4 U-3 Chico Municipal Airport Redevelopment General Plan ................... I ................ ......... , ................ 11-5 11-4 Generalized Airport- Environs Land Use ....................................... ..... 11-6 III -1 Aviation Forecast Comparison.. ...................:................................MTI -4 III -2 Comparison of Indigenous and Enhanced GrowthForecasts..................................... .............. .................III -16 IV -1 Generalized Aircraft Flight Tracks. .................................... IV -2 V-1 Noise Exposure Map: 1990-91 `Baseline Conditions .................................. V-8 V-2 Comparative Analysis: 1995-96 Indigenous v. Enhanced Forecast Conditions .................:........... V-10 FROM MCCLINTOCK. BECKER 7.23.1992 10:07 P. 3 UVV- 43;� II -1 FAR Part 150 Land Use Compatibility Designs ....... :........................ U-9,10 III -1 Historical General Aviation .Activity ................................................ III -3 III -2 . Comparison of General Aviation Forecasts .......................................... III -8 III -3 Indigenous Aircraft Operations Forecast ....................... .........:.......... III -11 III -4 Enhanced Aircraft Operations Forecast ............................................ III -13 V-1 Time of Day Percentage Split of Operations by Aircraft Cass....... .......................................... ............ .... .. ... . V-3 V-2 Average Day Percentage Runway Use ..... :......................................... V-4 V-3 Existing Noise Impacts 1990-91 Conditions ......................................... V-9 V-4 Forecast Noise Impacts 1995-96 Conditions ....................................... V-11 APPENDIX A. Bibliography ...... .......................................................................... ........ A-1 FROM MCCLINTOCK,-BECKER 7. 23:i992 10:08 P. 4 r � Table V-4 FORECAST NOISE IMPACTS 1995/% CONDITIONS Chico Municipal Airport ` Indigenous Est, Acres CNEL 55-60dB Est• DUs Est, South Area Single Family 14.5 88 260 Multiple Family $, 144 Subtotal '22.8 1$$ 360 North' Area Single Family. ' 13� 444 Subtotal 66.2 132 440 Total 12 . 2Q Eda South Area Single Family 31.0 185 560 Multiple Family 1�$ 134 344 Subtotal 41.8 315 950 I` aro Area Single Family $ 1 Subtotal 82.5 165 500 Total ' 1 V-11 ' wwwENDwww ` i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In July 1991, the City of Chico initiated an airport noise and land use compatibility planning study for the Chico Municipal Airport. This report sets forth the findings of the first phase of the study. The study was funded and is being prepared under provisions of Part 150 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR Part 150). FAR Part 150 sets forth a straightforward pro- cess combining technical analyses and public participation to address important air- port/community noise exposure issues. Goals and Objectives The principal goals of the study are to: o Explore options to meet forecast aviation needs while enhancing the long-term compatibility of the Airport and the surrounding community; o To involve interested citizens, Airport users and local public agencies in a joint effort to maintain a workable noise program by updating the existing Airport Environs Plan. The principal objectives of the study are to: o Determine existing aircraft and neighborhood background noise levels; ' o Examine aircraft flight patterns and operating procedures in order to evaluate potential noise impacts on people; o Recommend measures to reduce any. incompatibilities between existing neigh- borhood land uses and the effects of continuing aircraft operations; o Recommend measures to prevent the creation of new incompatible land uses in ' areas which are forecast to be seriously by aircraft operations; o Establish procedures for (1) implementation of the noise compatibility program ' and Environs Plan, and (2) periodically monitoring and reviewing the implemented plan. Conduct of the Study The City of Chico is sponsoring the study which is jointly funded by the City and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. The project consultant is the firm of ' McClintock, Becker & Associates (MBA), a specialized aviation environmental and noise abatement planning organization. The noise compatibility study is being conducted as a means by which the City of Chico can examine and analyze the impact of aircraft operations on areas surrounding the Chico Municipal Airport. The study is being carried -out in cooperation with Airport neighbors, interested public agencies and users of the Airport. Public, agency and user input to the study will be jointly solicited and evaluated by the City and its consultant. ' The stud is a two phase effort dealing - with 1 existing and future Airport noise and Y P g () g rP , (2) how to properly address aircraft noise and land use issues. This report represents ' completion of Phase I of this process. Major elements of the Chico Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 noise exposure map 'o study included: Developing forecasts of future aviation activity at Chico Municipal Airport recognizing the potential of the airport for a major flight training facility. 1 o Measuring actual aircraft noise and other significant sources of community noise; o Tracking aircraft operations to identify where and when those operations occur; ' o Determining existing and probable future noise impacts; o Identifying potential noise abatement and land use compatibility implementation measures. Findings Analyses undertaken in this noise exposure map report have verified the magnitude of ' cumulative (CNEL) noise exposure within the environs of Chico Municipal Airport. Noise exposure maps for existing (1991) and five-year (1995/96) conditions are discussed. In a subsequent report for Phase II -- the ' Airport Noise Compatibility ' Program and Environs Plan -- the issues of preventive noise abatement and land use compatibility alternatives will be dealt with in detail, and a program for maintaining -noise control will be developed. Although the discussion and analyses of noise abatement has been deferred to a subsequent phase, this report identifies two primary t findings: o [Based on an analysis of 1990-1991 operational conditions, it has been ' determined that there are no noncompatible (i.e., noise sensitive) land uses located in the airport environs which are subject to aircraft noise levels in excess of local, state, or federal land use compatibility guidelines (i.e., CNEL 65dB or ' greater); o For 1990-1991 conditions there are no... [more] ' o For 1995-1996 conditions there.... [more] These findings are supported by the following conclusions as set forth in the report: ' o Noise exposure from Chico Municipal Airport operations is expected to rise only slightly as a result of anticipated future aircraft operations. ; ' o The gradual introduction of quiet technology jet aircraft will result in a decrease in noise exposure beyond 1995/96 despite a forecast percent increase in air carrier jet operations through the year 2005. Thus, 1995/96 conditions are ex - pected to represent the upper bound to probable future community noise expo- sure levels. Thus, it is anticipated that existing operational noise control measures would be continued and updated to deal with anticipated aircraft noise impacts and that steps be taken through the application of preventive land use planning to limit the introduction of new noncompatible land uses in the Airport's immediate approach and departure corridors. These measures will ' be developed and analyzed in Phase II of the study -- the Airport Noise Compatibility Program component of the updated Airport Environs Plan. S-3 7-- L I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This chapter describes the institutional framework under which FAR Part 150 Airport ' Noise and Land Use Compatibility planning is undertaken. INTRODUCTION ' This report provides background information and supporting documentation for the preparation and submittal of aircraft noise exposure maps under Part 150 of the Federal ' Aviation Regulations (FAR Part 150)1 for Chico Municipal Airport: The City of Chico initiated the study in July 1991 having previously selected McClintock, Becker & As- sociateg as contractor for the work.'- ' The airport noise compatibility planning provisions of FAR Part 150 represent an op- portunity for the City of Chico to assess aircraft noise impacts in the Airport's envi- rons3 and develop a workable program to combine its existing aircraft operational noise ' abatement efforts with potentially effective land use control strategies. One key advantage to the conduct of a FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Plan- ning Study at this time is that, upon approval by the FAA, the program may qualify the ' City and, potentially, other public agencies for access to Federal funds specifically earmarked for noise abatement measures including the soundproofing of any affected schools and residences, the acquisition of land or easements, and other noise mitigation ' measures. Furthermore, the FAR Part 150 process presents an opportunity for official FAA participation in and continued implementation of safe and effective operational noise abatement measures. ' The FAR Part 150 airport noise compatibility planning process is also intended to in- form public officials of the degree of existing and forecast noise exposure within areas under their respective jurisdictions. The purpose of such disclosure is to prevent the ' introduction of new noise -sensitive land uses in areas subject to high levels of aircraft noise and frequencies of overflights. This issue is of particular concern not only to the City of Chico but also to Butte County and the Butte County Airport Land Use ' Commission (ALUC) as a result of planned new residential development in proximity to Chico Municipal Airport. A primary reason for the City's desire to conduct the FAR Part 150 study, is to prevent the encroachment of new noise sensitive land uses within the Airport environs and to 'enhance the efficacy of the Airport's existing aircraft noise abatement program. 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Aviation Regulations Part 150 (14 ' CFR 150), "Airport Noise Compatibility Planning," 49FR260, January 18, 1985. 2. In October 1991, McClintock, Becker & Associates was sold to P&D Technologies. P&D Technologies maintains exclusive rights to the name McClintock, Becker & Associates, which is now operated as a P&D subsidiary. ' 3. The term Airport environs is defined as the area surrounding an airport that is considered to be directly affected by its presence and operation. I-1 ' BACKGROUND ' Owned and operated by the City of Chico, Chico Municipal Airport is an important aviation facility serving a rapidly growing and increasingly affluent air trade area incor- porating all of Butte County. The Airport location is shown in Exhibit I-1, the ' Regional Location Map. The Airport is situated in the northeast corner of the City of Chico and is adjoined by unincorporated Butte County to the north, east, and west. Pressure exists to develop lands south and southeast of the Airport in residential and other potentially noise sensitive land uses. 1 In response to the growth in population and income within its air trade area, the Airport has become an important center of flight training activity. Because of its strategic loca- tion, the Airport also serves a growing role in business aviation and is home to some _ multi -engine aircraft and rotorcraft. ' The environmental consequences of Airport operations have been of concern to nearby residents of the Airport environs for a number of years. Responding to these concerns, the City of Chico has undertaken this noise abatement land land use compatibility, program in cooperation with local public agencies; Airport users and residents of the Airport environs. The results of this study are being coordinated with various public and agency interests through the City's Airport Commission. I-2 This report sets forth the findings of the first phase of a two-phase study, i.e. the de- velopment of FAR Part 150 Aircraft Noise Exposure Maps. This report assesses the noise impacts of existing (1990-1991) and forecast (1995-1996) aircraft operational activity on the communities surrounding the Airport. In a subsequent report, ' alternatives to mitigate and/or prevent the impacts of such noise will be developed and evaluated, and a program for achieving noise compatibility between the Airport and its environs will be set forth. ' The consultant's work program entailed a comprehensive planning effort designed to fulfill the requirements of the City of Chico and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the development of noise exposure maps under the provisions of FAR Part ' 150. The approach to the development and preparation of the Part 150 noise exposure maps involved the use of advanced computer techniques as a means of facilitating the required noise exposure and land use impactanalyses in a technically sound and cost- effective manner. In the development of the airport noise compatibility program in Phase II, these tech- niques will facilitate a rapid and accurate analysis of alternative noise abatement proce- dures and Airport environs development concepts. The computer model used is also capable of assessing the effects of future aircraft noise conditions on existing and pro- jected land use within the Airport environs. TECM'-;ICAL GOALS ' following form basis the City's to the development The technical goals the of approach of the FAR Part 150 noise exposure maps and were key elements of the project work program: I-2 EXHIBIT I-1' REGIONAL LOCATION MAP HASTA CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT LAKE FAR PART 150 STUDY AND ENVIRONS PLAN UPDATE Q SCALE NORTH In MILES 0 5 10 BurneyF��,o ' s SHASTA /' EDDING 44 J Red . Bluff TE HA M A ss Corning RAKE \j LAKE O � LMANOR MENDOCINO Orland CH� PLU AS Is noGLENN C� 3 J LAKE PILLS uRY BU T TE A KF-7-0roville 1_ R COLUSA LAKE� 1 I 20 �C SON OMA LAKE BERRYE83A Y O LO S a n to N APA >: Rosa \29) ��.-_-- 7j p ■ Vi C r Travis AFB 1 OLANO Cncord DAKLKN t2L ST ve r ore 1-3 Pa di s e LITTLE GRAS VALLEY LAKE LAKE 40-10"• OROVILLE 70 O r / Ole MKRYSVILLE Beale N E VA AFB , McClellan i 1AFB Pcerville .' Mather AFB SACRAMENTO AMADOR 4—.�. SA N7 �P U1 N CALAVE RAS ,CKTON 1. To develop graphic information and supporting technical documentation needed to comply with Section 103 of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979,4 and Subpart B and Appendix A of FAR Part 150, which specify the stan- dards, methodology, and procedures for preparing and submitting aircraft noise exposure maps. 2. To comply with the requirements of Subparts B and C and Appendix B of FAR Part 150, which specify the standards, methodology, and procedures for the development of airport noise compatibility programs. 3. To comply with provisions of the California Airport Noise Standards,5 which state that, ". . . the criterion Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) for existing civilian airports ... is 65dB. 116 , 4. To comply with the public consultation provisions of FAR Part 150. Synopses of FAR Part 150 and California Airport Noise Standards FAR Part 150. Part 150 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, "Airport Noise Com- patibility Planning," became effective on February 28, 19817 and established a new regulation which prescribed the requirements for the development of airport noise compatibility planning programs. The new regulation was based on Title I of the "Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act" (ASNA) of 1979 which adopted, in modi- fied form, recommendations made by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for airport noise compatibility planning. Included in the regulation is the establishment of a single system for determining the exposure of individuals to airport noise and a single system for measuring airport (and background) noise. The regulation also prescribes a standardized airport noise compatibility planning program, which includes (1) the development and submission to the FAA of noise exposure maps and noise com- patibility programs by airport sponsors; (2) standard noise methodologies and units for use in assessing airport noise; (3) the identification of land uses that are normally com- patible (or noncompatible) with various levels of airport noise; .and (4) the procedure and criteria for FAA evaluation, and approval or disapproval of noise compatibility programs by the FAA Administrator. Appendix A to Part 150 contains the technical description and standards constituting the methodology for developing acceptable airport noise exposure maps. Section A 150.101 prescribes the content of noise exposure maps, including the depiction of the Ldn (CNEL) 65dB, 70dB, and 75dB noise contours and the identification of noncom- patible land uses within the contours. Other specific information is required to identify political subdivisions having jurisdiction over land uses in the area. The use of an FAA approved computer noise prediction model (such as the Integrated Noise Model) is required under Section A150.103. Use of such a model assures the capability to produce required noise exposure data from the input of standardized air- port operational and aviation activity information. 4. Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act (ASNA) of 1979, PL 96-193, 94 Stat. 50. 5. State of California, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 21, Subchapter 6, "Noise Standards." 6. As of January 1, 1986 7. FAR Part 150 was updated in January, 1985. I-4 Section A150.105 requires that, with the submission of noise exposure maps, the air- port sponsor identify and depict the geographical boundaries of each public and plan- ning agency within the Ldn (CNEL) 65dB contour and describe the land use planning and control authority vested in the agency or available under current or prospective le- gal authorization. California Airport Noise Standards. Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations provides noise regulations that govern the operation of aircraft and aircraft engines for ' all airports operating under a valid permit issued by the State Division of Aeronautics. The State Airport Noise Standards are based on two separate legal grounds: (1) The power of airport proprietors to impose ceilings and other limitations on the use of the airport (to the extent not prohibited by Federal law), and (2) the police powers of the State of California (in those areas not subject to Federal preemption).s The regulations are designed to cause an airport proprietor, aircraft operator, local governments, pilots, ' and the State Division of Aeronautics to work cooperatively to diminish the problem of aircraft noise. The regulations are designed to accomplish this end by controlling and reducing the impacts of aircraft noise on nearby communities. ' The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is the noise measurement required by the State for the establishment of an airport's noise impact boundary. On January 1, 1986, the CNEL 65dB noise contour became the representative criterion for estab- lishing the noise impact boundary for all civil airports in California. The area of non- compatible land use (i.e., residential or other noise sensitive land uses) within an air- port's CNEL 65dB noise contour is utilized by the State in determining the magnitude ' of the noise problem for a given airport. At present Chico Municipal Airport does not exceed the cumulative (CNEL 65dB) noise compatibility criterion as defined in either. State or federal airport noise standards. This criterion cumulative noise exposure level is also not expected to be exceeded by the 1995-1996 forecast year even with increased levels of aviation activity. ' The criteria for noncompatible land uses as defined by both the State of California and the Federal Aviation Administration are discussed further in Chapter II, and the Air- port's noise exposure areas for 1990-1991 and 1995-1996 (forecast) aircraft operations are illustrated on Exhibits V-1 and V-2 in Chapter V. 1 COMMUNITY AND AGENCY COORDINATION Prior to the initiation of the FAR Part 150 study for Chico Municipal Airport, citizen concerns over aircraft noise could be expressed through consultation with the Airport ' management, the Airport Commission or through contact with elected representatives. Although seriously concerned about airport noise issues, neither the City Council,. the Airport Commission, or Airport management has had the depth of technical resources available to effectively deal with the full range of community and agency concerns. By ' the same token, local planning agencies9 required to review development proposals in 8. Interference with interstate commerce and discrimination are two examples of areas in which the Federal gov- ernment can preempt local and state governments. 9. i.e., City of Chico, Butte County, Butte County ALUC. 1-5 areas in proximity to the airport had no access to recent Airport noise exposure data or P Y rP rP P operational information. In recognition of the need to obtain formal input to and participation in the noise abatement planning process, the City, in concert with various aviation and community ' interests, has designated the City's Airport Commission as a forum for public consultations required by FAR Part 150. The Airport Commission membership consists of a mixture of appointed officials, including Airport users, general aviation interests, local pilots, and persons residing in Chico and other areas near the Airport. ' Chico Airport Commission meetings are held monthly and follow a published agenda. The meetings are open to the public. Since commencement of this FAR Part 150 pro- gram in 1991, the Airport Commission has held four meetings attended by Airport management and consultant staff where the FAR Part 150 study was agendized. The principal objective of these meetings was to discuss the technical progress and findings ' of the FAR Part 150 study and to disclose the magnitude (and causes) of existing and near-term single -event and cumulative (CNEL) noise exposure. Appendix A sets forth agendas and meeting minutes for Chico Airport Commission ' meetings during the period of August 1991 through July 1992. Results of Consultations ' As a result of consultations with community representatives, local public officials and Airport users it was determined that although Chico Municipal Airport may not at ' present have a noise problem as defined by the State and federal land use compatibility criteria (which are based on a cumulative description of aircraft noise exposure-- CNEL), there is sufficient concern to justify the FAR Part 150 study process based on (1) the prospective introduction of a major flight training facility in the future,(2) the ' growing pressure to develop noncompatible land uses in the Airport environs and (3) the potential for annoyance due to repetitive overflight of residential areas by local and itinerant aircraft. ' Through. these consultations it was determined that the FAR Part 150 process would be directed at improving channels of communications among the City, FAA, major users and the adjacent community with the intent that all parties be well informed with regard tto each other's views and perspectives. 1 ,6 � COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT AND NOISE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS This chapter describes the Chico Municipal Airport and discusses land use planning in the communities and areas which comprise the Airport environs. LOCAL ENVIRONMENT AND SETTING Located on approximately _ acres at the northern end of the City of Chico, the Chico Municipal Airport is bounded on the north, east and west by unincorporated Butte County. Existing Airport Facilities The predominant features of the Airport site are the airfield, the commercial air passenger terminal, and the Chico Municipal Airport (CMA) Industrial Park. Major aviation and industrial tenants occupy the Airport site (see Exhibit II -1). Airfield The airfield consists " of two parallel runways of unequal length connecting taxiways and aircraft parking aprons. Runway 13L -31R is 6,724 feet long and is used by air carrier and other heavy aircraft, as well as the majority of general aviation aircraft. Runway 13R -31L is 3,005 feet long and is used exclusively by light general aviation aircraft for local training (pattern) operations. Both runways are paved, but only Runway 13L -31R is lighted. Lighting for Runway 13L -31R is pilot controlled (PCL) when the air traffic control tower is closed. Runways 13L and 3 1 R both have VASI (Visual Approach Slope Indicators) and runway approach lights. . Runway 13L has runway end identifier lights (REIL) and a precision instrument landing system (ILS) as well as a nonprecision instrument approach (DME). The ILS provides the capability for certain aircraft to land on Runway 13L during poor weather conditions (with visibility as low as 3/4 of a mile). Air Passenger Terminal The commercial air passenger terminal at Chico Municipal Airport was built in 1970 and has two air carrier gate positions. The facility can accommodate up to annual passengers (enplaned and deplaned) and has a vehicle capacity automobile parking lot. The FAA air traffic control tower is located immediately to the south of the terminal building. CMA Industrial Park The CMA Industrial Park was established in 1948 after the airport was transferred to the City of Chico , from the Federal Government. The Industrial Park continues to be a major part of both the transportation and economic structure of Chico and Butte County with over 1,800 full-time jobs (including the airport) which represents 25 percent of all manufacturing jobs in the County. Among the major CMA Industrial Park tenants is the Aero Union Corporation. Aero Union modifies large aircraft for aerial firefighting and provides a base for aerial tankers engaged in fire fighting activities. The company also carries out other major aircraft 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EXHIBIT II -1 AIRPORT SITE 1 modification activities, including the development of new methods of handling air cargo.l Planned Development ' In 1983, the Chico Municipal Airport was incorporated into a redevelopment project area.2 The redevelopment project area coincides with the airport boundary, thereby incorporating the entire airport, as well as the CMA Industrial Park into the redevelopment project (see Exhibit II -2). ' The proposed land uses and planned development of the airport and industrial park conform to those uses designated in the Chico General Plan.3 Exhibit II -3 illustrates 1 the planned development of both aviation and industrial uses at the airport. Role of the Airport Over the past forty-five years, the four main goals of the City for Chico Municipal Airport have been to: o Provide an Air Facility for scheduled passenger air lines. o Provide an Air Facility for general and commercial aviation. o Provide an Industrial Park to create jobs for the community. o Provide an Air Facility and Industrial Park which eventually would be ' self-supporting.4 Under these long-standing policies, Chico Municipal Airport has endeavored to provide ' a full range of commercial and general aviation services to the residents of its air service area. These services include facilities for airline passengers and aircraft, general aviation aircraft basing, airport commercial businesses (FBOs) and support ' services. The air passenger terminal and adjacent commercial aircraft apron have been designed to accommodate air carrier transport turbojet aircraft as dictated by earlier forecasts of commercial aviation demand.5 Chico Municipal Airport also serves an important role as a flight training facility for aspiring local pilots and this role may become even more prominent in future years as demand continues to grow in a region characterized by steady population and income growth. EXISTING AND PROJECTED LAND USE The pattern of land usage within the 43 square mile airport environs reflects a ' combination of rural, urban, and suburban land uses, including large areas of agriculture and open space (see Exhibit II -4). Most agricultural and open space uses ' 1. City of Chico, "History Of The Chico Minicipal Airport (CMA) 1933-1991," Nov. 1991. Pg. 12. 2. City of Chico Redevelopment Agency "Chico Municipal Airport Redevelopment Project," 4/19/83. 3. [bid., Pg. 13. 4. City of Chico, "History...," Loc. Cit. 5. City of Chico, "Airport Environs Plan," August 1978. II -3 A P n I (G vo ' I I . — J � EXHIBIT II-2 \ ' �2, 2 A CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT : \ REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ^ PROJECT. BOUNDARY — CNICOU.-CIP PROJECT i \ AEOEVE tOP"EMf PROJECT ` BWhO.M♦ ` \ �7 moi! ,• \ /. Capes '4O.O / 1 II-4 C.•C,d 1 i. Y � - SECTION 2 SEC k AIR FACILITIES •� 5 _ �. C tCTION UTURE I ipifuSTRIAE A .....4 SPARK... :. I - SECTION I CMA INDUSTRIAL PARK 3 F EXHIBIT rrj- ,+ CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 1 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA GENERAL PLAN ' .,PPOPT a cEE.a zoME 1 Co. .. -c -L P..; 6 CaCC�5�0E ". — Go.l.«G rC (I', _;, �•-- l ,� \ Lli- ✓��., 1 i ' / S .'• 1__.�� S:. \~ 1 I 1 / v I(!(, SF , - `•\ / I+ ..� r •\, Jl - tel - I ''. II '\P p W !` Os 08A CIS O • • �w •: SF N� 1 \ i- • 1 i . i �JJ/ - ;et ru I JP ' 2 fit///� ' •- /)I ,00J `+ _ '�.,\ ; ,. - I `��� OS -e CIS F v ' tOSi - ' CIS ��SFJJ .S AG CHICO MUNICIPAL }^s SF AG °8 AIRPORT •JJ 1' 7i sF ��. NF 1q+1 1 os SF -0P �. 4�` os `�A..sF .. I MH FAR PART 150 AF� ° SIF -Le AIRPORT NOISE � •.,b :oe •� 9F-� t � f 1. �� _ - �� y� ` �'•� 's COMPATIBILITY Y F �'. II _ ru �.• sF• :SF r-��' ''� ?44j- 4 'PROGRAM _SE sF - 7 V SF F'4'- -4:1 - SF-*- AND -0 �' .`. sp _ ..,,. , •.y - - J _ 9r Mf•`�` ENVIRONS PLAN F ../ ,. e . ,r: ■ •. ■ SF MF MF SF MF Ca' r b 9F — ° 1. F v SF, OS I (ri O9 s r j / /V 9F t r 1 SCALE -SF I� CFy � a FEET _ % J ' V. NORTH SMF - i If �� ��' ,SF• - s ,> • ? -;( ' $F 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 �v��' � ��' M •, 4-+ gp� $F 1 AMM. MLEGEND MFF 9 `• ,MF ,�MF %s,�, %, MF z -z ' .r-<• Q-� : ❑ SF == t or 2 Family Residential „5 ' , v .t:�._� 'AE'. Mwl r F 2 •IK� �o•,.. / J' $ ` y'. AG OS • a' MF.%- �►. ♦•, - "•• 3 • ��• '� MF Multiple Family Residential .2 R'' • �G AG SF. r0;)� �• :,SFG. ��:i ✓ •\ - ❑ MH Mobile Home Park _ sF -� . , �••'• o,•... . c•• a?. ❑ S -- School S. .��` ` .\ o-yF N r SF All �' I.f _---'1,� F v� H -- Hospital < c°..�AG Ao ♦ C S€=il: _ C -- Church .f SP:• t • _ SF J CB Q 'cam ❑ 1 V sv �' b SF 1 p v Ce ❑ AU Auditorium II �! a5 /• Ca 3F , V ysF MF .J'.J� CB -_ .= AG AG / SF • AG •• ; o _ ❑ PF Public Facility OS _ W "' sF SF Mrs' ;,� < r J �g j ❑ CB -- Commercial/Business \ Is V �Wu�h 'r t :'e : AG �.. SF f �" F ,F i v F ,4 ❑ OP -- Office Park O' AG a !m SF n —� AG / ce MH ce" ° a MF y I':E: r I pl u ❑ I -- Industrial > T ,i - /(.j:U sF r ..sF sF SES '! • —' .,� ,: -- Agriculture �' S 1,;•p/M' �-.�� A I+._ S� ' ❑ AG -- 9 c L CSS V MF v SF Vr OS Open Space SF. sF 4b AG AQ. V • ` V ce• Fr J �!, ❑ CM -- Cemetery J g. . s ca ,,�yi eev 4 ; e n sF sR - A se OH 4 e• c� v 'MM + '� 4 /'- , 1 F i ❑ TU -- Transportation/Utility sF Tu sF V Q y� f-- ce AGI v Ao AG ' 71, ` ? \ �� ❑ FC == Flood Control TU 9F M�-i SF 1 1 h, H 09 \ .,,. - A j! F-0 dl s sgF," ti4 i 1 '-_ I I �'°_ ❑ P Park AG ' __ - sF s, ',/• r,. - 4S ` N AG0 ! A SF ✓ s 0r AG-�. z I ❑ OH -- Golf Course �SIP � AG v .: A6 •MFl T v • MF Ao� :I;. .SIF . A° " I 'g � S � ❑ V -- Vacant -- �� o ✓ ' AG _. OV - ' : / • SF,_�..a ,• I' a I1I G AG - • . •ii: •MF I';�m .... MF I I i r ,� V ❑ AP Airport 9F � ^ !AO ITBF •AG SF �.� �,..,• .lii •� AG 17 `AG. AG es- .isr F SF! isll A 3'`� .Tu GENERALIZED AIRPORT t { AG r / AG ra • t S - F > A • '.. �' Ce •�,.r./ ` o!' LI vJ AGS sF fF�l: ENVIRONS LAND USE AG sF AG MCCLINTOCK SF ecF F .. SF i' ^ Ac - f s <' 1 Ga 'BcECK/E�R Ag c� sc'v" sF ' SF A SF s SF �_ os AG . F . �' A.7$OCIiITE.7 ° AG G EXHIBIT II— are compatible with aircraft operations at Chico Municipal Airport; other urban and suburban uses (principally residential) are less so. The following sections discuss both existing and projected patterns of land use in the airport environs. The land use control powers of the City of Chico as well as Butte County are also discussed. Existing Land Use The pattern of existing (1990-91) airport environs land use is depicted on Exhibit II -4. As can be seen from the exhibit, the areas to the south, southwest, and southeast of the airport are largely urbanized, with large concentrations of residential and commercial uses. To the west, north and northwest of the airport existing land uses are predominantly agricultural with areas of suburban residential development concentrated along local streets (Hicks, Garner, and Keefer Lanes). The area to the east of the airport is primarily undeveloped open space. Projected Land Use Change From Exhibit II -4, it can be seen that the Chico Municipal Airport environs combines well established urban uses with agricultural, open space and vacant lands. Future land use change in the Airport environs is expected to come about as a result of major new development in currently undeveloped tracts, in -fill of existing vacant lots and agricultural parcels, and by redevelopment of specific designated areas (particularly in unincorporated Butte County). Significant new development is proposed for the area immediately west of the airport between Hicks Road and Highway 99. Butte County is currently developing a specific land use plan for this area. Land Use Control Authority The Chico Municipal Airport environs includes land in Chico as well as unincorporated Butte County. Chico Municipal Airport is located within the City of Chico, an incorporated charter city within Butte County. Incorporated cities are required to adopt general plans and zoning regulations to guide land use within the city and its sphere of influence. Land use within all counties and general law cities is subject to state zoning law. Zoning regulations identify the location of specific land uses, types of uses, and specific design criteria such as building height, density and setbacks. Zoning must be consistent with the city's general plan. Variances and conditional use permits are subject to review and approval by the local administrative agency (Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, City Council, etc.) of the city. Land subdivisions are governed by the State Subdivision Act and must be approved by the city and must be consistent with the general plan. Land development proposals within the City of Chico generally follow the planning and ' regulatory guidelines outlined above. The City of Chico also has a Redevelopment Agency that has the authority to acquire land for redevelopment. Redevelopment agency projects are not subject to local zoning and general.plan regulations. ' Flight activities at the Chico Municipal Airport affect residents of areas outside of the City's sphere of influence. The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) must prepare a land use plan for the County's airports in accordance with state law. The purpose of the plan will be to mitigate the potential impacts of airport activities on future noise -sensitive land uses. Within the ALUC's jurisdiction, public agencies must file for approval of proposed zoning changes, use permits, permits for new construction and major reconstruction, or change in land use. NOISE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS Land use compatibility standards promulgated by State and local agencies and the fed eral government must be considered in successful land use compatibility planning. California Airport Noise Standards Under current California Airport Noise Standards6 residential areas subject to aircraft . noise levels of CNEL 65dB and above are considered to be noise -impacted. This means that any existing residential or school buildings without special acoustical insulation, or those not subject to specific noise easements, located in such an area are considered noncompatible uses. The CNEL 65dB value has been determined to be the "acceptable" standard for aircraft noise exposure within residential areas.7 This value became the State standard for de- termining "Noise Impacted Areas" on January 1, 1986. The CNEL 65dB criterion for establishing the State's noise impact boundary was based on the noise sensitive nature of residential land uses, including single-family and multi- ple -family dwellings, trailer parks, and schools of standard construction. Certain other land uses which may occur within the CN-EL-65dB and above noise contour may be deemed compatible uses, and have been excluded from the calculation of the noise im- pact area (see Chapter V). From the standpoint of the State Airport Noise Standards, the following land uses have been deemed to be compatible: (a) Agricultural; (b) Airport Property; (c) Industrial Property; (d) Commercial Property; (e) Property subject to an avigation easement for noise; and (f) Zoned open space. Federal Aviation Administration Standards Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 "Airport Noise Compatibility Planning"8 is the FAA standard for land use compatibility in the Airport environs. Noise exposure levels of CNEL 65dB and above are considered to be incompatible with residential land ' uses, schools, and other public facilities. Table II -1 sets forth FAR Part 150 noise and land use compatibility standards.9 Under Part 150, the FAA offers Airport sponsors an opportunity to develop a program for achieving compatibility between the Airport and its environs. An FAA approved Part 150 noise compatibility program makes an Airport sponsor eligible "to apply for ' 6. "Noise Standards," Loc. Cit. 7. Ibid. 8. "Airport Noise Compatibility Planning," Loc. Cit. ' 9. FAR Part 150 uses the Yearly Day -Night Average Sound Level metric. This metric correlates closely with the CNEL metric which adds a 5dB penalty for events occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. t II -8 II -9 ' TABLE II -1 1 FAR Part 150.1and Use Compatibility Designations' ' Yearly Day -Night YAverage Av r Sound Level (Ldn) Land Use Class: In Decibels" ' FAR Part 150 Land Use Categories Below 65 65-70 70-75 Over 75-80 80-85 85 ' Residential Residential, other than mobile homes and transient lodgings Y NGO N(a) N ' Mobile home parks Transient lodgings Y N N N N N N N y We) N(a) N(a) N N Public Use ' Schools Hospitals, Y N(a) N(a) N N N and nursing homes Y 25 30 N N N Churches, auditoriums, and concert halls Y 25 30 N Governmental services Y Y 25 30 N N N N Transportation Y Y Y(b) Y(c) Y(d) Y(d) Parking Y Y Y(b) Y(c) Y(d) N ' Commercial Use Offices, business and professional Y Y 25 30 Wholesale and retail -building materials, hardware and Y Y Y(b) Y(c) N Y(d) N N farm equipment ' Retail trade -general Y Y 25 30. N N Utilities Y Y Y(b) Y(c) Y(d) N ' Communication Y y 25 30 N N Manufacturing and Production Manufacturing, general Y Y Y(b) Y(c) Y(d) N Photographic and optical Y Y 25 30 N N . Agriculture (except livestock) and forestry Y Y(f) Y(g) Y(h) Y(h) Y(h) Livestock farming and breeding Y Y(f) Y(g) N N N Mining and fishing, resource production and extraction Y Y Y Y Y Y Recreation Outdoor sports arenas and spectator sports Y Y(e) Y(e) N N N Outdoor music shells, amphitheaters r Y N N_ N N N Nature exhibits and zoos Y Y N N N N Amusements, parks, resorts and camps Y Y Y N N N aolf courses, riding stables and water recreation Y Y 25 30 N N eFAR Pert 150. AOPendix A. Table 2. 'Land Use Comoslibility With Yearly pay -Night Average Sound Levels.' - The de aignalions contained in this table are based ubon above-relarenced source, and in neither case represent a Federal determination that any use of land covered by the Pert 150 Program is act:eotable or unacceptable under Federal. State, or local law. The resoonsibllity for determining the accootabie and Permissible land uses remains with local authorities. FAA determinations under Part 130 are not intended to substitute federally deter- mined lend uses for rhos* determined to be sourobriste by local authorities in raabdnse to locally determined needs and value$ in achieving noise compatible land use. ee Letters in parentheses and numbers refer to notes and noise level reductions (NLR), resoectively. Source: Federal Aviation Administration and McClintock. Becker 8 Associates II -9 KEY TO TABLE II -1 Y Yes, land use and related structures compatible without restriction. N No, land use and related structures are not compatible, and should be prohibited. NLR Noise Level Reduction (outdoor to indoor) to be achieved through incorporation of noise at- tenuation into the design and construction of the structure. 25, 30 Land uses and related structures generally considered compatible; measures to achieve NLR or 35 of 25, 30, or 35 must be incorporated into design and construction of structures. (a) Where the community determines that. residential uses must be allowed, measures to achieve outdoor to indoor Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of at least 25 dB and 30 dB should be incor- porated into building codes and be considered in individual approvals. Normal construction can be expected to provide a NLR of 20 dB, thus, the reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10, or 15 dB over standard construction ar.d normally assume mechanical ventilation and closed windows year-round. However, the use of NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems. (b) Measures to achieve NLR of 25 must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low. (c) Measures to achieve NLR of 30 must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low. (d) Measures to achieve NLR of 35 must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low. (e). Land use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed. (f) Residential buildings require an NLR of 25. (g) Residential buildings require an NLR of 30. (h) Residential buildings not permitted. II -10 special noise abatement funds. These funds can be used for the acquisition of land and improvements in areas of severe noise exposure and/or the acoustical treatment (i.e., soundproofing) of noise sensitive facilities (homes, schools, hospitals, etc.). IIA I III. AVIATION ACTIVITY FORECASTS This chapter summarizes the methodology and assumptions used in preparing aviation activity forecasts for Chico Municipal Airport. INTRODUCTION A reasonable forecast of aviation activity is essential in the proper determination of fu- ture aviation noise exposure. The numbers of flight operations and the types of aircraft in use at a Given airport are major determinants of aircraft noise impact. Ideally, the forecasting of aviation activity and demand is a rational and controlled basis for pre- dicting future events. However, since the future is always accompanied by uncertainty, forecasts are best presented with a conservative anticipation of possible outcomes. For this reason the forecasts represented in this report consider not only the potential de- mand for, or use of airport facilities, but also existing policy, lease provisions, envi- ronmental and other constraints that would affect overall Airport activity. It is important to note that, in addition to being nearly impossible to achieve, absolute and precise accuracy in aviation forecasting is not necessary to attain meaningful es- timates of cumulative noise exposure. Thisisdue to the fact that noise impact compu- tations involve logarithmic mathematical functions which are characteristic of the acoustical physical sciences. For example, an inadvertent 20 percent understatement of future aircraft activity (e.g., a forecast of 100,000 operations when 120,000 actually materialized) would yield a cumulative noise modeling error of merely 0.8dB CNEL. This error is substantially below the 3.OdB tolerance in noise measurement accuracy for permanent on-site noise monitoring systems as set forth in the California Airport Noise Standards and is virtually inconsequential in land use planning. Aviation Forecast Sources The activity forecasts set forth in this chapter were derived from several sources in- cluding the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS), Division of Aeronautics and the City of Chico. Specific forecast references include the FAA NPIAS forecasts, l the California Aviation System Plan (CASP)'- and the 1978 Environs Plan for Chico Municipal Airport.3 HISTORICAL AVIATION ACTIVITY Data concerning historical flight activity at Chico Municipal Airport was obtained pri- marily from FAA records and frominformation compiled by the City of Chico. These data were supplemented by historical information set forth in the California Aviation System Plan and the FAA's National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). 1. Federal Aviation Administration, "National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems" (NPIAS) 3. California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics, "The California Aviation System Plan, Element Q: Forecasts, Volume l," August 1988 3. PRC-Speas, "Environs Plan for Chico Municipal Airport," 1978 Aircraft Activity 1 Historical general aviation activity data for a 14 -year span is set forth in Table III -1. Based on City and FAA information the number of operations at the Airport has fluctu- ated in the range of 55,000 to 91,000 annual operations over the 14 -year time span. These counts suggest that the local economy has reflected fluctuations in activity ob- served Nationwide over the same time period. However, aircraft activity has not gen- erally followed population and income trends --the customary predictors of aircraft ac- tivity. The previous forecasts prepared for the 1978 Environs Plan indicated 91,327 annual ' operations in the year 1977 at which time the Airport was home to some 129 based air- craft. Included in this number were some 2,776 air carrier turbojet operations. In the past, air carrier turbojet service had been provided by Air West4 (later known as Hughes Air West) and Pacific Express (which was based in Chico).5 ' Since 1977 the numbers of based general aviation aircraft have fluctuated from as many as 140 in 1981 to as few as 105 in 1986. The most recent decade illustrates a more ' meaningful trend. Since 1981, based aircraft have steadily declined from some 140 aircraft to 120 aircraft in 1991. Despite this observed reduction in the numbers of based aircraft, the numbers of operations per based aircraft has varied widely over the ' same time period. This behavior of the "operations per based aircraft" statistic has been observed nationwide and is not merely a local phenomenon. This statistic is sen- sitive.to fluctuations in the costs of fuel and rising operating and capital costs. ' Table III -I also reflects the fact that the FAA's Airport Traffic Control Tower had been deactivated during all of 1982 and 1983 and portions of 1981 and 1984.6 Furthermore, airline deregulation has resulted in. a steady decline in air carrier jet operations since the late 1970s. Air carrier operations ceased in 1984 with the withdrawal of service by Pa- cific Express.7 It is notable that over the 10 -year period from the end of 1981 through 1991, aircraft ' activity at Chico Municipal Airport has increased at an average annual rate of almost 3.3 percent while based aircraft were declining at an average annual rate of about 1.5 ' percent. FORECAST NIETHODOLOGY ' The validity of forecasts is completely dependent on the accuracy in predicting the vari- ables which influence aviation demand. Typically, those variables which are of signifi- cant importance in the determination of demand are population, employment and in- come of the community being served. 4. Successor to Pacific Air Lines 5. Over the period December 1981 through June 1990. Chico served as maintenance base for WestAir Airlines (a.k.a. United Express) 6. The ATCT was decommissioned 9/29/81 and reopened 3/5/84. 7. Turboprop service was provided by Hughes Air West through January 1987. Table III -1 HISTORICAL GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY Chico Municipal Airport Aircraft Operations' Local Itinerant Total 1977 35,000 56,327 91,327.'- 1978 34,933 55,892 90,825 1979 23,940 55,798 79,738 1980 28,821 48,547 77,368 1981 20,189 34,561 54,750 1982-1983 Data Not Available3 1984 17,419 38,834 56,253. 1985 23,836 41,964 65,800 1986 23,282 40,794 64,076 1987 16,618. 41,494 58,112 1988 16,446 41,805 58,251 1989 20,988 45,918 66,906 1990 24,680 52,258 76,938 1991 25,456 50,396 75,85?. 5 Source: Airport 'Management records. I. Including rotorcraft operations. 2. Includes 3,776 air carrier jet operations. 3. The FAA's ATCT was deactivated from.September 29. 1981 through March ?, 1981. 4. Approx. 10 month's data. 5. Period of 10/1/90 through 9/30/91. III -3 ' The achievement of an forecast may be affected b fluctuating conditions and is de- pendent upon the occurrence of other future events which cannot be assured. Thus, the ' potential accuracy of demand forecasts becomes more speculative as one looks further Into the future. That is, it is possible to predict as much as three to five years into the future with reasonable confidence; it becomes more difficult to look further into the ' future, particularly in a period of economic uncertainty characterized by dynamic fluctuations and unpredictable behavior. ' To contend with this problem, it was considered appropriate to create two separate sets of assumptions regarding the outcome of future events and circumstances which would influence demand. These two sets of assumptions define the forecast scenarios consid- ered in this study: (1) an "Indigenous Demand" forecast and (2) a forecast incorporat-ing indigenous demand and enhanced growth potential. The indigenous Demand Forecast The assumptions under which forecasting was undertaken for indigenous demand in- clude: '• Local (Butte County) population growth will materialize as.forecast by the Cali- fornia Department of Finance. The public service infrastructure and environmental carrying capacity of the '• Airport environs will neither constrain growth nor limit the future service role of the Airport. '• The availability of local, federal and state government funding for airport im- provements will not constrain growth. ' Enhanced Growth The potential for enhanced growth beyond that normally associated with local popula- ' tion and income growth involves two additional assumptions including: 0 The Airport will attract and serve greater numbers of aircraft operations ' (including but not limited to sophisticated, high -performances types) conducted by specialty businesses and FBOs including corporate aviation centers, aircraft maintenance and major overhaul/modification facilities, flight schools and addi- tional aerial firefighting operations.9 U Provisions will ultimately be made at the Airport to accommodate greater num- bers of permanently -based aircraft including high-performance turboprop and tturbojet types. The indigenous forecasts are largely dependent on population, income and other socioe- conomic factors which influence demand. Under enhanced growth, the indigenous ' forecast would be augmented by additional activity generated because of the Airport's intrinsic appeal or from other circumstances unrelated to the regional propensity to S. Turboprop, turbojet and large propeller general aviation aircraft. ' 9. Under this assumption. the Airport could also attract greater numbers of military operations travel b air. Such factors might include location, available unused ca acit , high Y P Y quality facilities and services and physical/environmental constraints at other airports. General Aviation Forecasting ' General aviation forecasts have been prepared based on the major state and federal forecast resources noted earlier. The forecasts presented in each document, where rel- evant, were compared to identify useful trends. A comparison of the applicable state system plan and FAA forecasts for each of the horizon years 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010 illustrates the broad range of perspectives inherent in each of the forecast docu- ments. ' For purposes of establishing meaningful forecasts of general aviation annual operations, it was necessary to determine the relative validity of the range of available state and federal forecasts. For Chico Municipal Airport, forecast data from the,FAA NPIAS, ' 1988 CASP and 1978 Environs Plan were reviewed and compared with historical data (actual operations) to establish trend lines. It is notable that the NPIAS forecast ex- tends only to a 10 -year horizon, and the CASP does not extend beyond the year 2005. Several methodologies were of use in identifving a reasonable forecast. These are briefly summarized in the following subsections. ' General Aviation Trends Nationwide trends can be useful predictors of local aviation activity. In the absence of special local economic, environmental or political constraints or incentives, an aware- ness of national trends can assist in interpreting the wide range of forecasts available from the previously described sources. ' General aviation incorporates several diverse and growing uses of aircraft including pilot training, recreational flying, transportation of personnel by business firms in pri- vately -owned aircraft, non-scheduled commercial (air taxi) operations, and some highly specialized uses such as aerial application, security patrol, aerial photography, medical flights and bank record transfer. Current major Airport users within these categories include Aero Union (aerial firebombers and aircraft modification) and the California Division of Forestry Air Attack Base. The Airport is also utilized by aircraft from both ' Beale and Mather Air Force Bases. 10 Historical and forecast growth of the national general aviation fleet by type and use, as ' developed by the FAA11 indicates that shipments of general aviation aircraft have de- clined each year from 1979 through 1988. The majority of the general aviation fleet (in excess of 75 percent) are single engine aircraft. When the single engine piston air- craft market declines (as it has been during the past decade) it signals the slowing of expansion in the general aviation fleet on the whole and, consequently, a slowing in the rate of growth. ' The national general aviation fleet is expected to exhibit a 0.2 percent annual growth rate over the period 1988 through the year 2000, growing from some 217,200 'aircraft ' 10. "General aviation" does not include military operations—which are separately categorized. 11. FAA Aviation forecasts. Op. Cit. ' in 1988 to about 221,100 aircraft b the 0 y year 200 0. The greatest numeric increase is expected to occur in those types used in business aviation including multi engine pro- peller and turbine aircraft. This growth would be largely offset by a decline in light piston aircraft. Total hours flown in general aviation aircraft are expected to increase by five million, ' growing from 33.6 million hours in 1988 to 38.6 million by the year 2000. Multi -en- gine aircraft will account for the greater portion of the projected increase. ' The significance of these trends is inconclusive. It is likely that Chico Municipal Air- port, with its mix of predominantly light, piston aircraft together with lesser numbers of larger transport aircraft will see relatively modest growth in the numbers of based ' aircraft in the foreseeable future under assumptions of indigenous demand. However, it is also highly possible that the ratio of operations per based aircraft will rebound as national and regional economic conditions improve. This could result in significant growth in total annual aircraft operations despite stable levels of based aircraft. Indeed, ' over a 10 -year period during which based aircraft counts have declined at an average annual rate of about 1.5 percent, annual aircraft operations have increased at an average rate of 3.3 percent. SOCIOECONOMIC REVIEW ' The propensity to travel (bv air or any other transportation mode) generally correlates closely with three principal statistically significant variables --population, employment, and income. An evaluation of the forecast population and income of Butte County ' residents can help establish trends useful in the forecasting of general aviation activity. Local Demographic Characteristics ' Population. Population data for existing and future conditions are based on data con - rained in the U.S. Census and forecasts derived from the California Department of Fi- ' nance.l'- The official 1980 population of Butte County was 144,900 in round numbers. By 1990 the population had risen to 183,010 representing an average annual growth rate of 2.36 percent. Projections prepared by the Department of Finance estimate that the County population will grow to 211,020 in the year 2000 and to 238,430 by the '. year 2010 representing annual growth rates of 1.43 percent and 1.23 percent for the two ten-year periods, respectively. ' Employment. Based on studies prepared for the State Employment Development De- partment,13 it is estimated that about 78 percent of all employment is concentrated among four sectors of the local economy: Services 24.3% Retail Trade 22.6% Federal, state and local government 21.2% ' Manufacturing 9.5% 12. Woods & Poole Economics, "1991 State Profile—California" July 1991 ' 13. State of California. Employment Development Department. "Annual Planning Information --Chico Metropolitan Sta- tistical Area (Butte County)," June 1991 i ' Total earnings in 1990 were $1,182.18M (1982 constant dollars) divided among 13 identifiable economic activities. 14 Of this total, some S234vi (20 percent) is shared among the federal, state and local government (including the U.S. military and Chico ' State University). Approximately $404.64M are generated by the service industries. Of the total revenue, consumer -oriented trade accounts for $193M (16 percent)., Income. Over the period 1980 through 1990 Butte County per capita income has in- ' creased from $8,954 to $15,499 representing an average annual increase of 5.6 percent. In constant dollar terms, however, per capita income has increased at the average an- nual rate of only 1. l percent over the same period.ls ' The income trends of this past decade correlate with the observed growth in aircraft op- erations from a level of some 55,000 operations in 1981 to approximately 76,000 oper- ations in 1991 --an average annual growth rate of 3.3 percent. ' General Aviation Forecast ' As noted earlier, general aviation forecasts have been prepared for aggregate demand from all classes of general aviation users of Chico ylunicipal Airport. The available state and federal forecast resources together with the previous 1978 Environs Plan were ' evaluated and compared to facilitate identification of a preferred forecast. Aircraft operations. A comparison of the state, federal and 1978 Environs Plan aircraft operations forecasts is given in Table III -2. The trends displayed by the forecast ' comparison can be more readily visualized in Exhibit III -1. Consideration of these sources yielded forecast trends which could be compared with historical performance and which should be considered in interpreting the forecasts. ' The state's CASP forecast hinges on a base year traffic estimate that was higher than City statistics. This 1987 base traffic level was some 80,000 operations --exceeding City records by 22,000 operations. If the CASP base year traffic estimate were re- placed by the City's more current estimate, then the growth forecast rate for the 1988 through 1995 time period would be approximately two percent. The implied 1995 through 2005 growth rate is somewhat lower. ' In view of the population and income growth potential of Butte County, as discussed in a previous section, the CASP is considered conservative. If the increase in traffic ob- served since 1988 were continued and even improved in response to expected more fa- vorable economic conditions, it is felt that traffic growth potential could be much higher than the two percent levels suggested by the CASP. This is particularly true in light of the fact of annual average growth of better than three percent over the previous ' decade. The FAA NPIAS forecast foresaw a moderate rate of Growth beyond the 1986/87 date ' of preparation amounting to some 1.5 percent per year. If adjusted or indexed to 1990 ' 14. Woods &c Pooh Economics, Loc. Cit. 15. Woods & Poole Economics, Loc. Cit. Table III -2 COWARISON OF GENERAL AVIATION FORECASTS Chico Municipal Airport Annual Aircraft Operations' Actual Forecast 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Source CASP2 76,938 88,773 95,842 103,872 -- FAA NPIAS3 76,938 103,938 107,938 -- 1978 Environs Plan 76,938 106,903 148,538 193,064 250,938 1.0 percent 76,938 80,863 54,987 89,323 93,879 2.0 percente 76;938 84,946 93,787 103,548 114,326 3.0 percent7 76.938 89,192 103,398 119,867 138,959 5.0 percent-' 76.938 98,195 125,324 159,949 204,139 Source: NlcClintock, Becker & Associates 1. Note that computed Annual Service Volume (capacity) of the existing airfield is approximately 355,000 annual operations. 2. "California Aviation System Plan, Element 11: Forecasts." August 1988 3. Federal Aviation Administration. "National Plan of integrated Airport Systems" normalized to current year (1990) traffic. 4. Previous (1978) Environs Plan "modest growth" general aviation forecast normalized; forecast growth increments applied to 1990 actual traffic. 5. 1.0 percent annual compounded growth. 6. 2.0 percent annual compounded growth. 7. 3.0 percent annual compounded growth. S. 5.0 percent annual compounded growth. 250 230 210 W Z O 190 P Q w 170 — n.. O J 150 0 Z L Q 130 J Q F" 110 O F- 90 70 50 Exhibit III -1 AVIATION FORECAST COMPARISON Chico Municipal Airport �4 ; LEGEND = ACTUAL ' ---- -FORECAST 1978 ENVIRONS PLAN � 5.0 PERCENT 3.0 PERCENT-* FAA NPIAS; _. _.. • '.GASP 2.0 PERCENT ,•_ .' �- - - 1.0 PERCENT DATA NOT �` . - • AVAIL. 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 AIc�'liu(.ocl:, Bechej- & Associates traffic levels, the NPIAS represents a forecast of par wth in excess of five percent per year. This rate is believed to be an overly optimistic view of future traffic potential. ' The 1978 Environs Plan forecasts have proved to be highly optimistic. Indeed, the latter part of the 1970s decade saw extremely aggressive growth rates in most parts of ' the U.S. The 1978 Environs Plan anticipated that these rates would continue, not anticipating the economic downturns together with higher fuel and operating costs and insurance requirements which have collectively been partly responsible for the more re- cently observed modest growth rates. It the 1978 Environs Plan forecast is normalized to a 1990 base year, the absolute an- nual growth forecast approximates 6.0 percent through the year 2000 and 7.0 percent in ' the decade thereafter. These growth rates are not considered realistic in view of pre- sent day activity trends and County demographic forecasts. GENERAL AVIATION FORECAST Selection of Preferred Indigenous Forecast ' In addition to the presentation of state and federal forecasts, Table III -2 and Exhibit III - 1 also illustrate four growth curves representing steady, compounded rates of 1.0, 2.0, ' 3.0 and 5.0 percent. These four curves are presented for comparative purposes and to assist in the interpretation of the state and federal forecasts. Because of the wide range of forecasts available from the 1978 Environs Plan and from the state and federal sources, it was felt that a more steady growth rate would better serve the requirement for assessing the need for future airport facilities and in presenting the requisite 5, 10 and 20 -year activity forecasts. ' Because it mimics growth trends of the past decade as discussed earlier and because it represents a reasonable but conservative view of future socioeconomic conditions which cannot be easily or accurately predicted, the 3.0 percent growth curve was selected as ' the forecast of activity under the indigenous demand assumptions outlined earlier. This 3.0 percent forecast is consistent with the "normalized" CASP forecast and reasonably reflects near term potential for traffic to recover from the current economic recession- ary cycle. Annual Aircraft Operations ' The indigenous demand forecasts of aircraft operations for the years 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010 are set forth in Table III -3. This table sets forth the projected numbers of both local and itinerant operations for each of the horizon years. ' Total general aviation activity could increase from a current (1990/91) level of ap- proximately 77,000 operations to nearly 139,000 operations by the year 2010. This, of course, represents an annual growth rate of 3.0 percent. ' Type of operation. Over the 20 -year period, local operations are expected to remain at approximately 32 percent of total operations. Itinerant operations are expected remain ' at approximately 68 percent of operations. Thus, it is expected that the 3.0 percent growth rate will apply both to local and itinerant traffic. 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table III -3 INDIGENOUS AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS FORECAST Chico Municipal Airport Annual Civil Aircraft Operations Actual 1990 1995 By Type of Operation Local 24,680 28,611 Itinerant 52.258 60,581 Total 76,938 89,192 By Aircraft 1-E Prop.' 60,983 2-E Prop.'- 5,862 Hvy. LM -E Prop.3 400 Light Turboprop 365 Hvy. Turboprop 1,000 Comm. Turboprop 7,598 Turbojet 730 Rotorcraft [5[ Instrument Operations 8,184 Forecast 2000 2005 33,168 38,451 70,230 81,416 103,398 119,867 2010 44,575 94,384 138,959 69,925 80,205 91,665 104,490 8,123 11,153 14,892 19,329 400 250 -- -- 465 600 760 1,000 I'M 900 1,100 1,400 8,390 9,260 10,225 11,290 870 1,030 1,225 1,450 9,500 11, 000 12 , 750 15,000 Source: McClintock, Becker & Associates I. Light, single-engine piston propeller aircraft. 2. Light (i.e., < 12.500 lbs.) twin -engine piston propeller aircral't . 3. Heavy (i.e., > 12.500 tbs.). multi -engine piston propeller aircraft (e.g.. DC --t). 4. Commuter ,air Carrier turboprop aircraft. 5. Exact numbers of rotorcraft are undocumented but are estimated to be about 1.5 percent of total operations, are included in figures for single engine aircraft, and are forecast to grow at 3.0 percent through the planning period. ' Aircraft t e. Annual operations of aircraft were forecast for single-engine and twin- engine reciprocating -engined propeller aircraft, heavy multi -engine reciprocating air- ' craft, light and heavy turboprop16 aircraft, commuter air carrier turboprop aircraft and turbojet aircraft. Single-engine reciprocating propeller aircraft will form the greater part of total demand through the forecast period, but are expected to grow at a some- what slower overall rate of 2.8 percent because the national inventory of such types is declining. Twin -engine operations are be expected to grow at a rate higher than the composite 3.0 percent. ' Single engine aircraft activity is expected to grow from a current (1990/91) estimated level of some 61,000 operations to nearly 105,000 operations by the year 2010. Twin engine reciprocating aircraft activity is forecast to grow from about 5,860 operations to ' over 19,300 operations over the same period. Heavy reciprocating aircraft currently account for an estimated 400 annual operations. ' Because these types are aging beyond their useful airframe and engine lives, such oper- ations are expected to be phased out sometime between the years 2005 and 2010. Turboprop aircraft currently account for an estimated 1,365 annual operations. Be- cause of the projected growth in economic activity in Butte County, heavy and light turboprop operations are expected to reach some 2,=100 by the year 2010, representing an average annual growth rate of 2.9 percent for the two combined types. Commuter air carrier aircraft currently account for approximately 7,600 annual opera- tions (somewhat less than 11 inbound and outbound flights per day). This activity is expected to grow at an annual rate of 2.0 percent over the forecast period. Chico Municipal Airport is also used frequently by turbojet itinerant aircraft, although no such types are currently based. Such operations are estimated at about 730 per year at present. Turbojet activity could increase to as many as 1,450 annual operations by the year 2010 representing a 3.5 percent average annual growth rate. Enhanced Growth Forecast Under the enhanced growth forecast assumptions set forth at the beginning of this chapter, a potential would exist for higher levels of sophisticated multi -engine aircraft activity most commonly associated with specialty operations including corporate avia- tion, flight training and the like. Table III -4 sets forth the combined aircraft operations forecast for Chico Municipal Airport. The specific plan for Chico Municipal Airport indicates that provisions would be made for a major aircraft flight training facility. The prospect of such a facility and other potential special-purpose. uses are important components of the Enhanced Growth fore- cast. Under the Enhanced Growth forecast, a conservative (worst case) estimate .of future ' aircraft activity was produced reflecting the highest likely level of activity consistent with existing flight training facilities at other California airports. This Enhanced ' 16. Light turboprop --aircraft with gross takeoff weights lass than 12.500 pounds; heavy turboprop—aircraft of 12.500 pounds or greater. ' III -1`? Table III -4 ENHANCED AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS FORECAST 1 Chico Municipal Airport Annual Civil Aircraft Operations Actual Forecast 1990 1995 2000 2005 By Type of Operation Local 24,680 33,749 3 9, 124 45,356 Itinerant 52,258 72,674 89,384 103,794 Total 76,938 106,423 128,508 149,150 By Aircraft 1-E Prop.'- 60,983 82,050 94,260 107,960 2-E Prop.3 5,862 13,125 16,950 21,610 Hvy. M -E Prop.4 400 400 250 -- Light Turboprop 365 488 5,654 6.671 Hvy. Turboprop 1,000 1,038 9451,166 Comm. Turboprop5 7,598 8,390 9,260 . 10,225 Turbojet 730 932' 1,189 1,518 Rotorcraft 161 -- -- -- Source: McClintock, Becker & Associates 2010 52,579 120,536 173,115 123,380 27,120 7,891 1,497 11,290 1,937 1. Indigenous demand augmented by potential additional activities of specialty operators including flight schools, aircraft maintenance/overhaul and other aviation users. 2. Light, single-engine piston propeller aircraft. 3. Light (i.e., < 12,500 lbs.) twin -engine piston propeller aircraft 4. Heavy (i.e., > 12,500 lbs.), multi -engine piston propeller aircraft (e.g., DC --t). 5. Commuter Air Carrier turboprop aircraft. 6. Exact numbers of rotorcraft are undocumented but are estimated to be about 1.5 percent of total operations, are included in figures for single engine aircraft, and are forecast to grow at 3.0 percent through the planning period. ' Growth forecast has assumed commencement of such a flight training facility by the year 1995. Beyond 1995 these flight training operations are forecast to grow at an av- erage annual rate of 3.0 percent. Based on trends observed at other airports, it has been assumed that flight training ac- tivity would be undertaken using two common aircraft types, a representative single engine piston aircraft (e.g., Beech A-36) and a representative twin -engine piston air- craft (e. a. , Beech Baron B -58P). ZD ' Under these assumptions, a total of some 17,125 operations of single and twin engine operations are projected for the year 1995. Under the Enhanced Growth forecast, these flight training operations are forecast to increase at an average annual rate of 3.0 per- cent through the 2010 forecast period. It is important to point out that these numbersrepresent an optimistic upper range of likely activity based on trends at other airports serving major commercial flight training ' operations. The depiction of this optimistic forecast is considered appropriate in order to minimize the possibility of understating potential overflight and aircraft noise impact from potential flight school operations. ' This forecast also recognizes that additional aircraft types are used in flight training at other airports in Northern California. In an attempt to anticipate the introduction of ' such types at Chico, with their resultant noise exposure effects, the enhanced growth forecast provides for the introduction of approximately 5,000 annual operations of tur- boprop aircraft operations (e.g., Beech King Air) by the year 2000. These operations are likewise forecast to increase at an average annual rate of 3.0 percent through the ' forecast period. The Enhanced Growth forecast also includes allowances for yet additional flight opera- tions of multi engine aircraft for the several classes of general aviation users mentioned earlier. Furthermore, the enhanced growth forecast allows for greater use by heavy turboprop aircraft. Additional heavy turboprop activity could represent, for example, ' expanded aerial firebomber operations or additional corporate aviation. Approximately 100 such operations are accommodated by the year 2010 horizon under the enhanced growth forecast. ' The potential for greater levels of corporate turbojet activity is also provided for in the enhanced growth forecast. Beyond the levels identified in the indigenous demand fore- cast, nearly 500 additional turbojet operations by the year 2010 are accommodated un- der the enhanced growth forecast. In summary, the combined (indigenous plus enhanced) forecast differs from the indige- nous demand forecast in several ways: ' U Commencing in 1995 approximately 12,125 single-engine and 5,000 twin -en- gine propeller operations have been added to account for a potential large-scale ' flight training facility. Commencing in the year 2000 approximately 5,000 additional light turboprop operations have been added, and forecast to.increase at a 3.0 percent rate there- after. 0 The forecast growth rate of combined light and heavy turboprop activity has been increased from the 3.5 percent rate used in the indigenous forecast to 4.4 ' percent over the forecast period to account for potentially much stronger Growth in the business aviation sector. ' 0 The indigenous 3.5 percent forecast turbojet rate of growth has been increase to 5.0 percent. The indigenous demand and enhanced growth forecasts are identical in the numbers of ' heavy, multi -engine reciprocating propeller and commuter air carrier turboprop opera- tions. These two forecasts can be more readily compared in graphic form. Exhibit III - 2 illustrates a comparison of the indigenous demand and enhanced growth operations ' forecasts. Instrument operations account for 10.8 percent of current operations, numbering some ' 8,184 operations over the period of October 1, 1990 and September 30, 1991. This proportion is expected to remain nearly constant over the forecast period. It is thus forecast that instrument operations could increase to some 15,000 annual operations by the .year 2010. tIt is very important to note that available annual airport capacity greatly exceeds the 20 -year forecast of aircraft operations under both the Indigenous and Enhanced growth ' scenarios. The Annual Service Volume, a measure of annual airfield capacity, is esti- mated to be approximately 355,000 aircraft operations. 17 However, the Enhanced air- craft operations forecast projects approximately t7/3.000 operations by the year 2010. 1 1 ' 17. Determined using FAA Advisory Circular 150/5060-5. Airport Capacity and Delay 1 III -15 250 230 210 _ co �. p 190 P Q cc w 170 a O N' a C ca 150 0 Z a 130 J Q F' 110 O H f 70 50 Exhibit III -2 COMPARISON OF INDIGENOUS AND ENHANCED GROWTH FORECASTS Chico Municipal Airport LEGEND ACTUAL ---- -FORECAST ENHANCED GROWTH R INDIGENOUS DEMAND DATA NOT AVAIL. 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 McClintock, Becker & Associates � � IIIIIIIII� ■� IIIIIIIII� IIIIIIIII� I� IIS Illw IIIIIIII� IIIIIII� =� �■ IIIIIIIII� I� I� IIIA I� IIIIIII� 1 OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT A variety of factors influence operational procedures for aircraft landing at and taking ' off from Chico Municipal Airport. Among these are regional airspace use con- siderations and local operational procedures. REGIONAL AIRSPACE SETTING A complex interaction of aircraft flight procedures controlled and monitored by the FAA affects the use and management of the airspace surrounding Chico Municipal Airport. As with most of the continental United States, the airspace around the Airport is "controlled" airspace. Air traffic activities in this area are subject to control by the FAA and the requirement for in-flight "visibility" (i.e., identification) is greater than that for uncontrolled airspace. The primary control facility for aircraft operations at the Chico Municipal Airport is ' the FAA's airport traffic control tower (ATCT). Air traffic control services are cur- rently available from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. local time. Communications services in- clude radio frequencies for terminal operations, ground control, and an automated ter- minal information service (ATIS). The ATIS provides pilots with recorded information on current airport conditions. During the hours that the FAA ATCT is operational an airport traffic area exists for the Airport. This is an area of positive control by the tower, and is cylindrical in shape. The cylinder is centered on the Airport and is 10 ' nautical miles (approximately 61,000 feet) in diameter. The area of control extends upward from the surface to 3,000 feet above ground level (AGL). IAircraft Flight Tracks ' Exhibit IV -1 illustrates the Airport's major IFR and VFR flight tracks for both high performance commercial/business and light general aviation civil aircraft. Exhibit IV -1 sets forth generalized aircraft arrival and departure tracks' for high per- formance turbojet, turboprop and heavy piston propeller aircraft. Exhibit IV -1 also de- picts the flight tracks utilized by light piston powered general aviation aircraft including aircraft commonly. conducting flight training operations. The flight tracks depicted on ' Exhibit IV -1 also include those which would be used. by air carrier turbojet aircraft should such operations materialize in the future. Exhibit IV -1 also depicts areas over which aircraft could be expected to fly at altitudes ' below 3,000 feet MSL. These areas lie along the generalized flight tracks depicted on the exhibit and are based on the fact that the flight tracks are generalized and that aircraft respond to a number of variables in the course of flight (including wind speed ' and direction, aircraft weight, pilot proficiency and air traffic control instructions). Also shown on Exhibit IV -1 is the precision instrument approach for Runway 13L. 1. The projection upon the earth of the paths of aircraft in night. - IV -1 "U • \,. °`�_ �'� i � .Y' " �/ � `I _ . o � �`\ 1~-----''�l, i` ! it 4�.. JAL STUDENT PATTERN Tots.l / ! o m�♦♦ Tots 19 TGS •t -/ \yam .l .'\\... ...\ T63 . _ JET/HEAVY AIRCRAFT'PATT�RN 4 Tot. OF i b s .x TD. I .... o CHICO MUNICIPAL 9 ; 7 AIRPORT ..' ^� . � ,. , .. .a, 1' °•�_ ,-, �F ' :�• ��.J-;:. I FAR.PART 15 ' o LIGHT AI�CRa'F�-S TER $AIRPORT NOISE (MMITED} " ,; „ " """""' 4" �'o COMPATIBILITY _ �� �© s _ PROGRAM \. _. •t��y { _ ��1 J AND If r.„1:,,..,,...,� • . _ .. _ , .... ". � ENVIRONS PLAN �•1jC CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Z n. ENVIRONS `\ STRAIGHT-OUT (311') At ,"'V V - +.�• R. �j\ II. �' ,� - {�t',\\ °- SCALE Doo ILS/NDB �t 3L r �i� � M I © STRA HT-IN(31 I' TRAIGA ^O Ato 1 �];:0- " •:/f0 ` R EN 1' t , A/ ON y) Qt ° FEET Pon Dao A20 I , 7O.(•1'J •)' .� I'i '� r Deo .� . NORTH 13L (122) F _ 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 VOR/ORAE y �.1srw —•— I: `' e s J(302•) oar p2 'r .HELICOPTER PATTERN ...✓ e` >-�`'.: .a • rVOAAPpR ,' ,., ` ot1 `'i,•• TOO ti j, _� TANKS RACTICE DROP PATTERN �-� I ' i . �1 $ `. .., : A J i /' `, ;;o....1' -�� •,a LEGEND . _ ..... .. - a-•, "�. -'- �'', ' :yy� ; ,a ° : o � ;Illi ;_ LIGHT A AFT P .�' ' ••- ""' "' " 'Z - �' , t �'t' Iq -•—•— Airport Boundary jj at Tor.' - /7. F y _______ Chico Sphere of Influence i 12 '/ J6'� I"• T01� iOJ Business Jets and Heavy Aircraft _ \ I •, •��_ Light Aircraft t1GHT AIRCRAFT PATTERN 2 Tory11,19�" - - J - • 'i '�' V _ L ' - • }" cN ... _ � ♦ I . C� � � _ � --.�_ Limited Use Pattern /2 14: I �• » v i ir- L__. ___ Tanker Practice Drop Pattern oto HEAVY- AIRCRAFT PATTERN 1 Tot, •�i��j�!"'r ;'4. Noise Monitoring Site 00 .':•!�,'L. -/�,• • • _ i ,a': 'i,•�;;e,;�. ,�:�I� i�YuN�u_.. err -�'=141: wero.0 ,•.vva.o ua� t. .,.o - 'I i Noise Monitoring Site N I n L�� I,.n u•,.on .un ` . - O ' :♦ 1 •r �I.'•I •'••1 Avi etion Easement a , t-• I •� -'>'J mI _ _ �, .• •1 '..:1 .ib. y C 1 'W�ir-...a '�cl �< ���le I.NLo �' - _'�•1 .t - 9 /_ _ ���� y , N.. �dx ' "' iF•;.-tt�'�, a lll--ala;.=�± J�_ �!�h +i Al Arrival Track Designator i-,•y��'In D1 Departure Track Designator ,Zm (/ 6 •• ,��' _ r �' • �I _-_�__�_��__� �.\.. I �--__________ `ry I. - .. - Z�, �< - .I• _ o- Ltiil iL.: Tt31 Touch and Go Track Designator _ r - _ �y, »'oej GENERALIZED '`� ' FLIGHT TRACKS '�,•:__ . 1 `^`O / �� _'- „__�9 �':r (`� ,4 • . MCCL/NTOCK, BECKER &Isni 1 �' ASSOC/AYES 1 1 - 1 ' / • A SUBSIDIARY OF P&D TECHNOLOGIES Z EXHIBIT IV-1 It should be noted that all flight tracks depicted on Exhibit IV -1 continue beyond the limits of the exhibit. The mapped area illustrates all major flight tracks at or below approximately 3,000 feet elevation above mean seal level (MSL). Beyond the mapped area, all tracks continue in straight or curved segments (which are logical extensions of the tracks shown) to enroute destinations or appropriate altitudes -as assigned by FAA air route traffic controllers. Moreover, the tracks depicted are idealizations of aircraft flight path geometry. The tracks depicted on Exhibit IV -1 illustrate the most statistically probable courses flown by representative types of commuter air carrier and general aviation aircraft. For reasons of safety, operational efficiency and high air traffic demand conditions, aircraft may be periodically directed to use courses not depicted on the flight track exhibits. Noise complaint activity. Airport management periodically receives complaints re- garding unusually noisy aircraft operations from individuals residing within the Airport environs. Generally, these complaints fall into one or more of these categories: Heavy, low-flying aircraft Turbojets departing straight-out over central Chico, Repetitive exposure from flight training activity. Airport management responds to noise complaints received either in written corre- spondence or by telephone. Airport management makes every effort to identify and explain the nature of the aircraft operation which was the source of the complaint. The significance of these and other noise complaints in relationship to the flight tracks and airport noise contours discussed in Chapter V is explored further in the Airport Noise Compatibility Program (Phase II) report.'- However, in an effort to determine actual levels of aircraft noise in the Airport environs, field noise measurements of a va- riety of aircraft types were conducted during the Fall of 1991. The results of these measurements are discussed in Chapter V and summarized in Appendix A. The loca- tions of monitoring sites for 1991 and from the 1978 Airport Environs Plan are depicted on Exhibit IV -1. EXISTING NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM The FAA in cooperation with the City of Chico has developed 'a program of aircraft operational procedures to mitigate the effects of existing and future aircraft operations at Chico Municipal Airport. That program represented many years effort to reduce the effects of noise in the Airport environs through a program of noise abatement proce- dures first identified in the 1978 Airport Environs Plan. (NOTE: LIST NOISE ABATEMENT PROCEDURES) ' These specific existing operational noise abatement procedures in use at the Airport have been reflected in the noise modelling used in the preparation of noise exposure maps for Chico Municipal Airport. (See Chapter V.) ' 2. Not yet published. IV -3 In conclusion, this FAR Part 150 airport noise compatibility and Environs Plan Update is a logical further step undertaken by the City to combine the aircraft operational noise abatement procedures previously developed with additional off -Airport land use control measures to help insure the long term compatibility of the Airport and its environs. IV -4 V. NOISE EXPOSURE ANALYSIS This chapter sets forth the analytical methodology and findings of analyses conducted in the preparation of aircraft noise exposure maps. I . ' NOISE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The analytical requirements for noise modeling in the preparation of noise exposure maps are specified in FAR Part 150 wherein it is stated, "The airport operator shall . . . develop noise contours using an FAA approved methodology or computer program, such as the Integrated ' Noise Model (INM)."1 The FAA's INM Version 3.9 was used to perform calculations and produce contours of ' equal noise exposure for this study. Approach The credibility of noise modeling conducted for this study. was supported by the thor- ough inventory, use and documentation of all pertinent variables which influence air- craft noise generation. Specific variables in the FAR Part 150 noise modeling effort ' included aircraft activity levels, aircraft types, time of day of operations, flight tracks and flight procedures in use, among others. Data describing these variables was arranged and input to the computer model to pro- duce contours of equal cumulative noise levels expressed in Community Noise Equiva- lent Level (CNEL) metric. CNEL is the methodology specified in the California Air- port Noise Standards'- and is nearly identical to the yearly Day -Night Average Sound Level (Ldn) described in FAR Part 150. Both models penalize individual aircraft events by 10dB for increased annoyance during nighttime hours. CNEL adds an addi- tional 5dB penalty to events occurring during evening hours. Noise Model Inputs Several important variables influence aircraft noise eneration. This section briefly de - Z. scribes the data and information sources which were used to reflect the following vari- able categories: 1 ° Existing and forecast aircraft activity, Q Aircraft fleet mix, Time of day of operations, Runway geometry and use, ' 0 Flight track geometry and use, and Aircraft operating procedures. ' 1. "Airport Noise Compatibility Planning," Loc. Cit., Section A150.103 2 "Noise Standards," Loc. Cit V-1 Existing and forecast aircraft activity. Actual 1990-91 traffic totals were provided by ' the Airport and FAA; the breakouts by specific aircraft types were based largely on several sources including (1) published airline flight schedules for scheduled traffic and (2) data compiled in an appendix to the Airport Master Plan. ' As described more thoroughly in Chapter III, forecasts of air carrier, commuter and general aviation aircraft activity were prepared for, four horizons: 1995/96, 2000, 2005, and 2010 wherein future activity levels were designed to account for the prospect of ' significant future growth. By the year 1995, annual operations at Chico Municipal Airport could total approximately 106,000 increasing further to 149,000 by the year 2005. For purposes of this NEM report, only current and five-year forecast traffic data are utilized for assessing noise exposure conditions at Chico Municipal Airport. Additional forecast horizons will be considered in the Phase II report. Aircraft fleet mix. Current scheduled commuter air carrier flights are limited to the Handley Page Jetstream and Fairchild Metroliner turboprop aircraft. Both are charac- terized as having comparatively low noise emissions characteristics. Future commuter activity is expected to involve larger, current technology aircraft such as the Saab 340 and ATR 42 aircraft. These aircraft types possess even more favorable noise emissions characteristics, particularly in view of the fact of their greater passenger capacity. Although the general aviation fleet is dominated .by light single- and twin -engine pro- peller aircraft, high-performance aircraft serving corporate aviation are expected to rep- resent a greater portion of total general aviation traffic in future years. As discussed in Chapter III, noisier types presently seen on occasion at Chico Municipal Airport are expected to be retired from the fleet during the decade. Time of day of operations. The percentage split of day, evening and nighttime com- muter air carrier operations for existing conditions was obtained from published airline schedules. In addition, FAA and Airport records were used to estimate time of day splits for general aviation aircraft. Projections of future air carrier and commuter air carrier operations were based, in part, on current schedule patterns and on the pub- lished draft Airport Master Plan. Table V-1 sets forth the time of day splits of the three major aircraft classes as used for noise modeling purposes in this study. Runway_ geometry and use. The 1990/91 noise exposure map reflects the existing run- way geometry at Chico Municipal Airport. The airport layout plan prepared as part of the draft master plan suggests that the runway geometry would remain unchanged through the year 2005 forecast horizon. ' The percentage use of runways by commuter and general aviation aircraft are set forth in Table V-2. ' Flight trackeg o_ metry and use. Flight track geometry is influenced by a variety of factors including air traffic control (ATC) requirements, aircraft performance, and published FAA and Airport noise abatement policies. The courses flown by commuter air carrier and general aviation aircraft are fully described and depicted in Chapter IV. ' The tracks shown in Chapter IV (Exhibit IV -1) specified for use by light propeller air - V -2 ' Table V-1 TIME OF DAY PERCENTAGE SPLIT OF OPERATIONS BY AIRCRAFT CLASS , Chico Municipal Airport 1990 Actual 1995 Aircraft Class Day Eve. Night Day Eve. Night Day 2010 Eve. N Single Propellor Takeoffs 87% 10% 3% 87% 10% 3% 87% 10% Landings 87% 10% 3% 87% 10% 3% 87% 10% Touch-and-go 90% 10% 0% 90% 10% 0% 90% 10% Twin Propellor Takeoffs 72% 19% 9% 72% 191/ 9% 72% 19% ' Landings 72% 19% 9% 72% 19% 9% 72% 19% Touch-and-go 90% 10% 0% 90% 10% 0% 90% 10% Light Turboprop Takeoffs 72% 8% 20% 74% 10% 16% 79% 10% Landings 78% 9% 13% 781 10% 12% 79% 10% Touch-and-go 90% 10% 0% 90% 10% 0% 90% 10% Heavy Turboprop P2 Takeoffs 49% . 36% 15% 49% 36% 15% 49% 40% Landings 50% 37% 13% 50% 37% 13%' 49% 40% Touch-and-go 23% 77% 0% 23% 77%1. 0% 23% 77% P3 Takeoffs 48% 39% 13% 48% 39% 13% 51% 40% Landings 50% 40% 10% 50% 40% 10% 51% 40% ' Touch-and-go 23% 77% 0% 23% 77% . 0% 23% 77% DC6 Takeoffs 50% 34% 16% 50% 34% 16% 0% 0% ' Landings 47% 38% 15% 47% 38% 15% 0% 0% Touch-and-go 23% 77% 0% 23% 77% 0% 0% 0% Commuter Turboprop ' Takeoffs 81% 101 9% 80% 10% 10% 81% 10% Landings 81%1 10% 9% 81% 10% 9% 81% 10% Turbojet Lear 25 Takeoffs 76% 10% 14% 68% 13% 19% 0% 0% ' Landings 820/ 11% 7% 77%1 111/ 12% 0%1 0% Others Takeoffs 76%1 10% 14% 78% 11% 11% 832:o 10% Landings 82%1 11% 7%1 84% 11% 5% 87% 10% ' Source: McClintock, Becker & Associates ' V-3 3 3 I Table V-2 AVERAGE DAY PERCENTAGE RUNWAY USE CURRENT AND FORECAST CONDITIONS Chico Municipal Airport Runway Aircraft Class 13[*] 13L 13R 31L 31R Landings 1 -Prop 2 -Prop Lt -TP Hvy-TP Comm -TP T -Jet Takeoffs 1 -Prop 2 -Prop Lt -TP Hvy-TP Comm -TP T -Jet Touchp,os 1 -Prop 2 -Prop Lt -TP Hvy-TP - Day Hvy-TP - Evening Comm -TP T -Jet eMffl' 1'' 1'' 1'• - � 1' :1'. .1 1' -- ' 1 1'. Twin engine propellor driven light aircraft (Beech 58P) Lt -TP .11'.-- 11'. Heavy propellor driven aircraft (HS748A, L188, DC6) Comm -TP eMffl' 1'' 1'' 1'• - � 1' :1'. .11'.-- 11'. Twin engine propellor driven light aircraft (Beech 58P) Lt -TP Light turbo -prop aircraft (Cessna 441) Hvy-TP Heavy propellor driven aircraft (HS748A, L188, DC6) Comm -TP Commuter turbo -prop aircraft (Metroliner, Saab 340) ' 1 1'. Jet aircraft (Lear, Citation) [*] Source: McClintock, Becker & Associates Notes: 1 -Prop Single engine propellor driven light aircraft (Cessna 182) 2 -Prop Twin engine propellor driven light aircraft (Beech 58P) Lt -TP Light turbo -prop aircraft (Cessna 441) Hvy-TP Heavy propellor driven aircraft (HS748A, L188, DC6) Comm -TP Commuter turbo -prop aircraft (Metroliner, Saab 340) T -Jet Jet aircraft (Lear, Citation) [*] Tanker practice drop pattern V-4 craft were confirmed by field observation and in discussions with the FAA's Airport Traffic Control Tower personnel. The turbojet aircraft flight tracks also shown on Exhibit IV -1 were confirmed by discussions with the FAA Tower as well as by field observation. Instrument flight tracks depicted represent aircraft compliance with pub- lished SIDS, and the ILS to Runway 13L. Aircraft operating procedures. Operating procedures for specific types of aircraft may vary widely because of such factors as pilot technique, user operating procedures, the requirements of air traffic control and meteorology. Thus, for example, commuter tur- boprop aircraft of the same type operated by different companies bound for the same destination may use somewhat different flap (and throttle) settings resulting in different rates of climb, throttle application and resultant noise emissions. The noise exposure modeling conducted for this study presumes that all aircraft use standard, predictable departure and arrival procedures. It is anticipated that variations to standard procedures, which frequently occur in practice, will both over and under- state aircraft performance and other operational parameters and, thus, converge on the predicted procedure. Noise Model Limitations and Caveats ' The validity and accuracy of CNEL calculations depend on the basic information used in the calculations. For future airport activities, the reliability of CNEL calculations may be affected by such factors as: I 0 Aviation activity levels --number of operations, mix of aircraft types, times of operations, and flight tracks --are forecasts of what probably will occur. 7 Aircraft acoustical and performance characteristics are also forecasts. When new aircraft designs are involved in the projections, noise data and operational characteristics must be estimated. The noise descriptors and interpretational criteria used in the CNEL procedure represent average human response (and reaction) to aircraft noise. Because people differ substantially in their response to noise, and. because the physical measure of noise accounts for only a portion of an individual's reaction to that noise, the CNEL scale can show only an average response to aircraft noise. In view of these uncertainties, CNEL mapping was developed as a tool to assist in land use planning around airports. The mapping is best used for comparative purposes, rather than for providing absolute values. That is, CNEL calculations provide valid comparisons between different projected conditions, so long as consistent assumptions and base data are used for all calculations. Thus, sets of CNEL calculations can show which of the simulated situations are better, and generally how much better, from a noise impact viewpoint. However, a fine line drawn on a map by a computer does not permit an inference that a particular noise condition exists on one side of that line and not on the other. CNEL calculations are merely a means for comparing noise impacts, and do not precisely define such impacts relative to specific parcels of land. Never- theless, CNEL contours can be used to: V-5 0 • highlight an existing or potential aircraft noise problem that requires attention; • assist in the preparation of airport environs land use plans; • provide guidance in the development of land use control devices, such as zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, and building codes; and • provide easy comparison of the relative magnitudes of noise impact associated with different development and operational alternatives. NOISE EXPOSURE CONDITIONS This section sets forth the findings and conclusions resulting from the technical analyses conducted for Phase I of the Airport Noise Compatibility Program for Chico Municipal Airport. Noise exposure maps for the years 1990/91 (existing conditions) and 1995/96 (five-year forecast) were prepared as required by Section 150.21(a) of FAR Part 150. The noise exposure maps identify each (FAR Part 150) noncompatible land use in areas subject to cumulative noise levels in excess of CNEL 60dB. Note that FAR Part 150 criteria connote that all residential uses are compatible with annual average aircraft noise levels below 65dB. Thus the depiction of noncompatible uses within the CNEL 60dB to 65dB zone in the noise exposure map exhibits reflects local considerations regarding of aircraft noise compatibility standards as initially discussed in Chapter H. Interpretation of Noise Exposure Values Estimates of total (cumulative) noise exposure resulting from aircraft operations, as ex- pressed in CNEL values, can be interpreted in terms of the probable impact on land uses using the FAR Part 150 land use compatibility designations set forth in Table II -1. However, CNEL values in this table should be interpreted only as relative indications of the effects of aircraft noise on human activities. Although specific CNEL values (contours) were calculated in this study, they should not be interpreted as definitive de- scriptions of annoyance; these values should be used for guidance in developing, com- paring and evaluating operational and land use control strategies which will be consid- ered in Phase II of this study. ' For any particular location within the Airport environs, some adjustments may be ap- propriate when using the interpretational criteria contained in Table II -1. Some influ- ences which should be considered include the following: ' 1. Previous community noise exposure and complaint history in the Airport en- virons. ' 2. Local building construction. Wood frame and stucco construction (typical in California) may provide sound transmission attenuation performance inferior to that of other building types (such as masonry) which are commonly used else- where in the United States. The quality of construction and structural condi- tions are also factors in determining the noise attenuation characteristics of a given structure. V-6 3. In the Sacramento Valley where air conditioning is extensively used in homes, schools and public buildings; doors and windows are normally kept closed for major portions of the year, thus reducing exterior to interior sound transmis- sions. 4. Impact of non -aviation noise sources on the existing ambient noise environment. For example, introducing aircraft noise in a rural area, where existing back- ground noise levels are very low, produces a much more apparent change in noise environment than aircraft operations in an urban environment long ex- posed to noise from highway- traffic, industrial activity and other sources. In the evaluation of community noise exposure under FAR Part 150 three specific ranges would typically be used: (1) CNEL 65-70dB, (2) CNEL 70-75dB, and (3) CNEL 75dB and above. These ranges were selected on the basis of prevailing FAA land use compatibility guidelines as set forth in FAR Part 150 and are consistent with the policies of local communities. However, because of the largely rural conditions surrounding Chico Municipal Airport, two additional criteria have been established within the ranges of CNEL 55-60dB and CNEL 60-65dB (it should be noted that no significant noise impacts are associated with cumulative noise levels of less than CNEL 65dB per California law. Existing Conditions The Noise Exposure Map for 1990/91 conditions is shown in Exhibit V-1. This exhibit depicts the location of FAR Part 150 noncompatible land use and noise -sensitive facili- ties for CNEL levels of 65dB and above, in accordance with the requirements of FAR Part 150 Appendix A and local noise and land use compatibility planning guidelines. For 1990/91 operational conditions at Chico Municipal Airport there were no FAR Part 150 noise sensitive land uses exposed to noise levels of CNEL 65dB or greater. Under 1990-91 base case conditions approximately one-quarter acre of residential land use was located within the CNEL 60-65dB noise contour in an area immediately north of the airport. This area accounts for one dwelling unit and an estimated 3 people. Within the CNEL 55-60dB noise contour there were a total of 81.2 acres of residential land use consisting of an estimated 280 dwelling units and 850 people. These figures are broken out by land use type and area north or south of the airport on Table V-3. Also included within .the CNEL 55-60dB noise contours were two churches in the southern area. Projected Conditions Exhibit V-2 presents the five-year noise exposure map (1995/96 conditions) for the Airport, and Table V-4 summarizes anticipated noise impacts. For both 1995-96 indigenous and enhanced forecast conditions there would be no FAR Part 150 noncompatible land uses -located within the CNEL 65dB and above noise contours. An area of approximately one-third acre lieing immediately north of the airport and containing one dwelling unit would be located within the CNEL 60-65dB noise contours for both cases. Approximately 89.0 acres of combined single- and multiple family dwellings would be located within the 1995-96 indigenous forecast contour along with an estimated 320 V-7 Y • Ar t�- '�� i•� �'', -��'�\ ;�i ,r�..��' ��;r� Ir I 1 J':. '•� ' j 1 \ � } � : '1 i' f % '• ') I f 1, �`' � i / �> i,� \�� � t l s 1/ ,�a►_' I t :5 ���\\ t.,r rw .. �•� � t '� � �� �`;� �� - : �--moi � W A. �,,, '' . ✓ n� ' .I ' / ...1 ..� r• a�' 0'2�� / \ t _ice/��: jl 1 ..' s 41 . ry•,• c • _ - �• • ; � ,� tae +I'• _ n 1 \l 1 – ^9F t SF CNEL 55dB� L *'• sF CN L 75d NEL 70 1^ SF _ lIC�MUNICIPAL AIRPORT/ ti CwEl sOdq�� f✓� �•-\• •' ' ,,,:// ' CNEL 55d8 ' . • ,J I . �^� ��� t��� 1 qtr, ' fti� �.,' ..'.. `, ' ♦, -.` :- �� iii '�/ `i 110 —--1----�.,--1 FAR PART 150 <` AIRPORT NOISE SF4 ' COMPATIBILITY J* ''',. PROGRAM AND ENVIRONS PLAN NiF SCALE FEET co NORTH �'�♦ .,� • ♦�•,I�n / 7 .� '-�'s. a��'�1 �{ y'1. ,� 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 LEGEND i! 0"6 . Airport Boundary >\ ••• �� �,. ,: � ( �' � � �� ,zc ------- Chico Sphere of Influence . ' S' �^ •?'• _ �, '< ,; ,�`/ smJ1.,11 o,,....• ^ j'�_. Noise Sens?tive Land Use 711 if all J..i,, . �I',a.•' b,� � ILI w a ♦• IjC�I ...r �I l...e.� • 7l JQ 1 "til 1} , /"' 2 , v° • �I •`. ° '1: r Wif t 41 i f ,y ll___.•» � L . _ � r -' � .i: - 1.�� '�i4 it `I 1" iiG .v NOISE EXPOSURE MAP: 1990/1991 BASELINE --•-�r `'< / t ; CONDITIONS •-- �� : :\ ; P - • �. :.�. ) •�� � µ�� _, Vii. _:J1 • MCCL/NTOCK, BECKER & ASSOCIATES A SUBSIDIARY Of P&D TECHNOLOGIES • t EXHIBIT V-1 I Table V-3 EXISTING NOISE IMPACTS 1990/91 CONDITIONS Chico Municipal Airport South Area Single Family Multiple Family Subtotal North Area Single Family Subtotal Total CNEL 55-60dB Est. Acres Est. DUs 8.5 50 8.3 100 16.8 150 Est. Pon. 148 302 450 64.4 130 400 64.4 130 400 81.2 280 850 sM1 • 1 J w tt, t�l� f ; � �Ji ;� n� � ' •1 ',� � ' ' � � :, �` ,. _ .. ', r ° .•+ n.1�o' i•i 7i' n1 .�• - :" oma/ r '\�.. 17. P If u �_ - CHICO MUNICIPAL s %¢ , 5 :. AIRPORT 4k FAR PART 150 hill, AIRPORT NOISE rye' i •y 1, „. SF s COMPATIBILITY r PROGRAM SF J : �'• �.::. t . AND aaCNEL 5 ! - d ENVIRON S PLAN SF' - CNEL 60 NEL'65d8` • . 9F --- CNHL 70d8 CNEL 75tl 7.',` I 2'-. •'' •� .:f SCALE �' • 1 1 �'•;' ♦!•: FEET CHIC MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ��-- 4 L ! ►1 ,' NORTH ---------_ - e.r.r._' : ! , i �` � !,• p° •`1 .:;� s i7 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 .. • ,�, -_-- _ ` ��•� �-_ .• N ' ,^ v`�y •�'- .Ilk `•► ..�= , ^ , _ ,� I LEGEND �re Y y •� �►� tom- : ar y'. C:.. j' a! �,.� -/ .. ._. Airport Boundary --c— Chico Sphere of Influence r ry _ - j:'.� _. `�\ •.?' \ I! 1995/1996 Indigenous r.. . �, ,-„�..• „o _ au ' ------ 1995/1996 Enhanced -- � ,• ,► -A � '�� - v 1, O Noise Sensitive land Use �+ . _l:, in t r . t a _ / . I _ �' •W 'll L ♦ W.� m I - .... 'Pr- I�`-��I �, ca-• c L-. - i�� a ,,. �: r-_✓ - i , ' ,d ;f I ' ' 1'. .... ... � - ' ', ' L� I•_ 1 1 - ='If• -I_ LTJ � �yS f. ♦ -�� �. .y / A i+ ` r.. o ' , # _. r�✓F' �L� G ='r, •r. ' r is •' j ” .\ � :4 _____-__�-___'-1 -S ... •� tf �'I i I JI •�I ;F�' COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: Ll I A 1�- - 3 = ' r'' • rl r - ` ' 1995/1996 INDIGENOUS V. ENHANCED FORECAST ra CONDITIONS ��/ \\ , . �•.. FSK' i° �,< �,. /.' ::h` MCCL/NTOCK, BECKER & •.:✓•. - .. .a _ : � .� � • I .;'.�- .� �;' �� ASSOC/AYES A SUBSIDIARY OF P&D TECHNOLOGIES EXHIBIT V-2 dwelling units and 960 people. These figures are further broken out by land use type and location (north or south of the airport) on Table V-3. For enhanced forecast conditions, approximately. 124.3 acres of single- and multiple family residential land uses would be affected, along with 480 dwelling units and 1,450 people. Also exposed to projected noise levels in excess of CNEL 65dB are one school in Chico, two places of worship in Chico and two places of worship in unincorporated County. These land uses are considered noise sensitive under FAR Part 150 criteria set forth in Table II -1.3 The above figures are based on existing land use and development patterns and do not include any potential new development within the CNEL 65dB and above noise con- tours. There are several areas in which potential noncompatible development could oc- cur in the future. The first area is in Ceres and includes the area designated as the North Mitchell Road annexation area. The second area is northwest of the Airport in Chico and involves development which will occur as a result of infill on existing residentially zoned parcels. The City of Chico has indicated that it would not deny building permits for infill in these areas. However, as a condition of development the City should consider requiring avigation easements, disclosure and noise attenuation for all homes and schools to be built in this area. The third area of potential noncompatible land use conversion is in unincorporated ' Butte County. Redevelopment of this area has been on-going for several years and may result in additional residential development within the noise impact area. The appearance of a noise impact area within the projected 1995/96 noise contour is attributable primarily to the forecast introduction of scheduled air carrier service at Chico Municipal Airport. The size of the CNEL 65dB contour is also affected by projected increases in corporate aviation activity within this five-year horizon. ' Field Noise Measurement Program In an effort to assess the effects of individual aircraft noise events on the Airport envi- rons, field noise measurements were conducted at several sites in the airport environs during October 1991. Equipment Setup and Measurement Techniques. Equipment used in the measurements consisted of a Bruel & Kjaer Type 1. Sound Level Meter, Model 2231 with microphone Type 4155 and windscreen. The instrument was calibrated using a Bruel & Kjaer Cali- brator Type 4230. The sound level meter was set to measure noise using the "A" fre- quency weighting and the "FAST" dynamics setting. The DC output of the sound level meter was connected to a Western Graphtec Model SR6421 pen plotter. A separate log was kept of information pertaining to aircraft flyovers. Information recorded included the time of the event, type of aircraft, type of operation, runway used (if known) and the measured Lmax, Le and SEL of the aircraft flyover detected by the sound level meter. The times markea on the log were also written on the plot 3. Places of worship are considered compatible in the 65dB to 70dB zone if indoor to outdoor noise attenuation is 25dB or better. V-12 paper to correlate the flight log with the plotted graph. The source of other noise events of interest (traffic, children etc.) were annotated directly on the plotted graph. Findings. Single event noise levels from aircraft operating into and out of Chico Municipal Airport are of sufficient magnitude in close -in residential areas to interfere ' with outdoor speech communications and, on occasion, have the potential to interfere with indoor speech communications. However,, the duration of such interference is minimal and no statutory limits are exceeded. During the measurements periods, there were no operations by noisy high performance general aviation jet aircraft (such as the Lear 25 and Gulfstream II) which have the po- tential to create noise events of much higher magnitude and duration than the types of ' aircraft observed. Aircraft of these types are known to operate at the Airport on an in- frequent basis. The record of field noise measurements is set forth in Appendix A. Conclusions Analyses- undertaken in this noise exposure map report have verified the magnitude of cumulative (CNEL) noise exposure within the environs of Chico Municipal Airport. Noise exposure maps for existing (1990/91) and five-year (1995/96) conditions have been discussed. In a subsequent report --the Airport Noise Compatibility Program --the issues of noise abatement and land use compatibility alternatives will be dealt with in ' detail, and a program for noise mitigation will be developed. Although the discussion and analyses of noise abatement has been deferred to a subsequent phase, this report has identified several conclusions: r 1. Noise mitigation measures should be developed to effectively deal with noise impacted areas within the projected CNEL 55dB and above noise contour for the 1995/96 horizon, and beyond. ' 2. Steps should be taken to prevent the introduction of new noise sensitive land uses in areas of projected high noise impact and extensive aircraft overflight. In ' those areas where it may not be possible to restrict new development the City ,of Chico and Butte County, in concert with the ALUC, should require easements and noise mitigation measures. V-13 ' APPENDIX A CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 1 1 FAR -PART 150 AIRPORT NOISE COMPATIBILITY ' PROGRAM AND ' ENVIRONS PLAN 1 ' FIELD NOISE MONITORING RESULTS OCTOBER 17-79, 1991 1 Tattle 1 LOCATION OF NOISE MONITORING SITES Chico Municipal AIrport Noise Monitor Site Location Date Time' 1 East Eaton Road west of Ceres Avenue 10/17/91 1759-1816 Keefer Road east of Hicks Lane 10/1S/91 1015-1709 Field at east end of East Lassen Ave 10/18/91 14220 4 Hicks Lane west of Oasis Drive 10/18/191 1451-1543 Lupin Avenue at Ceres Avenue 10/19/91 0921-1023 6 Bridle Drive 10/19/91 1004 i Ceres Avenue south of Rushmore Avenue 10/19/91. 1056-1234 S Rio Bravo Drive C' Limousin Drive 10/19/91 1131-1430 Table 2 FIELD NOISE MEASUREMENTS Chico Municipal Airport Aircraft Lmax Location Date Time Type Oper Rwv (dBA) Min Max Avg ' #1 - East Eaton Road west of Ceres Avenue ' 10/17/91 10/17/91 1759 1805 SEP DC4 Dep Dep 13 13 74.8 73.8 10/17/91 1816 TEP Dep 13L 64.1 Summary 64.1 74.8 72.8 #'_ - Keefer Road east of Hicks Lane 10/18/91 1015 SEP Dep 31 R 57.7 ' 10/18/91 1037 SEP Dep 31 R 66.1 10/18/91 1040 SEP Dep 31 R 50.2 10/18/91 1050 TEP -Duke Dep 31 R 82.0 ' 10/18/91 1051 SEP Dep 31 R 84.6 10/18/91 1 102 Metroliner Dep 31 R 70.0 10/18/91 1 127 Jetstream Dep 31 R 66.1 10/18/91 1210 SEP -Cherokee Arr 13L 61.6 10/18/91 1219. SEP -Cherokee Dep 31 R 67.4 10/18/91 1227 TCP -Twin Cessna Arr 13L 77.1 ' 10/18/91 1230 TEP -Baron Dep 31 R 72.2 10/18/91 1231 SEP Dep 31 R 68.6 10/18/91 1243 Metroliner Arr 13L 71.9 10/18/91 1248 TEP -Cessna Dep 31R 68.1 ' 10/18/91 1251 SEP Arr 13L 60.9 10/18/91 1312 SEP -Cherokee Arr 13L 64.2 ' 10/18/91 10/18/91 1316 1329 SEP -Cessna SEP -Cherokee Dep Dep 31R 31 R 67.2 56.0 10/18/91 1333 Metroliner Dep 31R 74.4 10/18/91 1341 SEP Dep 31R 71.4 10/18/91 1438 TEP Dep 31R 72.7 10/18/91 1455 Metroliner Dep 31R 72.7 10/18/91 1521 SEP Dep 31R 69.7 10/18/91 1529 TEP -King Air Dep 31R 68.3 ' 10/18/91 1534 TEP -King Air Dep 31R 72.1 10/18/91 1541 TEP -King Air Dep 31R 74.0 10/18/91 1548 TEP -King Air Dep 31R 77.0 ' 10/18/91 1556. TEP -King Air Dep 31R 71.5 10/18/91 1603 TEP -King Air Dep 31R 67.2 ' 10/18/91 10/18/91 1619 1625 TEP -Bonanza SEP Dep Arr 31R 13L 66.2 65.0 10/18/91 1638 TEP -Bonanza Dep 31R 71.2 .10/18/91 1644 SEP Dep 31R 72.8 ' 10/18/91 1648 SEP Arr 13L 70.5 10/18/91 1654 Jetstream Arr 13L 74.7 10/18/91 1705 TEP -Cessna Arr 13L 75.7 10/18/91 1709 SEP Deo 31R 58.9 ' Summary 50.2 84.6 73.9 Table 2 Continued �4 Location 6 Aircraft Lmax Date Time Type Oper Rwv (dBAI Min Max Ave 3 - Field at east end of Fast Lassen Avenue . 10/18/91 1420 Metroliner Arr 31L 61.1 Summary . 61.1 61.1 61.1 4 - Bend in Hicks Lane west of Oasis Drive 10/18/91 1451 Metroliner Dep 31 R 69.2 10/18/91 1517 SEP -Tomahawk Dep 31 R 62.6 10/18/91 1524 TEP -King Air Dep 31 R 72.0 10/18/91 1530 TEP -King Air Dep 31 R 68.6 10/18/91 1535 TEP -King Air Dep 31 R 76.6 10/18/91 1543 TEP -King Air Dep 31 R 71.8 Summary 62.6 76.6 72.0 - Lupin Avenue at Ceres .avenue 10/19/91 0921 SEP Dep 13L 51.6 10/19/91 0939 Jetstream Arr 31 R 70.5 10/19/91 0950 Jetstream Arr 31 R 75.3 10/19/91 0951 TEP -King Air Arr 31 R 80.3 10/19/91 0957 SEP Dep 13L 61.8 10/19/91 1002 SEP Dep 13L 53.0 10/19/91 1023 Metroliner Arr 31 R 70.2 Summary 51.6 80.3 73.7 - Bridle Drive 10/19/91 1004 SEP T&G 13R 61.7. Summary 61.7 61.7 61.7 ' #7 - Ceres Avenue south of Rushmore Avenue 10/19/91 1056 SEP Arr 31 R 64.5 ' 10/19/91 1129 SEP Arr 31 R 58.9 10/19/91 1234 SEP Arr 31 R 65.8 Summary 58.9 65.8 63.9 Table 2 Continued SEP - Single engine propellor driven aircraft TEP - Twin engine propellor driven aircraft Aircraft Lmax Location Date Time Type Oper Rwv (dBA) Min Max Ava #8 - Rio Bravo Drive no Limousin Drive 10/19/91 1131 SEP Dep 31 L 67.8 10/19/91 1137 SEP Dep 31 L 71.0 10/19/91 1241 SEP Dep 31 R 55.8 10/19/91 1319 Metroliner Dep 31 R 70.9 10/19/91 1321 SEP Dep 31 L 68.6 10/19/91 1408 SEP Dep 31 L 71.4 10/19/91 1420 SEP Dep 31L 76.6 10/19/91 1428 SEP Dep 31L 66.7 10/19/91 1430 Jetstream Deo 31 R 65.1 Summary 55.8 76.6 70.7 SEP - Single engine propellor driven aircraft TEP - Twin engine propellor driven aircraft 100 <1: 1'j 80 ISI LTJ CL/ 60 50 40 30 ("/'[---I.ICO Alk -'PORT 1111111) NOIS11: R 1.1"I P 0 b"I" C."ONIPO"WIT: Nol'--d-: 0 Ar".1- 11 F If.W 111 H11-.11 I I I Eaton Rd Ceres Ave 1 -759 --18 16 -...1-7-0C-T-9.1 STIT: DA'11' I I I B&K SLM 2231 w/Western Graphtec WNATI ll,:I\' Cleor. ": Q I I'l P'M N N r 1'. HcCli,i i. lock, Recker ck- Associates oil FAI Pa I 0 JL 0 Ar".1- 11 F If.W 111 H11-.11 I I I Eaton Rd Ceres Ave 1 -759 --18 16 -...1-7-0C-T-9.1 STIT: DA'11' I I I B&K SLM 2231 w/Western Graphtec WNATI ll,:I\' Cleor. ": Q I I'l P'M N N r 1'. HcCli,i i. lock, Recker ck- Associates 100 <r. t7f) C) 0 70 L. J d D 60 Z 40 vi 30 C*I,-I*ICO AIRPORT N0IS11: N/lONITORINC; R'1*1.:P0R)I.1' COMPOSITI-: NO ISI-: Keefer Rd. Hicks Lane_ lllj NSI jl; 10 15-1709.._.__.._ Al' I 1 80CT91 PF ......... # —2--A 1.) D I S B&K SILM 2231 w/Western Groplitec. Clear McClintock Becker & Associates 1"Wal Moil 19MIL mini I m IMI'MamEamr, ffmalffm IMMI 191MIN-11 Ila KIM ME== AAEMJU "" 5WAREF Emig Him REM mm Keefer Rd. Hicks Lane_ lllj NSI jl; 10 15-1709.._.__.._ Al' I 1 80CT91 PF ......... # —2--A 1.) D I S B&K SILM 2231 w/Western Groplitec. Clear McClintock Becker & Associates ('111CO AIRWORT NOIS11: MONITORINC, r COMPW 1'1'1,: Nol,'�I,: I -All -:NT :�(INIMARY 0 2 2.5 East Lassen Ave. 1420 P 1 8OCT9 I B&K SLIVI 2231 w/Weslerii Graphlec �yj,:/\-J�j Clenr I 11:k ...... iffeclintock, Becker A. Associ(des k sms mum M� 1�fflm 0 2 2.5 East Lassen Ave. 1420 P 1 8OCT9 I B&K SLIVI 2231 w/Weslerii Graphlec �yj,:/\-J�j Clenr I 11:k ...... iffeclintock, Becker A. Associ(des 100 <r ro g(I 70 Ld 61) 50 10 30 CHICO AIRPORT NOIA,MONITORING R1_1':'P0*RT NON,: 0 SIT # -5.- A I-) Lupin Ave. iii- Ceres Ave.. 0921 — 102.3 I B&K SLM 2231 w/Western Grophlec 1,: Q U I P M F: N'l ''. W 1,: ATI 11,: 1 111cClinlock, Becker & Associates ff Clear CAL 93.8 1 =1F TERFERE DOOR.— SREECI ACE LEVEL." (85: A MR-- 'P_EECE ICTE 41 M-5 iffeF 6 _0 Ti�utl&r Commuter ecmrnuiei j��i E FEE—= ammutler -=SEe— AnivW= =Arrival= D51LoLlgrw: =ATF[val— fui_F_Tl R: == ffw—y--IIR:-! R Wy---. -3 1 R_ R Wy:�_:l 3 T1 =09307. (0si-5g)--1:110-23- YEE 0 SIT # -5.- A I-) Lupin Ave. iii- Ceres Ave.. 0921 — 102.3 I B&K SLM 2231 w/Western Grophlec 1,: Q U I P M F: N'l ''. W 1,: ATI 11,: 1 111cClinlock, Becker & Associates ff Clear f C[IICO AIRPOR".1' 1111,11) W".)NITORING; RI",J-)O'RT F 0 2.5 l:.I AIIIJ..I) '111 -IL 1H Bridle Drive 1004 190CT91 SVFN #..6 ADDRI':.--.)'S 1.1-,'QU-IPMF,NIjIB&K SLM 2231 w/Western Grarli.t.e.c. Clear iffoUin.look, Becke)- & Assovicdes 100 01 C) 0 80 Id 70 60 50 40 urim Z 0 30 0 2.5 l:.I AIIIJ..I) '111 -IL 1H Bridle Drive 1004 190CT91 SVFN #..6 ADDRI':.--.)'S 1.1-,'QU-IPMF,NIjIB&K SLM 2231 w/Western Grarli.t.e.c. Clear iffoUin.look, Becke)- & Assovicdes CHICO AIRIIOI'-'T 11'111;1,1) NOMI: MONITOI"-�fNG'I *F1-'OR`I' NON,: 1-:VIi;NT SIJMMAIZY I.I AP F. I I f l l -1F_ I I 1 11111 X 1 1 # ? ADI)l?l ��ceres Av_ u� _Rushmore Av..'I'i �l l'; ._-1056_1 234 L;QUll'M I': NT _B&K SLM-2231 w/Westei_n Grarhtec A(cC"unlock, Becker & Associrt.les ZI 5 I)A'I'11, 190CT91 Clear MAIN 11 ma fLTAI WWAA., pm WSW I Mi 29 I.I AP F. I I f l l -1F_ I I 1 11111 X 1 1 # ? ADI)l?l ��ceres Av_ u� _Rushmore Av..'I'i �l l'; ._-1056_1 234 L;QUll'M I': NT _B&K SLM-2231 w/Westei_n Grarhtec A(cC"unlock, Becker & Associrt.les ZI 5 I)A'I'11, 190CT91 Clear 100 90 80 70 CL D 60 G.) LA af 50 40 0 30 CHICO All-d"OR"I' Nol.'4: Nil O.N N(-'; RF�)tORI' COMP091IT: NOISII: I.. I A F, F I1 1* 11.- 1 F I I 1 1.11111 1 11 1319-1321 S I - P] 8 ADDRI-:SS RioBravo Dr.._..".".Limousin.. . _B&K SLM 2231 w/Weslern GraphlecI ) Clear W 1,: ATI 11 1 k McClintock, Becke?. .(,- "Issoci(Iles _19oc-r9i m INS. III I -.1 kJ11 11FAMIg m vim wmm r I.. I A F, F I1 1* 11.- 1 F I I 1 1.11111 1 11 1319-1321 S I - P] 8 ADDRI-:SS RioBravo Dr.._..".".Limousin.. . _B&K SLM 2231 w/Weslern GraphlecI ) Clear W 1,: ATI 11 1 k McClintock, Becke?. .(,- "Issoci(Iles _19oc-r9i CI-HCO AIRPO.k"I' 11"I[III) NOISI,: MONITORING R[ITORT N(.)ISI-; 0 1-1.5 1 15) SITI-I'j # _RioBf-avo Dr. (011 LiIIIOLISiII_.'j'j N/I I,: _.I 420-1430 I 1": Q U I ) M IPNB&I.< SL -M --2.2-3,1 -- -w/Wes..Ier.n.. G.-ap.hf.ecW I I*: AI I I I*: I-� Clear McClintock, Beek -e?- A-Associ(ttes CIAV=C= rill i 0111mm MAI M vim 0 1-1.5 1 15) SITI-I'j # _RioBf-avo Dr. (011 LiIIIOLISiII_.'j'j N/I I,: _.I 420-1430 I 1": Q U I ) M IPNB&I.< SL -M --2.2-3,1 -- -w/Wes..Ier.n.. G.-ap.hf.ecW I I*: AI I I I*: I-� Clear McClintock, Beek -e?- A-Associ(ttes OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER ` ( 196 E. Fifth Street CITYWCHICO PO. Box 3420 !C. 1872 Chico, CA 95927 (916)895-4800 ATSS"45974800 3. a PS-90-4/G-GA-2-10/Chrono January 5, 1993 ti Dave Hironimus ALUC Coordinator Butte County Planning Office 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA '95965 Dear Dave: Enclosed is a copy of the Final Report of the FAR PART 150 AIRPORT NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM AIRCRAFT NOISE EXPOSURE MAP REPORT for the Chico Municipal Airport. A copy is also being provided to the Butte County Administrative Officer. Sincerel y -tel Thomas J. Lando City Manager/Airport Manager ps Enclosure Planninq Department JAN 0 7 1993 Oroviiie, California .I awl s 0. 0 r FAR PART 150 -- AIRPORT NOISE COMPATIBILITY r PROGRAM AIRCRAFT NOISE EXPOSURE MAP REPORT /'_2&D Technologies, an employee -owned company, provides multidisciplinary services to the public and private sectors in the fields of planning, engineering, environmental, transpor- tation, aviation, and economics. Employing over 200` professionals, P&D maintains corporate. headquarters in Orange, California with regional offices in the San Francisco Bay Area and project offices throughout the United States. SAN FRANCISCO REGIONAL OFFICE 400 SO. EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 500 SAN MATEO, CA 94402 (415) 343 0108 FAR Part 150 . Airport Noise Compatibility Program: Aircraft Noise. Exposure Map Report For Chico Municipal Airport City of Chico, California Final Report Prepared by McClintock, Becker & Associates A Subsidiary of P&D Technologies San Mateo, California December 7, 1992 The preparation of this report was financed in part through an Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant from the Federal Aviation Administration under provisions of Section 505 of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended. CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................... 8-1 I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................... I-1 Introduction.................. :.................................................................... I-1 Background....................................................................................... I-2 TechnicalGoals.................................................................................. I-4 Community & Agency Coordination ......................................................... I-6 II. COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT AND NOISE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS........................................................:. II -1 Local Environment and Setting............................................................... II -1 Existing and Projected Land Use............................................................. II -3 Noise and Land Use Compatibility Standards .............................................. II -8 III. AVIATION ACTIVITY FORECASTS ...................................................... .......................... III -1 Introduction.................................................:.................................. III -1 Historical Aviation Activity................................................................. III -2 Forecast Methodology........................................................................ III -2 Socioeconomic Review........................................................................ III -5 Updated Aviation Forecasts.................................................................. III -6 Updated Forecast.............................................................................. III -7 IV. OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT......................................................... IV -1 Regional Airspace Setting ................................................................... IV -1 Existing Noise Control Program ...... ............................. ...................... IV -3 V. NOISE EXPOSURE ANALYSIS............................................................... V-1 Noise Analysis Methodology.............................................:................... V-1 Noise Exposure Conditions................................................................... V-9 EXHIBITS I-1 Regional Location Map ......................................................... ......... I-3 II -1 Airport Site....................................................................... ......... II -2 II -2 Chico Municipal Airport I Redevelopment Project Boundary..... ...........:............................ ...•.... II -4 II -3 Chico Municipal Airport Redevelopment General Plan .............................. ....... ......:................ . II -5 II -4 Generalized Airport Environs Land Use ................................................. II -6 III -1 Aviation Forecast Comparison........................................................... III -9 IV -1 Generalized Aircraft Flight Tracks ...................................................... IV -2 V-1 Noise Exposure Map: 1990-91 Baseline Conditions. .. V-11 V-2 Noise Exposure Map: 1997 (Five -Year Forecast) Conditions ...................... V-14 APPENDIX A. Meeting Agendas and Minutes ............................................................... A-1 B. Comments and Responses......................................................................B-1 C. Field Noise Monitoring Results.............................................................. C-1 1 TABLES II -1 III -1 III -2 FAR Part 150 Land Use Compatibility Designations .......................... Historical Aviation Activity........................................................... Comparison of General Aviation Forecasts ......................................... II -9,10 III -3 III -8 ■ III -3 Updated Aircraft Operations Forecast..............................................III-10 V-1 Average Day Aircraft Operations - 1990 ........................................... V-3 ' V-2 V-3 Average Day Aircraft Operations - 5 -Year Forecast ............................. Time of Day Percentage Split of Operations V-4 byAircraft Class....................................................................... V-5 V-4 V-5 Average Day Percentage Runway Use ............................................... Flight Track Utilization...................................................... .......... V-6 V-8 V-6 ExistingNoise Impacts 1990 Conditions p - . V-12 V-7 Forecast Noise Impacts - 1997 Conditions ........................................ V-15 APPENDIX A. Meeting Agendas and Minutes ............................................................... A-1 B. Comments and Responses......................................................................B-1 C. Field Noise Monitoring Results.............................................................. C-1 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In July 1991 the City of Chico initiated an airport noise and land d use compatibility planning study for the Chico Municipal Airport. This report sets forth the findings of the first phase of the study. The study was funded and is being prepared under provisions of Part 150 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR Part 150). FAR Part 150 sets forth a straightforward pro- cess combining technical analyses and public participation to address important air- port/community noise exposure issues. Goals and Objectives The principal goals of the study are to: o Explore options to - meet forecast aviation needs and airport growth while enhancing the long-term compatibility of the Airport and the surrounding community; o To involve interested citizens, Airport users and local public agencies in a joint effort to maintain a workable noise program by updating the existing Airport 4 Environs Plan. 11 1 , S-1 The principal objectives of the study are to: o Determine existing aircraft and neighborhood background noise levels; o Examine aircraft flight patterns and operating procedures in order to evaluate potential noise impacts on people; O Recommend measures to reduce any incompatibilities' between existing neigh- borhood land uses and the effects of continuing aircraft operations; o Recommend measures to prevent the creation of new noncompatible land uses in areas which are forecast to be seriously impacted by aircraft operations; o Establish procedures for (1) implementation of the noise compatibility program and updated Environs Plan, and (2) periodically monitoring and reviewing the implemented plan. Conduct of the Study The City of Chico is sponsoring the study which is jointly funded by the City and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. The project consultant is the firm of McClintock, Becker & Associates, a specialized aviation environmental and noise abatement planning organization (a wholly-owned subsidiary of P&D Technologies). The noise compatibility study is being conducted as a means by which the City of Chico can examine and analyze the impact of aircraft operations on areas surrounding the Chico Municipal Airport. The study is being carried -out in cooperation with Airport neighbors, interested public agencies and users of -the 11 1 , S-1 Airport. Public, agency and user input to the study will be jointly solicited and evaluated by the City and its consultant. The study is a two phase effort dealing with (1) existing and future Airport noise, and (2) how to properly address aircraft noise and land use issues. This report represents completion of Phase I of this process. Major elements of the Chico Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 noise exposure map study included: Developing forecasts of future aviation activity at Chico Municipal Airport recognizing the potential of the airportfor flight training facilities. o Measuring actual aircraft noise and other significant sources of community noise; o Tracking aircraft operations to identify where and when those.operations occur; o Determining existing and probable future noise impacts; o Identifying potential noise abatement and land use compatibility implementation measures. Findings Analyses undertaken in this noise exposure map report have verified the magnitude of cumulative Community Noise. Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise exposure within the environs of Chico Municipal Airport. Noise exposure maps for baseline (1990) and five-year (1997) conditions are discussed. In a subsequent report for Phase II -- the �\ Airport Noise Compatibility Program and Environs Plan -- the issues of preventive noise abatement and land use compatibility alternatives will be dealt with in detail, and a program for maintaining noise control will be developed. Although the discussion and analyses of noise abatement has been deferred to a subsequent phase, this report identifies two primary findings: o Based on an analysis of 1990 operational conditions, it has been determined that ' there are no noncompatible (i.e., noise sensitive) land uses located in the airport environs which are subject to aircraft noise levels in excess of local, state, or federal land use compatibility guidelines (i.e., CNEL 65dB or greater); o For 1997 forecast conditions there would be no noncompatible land uses exposed to noise levels of CNEL 65dB or greater. These findings are supported by the following conclusions as set forth in the report: o Significant noise exposure (i.e., above CNEL 65dB) from Chico Municipal Airport operations is not expected to increase as a result of anticipated future aircraft operations between 1990 and 1997. S-2 U . � r However, steps should also be taken through the application of preventive land use planning to limit the introduction of new noncompatible land uses in the Airport's immediate approach and departure corridors. These measures will be developed and analyzed in Phase II of the study -- the Airport - Noise Compatibility Program component of the updated Airport Environs Plan. S-3 L� 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This chapter describes the institutional framework under which FAR Part 150 Airport Noise and Land Use Compatibility planning is undertaken. INTRODUCTION This report provides background information and supporting documentation for the preparation and submittal of aircraft noise exposure maps under Part 150 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR Part 150)1 for Chico Municipal Airport. The City of Chico initiated the study in July 1991 having previously selected McClintock, Becker & As- sociates as contractor for the work.2 The airport noise compatibility planning provisions of FAR Part 150 represent an op- portunity for the City of Chico to assess existing and projected aircraft noise impacts in the Airport's environs3 and provide the information and data needed to update the City's existing "Airport Environs Plan".4 One key advantage to the conduct of a FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Plan- ning Study at this time is that, upon approval by the FAA, the program may qualify the City and, potentially, other public agencies- for access to Federal funds specifically earmarked for noise abatement measures. These measures include the soundproofing of any seriously affected schools and residences, the acquisition of land or easements, and other noise mitigation measures. Furthermore, the FAR Part 150 process presents an opportunity for official FAA participation in the implementation of safe and effective operational noise abatement measures. The FAR Part 150 airport noise compatibility planning process is also intended to in- form public officials of the degree of existing and forecast noise exposure within areas under their respective jurisdictions. The purpose of such disclosure is to prevent the introduction of new noise -sensitive land uses in areas subject to high levels of aircraft noise and frequencies of overflights. This issue is of particular concern not only to the City of Chico but also to Butte County and the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) as a result of planned new residential development in proximity to Chico Municipal Airport. The primary reasons for the City's desire to conduct the FAR Part 150 study, are to prevent the encroachment of new noise sensitive land uses within the Airport environs and to update the 1978 Airport Environs Plan. 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Aviation Regulations Part 150 (14 CFR 150), "Airport Noise Compatibility Planning," 49FR260, January 18, 1985. 2. In October 1991, McClintock, Becker & Associates merged with P&D Technologies. P&D Technologies maintains exclusive rights to the name McClintock, Becker & Associates, which is now operated as a P&D subsidiary. 3. The term Airport environs is defined as the area surrounding an airport that is considered to be directly affected by its presence and operation. 4. City of Chico, "Airport Environs Plan," August 1978, as revised. 1 BACKGROUND Owned and operated by the City of Chico, Chico Municipal Airport is an important aviation facility serving a rapidly growing and increasingly affluent air trade area incor- porating all of Butte County. The Airport location is shown in Exhibit I-1, the Regional Location Map. The Airport is situated in the northeast corner of the City of Chico and is adjoined by unincorporated Butte County to the north, east, and west. Renewed demands for housing and other developments have resulted in increased interest in developing these areas for residential and other noise sensitive uses. Because of its strategic location, the Airport also serves a growing role in business aviation and is home to some 148 multi -engine aircraft and 7 rotorcraft. In response to I the growth in population and income within its air trade area, the Airport also has the potential to become an important center of flight training activity. I The environmental consequences of Airport operations have been of concern to nearby residents of the Airport environs for a number of years. The 1978 Airport Environs Plan analyzed potential impacts on properties around the airport and beneath the approach and departure corridors. While it was determined there were no noncompatible land uses within the airport environs at that time, several zoning changes and land use policies were recommended to eliminate the potential for the future development of noncompatible uses within the impact area.5 Responding to these concerns, the City of Chico has undertaken this noise abatement and land use compatibility program in cooperation with local public agencies, Airport users and residents of the Airport environs. The results of this study are being coordinated with various public and agency interests through the City's Airport Commission. This report sets forth the findings of the first phase of a two-phase study, i.e. the de- velopment of FAR Part 150 Aircraft Noise Exposure Maps. This report assesses the noise impacts of existing (1990) and forecast (1997) aircraft operational activity on the communities surrounding the Airport.6 In a subsequent report, alternatives to mitigate and/or prevent the impacts of such noise will be developed and evaluated, and a pro- gram for achieving noise compatibility between the Airport and its environs will be set forth. This program will serve as the update to the 1978 Environs Plan. The consultant's work program entailed a comprehensive planning effort designed to fulfill the requirements of the City of Chico and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the development of noise exposure maps under the provisions of FAR Part 150. The approach to the development and preparation of the Part 150 noise exposure maps involved the use of advanced computer techniques as a means of facilitating the required noise exposure and land use impact analyses in a technically sound and cost- effective manner. In the development of the airport noise compatibility program in Phase II, these tech- niques will facilitate a rapid and accurate analysis of alternative noise abatement proce- dures and Airport environs development concepts. The computer model used is also 5. Ibid. 6. Section 150.21(a)(1) of FAR Part 150 requires that two noise exposure maps be prepared. The first map is based on 1990 operating condtions and the 1997 map is based on conditions expected to occur five years after the submittal of this report. 1-2 t EXHIBIT 1-1 REGIONAL LOCATION MAP SHASTA Burney CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT LAKE OO s FAR PART 150 ENVIRONS PLANTUDY U DATED 9 SHASTA Q- �REDDING SCALE NORTH In 44 MILES 0 5 10 BIS f TE HA M A ss Corning LAKE`` —� � ` O ALMANOR MENDOCINO Orland PLU AS G LE N N 51 • Pa dise LITTLE 101 .i PILLS URY VALLEY GR AS LAKE ;, LAKE I� BUTTE / LAKES' OROVILLE A KE — I Oroville 70 00 COLUSA - I CLEA2 ( :: R L� LAKE /AL DVSVILLE l 20 S` SONOMA LAKE BERRYESSA Y i Santa NAPA'`::;CC Rosa o 2s 101 NN 1 1 . ) LO 7s Travis AFB OLA m 1 o..:.: J O •Concord •� ,(OAKLAN : ST L%4—ivery pore I-3 Beale AFB NEVA 1� McClellan lAFB eo / Placerville Mather � A F 1 LSACRKMENTO ss AMADOR SAN UIN\ CALAVERAS OCKTON 7. Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act (ASNA) of 1979, PL 96-193, 94 Stat. 50. 8. State of California, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 21, Subchapter 6, "Noise Standards." 9. As of January 1, 1986 10. FAR Part I50 was updated in January, 1985. J 1 I-4 capable of assessing the effects of future aircraft noise conditions on existing and pro- jected land use within the Airport environs. TECHNICAL GOALS The following form technical goals the basis of the City's approach to the development of the FAR Part 150 noise exposure maps and were key elements of the project work 1 program: 1. To develop graphic information and supporting technical documentation needed to comply with Section 103 of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979,7 and Subpart B and Appendix A of FAR Part 150, which specify the stan- dards, methodology, and procedures for preparing and submitting aircraft noise exposure maps. 2. To comply with the requirements of Subparts B and C and Appendix B of FAR Part 150, which specify the standards, methodology, and procedures for the development of airport noise compatibility programs. 3. To comply with provisions of the California Airport Noise Standards,$ which state that, ". . . the criterion Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) for existing civilian airports ... is 65dB. "9 4. To comply with the public consultation provisions of FAR Part 150. Synopses of FAR Part. 150 and California Airport. Noise Standards FAR Part 150. Part 150 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, "Airport Noise Com- patibility Planning," became effective on February 28, 198110 and established a. new regulation which prescribed the requirements for the development of airport noise compatibility planning programs. The new regulation was based on Title I of the "Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act" (ASNA) of 1979 which adopted, in modi- fied form, recommendations made by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for airport noise compatibility planning. Included in the regulation is the establishment of a single system for determining the exposure of individuals to airport noise and a single system for measuring airport (and background) noise. The regulation also prescribes a standardized airport noise compatibility planning program, which includes (1) the development and submission to the FAA of noise exposure maps and noise com- patibility programs by airport sponsors; (2) standard noise methodologies and units for use in assessing airport noise; (3) the identification of land uses that are normally com- patible (or noncompatible) with various levels of airport noise; and (4) the procedure and criteria for FAA evaluation, and approval or disapproval of noise compatibility programs by the FAA Administrator. 7. Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act (ASNA) of 1979, PL 96-193, 94 Stat. 50. 8. State of California, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 21, Subchapter 6, "Noise Standards." 9. As of January 1, 1986 10. FAR Part I50 was updated in January, 1985. J 1 I-4 t Appendix A to Part 150 contains the technicaldescription and standards constituting the methodology for developing acceptable airport noise exposure maps. Section A150.101 prescribes the content of noise exposure maps, including the depiction of the Ldn (CNEL) 65dB, 70dB, and 75dB noise contours and the identification of noncom- patible land uses within the contours. Other specific information is required to identify political subdivisions having jurisdiction over land uses in the area. The use of an FAA approved computer noise prediction model (such as the Integrated Noise Model) is required under Section A150.103. Use of such a model assures the capability to produce required noise exposure data from the input of standardized air- port operational and aviation activity information. Section A150.105 requires that, with the submission of noise exposure maps, the air- port sponsor identify and depict the geographical boundaries of each public and plan- ning agency within the Ldn (CNEL) 65dB contour and describe the land use planning I and control authority vested in the agency or available under current or prospective le- gal authorization. California Airport Noise Standards. Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations provides noise regulations that govern the operation of aircraft and aircraft engines for all airports operating under a valid permit issued by the State Division of Aeronautics. The State Airport Noise Standards are based on two separate legal grounds: (1) The power of airport proprietors to impose ceilings and other limitations on the use of the airport (to the extent not prohibited by Federal law), and (2) the police powers of the State of California (in those areas not subject to Federal preemption),I I The regulations are designed to cause an airport proprietor, aircraft operator, local governments, pilots, and the State Division of Aeronautics to work cooperatively to diminish the problem of aircraft noise. The regulations are designed to accomplish this end by controlling and reducing the impacts of aircraft noise on nearby communities. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is the noise measurement required by the State for the establishment of an airport's noise impact boundary. Oh January 1, 1986, the CNEL 65dB noise contour became the representative criterion for estab- lishing the noise impact boundary for all civil airports in California. The area of non- compatible land use (i.e., residential or other noise sensitive land uses) within an air- port's .CNEL 65dB noise contour is utilized by the State in determining the magnitude of the noise problem for a given airport. At present Chico Municipal Airport does not exceed the cumulative (CNEL 65dB) noise compatibility criterion as defined in either State or federal airport noise standards. This criterion cumulative noise exposure level is also not expected to be exceeded by 1997 forecast year conditions even with increased levels of aviation activity associated with projected flight training activities. The criteria for noncompatible land uses as defined by both the State of California and the Federal Aviation Administration are discussed further in Chapter II, and the Air- port's noise exposure areas for 1990-1991 and 1997 (forecast) aircraft operations are il- lustrated on Exhibits V-1 and V-2 in Chapter V. 11. Interference with interstate commerce and discrimination are two examples of areas in which the Federal gov- ernment can preempt local and state governments. 1 I-5 t 1 t COMMUNITY AND AGENCY COORDINATION Prior to the initiation of the FAR Part 150 study for Chico Municipal Airport, citizen concerns over aircraft noise could be expressed through consultation with the Airport management, the Airport Commission or through contact with elected representatives. Although seriously concerned about airport noise issues, neither the City Council, the Airport Commission, or Airport management has had the depth of technical resources available to effectively deal with the full range of community and agency concerns. By the same token, local planning agencies12 required to review development proposals in areas in proximity to the airport had no access to recent Airport noise exposure data or operational information. 1 In recognition of the need to obtain formal input to and participation in the noise abatement planning process, the City, in concert with various aviation and community interests, has designated the City's Airport Commission as a forum for public 1 consultations required by FAR Part 150. The Airport Commission membership consists of a mixture of appointed officials, including Airport users, general aviation interests, local pilots, and persons residing in Chico and other areas near the Airport. i t 1 t 1 Ll L Chico Airport Commission meetings are held quarterly (unless otherwise required) and follow a published agenda. The meetings are open to the public. Since commencement of this FAR Part 150 program in 1991, the Airport Commission has held four meetings attended by Airport management and consultant staff where the FAR Part 150 study was agendized. The principal objective of these meetings was to discuss the technical progress and findings of the FAR Part 150 study and to disclose the magnitude (and causes) of existing and near-term single -event and cumulative (CNEL) noise exposure. Appendix A sets forth agendas and meeting minutes for City of Chico and Chico Airport Commission meetings on the FAR Part 150 project during the period of August 1991 through September 1992. Results of Consultations As a result of consultations with community representatives, local public officials and Airport users it was determined that although Chico Municipal Airport may not at present have a noise problem as defined by the State and federal land use compatibility criteria (which are based on a cumulative description of aircraft noise exposure -- Community Noise Equivalent Level, or CNEL), there is sufficient concern to justify the FAR Part 150 study process based on (1) the prospective introduction of flight training facilities in the future, (2) the growing pressure to develop noncompatible land uses in the Airport environs and (3) the potential for annoyance due to repetitive overflight of residential areas by local and itinerant aircraft. Through these consultations it was determined that the FAR Part 150 process would be directed at improving channels of communications among the City, FAA, major users and the adjacent community with the intent that all parties be well informed with regard to each other's views and perspectives. To this end, this final Noise Exposure Map Report has been. revised to reflect community concerns over potential flight training facilities at the airport. 12. i.e., City of Chico, Butte County, Butte County ALUC. 01 t II. COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT AND NOISE ■ COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS This chapter describes the Chico Municipal Airport and discusses land use planning in the communities and areas which comprise the Airport environs. LOCAL ENVIRONMENT AND SETTING Located on approximately 1,600 acres at the northern end of the City of Chico, the Chico Municipal Airport is bounded on the north, east and west by unincorporated Butte County. Existing Airport Facilities The predominant features of the Airport site are the airfield, the commercial air passenger terminal, and the Chico Municipal Airport (CMA) Industrial Park. Major aviation and industrial tenants occupy the Airport site (see Exhibit II -1). Airfield The airfield consists of two parallel runways of unequal length connecting taxiways and aircraft parking aprons. Runway 13L -31R is 6,724 feet long and is used by air carrier and other heavy aircraft, as well as the majority of general aviation aircraft. Runway 13R -31L is 3,005 feet long and is used exclusively by light general aviation aircraft for local training (pattern) operations. ■ Both runways are paved, but only Runway 13L -31R is lighted. Lighting for Runway 13L -31R is pilot controlled (PCL) when the air traffic control tower is closed. Runways 13L and 31R both have VASI (Visual Approach Slope Indicators) and runway approach lights. Runway 13L has runway end identifier lights (REIL) and a precision instrument landing system (ILS) as well as a nonprecision instrument approach (DME). The ILS provides the capability for certain aircraft to land on Runway 13L during poor weather conditions (with visibility as low as 3/4 of a mile). Air PassenEer Terminal The commercial air passenger terminal at Chico Municipal Airport was built in 1970 and has two air carrier gate positions. The facility can accommodate up to 250,000 annual passengers (enplaned and deplaned) and has a 141 vehicle capacity automobile parking lot. The FAA air traffic control tower is located immediately to the south of the terminal building. CMA Industrial Park The CMA Industrial Park was established in 1948 after the airport was transferred to the City of Chico from the Federal Government. The Industrial Park continues to be a major part of both the transportation and economic structure of Chico and Butte County with over 1,800 full-time jobs (including the airport) which represents 25 percent of all manufacturing jobs in the County. Among the major CMA Industrial Park tenants is the Aero Union Corporation. Aero Union modifies large aircraft for aerial firefighting and provides a base for aerial tankers engaged in fire fighting activities. The company also carries out other major aircraft 6 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EXHIBIT 11-1 AIRPORT SITE \ V \ EmerOeney ja•E - \ end 8ervreP - � \\ AIRPORT LOCATION CHICO MUNICIPAL r/ AIRPORT u_ z E•ei ti CHICO H-7 II -3 modification activities, including the development of new methods of handling air cargo.l Planned Development In 1983, the Chico Municipal Airport was incorporated into a redevelopment project area.2 The redevelopment project area coincides with the airport boundary, thereby incorporating the entire airport, as well as the CMA Industrial Park into the redevelopment project (see Exhibit 11-2). The proposed land uses and planned development of the airport and industrial park conform to those uses designated in the Chico General Plan.3 Exhibit II -3 illustrates the planned development of both aviation and industrial uses at the airport. Role of the Airport Over the past forty-five years, the four main goals of the City for Chico Municipal Airport have been to: o Provide an Air Facility for scheduled passenger air lines. o Provide an Air Facility for general and commercial aviation. Provide Industrial o an Park to create jobs for the community. o Provide an Air Facility and Industrial Park which eventually would be self-supporting.4 Under these long-standing policies, Chico Municipal Airport has endeavored to provide a full range of commercial and general aviation services to the residents of its air service area. These services include facilities for airline passengers and aircraft, general aviation aircraft basing, airport commercial businesses (FBOs) and support services. The air passenger terminal and adjacent commercial aircraft apron have been designed to accommodate air carrier transport turbojet aircraft as dictated by earlier forecasts of commercial aviation demand.5 Chico Municipal Airport also serves an important role as a flight training facility for aspiring local pilots and this role may become even more prominent in future years as demand continues to grow in a region characterized by steady population and income growth. EXISTING AND PROJECTED LAND USE The pattern of land usage within the 43 square 'mile airport environs reflects a combination of rural, urban, and suburban land uses, including large areas of ' agriculture and open space (see Exhibit II -4). Most agricultural. and open space uses 1 1. City of Chico, "History Of The Chico Minicipal Airport (CMA) 1933-1991," Nov. 1991. Pg. 12. 2. City of Chico Redevelopment Agency "Chico Municipal Airport Redevelopment Project," 4/19/83. 3. Ibid., Pg. 13. 4. City of Chico, "History...," Loc. Cit. 5. City of Chico, "Airport Environs Plan," August 1978. II -3 EXHIBIT I1-2 GRUMMAN AVE . �• oo• r G Q� p�QJ� 9 r •% q O �oG'J x O �f. ley rpt Io • �r i � 9a Fr`Pi m ' o' PROJECT BOUNDARY ♦ '.m.i 1 ' A • 1 � 1 CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT �•� REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA mss*� Chico Municipal Airport Redevelopment Project Boundary NORTH 1: 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 t 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1'. 1 s "_ _ '� J are compatible with aircraft operations at Chico Municipal Airport; other urban and suburban uses (principally residential) are less so. The following sections discuss both existing and projected patterns of land use in the airport environs. The land use control powers of the City of Chico as well as Butte County are also discussed. Existing Land Use The pattern of existing (1990-91) airport environs land use is depicted on Exhibit II -4. ' As can be seen from the exhibit, the areas to the south, southwest, and southeast of the airport are largely urbanized, with large concentrations of residential and commercial uses. To the west, north and northwest of the airport existing land uses are predominantly agricultural with areas of suburban residential development concentrated ' along local streets (Hicks, Garner, and Keefer Lanes). The area to the east of the airport is primarily open space. Projected Land Use Change From Exhibit II -4, it can be seen that the Chico Municipal Airport environs combines well established urban uses with agricultural, open space and vacant lands. Future land use change in the Airport environs is expected to come about as a result of major new development in currently undeveloped tracts, in -fill of existing vacant lots and agricultural parcels, and by redevelopment of specific designated areas (particularly in unincorporated Butte County). Significant new development is proposed for the area immediately west of the airport between Hicks Road and Highway 99. Butte County is currently developing a specific land use plan for this area. ' Land Use Control Authority The Chico Municipal Airport environs includes land in Chico as well as unincorporated ' Butte County. Chico Municipal Airport is located within the City of Chico, an incorporated charter city within Butte County. Incorporated cities are required to adopt general plans and zoning regulations to guide land use within the city and its sphere of ' influence. Zoning regulations identify the location of specific land uses, types of uses, and specific design criteria such .as building height, density and setbacks. Variances and conditional use permits are subject to review and approval by the Planning ' Commission of the city. Land subdivisions are governed by the State Subdivision Act and must be approved by the city and must be consistent with the general plan. Land development proposals within the City of Chico generally follow the planning and regulatory guidelines outlined above. The City of Chico also has a Redevelopment Agency that has the authority to institute a variety of public improvements. Flight activities at the Chico Municipal Airport affect residents of areas outside of the City's sphere of influence. The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission. (ALUC) must prepare a land use plan for the County's airports in accordance with state law. The purpose of the plan is to mitigate the potential impacts of airport activities on ' future noise -sensitive land uses. Within the ALUC's jurisdiction, public agencies must file for approval of proposed zoning changes, use permits, permits for new construction and major reconstruction, or change in land use. i II -7 1 sets forth FAR Part 150 noise and land use compatibility standards.9 I Under Part 150, the FAA offers Airport sponsors an opportunity to develop a program for achieving compatibility between the Airport and its environs. An FAA approved Part 150 noise compatibility program makes an Airport sponsor eligible to apply for L 6. "Noise Standards," Loc. Cit. 7. Ibid. 8. "Airport Noise Compatibility Planning," Loc. Cit. 9. FAR Part 150 uses the Yearly Day -Night Average Sound Level metric. This metric correlates closely with the CNEL metric which adds a 5dB penalty for events occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. t II -8 NOISE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS Land use compatibility standards promulgated by State and local agencies and the fed- eral government must be considered in successful land use compatibility planning. California Airport Noise Standards Under current California Airport Noise Standards6 residential areas subject to aircraft noise levels of CNEL 65dB and above are considered to be noise -impacted. This means that any existing residential or school buildings without special acoustical insulation, or those not subject to specific noise easements, located in such an area are considered noncompatible uses. ' "acceptable" The CNEL 65dB value has been determined to be the standard for aircraft noise exposure within residential areas.7 This value became the State standard for de- termining "Noise Impacted Areas" on January 1, 1986. ' The CNEL 65dB criterion for establishing the State's noise impact boundary was based on the noise sensitive nature of residential land uses, including single-family and multi- ple -family dwellings, trailer parks, and schools of standard construction. Certain other land uses which may occur within the CNEL 65dB and above noise contour may be deemed compatible uses, and have been excluded from the calculation of the noise im- pact area (see Chapter V). From the standpoint of the State Airport Noise Standards, the following land uses have been deemed to be compatible: (a) Agricultural; (b) Airport Property; (c) Industrial Property; (d) Commercial Property; (e) Property subject to an avigation easement for noise; and (f) Zoned open space. Federal Aviation Administration Standards ' Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 "Airport Noise Compatibility Planning"8 is the .FAA standard for land use compatibility in the Airport environs. Noise exposure levels of CNEL 65dB and above are considered to be noncompatible with residential land uses, schools, and other public facilities. Table II - 1 sets forth FAR Part 150 noise and land use compatibility standards.9 I Under Part 150, the FAA offers Airport sponsors an opportunity to develop a program for achieving compatibility between the Airport and its environs. An FAA approved Part 150 noise compatibility program makes an Airport sponsor eligible to apply for L 6. "Noise Standards," Loc. Cit. 7. Ibid. 8. "Airport Noise Compatibility Planning," Loc. Cit. 9. FAR Part 150 uses the Yearly Day -Night Average Sound Level metric. This metric correlates closely with the CNEL metric which adds a 5dB penalty for events occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. t II -8 HI 99 99-09 09 -SL SL -OL OL -S9 S9 J9A0 MOIag .•s1o415oa ul (UPS) IeAa-1 punoS 96eJ9Ay 3461N-1(eQ AIJe9A . .suoijou6isa(3 AjijigijedwoC) asn Pue-i OS l Ved add T -II aZgvs Ielluaplsaa salJo6aleo asn pue-I OS t Ved UVA : ssem asn pue-i . se1e100aer 4 1011008 't001u11o2W Put uOpOg01U1WPY u011e4AY 18Jep6d :eoJno6 AIeA110etl99J '(I11N) 6uollanpeJ lOAel eslou Put 2010u 01 Je►eJ 6Jegwnu Put 699041119Jea 111 9,09148100 6u1Ae1409 ul sonleA pue •peau POulwJelep e6n puel 01011rtlw00 eolou Allr90l O► 06uodsoi ul ea111JO41ne 10901 Aq alelidoiddt eq Ol poulw/elop •2041 JO► 606n puel POulw -Jolep AlleJopel elnlllogn6 of Pe Puelul lou OJ9 OBl tied J9pun suolltulwJelep VVA '6eI11J041n6 It901 4►IA% 6ultwaJ seen Puel olgl62lwJed Put 91g910909e 041 Oulul u o&&p JOI Aq POJ0AO9 Purl l0 stn flue 1941 A1111g1$uod2GJ-04J. 'rel 19001 J0 '01816 'IeJepe.1 Japun e►gtlOeazoun Jo elgtlaeooe el wa'000,10 061 lied 941 u011eulw JOIOP IeJOped 'a0Jno2 ul p9ulelu09 6460lleudf20P 941 r 140ee0J00J 0200 J0411OU ul Pue Peoue/0191-0AOge uoan petrq air algal 6141 ,'eleAej puno6 868JOAV 140IN_Ae0 AIJOaA 411M A1111gllodwoo eon purl, 'Z olg91 'Y slPu0ddV '041 tied elvie N N 0£ SL A A u011e9JoeJ Je1eM pus sanguis OulpIJ '999Jnoo +lop N N N A A A 60weo pus slioseJ 'sX,ed 'eiu9wesnwr N N N N A A Boor pus silgl4x9 sin1eN N N N N N A 6,1949041140UID '611949 o1Snw JooPinp N N N (e)A (o)A A 64JO09 J018109436 PUB seueJe siJodc Joopinp YOI3- eaJ3911 A A A A A A u01139Jixe Pus uolionpoJd aoJnoseJ '5u14QIJ pue Oululyq N N N MA MA A 5ulpa9Jq pue OulwJel 110079aA11 MA (4)A (4)A MA (1)A A AJlsaJol pue ()130369A11 ldaoxe) eJnllnolJOy N N 0£ SZ A A 1901100 pue 0109160104d N (P)A MA MA A A. leJausO 'BulJnioelnuepl uo117npOJd pue ulJn47e jnueyr N N 0£ SZ A A u011eo111nww0'J N MA MA (q)A A A ",9!1111311 N N 0£ SZ A A leJeuaB-apeJl yeIay lu9wdln Da wJel N (P)A (0)A (q)A A A pue GJSMPJ94 '61e1Jeiew OuIPI!nq-IleleJ pus a1eS8104M N N 0£ SZ A A 1e4401SSaloJd pus scaulsnq '680111p ein mojawwoo N (P)A (0)A (q)A A A BulllJsd (P)A (P)A (0)A (4)A A A u011e1JodcueJ1 N N 0£ SZ A A 99olAJOS IeivawuJaAOD N N N 0£ SZ A S1184 iJaOuoo pus 'SwnsiollPne 'sa4oJn40 N N N o£ SZ A Saw04 OulsJnu pus '918POs0M N N N (B)N (B)N A 210040S asn 7114nd N N (W)N (e)l MN A SOulOpol lual6usJl N N N N N A S11/ed OW04 ayg0pl N N N (e)N (e)N A s0u10pol 3uelSUBJ1 Pus Saw04 ellgow U944 J0410 'IellUeplsaa 99 99-09 09 -SL SL -OL OL -S9 S9 J9A0 MOIag .•s1o415oa ul (UPS) IeAa-1 punoS 96eJ9Ay 3461N-1(eQ AIJe9A . .suoijou6isa(3 AjijigijedwoC) asn Pue-i OS l Ved add T -II aZgvs Ielluaplsaa salJo6aleo asn pue-I OS t Ved UVA : ssem asn pue-i KEY TO TABLE U-1 Y Yes, land use and related structures compatible without restriction. N No, land use and related structures are not compatible, and should be prohibited. NLR Noise Level Reduction (outdoor'to indoor) to be achieved through incorporation of noise at- i tenuation into the design and construction of the structure. 25, 30 Land uses and related -structures generally considered compatible; measures to achieve NLR or 35 of 25, 30, or 35 must be incorporated into design and construction of structures. (a) Where the community determines that residential uses must be allowed, measures to achieve outdoor to indoor Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of at least 25 dB and 30 dB should be incor- porated into building codes and be considered in individual approvals. Normal construction can be expected to provide a NLR of 20 dB, thus, the reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10, or 15 dB over standard construction and normally assume mechanical ventilation and closed windows year-round. However, the use of NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems. (b) Measures to achieve NLR of 2S must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low. (c) Measures to achieve NLR of 30 must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, once areas, noise sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low. (d) i Measures to achieve NLR of 35 must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low: (e) Land use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed. (f) Residential buildings require an NLR of 25. (g) Residential buildings require an NLR of 30. (h) Residential buildings not permitted. ' U-10 special noise abatement funds. These funds can be used for the acquisition of land and improvements in areas of severe noise exposure and/or the acoustical treatment (i.e., soundproofing) of noise sensitive facilities (homes, schools, hospitals, etc.). ' III. AVIATION ACTIVITY FORECASTS This chapter summarizes the methodology and assumptions used in preparing updated aviation activity forecasts for Chico Municipal Airport. INTRODUCTION i' A reasonable forecast of aviation activity is essential in the proper determination of fu- ture aircraft noise exposure. The numbers of flight operations and the types of aircraft in use at a given airport are major determinants of aircraft noise impact. Ideally, the forecasting of hviation activity and demand is a rational and controlled basis for pre- dicting future events. However, since the future is always accompanied by uncertainty, forecasts are best presented with a conservative anticipation of possible outcomes. For this reason the forecasts represented in this report consider not only the potential de- mand for, or use of airport facilities, but also existing policy, and other considerations that could affect overall Airport activity. Significant among these considerations is the potential for Chico Municipal Airport to be used as a major center for flight training activities after 1995. ' Therefore, it is important to note that it is virtually impossible to ensure absolute and precise accuracy in aviation forecasting and that it is not necessary to have exact data to attain meaningful estimates of cumulative noise exposure. This is due to the fact that noise impact computations involve logarithmic mathematical functions which are characteristic of the acoustical physical sciences. For example, an inadvertent 20 percent understatement of future aircraft activity (e.g., a forecast of 100,000 operations when 120,000 actually materialized) would yield a cumulative noise modeling error of less than 1 decibel (0). This error is substantially below the 3.0 decibel tolerance in noise measurement accuracy for permanent on-site noise monitoring systems as set forth in the California Airport Noise Standards and is virtually inconsequential in terms of its effect on land use planning. Aviation Forecast Sources 1 The activity forecasts set forth in this chapter were derived from several sources in- cluding the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS), Division of Aeronautics and the City of Chico. Specific forecast references include the FAA NPIAS forecasts,' the California Aviation System Plan (CASP)2 and the 1978 Environs Plan for Chico Municipal Airport.3 These forecasts were reviewed and evaluated in light of current airport and community interests, and updated forecasts of aircraft operations have been prepared for use in the development of noise exposure maps for 1997 and other conditions. 1. Federal Aviation Administration, "National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) 1990-1999". 2. California Department.of Transportation Division of Aeronautics, "The California Aviation System Plan, Element n: Forecasts, Volume 1," August 1988 3. City of Chico, "Airport Environs Plan," August 1978 HISTORICAL AVIATION ACTIVITY Data concerning historical flight activity at Chico Municipal Airport was obtained pri- marily from FAA records and from information compiled by the City of Chico.. These data were supplemented by historical information set forth in the California Aviation System Plan and the FAA's National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Aircraft Activity Historical general aviation activity data for a 14 -year span is set forth in Table III -1. Based on Cit and FAA information the number of operations at the Airport has fluctu- ated - in the range ysnge of 58,000 to 91,000 annual operations over the 14 -year time span.4 These counts suggest that the local economy has reflected fluctuations in activity ob- served Nationwide over the same time pefiod. However, aircraft activity has not gen- erally followed population and income trends --the customary predictors of aircraft ac- tivity. The previous forecasts prepared for the 1978 Environs Plan indicated 91,327 annual operations in the year 1977. Included in this number were some 2,776 air carrier turbojet operations. In the past, air carrier turbojet service had been provided by Air Wests (later known as Hughes Air West) and Pacific Express (which was based in Chico).6 Table III -1 also reflects the fact that the FAA's Airport Traffic Control Tower had been deactivated during all of 1982 and 1983 and portions of 1981 and 1984.7 Furthermore, airline deregulation has resulted in a steady decline in air carrier jet operations since the late 1970s. Air carrier operations ceased in 1984 with the withdrawal of service by Pa- cific Express.8 It is notable that over the most recent five-year period from the end of 1985 through 1990, aircraft activity at Chico Municipal Airport has increased at an average annual rate of almost 3.4 percent9. In Calendar year 1991, air traffic at Chico Municipal Airport took a slight downturn and in September 1992 American Eagle Airline discontinued service at the airport. FORECAST METHODOLOGY 1 The validity of forecasts is completely dependent on the accuracy in predicting the vari- ables which influence aviation demand. Typically, those variables which are of signifi- cant importance in the determination of demand are population, employment and in- come of the community being served. 4. Range in aircraft activity levels for years for which entire calendar year data was available. S. Successor to Pacific Air Lines 6. Over the period December 1981 through June 1990, Chico served as maintenance base for WestAir Airlines (a.k.a. United Express) 7. The ATCr was decommissioned 9/29/81 and reopened 3/5/84. 8. Turboprop service was provided by Hughes Air West through January 1987. 9. Forecasts originally prepared in 1991; thus, at that time, the last full calendar year of data available was for 1990. Table III -1 HISTORICAL AVIATION ACTIVITY Chico Municipal Airport Source: Airport Management records. 1. Including rotorcrafl operations. 2. Includes 2,776 air carrier jet operations. 3. Approx 9 month's data. 4. The FAA's ATCT was deactivated from September 29, 1981 through March 5, 1984. 5. Approx. 10 month's data. Aircraft Operations' Local Itinerant Total 1977 35,000 56,327 91,3272 1978 34,933 55,892 90,825 1979 23,940 55,798 79,738 ' 1980 28,821 48,547 77,368 1981 20,189 34,561 54,7503 1982-1983 Data Not Available4 1984 17,419 38,834 56,2535 1985 23,836 41,964 65,800 1986 23,282 40,794 64,076 1987 16,618 41,494 58,112 1988 16,446 41,805 58,251 1989 20,988 45,918 66,906 1990 24,680 52,258 76,938 1991 25,804 48,838 74,642 Source: Airport Management records. 1. Including rotorcrafl operations. 2. Includes 2,776 air carrier jet operations. 3. Approx 9 month's data. 4. The FAA's ATCT was deactivated from September 29, 1981 through March 5, 1984. 5. Approx. 10 month's data. 1 However, achievement of any forecast may be affected by fluctuating conditions and as a result may also be dependent upon the occurrence of other future events which may not be forseeable. Thus, the potential accuracy of demand forecasts becomes more speculative as one looks further into the future. That is, it is possible to predict as much as three to five years into the future with reasonable confidence; but it becomes more difficult to look further into the future, particularly in a period of economic uncertainty characterized by dynamic fluctuations and unpredictable economic behavior. 1 To contend with this problem, it was considered appropriate to create an updated set of assumptions regarding the outcome of future events and circumstances which would influence demand. These assumptions define the five-year (1997) forecast scenario considered in this study and the year 2010 forecast conditions which will be analyzed in Phase II of the study, the Noise Compatibility Plan (NCP) component: Local (Butte County) population growth will materialize as forecast by the Cali- fornia Department of Finance. U The public service infrastructure and environmental carrying capacity of the Airport environs will neither constrain growth nor limit the future service role of the Airport. 0 The availability of local, federal and state government funding for airport im- provements will not constrain growth. o Significant short-term growth in aviation activity (by 1997) at Chico Municipal . Airport is likely to come about as a result of increased flight training operations from the establishment of one or more flight schools. .0 Longer term growth (beyond 1997) will result in part from additional flight training activities, and from operations conducted by specialty businesses (including corporate aviation, aircraft maintenance and overhaul, and additional aerial firefighting activities). Therefore, the forecasts are not only dependent on population, income and other socioeconomic factors which influence demand, but are also augmented by additional activity which may be generated because of the Airport's intrinsic appeal and from other circumstances unrelated to the regional propensity to travel by air. Such factors include location, available unused capacity, high quality facilities and services, and physical/environmental constraints at other airports. General Aviation Forecasting For purposes of establishing a meaningful forecast of general aviation annual operations, it was necessary to determine the relative validity of the range of available state and federal forecasts. For Chico Municipal Airport, forecast data from the FAA NPIAS, 1988 CASP and 1978 Environs Plan were reviewed and compared with histori- cal data (actual operations) to establish potential trend lines. It is notable that the NPIAS forecast extends only to a 10 -year horizon, and the CASP does not extend beyond the year 2005. 1 Several methodologies were of use in identifying a reasonable forecast. These are briefly summarized in the following subsections. General Aviation Trends Nationwide trends can be useful predictors of local aviation activity. In the absence of special local economic, environmental or political constraints or incentives, an aware- ness of national trends can assist in interpreting the wide range of forecasts available from the previously described sources. General aviation incorporates several diverse and growing uses of aircraft including pilot training, recreational flying, transportation of personnel by business firms in pri- vately -owned aircraft, non-scheduled commercial (air taxi) operations, and some highly specialized uses such as aerial application, security patrol, aerial photography, medical flights and bank record transfer. Current major Airport users within these categories include Aero Union (aerial firebombers and aircraft modification) and the California Division of Forestry Air Attack Base. The Airport is also utilized by aircraft from both Beale and Mather Air Force Bases. 10 ,Historical and forecast growth of the national general aviation fleet by type and use, as developed by the FAA indicates that shipments of general aviation aircraft have de- clined each year from 1979 through 1988. The majority of the general aviation fleet (in excess of 75 percent) are single engine aircraft. When the single engine piston air- craft market declines (as it has been during the past decade) it signals the slowing of expansion in the general aviation fleet on the whole and, consequently, a slowing in the r rate of growth. The national general aviation fleet is expected to exhibit a 0.2 percent annual growth rate over the period 1988 through the year 2000, growing from some 217,200 aircraft in 1988 to about 221,100 aircraft by the year 2000. The greatest numeric increase is expected to occur in those types used in business aviation including multi engine pro- peller and turbine aircraft. This growth would be largely offset by a decline in light piston aircraft. Total hours flown in general aviation aircraft are expected to increase by five million, growing from 33.6 million hours in 1988 to 38.6 million by the year 2000. Multi -en- gine aircraft will account for the greater portion of the projected increase. The significance of these trends is inconclusive. It is more likely, however, that Chico Municipal Airport, may see significant increases in general aviation activity as a result of the airport's inherent attractiveness as a flight training facility, than in accordance with national trends. 1 SOCIOECONOMIC REVIEW The propensity to travel (by air or any other transportation mode) generally correlates closely with three principal statistically significant variables --population, employment, 10. 'General aviation' does not include military operations—which are separately categorized. Available state and federal forecast resources together with the previous 1978 Environs Plan were evaluated and compared to facilitate identification of. an updated forecast for and income. An evaluation of the forecast population and income of Butte County residents can help establish trends useful in the forecasting of general aviation activity. 11. Woods & Poole Economics, "1991 State Profile—California' July 1991 Local Demographic Characteristics Population. Population data for existing and future conditions are based on data con- tained in the U.S. Census and forecasts derived from the California Department of Fi- nance.Il The official 1980 population of Butte County was 144,900 in round numbers. By 1990 the population had risen to 183,010 representing an average annual growth 1 rate of 2.36 percent. Projections prepared by the Department of Finance estimate that the County population will grow to 211,020 in the year 2000 and to 238,430 by the year 2010 representing annual growth rates of 1.43 percent and 1.23 percent for the two ten-year periods, respectively. Employment. Based on studies prepared for the State Employment Development De- partment,12 it is estimated that about 78 percent of all employment is concentrated among four, sectors of the local economy: Services 24.3% Retail Trade 22.6% Federal, state and local government 21.2.% Manufacturing 9.5 % Total earnings in 1990 were $1,182.18M (1982 constant dollars) divided among 13 1 identifiable economic activities. 13 Of this total, some $234M (20 percent) is shared among the federal, state and local government (including the U.S. military and Chico State University). Approximately $404.64M are generated by the service industries. Of the total revenue, consumer -oriented trade accounts for $193M (16 percent). Income. Over the period 1980 through 1990 Butte County per capita income has in- creased from $8,954 to $15,499 representing an average annual increase of 5.6 percent. In constant dollar terms, however, per capita income has increased at the average an- nual rate of only 1.1 percent over the same period. 14 UPDATED AVIATION FORECASTS Review of Aviation Forecasts Available state and federal forecast resources together with the previous 1978 Environs Plan were evaluated and compared to facilitate identification of. an updated forecast for development of the five-year forecast noise exposure map. 11. Woods & Poole Economics, "1991 State Profile—California' July 1991 12. State of California, Employment Development Department, "Annual Planning Information—Chico Metropolitan Sta- tistical Area (Butte County)," June 1991 13. Woods & Poole Economics, Loc. Cit. 14. Woods & Poole Economics, Loc. Cit. 1 III -6 1 A comparison of the state, federal and 1978 Environs Plan aircraft operations forecasts is given in Table III -2. The trends displayed by the forecast comparison can be more readily visualized in Exhibit III -1. The CASP forecast for 1990 (82,956) operations is more than the 76,938 actual operations recorded for the year. Based on the actual activity levels for 1990 and 1991 as set forth in Table III -1, the CASP forecast would seem to overstate short term growth. However, the CASP forecast was prepared in 1988, and did not give consideration to the potential for increased flight training operations at Chico Municipal Airport and may in fact understate potential post -1995 activity levels. In view of this fact, the CASP must be considered conservative when looked at over the long term. The FAA NPIAS forecast underestimated actual 1990 activity levels at the airport. As with the CASP, the NPIAS did not give consideration to the potential for increased flight training activities at Chico Municipal Airport, and should also be considered Iconservative for this reason. The 1978 Environs Plan forecasts have proved to be highly optimistic. Indeed, the latter part of the 1970s decade saw extremely aggressive growth rates in most parts of the U.S. The 1978 Environs Plan anticipated that these rates would continue, not anticipating the economic downturns together with higher fuel and operating costs and insurance requirements which have collectively been partly responsible for the more re- cently observed modest growth rates. Therefore, the 1978 Environs Plan growth rates are not considered realistic over the long term in view of present day activity trends and County demographic forecasts, with the potential for flight school activities notwithstanding. In September 1992, Save Our Skies (SOS), a local interest group commented on the . forecasts set forth in the Draft Final Noise Exposure Map report. 15 SOS was concerned that previous flight school activity forecasts understated potential aircraft activity levels which could be associated with a major flight training facility at Chico Municipal Airport. SOS provided the City of Chico with the forecast data presented on Exhibit III -1 labeled "SOS W/F.S. (i.c. with flight school)" Under the SOS forecast scenario, total operations at Chico Municipal Airport, including flight school activities would approximate 190,000 in the year 2010.16 NUpdated Forecast Updated aviation activity forecasts for 1995, 1997,17 2000, 2005 and 2010 .were prepared in support of this study. The updated forecast is set forth on Table III -3 and depicted graphically on Exhibit III -1. The updated forecast projects an approximate average annual growth rate of 4.7 percent for the four year period from 1991 through 1995. From 1995 through 1997 the airport could be expected to experience a short-term surge. of growth associated with the "FAR ' 15. McClintock, Becker & Associates, Part 150 Ai ort Noise Compatibility Program: Aircraft Noise Exposure Map Report (Draft Final Report)," August 17, 1992. SOS's letter and MBA's response is included in Appendix B. L 16. Save Our Skies (A Citizens Group), letter to Mr. Tom Lando, Chico City Mgr., September 24, 1992. 17. 1997 serves as the basis for the five-year forecast noise exposure map. III -7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i k , , Table III -2 COMPARISON OF GENERAL AVIATION FORECASTS Chico Municipal Airport Annual Aircraft Operations' Forecast 1990 1995 2000 2005 Source CASP2 82,956 88,773 95,842 103,872 FAA NPIAS3 62,000 65,000 71,000 -- 1978 Environs Plan4 184,560 237,710 290,860 -- Source: McClintock, Becker & Associates (Rev. 11/92) 2010 1. Note that computed Annual Service Volume (capacity) of the existing airfield is approximately 355,000 annual operations. 1990 actual operations totalled 76,938. 2. "California Aviation System Plan, Element II: Forecasts," August 1988 3. Federal Aviation Administration, "National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems 1990-1999". 4. Previous (1978) Environs Plan "modest growth" general aviation forecast adjusted from 1988 to 1990, 1988 to 1995, and- 1998 to 2000. r r �r �r err r rs +r rr rr r r sr rr rr rr �r rr r 2 2 2 . EXHIBIT III -1 AVIATION FORECAST COMPARISON 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 McClintock, Becker & Associates (11/92) z o Z w 1 a " a 1� j -° z t z Q 1. J Q o . 1 4 . EXHIBIT III -1 AVIATION FORECAST COMPARISON 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 McClintock, Becker & Associates (11/92) Table III -3 UPDATED AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS FORECASTS 1 Chico Municipal Airport Annual Civil Aircraft ODeratiow Source: McClintock, Becker & Associates (11/92) 1. Revised to reflect community concerns over potential for major flight training activities to be conducted at CMA after 1995. 2. After 1995,'and with the inception of a major flight training facility at Chico Municipal, local (touch & go) training operations are anticipated to increase as a percent of total operations for single engine and light twin aircraft. 3. Light, single-engine piston propeller aircraft. 4. Light (i.e., < 12,500 lbs.) twin -engine piston propeller aircraft . 5. Heavy (i.e., > 12,500 lbs.), multi -engine piston propeller aircraft (e.g., DC -4). 6. Commuter Air Carrier turboprop aircraft. 7. Exact numbers of rotorcraft are undocumented but are estimated to be about 1.5 percent of total operations, are included in figures for single engine aircraft, and are forecast to grow at 3.0 percent through the planning period. III -10 Actual 1990 By Type of Operation 1997 Local2 24,680 Itinerant 52,258 Total 76,938 By Aircraft 87,911 1-E Prop.3 60,983 2-E Prop.4 5,862 Hvy. M -E Prop.5 400 Light Turboprop 365 Hvy. Turboprop 1,000 Comm. Turboprop6 7,598 Turbojet 730 Rotorcraft (71 Source: McClintock, Becker & Associates (11/92) 1. Revised to reflect community concerns over potential for major flight training activities to be conducted at CMA after 1995. 2. After 1995,'and with the inception of a major flight training facility at Chico Municipal, local (touch & go) training operations are anticipated to increase as a percent of total operations for single engine and light twin aircraft. 3. Light, single-engine piston propeller aircraft. 4. Light (i.e., < 12,500 lbs.) twin -engine piston propeller aircraft . 5. Heavy (i.e., > 12,500 lbs.), multi -engine piston propeller aircraft (e.g., DC -4). 6. Commuter Air Carrier turboprop aircraft. 7. Exact numbers of rotorcraft are undocumented but are estimated to be about 1.5 percent of total operations, are included in figures for single engine aircraft, and are forecast to grow at 3.0 percent through the planning period. III -10 Forecast 1995 1997 2000 2005 2010 29,295 47,953 57,174 72,544 87,911 59,478 67.022 71,334 76,606 85,204 88,773 114,975 128,508 149,150 173,115 70,445 86,934 94,260 107,960 123,380 6,771 14,655 16,950 21,610 27,120 462 360 250 -- -- 422 2,189 5,497 6,671 7,891 1,055 1,064 1,102 1,166 1,497 8,777 8,738 9,260 10,225 11,290 843 .1;035 1,189 1,518 1,937 Source: McClintock, Becker & Associates (11/92) 1. Revised to reflect community concerns over potential for major flight training activities to be conducted at CMA after 1995. 2. After 1995,'and with the inception of a major flight training facility at Chico Municipal, local (touch & go) training operations are anticipated to increase as a percent of total operations for single engine and light twin aircraft. 3. Light, single-engine piston propeller aircraft. 4. Light (i.e., < 12,500 lbs.) twin -engine piston propeller aircraft . 5. Heavy (i.e., > 12,500 lbs.), multi -engine piston propeller aircraft (e.g., DC -4). 6. Commuter Air Carrier turboprop aircraft. 7. Exact numbers of rotorcraft are undocumented but are estimated to be about 1.5 percent of total operations, are included in figures for single engine aircraft, and are forecast to grow at 3.0 percent through the planning period. III -10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 initiation of projected flight school activities. mApproximately 18,000 additional annual operations were allocated to new flight school activities in 1997. From 1997 through 2010, the airport would continue to grow at an average annual rate of approximately 3.9 percent. This growth would be anticipated to occur as a result of increased flight school activities, as well as through increased operations by other classes of airport users. It is anticipated that by 2010, approximately 70,000 annual operations would be associated with flight school activities out of a total of some 173,115 operations. This total is well below the Airport's Annual Service Volume (ASV) of 355,000 aircraft operations. 18 18. From FAA Advisory Circular 150/5060-5, "Airport Capacity and Delay." ASV is a measure of the airport's operational capacity. IV. OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT 'A variety of factors influence operational procedures for aircraft landing at and taking off from Chico Municipal Airport. Among these are regional airspace use con- siderations and local operational procedures. ' REGIONAL AIRSPACE SETTING A complex interaction of aircraft flight procedures controlled and monitored by the FAA affects the use and management of the airspace surrounding Chico Municipal Airport. As with most of the continental United States, the airspace around the Airport is "controlled" airspace. Air traffic activities in this area are subject to control by the FAA and the requirement for in-flight "visibility" (i.e., identification) is greater than that for uncontrolled airspace. The primary control facility for aircraft operations at the Chico Municipal Airport is the FAA's airport traffic control tower (ATCT). Air traffic control services are cur- rently available from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. local time. Communications services in- clude radio frequencies for terminal operations, ground control, and an automated ter- minal information service (ATIS). The ATIS provides pilots with recorded information on current airport conditions. During the hours that the FAA ATCT is operational an airport traffic area exists for the Airport. This is an area of positive control by the I tower, and is cylindrical in shape. The cylinder is centered on the Airport and is 10 nautical miles (approximately 61,000 feet) in diameter. The area of control extends upward from the surface to 3,000 feet above ground level (AGL). Aircraft F7i ht Tracks Exhibit IV -1 illustrates the Airport's major IFR and VFR flight tracks for both high performance commercial/business and light general aviation civil aircraft. Exhibit IV -1 sets forth generalized aircraft arrival and departure tracks, for high per- formance turbojet, turboprop and heavy piston propeller aircraft. Exhibit IV -1 also de- picts the flight tracks utilized by light piston powered general aviation aircraft including aircraft commonly conducting flight training operations. The flight tracks depicted on Exhibit IV -1 also include those which would be used by air carrier turbojet aircraft should such operations materialize in the future. Exhibit'IV-1 also depicts areas over which aircraft could be expected to fly at altitudes below 3,000 feet MSL. These areas lie along the generalized flight tracks depicted on the exhibit and are based on the fact that the flight tracks are generalized and that aircraft respond to a number of variables in the course of flight (including wind speed and direction, aircraft weight, pilot proficiency and air traffic control instructions). Also shown on Exhibit IV -1 is the precision instrument approach for Runway 13L. ' 1. The projection upon the earth of the paths of aircraft in }light. ' IV -1 •y / t �� o!�e?44" � •ate � e p � p 0 e P p ^. III •.,, �..;. � .. - ::. ... � _ - . � ° �, ��� � ,�,\ � - .;:. :: ;: '•• .: -•---- J S U N , T I IGtb 'A)l \ •'` ....TGt\ 1 J. ... ::':.... .. a ,.. .....� .: .. U ... :.o. .., .. o ° a • T O S" ti _v .... .. :... .:Y �. �✓._ , m J /ASE V TG G� p { .: .. .. .. ..._ .. - ... • :.:. 4 vy r .. .. .. .. ... �. .. ....o.. .- a .. .:.n; .. ..ii• .•'. CHICO MUNICIPAL ... .. � .... ,rte •f, i.., ... .... .. .. 1 .. ...... P� !•,^ JS`• m g � r .• \, AIRPORT .. .. 3 _ FAR PART 150IRPORT NOISE A zeB•.. a.. err .�-, :rr..``�,..�� � a COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM .., ,,. to R�lITED. �• 's k.' w a ',� a V • lJ . \ :... ,. ','; • . � ,. � E N I a AN D ENVIRONS PLA ` ;:' p `. .. ,; �,: :;• _ ! � i ;,' tis ��:,,K n s SCALE °. ST AI _ d ...... � ST FEET Q d rory - --- 77;11�`0 1' �� A26 O 5' Y " NORTH D30 122 )'\ ♦ i : \': .o ,• s _ � -�if.� \ ,,`, ' .,�I / .r D20 �'' ♦; r i •:~�.. a I 1000 2000 3000 4000 O M A2 V °°� 5, U :... / ELkO -� N . c 4, A t .t • g J (302) / 41...... r. .r „ '. 5 H_ :1;=i� /f N L -TISCE � �N � RADRO ,`A T •Q- �. s d LEG_ END _TAC /�-�,� � / 0 � k � � ^..,� `> � �. `�' , � . ..`::. s y s� , r •,. t.• • t ' / f '; j •� �.�.� Airport Boundary - z1 Chico Sphere of Influence ,..v0 � M1 7 I' fr r1.�1.' �.. �/ `�YJ./ J �/ gVRfd?, �• s A',' >�''. / ao ` - q . %oJ-✓w. `LIGHT R P.i`tTG19 P •i r- r / �,� .a _ O a Business Jets and Heavy Aircraft / ' • �/ i , � ._-- s;J ti1 2 ,q J. Aircraft /\. ° ti° / ✓' \ ` ..,, / - Light / \ z e� � �° \ / � ' >•if. I�,,,� TAI CRAFT PATI R TGt2 j�a`�� .�� ' � '` .R�1 �. ► o� .9 (1t� Limited Use Pattern T. �-t } ,'� -t Ao/ �PVE� • 1p � � ) ro J. „�,r, • �� 0 �y �• • ° - ,q ---- Tanker Practice Drop Pattern - EAVx'ATRCRAFT-PitfTER Noise Monitoring Site s / Y \, be �� - _._ _. tt±---_C-^'f _ �—O �,, —_' C • uw m 4 v ,t (OCTOBER fp•U 4 _ O �. _ UNoise• Monitoring Site o 3e Z \ •• \ L3 L' _ (191e ENVIRONG PB) � � `/ N�• '\.•• � ,/ �. P i" ..� ,a s o •/^ \\ 3" Avigation Easement • Al Arrival Track Designator • P✓ D1 Departure Track Designator • - -1 - -/ a � / � � a 1� O h 5 S m \ ' hti �,� Io1 _ , ✓' . y ; ,°p -h TG1 Touch and Go Track Designator .� is � °i� ° .\ / ,� `� • � ^ � �- r •�' i. • 1 -1 �, O�Ic ` EXHIBIT IV- 1 V GENERALIZED ••'�*'-- ° FLIGHT TRACKS / \ O j 1.1 �`� N �Cy. 0.Q.'. ,,�J •,,� •f .14 . 9 a'• et -w�P �' J �� X r \ _,�_ w,e �r :R P& D Aviation \ ' 1 A Division of P&D Technologies Departure routes are normally determined on the basis of the destinations of departing aircraft. However, heavy aircraft using Runway 13L are requested to turn left to a heading of 080 degrees for noise abatement, thus minimizing overflight of noise sensitive areas. 2. Not yet published. 1 IV -3 It should be noted that all flight tracks depicted on Exhibit IV -1 continue beyond the limits of the exhibit. The mapped area illustrates all major flight tracks at or below ' approximately 3,000 feet elevation above mean seal level (MSL). Beyond the mapped area, all tracks continue in straight or curved segments (which are logical extensions of the tracks shown) to enroute destinations or appropriate altitudes as assigned by FAA air route traffic controllers. Moreover, the tracks depicted are idealizations of aircraft flight path geometry. The tracks depicted on Exhibit IV -1 illustrate the most statistically probable courses flown by representative types of commuter air carrier and general aviation aircraft. For reasons of safety, operational efficiency and high air ' traffic demand conditions, aircraft may be periodically directed to use courses not depicted on the flight track exhibits. Noise complaint activity. Airport management periodically receives complaints re- garding unusually noisy aircraft operations from individuals residing within the Airport environs. Generally, these complaints fall into one or more of these categories: o Heavy, low-flying aircraft o Turbojets departing straight-out over central Chico, o Repetitive exposure from flight training activity. Airport management responds to noise complaints received either in written corre- spondence or by telephone. Airport management makes every effort to identify and explain the nature of the aircraft operation which was the source of the complaint. The significance of these and other noise complaints in relationship to the flight tracks and airport noise contours discussed in Chapter V is explored further in the Airport Noise Compatibility Program (Phase II) report.2 However, in an effort to determine actual levels of aircraft noise in the Airport environs, field noise measurements of a va- nety of aircraft types were conducted during the Fall of 1991. The results of these measurements are discussed in Chapter V and summarized in Appendix A. The loca- tions of monitoring sites for 1991 and from the 1978 Airport Environs Plan are depicted on Exhibit IV -1. EXISTING NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM ' The FAA in cooperation with the City of Chico has developed a program of aircraft operational procedures to mitigate the effects of existing and future aircraft operations at Chico Municipal Airport. That program represented many years effort to reduce the effects of noise in the Airport environs through a program of noise abatement proce- dures first identified in the 1978 Airport Environs Plan. Departure routes are normally determined on the basis of the destinations of departing aircraft. However, heavy aircraft using Runway 13L are requested to turn left to a heading of 080 degrees for noise abatement, thus minimizing overflight of noise sensitive areas. 2. Not yet published. 1 IV -3 These specific existing operational noise abatement procedures in use at the Airport have been reflected in the noise modelling used in the preparation of noise exposure maps for Chico Municipal Airport. (See Chapter V.) In conclusion, this FAR Part 150 airport noise compatibility and Environs Plan Update is a logical further step undertaken by the City to combine the aircraft operational noise abatement procedures previously developed with additional off -Airport land use control measures to help insure the long term compatibility of the Airport and its environs. IV -4 V. NOISE EXPOSURE ANALYSIS This chapter sets forth the analytical methodology and findings of analyses conducted in ' the preparation of aircraft noise exposure maps. NOISE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The analytical requirements for noise modeling in the preparation of noise exposure maps are specified in FAR Part 150 wherein it is stated, "The airport operator shall .. develop noise contours using an FAA approved methodology or computer program,, such as the Integrated Noise Model (INM)."I The FAA's INM Version 3.9 was used to perform calculations and produce contours of ,equal noise exposure for this study.2 Approach The credibility of noise modeling conducted for this study was supported by the thor- ough inventory, use and documentation of all pertinent variables which influence air- craft noise generation. Specific variables in the FAR Part 150 noise modeling effort included aircraft activity levels; aircraft types, time of day of operations, flight tracks and flight procedures in use, among others. Data describing these variables was arranged and input to the computer model to pro- duce contours of equal cumulative noise levels expressed in Community Noise Equiva- lent Level (CNEL) metric. CNEL is the methodology specified in* the California Air- port Noise Standards3 and is nearly identical to .the yearly Day -Night Average Sound Level (Ldn) described in FAR Part 150. Both models penalize individual aircraft events by IOdB for increased annoyance during nighttime hours. CNEL adds an addi- tional 5dB penalty to events occurring during evening hours. Noise Model Inputs Several important variables influence aircraft noise generation. This section briefly de- scribes the data and information sources which were used to reflect the following vari- able categories: Existing and forecast aircraft activity, 0 Aircraft fleet mix, U Time of day of operations, . 0 Runway geometry and use, 1. "Airport Noise Compatibility Planning," Loc. Cit., Section A150.103 2. INM 3.9 has been supplanted by Version 3.10. Version 3.9 was used in this study because it was the operative model at the time initial noise exposure calculations were performed. 3. "Noise Standards," Loc. Cit V-1 0 Flight track geometry and use, and Aircraft operating procedures. Existin and forecast aircraft activity. Actual 1990 traffic totals wererovided b the >? Y Airport and FAA; the breakouts by specific aircraft types were based largely on several sources including (1) published airline flight schedules and (2) information gathered from the FAA Air Traffic Control Tower at Chico Municipal Airport. Table V-1 sets forth the average day aircraft operational assumptions used for the development of the 1990 Noise Exposure Map. As described more thoroughly in Chapter III, forecasts of air carrier, commuter and general aviation aircraft activity were prepared for five horizons: 1995, 1997, 2000, 2005, and 2010 wherein future activity levels were designed to account for the prospect of significant future growth. By the year 1997, annual operations at Chico Municipal Airport could total approximately 115,000 increasing further to 173,000 or more by the year 2010. For purposes of this NEM report, only current and five-year forecast traffic data are utilized for assessing noise exposure conditions at Chico Municipal Airport. For the five-year forecast noise exposure map, 1997 was picked as the forecast year to coincide with the FAR Part 150 requirement for a forecast five years from the date of map submittal. Table V-2 sets forth the assumptions used in the development of the .1997 Noise Exposure Map. Aircraft fleet mix. In 1990 scheduled commuter air carrier flights were limited to the I Handley Page Jetstream and Fairchild Metroliner turboprop aircraft. Both are charac- terized as having comparatively low noise emissions characteristics. Future commuter activity is expected to involve larger, current technology aircraft such as the Saab 340 and ATR 42 aircraft. These aircraft types possess even more favorable noise emissions characteristics, particularly in view of the fact of their greater passenger capacity. Although the general aviation fleet is dominated by light single- and twin -engine pro- peller aircraft, high-performance aircraft serving corporate aviation are expected to rep- resent a greater portion of total general aviation traffic in future years. As discussed in Chapter III, noisier types presently seen on occasion at Chico Municipal Airport are expected to be largely retired from the fleet during the decade. Time of day of operations. The percentage split of day, evening and nighttime com- muter air carrier operations for existing conditions was obtained from published airline schedules. In addition, FAA and Airport records were used to estimate time of day splits for general aviation aircraft. Projections of future commuter air carrier operations were based, in part, on current schedule patterns. Table V-3 sets forth the time of day splits of the major aircraft classes as used for noise modeling purposes in this study. Runway geometry and use. The 1990 noise exposure map reflects the existing runway geometry at Chico Municipal Airport. The FAA -approved airport layout plan (ALP) suggests that the runway geometry would remain unchanged through the year 2010 forecast horizon. The percentage use of runways by commuter air carrier and general aviation aircraft are set forth in Table V-4. i"' Table V-1 AVERAGE DAY AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS -- CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 1990 Base Case V-3 Average Daily Frequencies Class INM Type Ops Data Day Eve Night Total Day Eve Night INM Type DEPARTURES Turbo Jet LEAR25 0.27 76% 10% 14% 100% 0.21 0.03 0.04 LEAR25 LEAR35 0.27 76% 10% 14% 100% 0.21 0.03 0.04 LEAR35 CNA500 0.27 76% 10% 14% 100% 0.21 0.03 0.04 CNA500 CL601 0.27 76% 10% 14% 100% 0.21 0.03 0.04 CL601 Comm TP SF340 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 SF340 SD330 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD330 DHC6 10.40 81% 10% 9% 100% 8.42 1.04 0.94 DHC6 Hvy TP HS748A 0.30 49% 36% 15% 100% 0.15 0.11 0.05 HS748A L188 0.40 48% 39% 13% 100% 0.19 0.16 0.05 L188 Lt TP CNA441 0.56 72% 8% 20% 100% 0.40 .0.04 0.11 CNA441 Hvy Prop DC6 0.30 50% 34% 16% 100% 0.15 0.10 0.05 DC6 2 -Prop BEC58P 6.40 72% 19% 9% 100% 4.61 1.22 0.58 BEC58P 1 -Prop GASEPV 26.07 87% 10% 3% 100% 22.68 2.61 0.78 GASEPV GASEPF 26.07 87% 10% 3% 100% '22.68 2.61 0.78 GASEPF ARRIVALS Turbo Jet LEAR25 0.27 82% 11% 7% 100% 0.22' 0.03 0.02 LEAR25 LEAR35 0.27 82% 11% 7% 100% 0.22 0.03 0.02 LEAR35 CNA500 0.27 82% 11% 7% 100% 0.22 0.03 0.02 CNA500 CUM 0.27 82% 11% 7% 100% 0.22 0.03 0.02 CL601 Comm IT SF340 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 SF340 SD330 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD330 DHC6 10.40 81% 10% 9% 100% 8.42 1.04 0.94 DHC6 Hvy TP HS748A 0.30 50% 37% 13% 100% 0.15 0.11 0.04 HS748A L188 0.40 50% 40% 10% 100% 0.20 0.16 0.04 L188 Lt TP CNA441 0.56 78% 9% 13% 100% 0.44 0.05 0.07 CNA441 Hvy Prop DC6 0.30 47% 38% 15% 100% 0.14 0.11 0.05 DC6 2 -Prop BEC58P 6.40 72% 19% 9% 100% 4.61 122 0.58 BEC58P 1 -Prop GASEPV 26.07 87% 10% 3% 100% 22.68 2.61 0.78 GASEPV GASEPF 26.07 87% 10% 3% 100% 22.68 2.61 0.78 GASEPF Total Itinerant 143.17 /Day 52,258 /Year TOUCH&GOs Hvy TP HS748A 0.32 23% 77% 0% 100% 0.07 0.25 0.00 HS748A Hvy TP L188 0.43 23% 77% 0% 100% 0.10 0.33 0.00 L188 Hvy Prop DC6 0.32 23% 77% 0% 100% 0.07 0.25 0.00 DC6 Lt TP CNA441 0.00 90% 10% 0% 100% 0.00 0.00 0.00 CNA441 2 -Prop BEC58P 1.64 90% 10% 0% 100% 1.47 0.16 0.00 BEC58P 1 -Prop GASEPV 15.55 90% 10% 0% 100% 14.00 1.56 0.00 GASEPV 1 -Prop GASEPF 15.55 90% 10% 0% 1009c, '14.00 1.56 0.00 GASEPF Total # of T&Gs 33.81 Local Operations 67.62 /Day 24,680 /Year Grand Total Operation 210.79 /Day 76,938 /Year (1 T&G = 2 operations) V-3 Table V-2 AVERAGE DAY AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS - CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 1997 Five -Year Forecast Case Forecast Average Daily Frequencies Class INM Type Ops Data Day Eve Night Total Day Eve Night INM Type DEPARTURES Turbo Jet LEAR25 0.34 68% 13% 19% 100% 0.23 0.04 0.06 LEAR25 LEAR35 0.59 78% 11% 11% 100° 0.46 0.06 0.06 LEAR35 CNA500 0.59 78% 11% 11% 100% 0.46 0.06 0.06 CNA500 CL601 0.31 78% 11% 11% 100% 0.24 0.03 0.03 CL601 Comm TP SF340 3.62 80% 10% 10% 100% 2.90 0.36 0.36 SF340 SD330 2.98 80% 10% 10% 100% 2.38 0.30 0.30 SD330 DHC6 8.82 80% 10% 10% 100% 7.06 0.88 0.88 DHC6 Hvy TP HS748A 0.39 49%. 36% 15% 100% 0.19 0.14 0.06 HS748A L188 0.54 49% 39% 12% 100% 0.26 0.21 0.06 L188 Lt TP CNA441 1.55 74% 10% 16% 100% 1.15 0.16 0.25 CNA441 Hvy Prop DC6 0.26 50% 34% 16% 100% 0.13 .0.09 0.04 DC6 2 -Prop BEC58P 10.36 72% 19% 9% 100% 7.46 1.97 0.93 BEC58P � 1-Prop GASEPV 30.73 87% 10% 3% 100% 26.74 3.07 0.92 GASEPV GASEPF 30.73 87% 10% 3% 100% 26.74 3.07 0.92 GASEPF ARRIVALS Turbo Jet LEAR25 0.34 77% 11% 12% 100% 0.26 0.04 . 0.04 LEAR25 LEAR35 0.59 84% 11% 5% 100% 0.50 0.06 0.03 LEAR35 CNA500 0.59 84% 11% 5% 100% 0.50 0.06 0.03 CNA500 CL601 0.31 84% 11% 5% 100% 0.26. 0.03 0.02 CL601 Comm TP SF340 3.62 81% 10% 9% 100% 2.93 0.36 0.33 SF340 SD330. 2.98 81% 10% 9% 100% 2.41 0.30 0.27 SD330 DHC6 8.82 81% 10% 9% 100% 7.14 0.88 0.79 DHC6 Hvy TP HS748A 0.39 50% 37% 13% 100% 0.20 0.14 0.05 HS748A L188 0.54 50% 40% 10% 100% 0.27 0.22 0.05 L188 Lt TP . CNA441 1.55 78% 10% 12% 100% 1.21 0.16 0.19 CNA441 Hvy Prop DC6 0.26 47% 38% 15% 100% 0.12 0.10 0.04 DC6 " 2 -Prop BEC58P 10.36 720/6 19% 9% 100% 7.46 1.97 0.93 BEC58P 1 -Prop GASEPV 30.73 87% 10% 3% 100°k 26.74 3.07 0.92 GASEPV GASEPF 30.73 87% 10% 3% 100% 26.74 3.07 0.92 GASEPF Total Itinerant 183.62 /Day 67,022 /Year Touchgos Hvy Tp HS748A 0.23 23% 77% 0% 100% 0.05 0.18 0.00 HS748A Hvy Tp L188 0.32 23% 77% 0% 100% 0.07 .0.25 0.00 L188 Hvy Prop DC6 0.22 23% 77% 0% 100% 0.05 0.17 0.00 DC6 Lt TP CNA441 1.38 90% 10% 0% 100% 1.24 0.14 0.00 CNA441 2 -Prop BEC58P 9.16 90% 10% 0% 100% 8.24 0.92 0.00 BEC58P 1 -Prop GASEPV 27.19 90% 10% 0% 100% 24.47 2.72 0.00 GASEPV 1 -Prop GASEPF 27.19 90% 10% 0% 100% 24.47 2.72 0.00 GASEPF Total # of TBGs 65.69 Local Operations 131.38 /Day 47,953 /Year Grand Total Operations 315.00 /Day 114,975 /Year (1 T&G = 2 operations) " V-4 Table V-3 TIME OF DAY PERCENTAGE SPLIT OF OPERATIONS BY AIRCRAFT CLASS Chico Municipal Airport 1990 Actual Aircraft Class Day Eve. Nieht Single Propellor 870/d 10% Takeoffs 87% 1001t Landings 87% 1001t Touch-and-go 90% 10% Twin Propellor 0% 90 Takeoffs 72% 19% Landings 72% 190/t Touch-and-go 90% 10% Light Turboprop 9% 72% Takeoffs 72% 80X Landings 78% 9% Touch-and-go 90% 100/( Heavy Turboprop 39% 13% P2 20% 74% 1997 2010 Eve. Niehtl Dav Eve. N 3% 870/d 10% 3% 87 3% 872 102 3% 87 0% 9001 10% 0% 90 49 Touch-and-go 23% 77% 0% 9% 72% 19% 9% 72 9% 72% 19% 9% 72 0% 90% 10% 0% 90 13% 48% 39% 13% 51 20% 74% —1 —09 16-7.1 79 13% 782 102 12% 79 0% 907 100M 001 90 Takeoffs 49% 36% 15% 490/ 360/ 15% 49 Landings 50% 370/c 13% 50% 37% 13% 49 Touch-and-go 23% 77% 0% 231AX 77% 0% 23 P3 9% 80% Takeoffs 76% 100/( Landings 820/ Takeoffs 48% 39% 13% 48% 39% 13% 51 Landings 50% 40% 10% 50% 40% 10% 51 Touch-and-go 23% 77% 0% 23% 77%. 0% 23 DC6 130/d 19% 0 7% Takeoffs 50% 340X Landings 47% 380/c Touch-and-go 23% 770/t Commuter Turboprop 15% 0 Takeoffs 81% 10% Landings 81% 100X Turbojet Lear 25 9% 80% Takeoffs 76% 100/( Landings 820/ 110/, Others Takeoffs 764 10% Landings 820/ 110X Source: McClintock, Becker & Associates 14% 680/d 130/d 19% 0 7% 770/ 11% 16% 50% 34% 16% 0 15% 47% 38% 15% 0 0% 23% 77% 0% 0 5%l 87 9% 80% 10% 10% 81 9% 81% 10% 14% 680/d 130/d 19% 0 7% 770/ 11% 12% 0 14% 781/ 110/ 11% 83 7% 840/ 110/ 5%l 87 V-5 3 3 Table V-4 AVERAGE DAY PERCENTAGE RUNWAY USE CURRENT AND FORECAST CONDITIONS Chico Municipal Airport Runway Aircraft Class 13["] 13L 13R 31L 31R Landings 1 -Prop 2 -Prop Lt -TP Hvy-TP Comm -TP T -Jet Takeoffs 1 -Prop 2 -Prop Lt -TP Hvy-TP Comm -TP T -Jet Touchgos 1 -Prop 2 -Prop Lt -TP Hvy-TP - Day Hvy-TP - Evening Comm -TP T -Jet ' 54.0% 3.0% 3.0% 40.00/c 60.0% 1.0% 1.0% 38.00/c 60.0% 40.0% 60.0% 40.0% 60.0% 40.0% 60.0% . 40.0% Source: McClintock, Becker & Associates Notes - 1 -Prop Single engine propellor driven light aircraft (Cessna 182) 1 • . 1 ' . MEN ME 3tL9 Lt -TP Light turbo -prop aircraft (Cessna 441) Hvy-TP Heavy propellor driven aircraft (HS748A, L188, DC6) -- ee'. T -Jet Jet aircraft (Lear, Citation) Source: McClintock, Becker & Associates Notes - 1 -Prop Single engine propellor driven light aircraft (Cessna 182) 1 • . 1 ' . MEN ME 3tL9 Lt -TP Light turbo -prop aircraft (Cessna 441) Hvy-TP Heavy propellor driven aircraft (HS748A, L188, DC6) Comm -TP Commuter turbo -prop aircraft (Metroliner, Saab 340) T -Jet Jet aircraft (Lear, Citation) ['] Tanker practice drop pattern Source: McClintock, Becker & Associates Notes - 1 -Prop Single engine propellor driven light aircraft (Cessna 182) 2 -Prop Twin engine propellor driven light aircraft (Beech 58P) Lt -TP Light turbo -prop aircraft (Cessna 441) Hvy-TP Heavy propellor driven aircraft (HS748A, L188, DC6) Comm -TP Commuter turbo -prop aircraft (Metroliner, Saab 340) T -Jet Jet aircraft (Lear, Citation) ['] Tanker practice drop pattern V-6 Flight track geometry and use. Flight track geometry is influenced by a variety of factors including air traffic control (ATC) requirements, aircraft performance, and �. published FAA and Airport noise abatement policies. The courses flown by commuter air carrier and general aviation aircraft are fully described and depicted in Chapter IV. The tracks shown in Chapter IV (Exhibit IV -1) specified for use by light propeller air- craft were confirmed -by field observation and in discussions with the FAA's Airport Traffic Control Tower personnel: The turbojet aircraft flight tracks also shown on Exhibit IV -1 were confirmed by discussions with .the FAA Tower as well as by field observation. Instrument flight tracks depicted represent aircraft compliance with pub- lished Standard Instrument Departures (SIDS), and the Instrument Landing System (ILS) to Runway 13L.4 Table V-5 provides data on flight track utilization. Aircraft operating_ procedures. Operating procedures for specific types of aircraft may vary widely because of such factors as pilot technique, user operating procedures, the requirements of air traffic control and meteorology. Thus, for example, commuter tur- boprop aircraft of the same type operated by different companies bound for the same destination may use somewhat different flap (and throttle) settings resulting in different rates of climb, throttle application and resultant noise emissions. The noise exposure modeling conducted for this study presumes that all aircraft use standard, predictable departure and arrival procedures. It is anticipated that variations to standard procedures, which frequently occur in practice, will both over and under- state aircraft performance and other operational parameters and, thus, converge on the predicted procedure. This methodology is consistent with FAA -approved noise modeling techniques, in that standard settingsand procedures are assumed in the FAA's integrated noise model. Noise Model Limitations and Caveats The validity and accuracy of CNEL calculations depend on the basic information used in the calculations. For future airport activities, the reliability of CNEL calculations may be affected by such factors as: o Aviation activity levels --number of operations, mix of aircraft types, times of operations, and flight tracks --are forecasts of what probably will occur. Aircraft acoustical and performance characteristics are also forecasts. When new aircraft designs are involved in the projections, noise data and operational characteristics must be estimated. ! o The noise descriptors and interpretational criteria used in the CNEL procedure represent average human response (and reaction) to aircraft noise. Because f people differ substantially in their response to noise, and because the physical measure of noise accounts for only a portion of an individual's reaction to that noise, the CNEL scale can show only an average response to aircraft noise. 4. A standard instrument departure is a take -off carried out in accordance with specific air traffic control departure procedures under instrument flight rules. An instrument landing system is a straight -in precision instrument approach system for a runway and consists of a number of electronic and visual aids to navigation.. V-7 r Table V-5 FLIGHT TRACK UTILIZATION Chico Municipal Airport' C't.ACC- T_Pmn 7_p- TT_Tp t-t__Tp Flight epartures Rwy 13L 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% Dl Straight Rwy 13L 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 10.00% 3.00% D2 Left 51 -Noise Abate. Dep (080) Rwy 13L 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 10.00% 3.00% D3 D4 Left 90 Left downwind Rwy 13L 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 50.00% 3.007o Rwy 13L 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 20.00% 25.00% D5 Right VOR (147) Rwy 13L 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 20.00% 15.00% D6 Right to Bay Area (165) Rwy 13L 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 20.00% 2.00% D7 D8 Right to Jingo INT (202) Rlght 90 (221) Rwy 13L 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Rwy 13L 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 20.00% 2.00% D9 Right to GONGS1 (260) Rwy 13L 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 5.00% D10 Right downwind Rwy 13L 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 30.00% D11 Right to Sacramento (135) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Rwy 13R 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% D20 Straight Rwy 13R 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% D21 Right 90 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Rwy 31L 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% D30 Straight Rwy 31L 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% D31 Left 90 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Rwy 31R 37.00% 37.00% 37.00% 70.00% 5.00% 65.00% D40 Straight Rwy 31R 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 10.00% 5.00% D41 Left VOR (122) Rwy 31R 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 30.00% D42 Left 90 Rwy 31R 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 5.00% D43 D44 Left to GONGS (210) Left downwind Rwy 31R 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 40.00% Rwy 31R 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 15.00% 15.00% D45 Right 90 Rwy 31R 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 15.00% 10.00% 15.00% D46 Right downwind 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Arrivals Rwy 13L 63.00% 63.00% 63.00% 75.00% 90.00% 90.00% Al Straight Rwy 13L 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 10.00% 10.00% A2 VOR (122) Rwy 13L 23.00% 23.00% 23.00% A3 Right base Rwy 13L 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 25.00% A4 Left base 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Rwy 13R 100.00% 100.00% A10 Straight 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Rwy 31L 100.00% 100.00% A20 Straight 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Rwy 31R 65.00% 65.00% 65.00% 65.00% 85.00% 95.00% A30 Straight Rwy 31R 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 5.00% 5.00% A31 VOR approach (327) Rwy 31R 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 10.00% A32 Modified left base Rwy 31R 22.00% 22.00% 22.00% A33 Left base Rwy 31R 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 10.00% A34 Modified right base Rwy 3111 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 25.00% A35 Right base 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% ouc eos Rwy 13 100.00% TG6 Tanker practice drop Rwy 13L 80.00% 50.00% 5.00% TGO East light Rwy 13L 1.00% 1.00% TG1 West heavy Rwy 13L 20.00% 10.00% 1.00% TG2 West light Rwy 13L 40.00% 63.00% 99.00% 100.00% TG4 East jet/heavy Rwy 13L 30.00% TG5 JAL student Rwy 13R 100.00% 100.00% TG3 West light Rwy 31L 100.00% 100.00% T13 West light Rwy 31R 1.00% 1.00% Tll West heavy Rwy 31R 20.00% 10.00% 1.00% T12 West light Rwy 31R 40.00% 63.00% 99.00% 100.00% T14 East jet/heavy Rwy 3111 30.00% T15 JAL student Rwy 31R 80.00% 50.00% 5.00% T17 East light V-8 ,i In view of these uncertainties, CNEL mapping was developed as a tool to assist in land use planning around airports. The mapping is best used for comparative purposes, rather than for providing absolute values. That is, CNEL calculations provide valid comparisons between different projected conditions, so long as consistent assumptions and base data are used for all calculations. Thus, sets of CNEL calculations can show which of the simulated situations are better, and generally how much better, from a noise impact viewpoint. However, a fine line drawn on a map by a computer does not permit an inference that a particular noise condition exists on one side of that line and not on the other. CNEL calculations are merely a means for comparing noise impacts, and do not precisely define such impacts relative to specific parcels of land. Never- theless, CNEL contours can be used to: U highlight an existing or potential aircraft noise problem that requires attention; assist in the preparation of airport environs land use plans; U provide guidance in the development of land use control devices, such as zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, and building codes; and U provide easy comparison of the relative magnitudes of noise impact associated with different development and operational alternatives. NOISE EXPOSURE CONDITIONS This section sets forth the findings and conclusions resulting from the technical analyses conducted for Phase I of the Airport Noise Compatibility Program for Chico Municipal Airport. Noise exposure maps for the years 1990 (existing conditions) and 1997 (five- year forecast) were prepared as required by Section 150.21(a) of FAR Part 150. The noise exposure maps identify each noise sensitive land use in areas subject to cumulative noise levels in excess of CNEL 55dB. Note that FAR Part 150 criteria connote that all residential uses are compatible with annual average aircraft noise levels below 65dB. Thus the depiction of noncompatible uses within the CNEL 55dB to 65dB zone in the noise exposure map exhibits reflects local considerations regarding of aircraft noise compatibility standards as initially discussed in Chapter II. Int.erpret.ation of Noise Exposure Values Estimates of total (cumulative) noise exposure resulting from aircraft operations, as ex- pressed in CNEL values, can be interpreted in terms of the probable impact on land uses using the FAR Part 150 land use compatibility designations set forth in Table II -1. However, CNEL values in this table should be interpreted only as relative indications of the effects of aircraft noise on human activities. Although specific CNEL values (contours) were calculated in this study, they should not be interpreted as definitive de- scriptions of annoyance; these values should be used for guidance in developing, com- paring and evaluating operational and land use control strategies which will be consid- ered in Phase II of this study. For any particular location within the Airport environs, some adjustments may be ap- propriate when using the interpretational criteria contained in Table II -1. Some influ- ences which should be considered include the following - V -9 1. Previous community noise exposure and complaint history in the Airport en- virons. 2. Local building construction. Wood frame and stucco construction (typical in California) may provide sound transmission attenuation performance inferior to that of other building types (such as masonry) which are commonly used else- where in the United States. The quality of construction and structural condi- tions are also factors in determining the noise attenuation. characteristics of a given structure. 3. Impact of non -aviation noise sources on the existing ambient noise environment. For example, introducing aircraft noise in a rural area, where existing back- ground noise levels are very low, produces a much more apparent change in noise environment than aircraft operations in an urban environment long ex- posed to noise from highway traffic, industrial activity and other sources. In the evaluation of community noise exposure under FAR Part 150 three specific ranges would typically be used: (1) CNEL 65-70dB, (2) CNEL 70-75dB, and (3) CNEL 75dB and above. These ranges were selected on the basis of prevailing FAA land use compatibility guidelines as set forth in FAR Part 150 and are consistent with the policies of local communities. However, because of the largely rural conditions 1 surrounding Chico Municipal Airport, two additional criteria have been established within the ranges of CNEL 55-60dB and CNEL 60-65dB (it should be noted that no significant noise impacts are associated with cumulative noise levels of less than CNEL 65dB per California law, but varying degrees of annoyance are associated with cumulative noise levels within the CNEL 55-65dB range). ExistinE Conditions �• The Noise Exposure Map for 1990 conditions is shown in Exhibit V-1. This exhibit depicts the location of FAR Part 150 noncompatible land use and noise -sensitive facili- 1 ties for CNEL levels of 65dB and above, in accordance with the requirements of FAR Part 150 Appendix A and local noise and land use compatibility planning guidelines. For 1990 operational conditions at Chico Municipal Airport there were no FAR Part 150 noncompatible or noise sensitive land uses exposed to noise levels of CNEL 65dB or greater. There were also no noise sensitive land uses located within the CNEL 60- 65dB noise contours. Within the CNEL 55-60dB noise contours there were a total of 49.4 acres of residential land use consisting of an estimated 136 dwelling units and 407 people.5 These figures are broken out by land use type and area north or south of the airport on Table V-6. Also included within the CNEL 55-60dB noise contours were two churches in the southern area, as depicted on Exhibit V-1. 5. Of the 49.4 acres of noise sensitive residential land uses within the CNEL 55-60dB noise contours, approximately 19.4 acres are subject to avigation easements in favor of the airport. With the exception of 1 dwelling unit to the south of the airport and an estimated nine dwelling units to the north, all remaining dwelling units within the CNEL 55-60dB noise contours are subject to avigation easements. • V-10 Table V-6 EXISTING NOISE EXPOSURE -- 1990 CONDITIONS Chico Municipal Airport r CNEL 55-60dB South Area Est. Acres Est. DUs Est. Pop. Single Family 12.11- 56 166 Multiple Family .5.7 69 207 Subtotal 17.8 125 373 North Area Single Family 31.62 11 34 Subtotal 31.6 ' L1 34 Total 49.4 136 407 1 1 Source: McClintock, Becker and Associates 1. Less than 0.1 acre without avigation easements. 2. Approximately 30 acres without avigation easements. V-12 r ' c 1 '�• ' �laan �•.. / \ s ?� < ': i` % O° aj. C ` _ _ _- _ i:ai ii1' •"T P yn o -o y. : a {a 04 r IV AL . .... a .. �: '.. :. .:... :.,.:.. >u u F m , l 8 .... .. .. .... e C If .. ..... .. r-� `F • I CH CO MUNICIPAL .. I p .. .... A. :.:' .. C . tae , , .�......� ......., �. .: a. . ..n .., . o a \�\ AIRPORT r ° ~ r Q' • r \J a`! •.�; ,.`;r is � 'v P FAR PART 150 ... .. .. .. ./ as i �......... ., a'.. �::.. Q. AIRPORT NOISE t .. Y ..:.....: .a.: COMPATIBILITY , a S �M . O D L „i � s ROGRAM ry i 1 a C. oya, �„ `\ � ,: ::e • IG ti s o'I • AND 1r3 -in S AN f z SCALE.. .; ._ ,�.. .. .j anti • \. ( �� C ' 16 MU r'E� AL AIR OFT FEET m b■ •�� � .yA� �J y�r r 0 '1000 2000 3000 4000 1 NORTH b • ,aa \j .. \ Eley / /t� ti S b r t,s Yf: •J'. } 315 LEGEND / \\ ti ` ti..: •' " sti � ss �:' h " i a Airport Boundary 2,5--,ao �, '► �, h<A~ ~� m o ® •'` ------- Chico Sphere of Influence .;` tr� p°PoO _ f•f•` ryr.1 VO. ".,e ' - a Noise Sensitive Land Use oAy,, o • m Se r .AJ \ jam\ - o / r .ti��� � �` _ ,'/ > • • Y • a� ~ ® Avigation Easements ,p. {.. �\ Y • .1 t,H•l ., - 0 AVEC'• •• I � • e. 'o / F, � ao �'�� F . '�, / . 0� �": �P •• a •'� ,•,c:� 0' ; \ ' � ' {� 0^� �.. • , � , n - H e9 •.1.. 17 01 iP t / • rI �'` AWE.. ,C'GY\ .. 1�■ �� I/ rg � /il m'0 . � 1 0 � a � o� �' �� o N �• EXHIBIT V-2 W r ��: • a ') \\ % 3 !/ E r , J_•.• �: per.: , -'- ` ,•. BA , ; y :, m i 5 NOISE EXPOSURE MAP: / —��� E • P � • ���'•'•' �"' `• o� •� - � 5 -YEAR FORECAST �o e t d , :��� f'E �:' CONDITIONS (1997) • � _ / ? _ '„mil, ; s :: • �' : �., .,,\\ ,• , P& D Aviation A Division of P6 D Technologies Projected Conditions Exhibit V-2 presents the five-year noise exposure map '(1997 conditions) for the Airport, and Table V-7 summarizes anticipated noise impacts. For 1997 forecast conditions there would be no FAR Part 150 noncompatible land uses located within the CNEL 65dB and above noise contours. There would be no noise sensitive land uses within the CNEL 60-65dB noise contours. Approximately 179.5 acres of combined single -and multiple family land uses would be located within the 1997 forecast CNEL 55-60dB noise contours in the areas immediately to the north and south of the airport.6 Approximately 685 dwelling units and 2,038 people are located in these areas.? These figures are further broken out by land use type and location (north or south of the airport) on Table V-7. The above figures are based on existing land use and development patterns and do not include any potential new development within the CNEL 55dB and above noise con- tours. There are several unincorporated areas between the CNEL 55 and 65dB noise contours within which potential noise sensitive development could occur in the future. Butte County has indicated that it is considering the possibility of infill in these areas. The potential impacts of development in these and other areas will be assessed in Phase II of the FAR Part 150 Study. 1 Field Noise Measurement. Program In an effort to assess the effects of individual aircraft noise events on the Airport envi- rons, field noise measurements were conducted at several sites in the airport environs during October 1991. Equipment Setup and Measurement Techniques. Equipment used in the measurements consisted of a Bruel & Kjaer Type 1 Sound Level Meter, Model 2231 with microphone Type 4155 and windscreen. The instrument was calibrated using a Bruel & Kjaer Cali- brator Type 4230. The sound level meter was set to measure noise using the "A" fre- quency weighting and the "FAST" dynamics setting. The DC output of the sound level meter was connected to a Western Graphtec Model SR6421 pen plotter. A separate log was kept of information pertaining to aircraft flyovers. Information recorded included the time of the event, type of aircraft, type of operation, runway used (if "Known) and the measured Lmax, L and SEL of the aircraft flyover detected by the sound level meter. The times marks on the log were also written on the plot paper to correlate the flight log with the plotted graph. The source of other noise events of interest (traffic, children etc.) were annotated directly on the plotted graph. Findings. Single event noise levels from aircraft operating into and out of Chico Municipal Airport are of sufficient magnitude in close -in residential areas to interfere with outdoor speech communications and, on occasion, have the potential to interfere 6. Of the estimated 179.5 acres of noise sensitive land uses within the CNEL 55-600 noise contours, approximately 101 acres-wouldbe subject to existing avigation easements. 7. Of these dwelling units, approximately 392 single family and 206 multiple family units to the south and 8 single family units to the north are subject to avigation easements. 11 I V-13 t t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table V-7 FORECAST NOISE EXPOSURE 1997 CONDITIONS Chico Municipal Airport CNEL 55-60dB Source: McClintock, Becker and Associates 1. Approximately 17.7 acres without avigation easements. 2. Approximately 2.3 acres without avigation easements. 3. Approximately 58.4 acres without avigation easements. V-15 Est. 1,262 700 1,962 76 76 2.038 Est. Acres Est. DUs South Area Single Family 87.61 427 Multiple Family 19.32 233 Subtotal 106.9 660 North Area Single Family 72.63 25 Subtotal 72.6 25 Total 179.5 685 Source: McClintock, Becker and Associates 1. Approximately 17.7 acres without avigation easements. 2. Approximately 2.3 acres without avigation easements. 3. Approximately 58.4 acres without avigation easements. V-15 Est. 1,262 700 1,962 76 76 2.038 I with indoor speech communications. However, the duration of such interference is minimal and no statutory limits are exceeded. During the measurements periods, there were no operations by noisy high performance general aviation jet aircraft (such as the Lear 25 and Gulfstream II) which have the po- tential to create noise events of much higher magnitude and duration than the types of, aircraft observed. Aircraft of these types are known to operate at the Airport on an in- frequent basis. The record of field noise measurements is set forth in Appendix C. Conclusions Analyses undertaken in this noise exposure map report have verified the magnitude of cumulative (CNEL) noise exposure within the environs of Chico Municipal Airport. Noise exposure maps for existing (1990) and five-year (1997) conditions have been dis- cussed. In a subsequent report --the Airport Noise Compatibility Program --the issues of noise abatement and land use compatibility alternatives will be dealt with in detail, and 1 a program for noise mitigation will be developed. Although the discussion and analyses of noise abatement has been deferred to a subsequent phase, this report has identified several conclusions: 1. Noise mitigation measures , should be developed to effectively deal with noise sensitive areas within the projected CNEL 55dB and above noise contour for the 1997 horizon, and beyond. 2. Steps should be taken to prevent the introduction of new noise sensitive land uses in areas of projected noise exposure and extensive aircraft overflight. In those areas where it may not be possible to restrict new development the City of Chico and Butte County, in concert with the ALUC, should require avigation easements and noise mitigation measures. I APPENDIX A CHICO MUNICIPAL . AIRPORT FAR PART 150 AIRPORT NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM AND ENVIRONS PLAN MEETING AGENDAS AND MINUTES CITYoiCHICO INC 1872 i 1 i OFFICE OF,THE CITY MANAGER 196 E. Fitts Street °C. Box 3420 Cn;co. CA 95927 (9161895-4800 ATSS 459-4803 PS-90-4/Chrono TO: DISTRIBUTION BELOW September 17, 1992 On August 28, 1992, I -sent you a copy of the Draft Final Report of the "FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program: Aircraft Noise Exposure Map Report for Chico Municipal Airport" and stated that written comments may be submitted through September 17, 1992. I am extending the deadline by one week. Written. comments may be submitted through September 24, 1992, by sending to my office at the above mailing address or delivering to 196 E. 5th Street. Sincerely, Thomas Lando City Manager/Airport Manager DISTRIBUTION: City Council (7) Airport Commission (5) Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (1) FAA John Pfeifer FAA Tower Chief Buck Dodson Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Chico Unified School District Save Our Skies (SOS), Bart Bartholomew Save Our Airport (SOAP) Assistant City Manager Koch Community Services Director Planning Director P&D Aviation Technologies 11 t l 1 11 1 CAA % CO A � rz PO N - Co A&,&A \ ss i 0� (1 /314 z) C Consultant's Presentation Comments frau the Public Adjourment Seotemher 3, 1992 173 TheAirport Manager stated that it was not a public hearing of the Commission, but was deemed to be an Airport Commission meeting because a quorum of Commissioners was in attendance Airport Manager Lando introduced Mike McClintock, John Becker and Ren Cortes of P&D Technologies, the consultants preparing the updated airport environs plan for the Chico Municipal Airport.. CONSULTANT'S PRESENTATION: Mr. McClintock stated that the Draft Final Report included some changes and corrections which were submitted by City staff and the public after review of the initial Draft Report. He further stated that the Draft Final Report represented the conclusion of Phase I, with the exception of incorporating any changes and corrections to come out of this final review process. In addition, he stated that there was a requirement for a public hearing during the Phase II, Compatibility, or planning, portion of the preparation of the airport environs plan. Hr. McClintock explained the Noise Exposure Maps which were displayed on the walls and answered questions. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: Vince Phelan, North Avenue, clarified some questions he had concerning.the flight patterns depicted on the Noise Exposure Maps. Bart Bartholomew, 914 Arbutus, stated that his organization (save our Skies) had serious concerns that the indigenous forecast was vastly overstated, and while he spoke Mike Borzage distributed to all present a paper entitled, "INDIGENOUS FORECAST, Comparison of CMA Future Operations Projected at CASP and NPIAS Forecast Growth Rates to McB, Draft Report Projection." He further stated that he and the SOS members would review the Draft Final Report and submit comments in writing. Commissioner short left at 6:40 p.m. Barbara Hennigan, 5130 Anita Road, read a statement in support of airports in general, and stating her belief' that land use around airports should be even more restrictive. ADJOURNMENTt Because a quorum of the Commission was no longer in attendance, at 6:40 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to September 29, 1992, at 12:30 p.m, in Conference Room 1 of the Chico Municipal Center. Date Approved OCT 271992 THOMAS J. DO, City Manager Airport Manager ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING AIRPORT COMMISSION September 29,1992 An Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Airport Commission was held at 12:30 p.m. on Tueeday,.September 29, 1992, in Conference Room No. 1 of the Chico Municipal Center, 421 Main street. Roll Call ROLL CALL: Present at roll call were Commissioners Chesanow, Corbin, Crotts, Montgomery, and short. City Staff: City Manager/Airport Manager Lando, Assistant City Manager Koch, Community Services Director Shaddox, Finance officer Wong, Assistant City Attorney Barker, Police captain Massie, Management Analyst Mann and Secretary to the City Manager Serl. Minutes HINUTESt A motion by Commissioner short to approve the minutes of August 25, 1992, was seconded and carried unanimously. Minute Order re MINUTE ORDER TO AUTHORIZE THE AIRPORT lIANAGER TO APPROVE TRE S� nCnt of ASSIGNMENT OF THE LEASE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 765 FORTRESS AVENUE Lease, 165 TO PACIFIC FLIGHT SERVICES INC. Fortress Ave_, By letter dated August 28, 1992, from victor E. Alvistur, General fronAern Union Manager of Aero union Corporation, to Paul Richter of Pacific Flight LO Pacific t tt services, Inc., Aero Union has indicated its approval of the transfer f Enclosed is a copy, of the Draft Final Report. of the Program: "FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility OFFICE OF T IHE ' C;Tl MANACcT: 190 c = .n Svee' CITY ofCHICO °C' no% 742C 1W- 1872 Cnic: ..%- 959-27 _. �p+6-E9`••»80C ' Written comments may be submitted through September 17, PS-90-4/Chrono August 28, 1992 ' TO: DISTRIBUTION BELOW 1 Enclosed is a copy, of the Draft Final Report. of the Program: "FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Aircraft Noise Exposure Map Report for Chico Municipal Airport" for your information and review. A meeting to discuss the Draft Final Report has been scheduled for Thursday, September 3, 1992, at 6:00 ' p.m., in Conference Room No. 1 of the Chico Municipal Center, 421 Main Street.. ' Written comments may be submitted through September 17, 1992, by sending to my office at the above mailing address or delivering to 196 E. 5th Street. Sincerely;'" T omas J. Lando City Manager/Airport Manager DISTRIBUTION: City Council (7) Airport Commission (5) Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (1) FAA John Pfeifer FAA Tower Chief Buck Dodson Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Chico Unified School District Save Our Skies (SOS), Bart Bartholomew Save Our Airport (SOAP) Community Services Director Planning Director . 1 1 r OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 1 196E. i•iith Street CITY-CHICO RO. Box.5-120. INC. 1872 Chico. 17A 95927 (916)995•=800 -NTSS -59 - 800 PS-90-4/D-90-2-2/Chrono August 27, 1992 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public meeting will be held to receive comments regarding the Draft Final Report of the "FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program: Aircraft Noise Exposure Map Report for Chico Municipal Airport." Comments will be provided to City staff, the City's consultant and members of the Chico Municipal Airport Commission. The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September ' 3, 1992, at 6:00 p.m., in Conference Room No. 1 of the Chico Municipal Center, 421 Main Street. Copies of the Draft Final Report are available for review in the City Manager's office, 196 East 5th Street. Publish: Monday, 8/31/92 Display: 2 cola x 3" Affidavit of Publication Bill to City Clerk i Robert E. Koch: ' Assistant City Manager CITY OF CHICO NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING Notice is hereby given that the ..._..asiaaurt d_.reguler....................................... meeting of the .......... rport -Commis, ion ........................................ of the City of Chico has been duly. and regularly adjourned from .................................. .Tuesday_, August_ 25,x,,1992,,,, - atthe hour of ..........7:45. p.m: ...................................................... ................. to .... -- .................................Thur $ d u.%--- eRt embP_r.3 ,.._1222..............................----............ at the hour of .......... 6:0O.P--- ------------------------ -------------------•-------........_......._.., and said adjourned meeting will be held in the Council Chamber I^T Conference'.'Room 1. A7, Conference Room 2 /7, .Chico Municipal Center, 421 Main Street, Chico, California.. Robert E. Koch Assistant City Manager Dated: _August .26,_,1992 ' COPIES OF THIS AGENDA PREPARED: August 26, 1992 AVAILABLE FROM: City manager's • office POSTED: August 28, 1992 196 East Fifth Street .Chico, California PRIOR TO: 5:00 p.m. Telephone: (916) 895-4803 --------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AGENDA -- AIRPORT COMMISSION ' CONFERENCE ROOM NO. 1 -- CHICO MUNICIPAL CENTER, 421 MAIN STREET ADJOURNED MEETING -- THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1992 -- 6:00 P.M. Items Not Appearing on Posted Agenda: This Agenda was posted on the City Council Chamber Building Bulletin Board at least 72 hours in advance of this meeting. In order for the Airport Commission to take an action on an item not appearing on the posted agenda, other than merely acknowledging receipt of correspondence or other information, the Airport Commission must make one of the ' following determinations: (1) Determine by a two-thirds vote or by a unanimous vote if less than two-thirds of the Commission is present, that the need to take action arose subsequent to the Agenda being posted. (2) Determine that the item appeared on a posted Agenda for a meeting occurring not more than five (5) calendar days prior to this meeting, and the item was continued to this meeting. 1. ROLL. CALL. 2. MINUTES. None. i3. HEARINGS.. None. 4. REGULAR AGENDA. The purpose of this meeting is for City staff to review with the consultant the Draft Final Report of the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program: Aircraft Noise Exposure Map Report for Chico Municipal Airport, and to receive public comments regarding its content. This is not a public hearing of the Commission, but is deemed to be an Airport Commission meeting because a quorum of Commissioners indicated they would attend. ' 5. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: None. 7. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to Tuesday, September 29, 1992, at 12:30 p.m. in Conference Room #2 of the Chico Municipal Center, 421 Main Street, Chico. i . i i 1 Butte County Airport Land Use Commission City of Chico Planning Commission Federal Aviation Administration, Burlingame ' McClintock & Becker, a subsidiary of PSD Technologies 1 " Distribution: Commission - 5* News Media - 7 Aero Union, Vic Alvistur Aero Union, Mel Detmer CM/ACM-K/CM Secy - 3* Allan, Ella City Clerk and Council - 8 Bartholomew, S.H., Inc. City Attorney - 1 Bell -Carter Foods, Larry Burgoyne ACA - 1* Chico Chamber of Commerce CSD/DPW/P1.Dir - 3* FAA Control Tower, Buck Dodson ADPW-E - 1* Fleetwood Motor Homes, Tom Matheson chief of Police - 1 Finance officer - 1 Fortress -Independence, Karl Hall Heritage Partners, Steve Honeycutt Fire Chief - 1 Lassen Land Company Post Pacific Flight Services, Paul Richter Extra.- 6 Sierra Pacific Indus_., Steven shifflet 1 Butte County Airport Land Use Commission City of Chico Planning Commission Federal Aviation Administration, Burlingame ' McClintock & Becker, a subsidiary of PSD Technologies 1 " t 1 r llnng ist 75, 1997. 172 as by the City and utility companies for the maintenance and operation of City and other public utility facilities, and will eliminate any potential future liability to the City.. A motion by Commissioner Corbin to approve Minute order No. 8-92 to recommend that the City Council find that the property has no value since it can only be used for ingress and egress and public utility purposes, and cannot be used for buildings, and that the Council authorize the conveyance, at no cost, to the owners of contiguous property, was seconded and carried unanimously. UPDATE ON PLAQUE AND DEDICATION OF THE JEAN MORONY AIRFIELD The Commission was provided with a memorandum from Community Services Director Shaddox dated August 11, 1992, attached to which were sketches for the monument and the wording for the plaque. The Community services Director stated that the plaque to be placed in the monument was being.made by First Impressions sign Co., and that the new drawings of the monument were prepared by Director of Public works Nunes. He further stated that Drake Homes would provide the labor free of charge for the construction of the monument, and that the City would pay for the materials, approximately $1200, which would have to be approved by the City Council in a Supplemental Appropriation. Community Services Director Shaddox stated that if the Commission had no objections the monument and plaque would be installed before the September 12th Air Show dedication ceremony. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOORS Vince Phelan, North Avenue, inquired as to the status of the Chico Municipal Airport Economic Impact Study. Assistant City Manager Koch replied that the chamber of commerce had been gathering the data and had one more phase to complete before sending the information to the Division of Aeronautics to compile the Impact Report. He further stated that Tom Guarino of the Chamber of Commerce would be invited to the next meeting to give a full report. Jean Fbron nr ne ate Business fran the Floor COMMUNICATIONS: Qmwications The Commission acknowledged receipt of the following correspondences (1) Letter dated August 17, 1992, from City Manager to Theodore Cohn and Daniel J. Kempers, of KORET. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, at 7:45 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to Thursday, September 3, 1992, 6:00,p.m., in Conference Room No. 1 of the Chico Municipal center, 421 Main Street, and then to September 29, 1992, at 12:30 p.m., also in Conference Room No. 1. Date Approved SFP 9 q loon tr�v\ / THOMAS J LANDO, City Manager Airpbrt Manager . ADJOURNED MEETING AIRPORT COMMISSION September 3, 1992 An Adjourned Meeting of the Airport commission was held at 6:00 p.m. on September 3, 1992, in the Conference Room No. 1 of the Chico Municipal center, 421 Main.street. ROLL CALLS Present at roll call were Commissioners Crotts, Montgomery, and Short. Absent: Commissioners Chesanow and Corbin. city Staff: City Manager/Airport Manager Lando, Assistant City Manager Koch, community services Director Shaddox, Assistant City Attorney Barker and Secretary to the City Manager Serl. INTRODUCTION: Airport Manager Lando stated that the purpose of the meeting was for City staff to review with the consultant the Draft Final Report of the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program: Aircraft Noise Exposure Map Report for Chico Municipal Airport, and to receive public comments regarding its content. He further stated that written comments would be accepted through September 17th. Roll Call Introduction COPIES OF THIS AGENDA PREPARED: July 10, 1992 AVAILABLE FROM: City Manager's. -Office POSTED: July 21, 1992 196 East Fifth Street Chico, California PRIOR TO: 5:00 P.M. Telephone: (916) 895-4803 i • .- U t AGENDA AIRPORT COMMISSION Special Meeting*of July 23, 1992, 12:30 p.m. - conference Room 1 - Chico Municipal center, 421 Main street, Chico 1. ROLL CALL. 1 2. MINUTES. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 28, 1992. 3. HEARINGS. 3.1 HEARING ON TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 141 - EAST SIDE OF FORTRESS STREET NORTH OF LOCKHEED AVENUE (FARSAI). The Chair will open the hearing.' The Planning.Director will review this request to subdivide a 3.0 acre parcel located on the east side of Fortress Street, north of -Lockheed Avenue, into four lots for future industrial -development, including the REPORT from the Assistant Planner dated July 7, 1992, which provides information relating to this item. The Chair will open the hearing to. the audience and request that speakers state their name and address. The Chair will ask for any further Commission discussion and then close the hearing. If the Commission concurs with the findings and conditions therein, it should approve the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 3-92, RESOLUTION OF THE AIRPORT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHICO RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 141, FORTRESS STREET/LOCKHEED AVENUE (FARSAI). 4. REGULAR AGENDA. 4.1 AIRPORT ENVIRONS PLAN UPDATE.j,:-i `'C -z ) Staff will provide the Commission with an update regarding the status of the Airport Environs Plan study. No action by the Commission is being requested at this meeting. Page 1 of 5 Page 2 of 5 4.2 GRANT OF LICENSE TO SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES FOR ENCROACHMENT INTO PUBLIC RIGHT ' OF WAY FOR SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM. (G—CP-5-1-97) Assistant City Manager Koch will discuss this item, which relates to the installation of the soil vapor extraction system in the former railroad right of way as part of the first phase of the cleanup of the contamination caused by victor Industries. staff recommends that the commission approve the following Minute order. MINUTE ORDER NO. 4-92 AUTHORIZING THE AIRPORT MANAGER TO EXECUTE GRANT OF LICENSE TO SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES FOR. ENCROACHMENT INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT.VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM. 1 4.3 ABANDONMENT OF SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT AND 8—INCH SANITARY SEWER LINE BETWEEN AIRPARK BOULEVARD AND CONVAIR AVENUE SOUTHWESTERLY OF MARAUDER STREET (JOHN SEARS; THOMAS & BEVERLY KNUDSEN) Director of Public Works Nunes will discuss this item. Staff recommends that the sanitary sewer easement on the Sears and Knudsen properties, and the 8-inch line on City-owned property, be abandoned since it is no longer needed for such purpose. If the Commission concurs, it should approve the following Minute order. MINUTE ORDER NO. 5-92 ABANDONMENT OF SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT AND SEWER LINE BETWEEN AIRPARK BOULEVARD AND CONVAIR AVENUE SOUTHWESTERLY OF MARAUDER STREET — ;n.CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT (SEARS/KNUDSEN). ;4 PROPOSED SCHOOL SITE WITHIN TWO MILES OF THE CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT (D-91-22) 7 ' By letter dated 6/16/92, a copy of which has been provided to the Commission, the Division of Aeronautics informed the City of a proposed school site on Eaton Road between Mariposa Avenue.and Floral Avenue. The deadline to respond was July. 10; however, City Manager Lando, by letter dated July 8, 1992, has requested an extension until after today,s meeting. The commission has previously gone on record opposing the location of school sites within two miles of the'Airport. If the Commission objects to this proposed school site, it would be appropriate to adopt a motion directing the Airport Manager to correspond accordingly with 4.5 the Division.of Aeronautics. REQUEST TO EXTEND OPTION TO PURCHASE PROPERTY - KORET OF CALIFORNIA. (G-CPr3-145) . By letter to City Manager Lando dated July 10, 1992, Koret of California five-year-extension requests a of'its option to'purchase the 9 acres of property adjacent to its facility on the south side of.Ryan Avenue between Marauder Street and Cohasset Road. Assistant City Manager Koch will discuss this matter. After discussion, the Commission should advise staff how it wishes to proceed. Approval by the City Council, acting in its capacity as the Redevelopment Agency, will ultimately be required. Page 2 of 5 11 1 r Questions from Commissioners and Public 1. Adjournment ;oll Call Minutes ' o May 7 1 , 1'P17 165 QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC Commissioner Montgomery asked if the consultant was assuming no jet air transport in the future for CMA. Hr. Becker replied that they had communicated with the existing operators, and although there was a remote possibility that American Eagle or United Express may have jet service in the future, there was no concrete information that it would occur, and the forecasts cannot reflect information that is strictly speculative. Commissioner Cheeanow asked why the noise abatement path seems to disappear from the exhibits as time goes on. Mr. Becker stated that the omission of noisier aircraft from the fleet through mandates and voluntary replacements will be reflected in a dramatic improvement on noise abatement. In response to several questions from the public, Hr Becker stated that the flight tracks used in modeling and on exhibit are idealized; they tried to identify those flight tracks statistically likely to be used. He stated they relied on authoritative information, and field checked it, using 8 to 10 locations within the community where they took actual measurements. He further stated that there would be an appendix to the First Phase Report identifying the locations and the measurements taken at each. Mr. Becker reiterated that the tracks are a statistical probability and that the CNEL preparation is set forth in Federal law, and is an average contour. Bart Bartholomew, 914 Arbutus Avenue, asked about the -specific plan for CMA" as referred to in the report. Community Services Director Lando replied that it referred to the Redevelopment Plan adopted by the City Council in 1983, which indicates 5 or 6 fixed base operators and assumes they would have flight training. Mr. Bartholomew stated that he wasn't aware of such a plan, and that 3000 people have filed petitions against flight training. Community Services Director replied that it was a policy issue and that a flight training operation would be subject to environmental review. After a few more questions not directly concerned with Phase 1 and the exhibits, Hr. Becker suggested that they wait patiently for the Phase 2 report. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Date Approved AUG 2 5 1992 Thomas J. Lando, city Manager Airport Manager SPECIAL MEETING AIRPORT COMMISSION JULY 23, 1992 A Special Meeting of the Airport Commission was held at 12:30 p.m. on July 23, 1992, in Conference Room 2 of the Chico Municipal Center. The meeting was called to order by Chair Brenda Crotts. ROLL CALL: Present at roll call were Commissioners Dan•Chesanow, Dino Corbin, Brenda Crotte, Bob Montgomery, and Gary short. City Staff: City Manager/Airport Manager Tom Lando, Assistant City Manager Bob Koch, Acting Community Services Director Dale Shaddox, Director of Public Works Bob Nunes, Planning Director Clif sellers, Finance Officer Steve Wong, Assistant City Attorney Lori Barker and Secretary to the Airport Manager "Pete" serl. MINUTES: Commissioner Short moved, seconded by Commissioner Montgomery, to approve the minutes of April 28, 1992. Motion carried. I 10 COMNIUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Fihn and :'ain S;,eets P.O. Box 2-20 ChtCO. CA 95927 J916) 895•=893 ATSS 459•=893 r Dg i9T.� UTY MANAGER May 1, 1992 CrN OF oiC There will be a public meeting of the Chico Municipal Airport Commission to discuss Aviation Forecasts in connection with the FAR Part 150 Study which will be used to help develop a revised Airport Environs Plan. In addition, the Airport Commission will also review Noise Exposure Maps which have been prepared based on these aircraft projections. The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 21, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 421.Main Street, Chico, California. Copies of the material are available for public review at the Community Services Department, 441 Main Street, Chico, California, and in the public library. Sincerely, �homas J. Lando Community Services Director TJL:ce cc: City Manager City Council Airport Commission P & D Technologies ' Butte County Land Use Commission Butte County Planning Butte Countv Administration Butte County Library Larry Mintier FAA John Pfeifer Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Chico Unified School District Chamber of Commerce SOS/SOAP/CEPCO CMA Tenants/Owners DATE AGENDAFILE I INFO—C-RC — ce/wp/csd4/a:environs Clerk —CM _CNA Desk ` DCM_ACM' ACM- Council AOT: •ND T ectt- PersAnl Media _CA _.;-C•> —CCP _CSD _FC _FO _ PIT Sec I Slatt Other t t t 11 April 28, 1992 i 164 APPRECIATION EXPRESSED TO RETIRING AIRPORT MANAGER. Commissioner short reminded the Commission that this would be the last regular Airport Commission meeting that Airport Manager Davie would attend in that capacity, since he is retiring June 30, 1992. He presented Fred Davis with an engraved plaque expressing the appreciation of the Commission for his many years of service to the City and the Chico Municipal Airport. APPRECIATION EXPRESSED TO RETIRING AIRPORT IMAGER ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, at 10:00 p.m. the AD,IOIRME f meeting was adjourned to Thursday, May 21, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber. Date Approved JUL 2 3 1992 T omas J.an o, City Manager Airport Manager ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING AIRPORT COMMISSION May 21, 1992 An Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Airport Commission was held at 7:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 21, 1992, in the Council Chamber. The meeting was called to order by chair Brenda Crotte. ROLL CALL: Present at roll call were Commissioners Dan Chesanow, Brenda Crotte, and Bob Montgomery. Absent: Commissioners Dino Corbin and Gary Short. City staff: City Manager/Airport Manager Fred Davis, Community Services Director Tom Lando, Assistant City Attorney Lori Barker and secretary to the City Manager "Pete" Serl. INTRODUCTION: The Airport Manager stated that the purpose of the public meeting was to discuss Aviation Forecasts in connection with the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 study which will be used to help develop a revised Airport Environs Plan. He further stated that the Commission would review Noise. Exposure Maps which were prepared based on these aircraft projections. Airport Manager Davie then introduced John Becker of PeD Technologies, the consulting firm which is preparing the updated Airport Environs Plan. He stated that Mr. Becker would give a brief background of the project, explain the Noise Exposure Maps and answer questions from the Commission and the public. CONSULTANT'S PRESENTATION Mr. Becker stated that the Noise contour Maps displayed on the walls surrounding the Commission represented the first of two phases in the creation of the Environs Plan. He stated that Phase 1 was to identify the existing aircraft noise levels in the community, make aviation activity forecasts based upon a variety of sources, and identify community noise levels at several future dates, using computer modeling. Mr. Becker stated that the second phase will be the development of a program, or plan, for mitigating or preventing land use incompatibilities in the future. He stated that once the current noise exposure is defined, the moot important step is the development of forecasts of future aviation activity, and that forecasting is a combination of mathematical science and judgmental art. He further stated that two types of forecasting were used: indigenous demand forecast and enhanced forecast case. Some of the factors taken into consideration in the indigenous case include determining what other agencies feel is the growth potential by using the model developed by the State of California and considering the Federal Government's National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, and including such demand variables as population and income. He further stated that, while it's important to have both the indigenous and the enhanced forecasts, the acoustical difference is frequently insignificant. He used the year 2010 forecast as an example, with 139,000 operations in the indigenous forecast and 173,000 operations in the enhanced forecast, stating that the acoustical difference between the two is less than one decibel (db). , Mr. Becker then moved to the exhibits, explaining what each one represented. Roll Call Introduction Consultant's Presentation January 28, 1992 %154 CHA ENVIRONS STUDY AND AIR QUALITY ELEMENTS. - GV% Environs Study and Air Quality Eleients The Community Services Director update the provided an on status of the CHA Environs study. He stated that the public meeting of January 9, 1992, resulted in much valuable input. He further stated that several people had asked for additional time to comment, and they were given until the end of January. Community Services Director Lando stated that the city Council had asked about an air quality element, and staff requested the proposal from McClintock, Becker b Associates (now PiD Technologies), which proposal was provided to the Commission. He further stated that, although an air quality element of the Environs study would not be eligible for FAA funding, the FAA has no objections to integrating an air quality element with the Environs Plan. In addition, the PaD Technologies proposal was reviewed by the local Air Quality District, the Air Resources Board, and the Division of Aeronautics, all of which found the proposal to be reasonable. Bart Bartholomew stated his belief that SOS (Save our Skies) would oppose adding the air quality element to the Environs study because they don't view air quality considerations as an airport environs matter, but a Chico -wide matter. He further stated the belief of SOS that air quality is not germane to land use decisions. In addition, he stated that it is SOS's position that the City should not expend funds for that purpose, but that it should be part of the environmental review process for any specific project, and should be paid for by each project sponsor. 1 Commissioner Chesanow stated his belief that air quality is an extremely important consideration in the for both planning process aeronautical and industrial uses at the airport. commissioner Gosling asked if this study would help to prove some people's claims correct or incorrect. The Airport Manager replied ,. that SOS brought up the question of air quality and the Council asked the Commission and staff to consider noise, safety and air quality. He further stated that the City Council was interested in the impact on air quality in connection with the proposed pilot training facility at CMA and that the proposed study would respond to the council's concer4. Mr. Bartholomew stated d thet SOS was objecting to the generality of t the approach, as opposed to application to specific projects. `■` The Airport Manager stated that the Environs Plan is in itself a project, and as ouch will require an environmental review.. In reply to a question by Commissioner Gosling, Community Services ! Director Lando stated that a computer model will be used which will simulate different situations. In response to a question from Buck Dodson, FAA Tower Chief, Chair Short stated that the consultant will physically come to the airport and take samples to be used as a basis from the area. Commissioner Gosling stated his belief that if the forecasts and ' projections prepared by the consultant were totally speculative, as had been suggested, then he doubted they could remain in business very long. The Airport Manager stated that the air quality assessment would include emissions from aircraft and automobiles. Chair Short stated that he was shocked and frustrated that SOS would oppose the air quality element of the study, in view of the fact that it was SOS who originally raised the issue. He declared the public discussion closed. Commissioner Chesanow stated that this is a planning function; the Commission needs to know about current air quality and possible consequences of future changes. Ed Barnett stated that if there is a project, whether it is a flight school or 4 lanes to his town, understanding is that those people will be responsible for doing an EIR. The Community Services Director stated that an EIR (Environmental Impact Report) is different from an environmental review; an environmental review is required of all projects, but an EIR is not always necessary, but that in either one they would be required to -address air quality. The Planning Director stated that under CEQA the Environs Plan itself is a project and will require an environmental review.' January 28; 1992 155 Gina Facca of the Butte county Air Pollution control District stated that Butte County is not in attainment, and that 759 of the problem is internal combustion engines. she further stated her belief that the proposed air quality analysis could not be anything but beneficial. A motion by Commissioner Chesanow to request the City Council to provide a supplemental appropriation in an amount not to exceed $20,000 for P&D Technologies to add an air quality element to the Environs Plan was seconded and unanimously passed. 1 HDC Cannittee eting of AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 6. 1992. rl—Lanuary6, 1992 Commissioners short and Chesanow reported on the meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee which was held on January 6, 1992. The next meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee was set for Monday, February 10, 1992, from 12:30-2:00 p.m. Report of Pbeting REPORT OF MEETING WITH FAA, SOS, AND CITY OFFICIALS, HELD JANUARY'17. with FAA, SOS, and 1.9921 AT THE FAA OFFICE IN BURLINGAME. City Officials, Chair short submitted a report to the City Council and the Airport January 17, 1992, Commission dated January 22, 1992, concerning the above-mentioned e_LAABurlin amt meeting. He stated that there were approximately 17 people at this meeting. N Bart Bartholomew, SOS, stated that he will probably write a report on his concept of the meeting. He further stated he learned that there Q is .a conflict between CEQA and FAA. in addition, he stated his belief that as long as the criteria of the Assurances, as correctly listed in Chair short's report, are fulfilled, then the City may Q enact restrictions. . Chair short stated his belief that the City Attorney is looking into a possible conflict between CEQA and FAA with regard to the Federal Assurances. Chair Short stated his belief that the AIRSPACE NON E%PLOITATIOH STANDARD proposed by SOS would conflict.with 4 or 5 of the criteria of the FAA. For example, any kind of restriction on air traffic at this time would seemingly conflict with the first criterion that the rule must be.reasonable; with a capacity of over'300,000 annual operations, is it reasonable to try to limit operations. PrWosed Economic PROPOSED ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY OF THE CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BY Irrpact Study of the CALTRANS DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS. CM by Caltrans The Airport Manager discussed this item, including meeting on Division of December 11, 1991, with Vic Verloo of the Division of Aeronautics. Aeronautic$ Public information Technician wood reported on procedures that will be used in conjunction with the study, and provided the Commission with a draft of the survey forms: He stated that the target date to start the survey is March 1. He further stated there will actually be three different surveys: a travel survey in which at least 300 travelers will be-questioned; a survey of all airport lessees; and a local business survey canvassing approximately 3600 businesses from the business license records. The Airport Manager stated that Tom Guarino of the Chamber of Commerce will coordinate the collection of all data, providing necessary personnel. He further stated that the Chamber was asked to assist in the survey as a part of its economic development function, for which it receives money from the City. Mr. verloo stated that he has done 25 airport economic impact reports, and that the process has been defined and streamlined. He stated that it usually takes 3 to.6 months to collect the data, approximately one month to feed the.data into the computer, and another month to analyze the results. He emphasized the importance of havingaccurate, objective data, stating that 24 of the 25 studies were very good; however, the 25th one included exaggerated data, and the results were skewed, actually against the airport. Mr. Verloo stated that the end product would show 3 impacts: direct, indirect and induced. He further stated that the multiplier to be used is from the Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis. He also stated that there is a difference between gross and net economic impact, and that care is taken to come up with net. Nil Delivery in MAIL DELIVERY IN CMA INDUSTRIAL PARR. ' G'A Industrial Park The Community services Director stated that when he and Director of Public works Nunes met on December 10, 1991, with Postal Service representatives,. they were very cooperative more willing to be flexible concerning service at the airport. COPIES OF THIS AGENDA PREPARED: January 23. 1992 AVAILABLE FROM: City Managers Office. POSTEDs January 23. 1992 196 East Fifth Street Chico, California PRIOR TO: 5:00 P.M. 1 Telephones (916) 895-4803 AGENDA -- AIRPORT COMMISSION CONFERENCE ROOM -- CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT REGULAR MEETING -- TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1992 -- 7:30 P.M. Items Not Appearing on Posted Agenda: This Agenda was posted on the City Council Chamber Building Bulletin Board at least 72 hours in advance of this meeting. In order for the Airport Commission to take an action on an item not appearing on the posted agenda, other than merely acknowledging receipt of correspondence or other information, the airport Commission must make one of the ' following determinations: (1) Determine by a two-thirds vote or by a unanimous vote if lees than two-thirds of the Commission is present, that the need to take action arose subsequent to the Agenda being posted. I (2) Determine that the item appeared on a posted Agenda for a meeting occurring not more than five (5) calendar days prior to this meeting, and the item was continued to this meeting. 1. ROLL CALL. ..` - 2. MINUTES. Approval of Minutes of Adjourned Meeting of December'9, 1991, and special Meeting of January 6, 1992. 3. BEARINGS. (1) USE PERMIT NO 2343 (EVERETT) 4950 COHASSET ROAD -- TO ALLOW AN 8' x 50, TRAILER AS A CARETAKERS QUARTERS. The Planning Director will review the use Permit request with the Commission, including REPORT from the 'Assistant Planner dated January 14, 1992, which provides information relating to this item. The chair will declare the hearing open and receive information from the 1 Applicant and other interested persons. If the Commission approves the use Permit, it should determine if the Conditions recommended by the Planning Division should be included with the Use Permit or if said conditions should be modified. 4. REGULAR AGENDA. - 4.1. SALES/LEASES/AGREEMENTS. (1) MINUTE ORDER NO. 2-92 RECO14MENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO MODIFY THE CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT "AIRPORT FEES." At its regular meeting of October 29, 1991, the Airport commission 'directed the Airport Manager to prepare an amended Airport Fee schedule incorporating a minimum fee of $100 per year on all leasee of property at the Chico Municipal Airport. The purpose of the minimum fee is to cover City costs in preparing lease agreements. (2) LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT (CITY OF CHICO/JOHN A. PATRICK), AND CONSENT TO SUBLEASE. .(G -CP -4-13.4-76) The Airport Manager will discuss the status of this item. L:cludud with thin ayunda iu Lhu plat whach will accompany the LEASE, in addition to the pldt that will accompany the CONSENT TO SUBLEASE. The LEASE. is a year-to-year lease with a 90 -day notice by the City prior to termination. The Lessee will be required to give the City 30 -days, notice of lessees desire to terminate the LEASE after receiving the 90 -day notice by the City. 3.2. PLANNING ITEMS. 1 (1) CMA ENVIRONS STUDY AND AIR QUALITY ELEMENTS. City staff will provide an update on the status of the CHA Environs Study. Air quality elements will ba discussed, including Proposal to Prepare and Air Quality Assessment for the Chico Municipal Aurport updated Airport Environs Plan from P&D Technologies, dated December 17, 1991. ' Page 1 of 3 4.6. MATTERS FROM THE PUBLIC. S. COMMUNICATIONRi Communication items are being provided to the Airport commission primarily for its information. Accordingly, these matters will not be discussed unless a member of the Airport Commission or general public requests ouch discussion. However, no action shall be taken on these matters unless the matter is included as an action item at a subsequent meeting and included on the posted agenda as such. (1) Letter to Fred Davis from save our skies dated January 7, 1991. (2) Letter to Chair Gary short from save Our skies dated January 10, 1992. (3) Letter to interested Parties from Bob Hannigan, Chair of support our Air Port . (SOAP)' dated January 14, 1992. ' Page 2 of .3 1 If the Commission wishes to proceed with an air quality assessment, it should adopt a motion to request the Council to provide a supplemental appropriation in an amount not to exceed $17,112. v 4.3. COMMITTEE REPORTS. (1) AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 6. 1992. Commissioners Short and Chesanow will report on the meeting of the Ad Bac (2) Committee which was held on January 6, 1992. REPORT OF MEETING WITH FAA. SOS AND CITY OFFICIALS HELD JANUARY 17 1992 AT >1.4. THE FAA OFFICE III BURLINGAME. Chair Short submits a report to the City Council and the Airport Commission ' dated January 22, 1992, concerning the above-mentioned meeting. AIRPORT MANAGER ITEMS. (1) PROPOSED ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY OF -THE CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BY CALTRANS DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS. The Airport Manager will discuss this item, including meeting on December 11, 1991, with Vic verloo of the Division of Aeronautics. Public Information Technician Wood will report on procedures that will be used in conjunction with study, and will provide the Commission with a draft of the survey forms. (2) MAIL DELIVERY IN CMA IIIDUSTRIAL PARK. The community services director will discuss this item, including his meeting (3) with Postal Service representatives on December 10, 1991. REQUEST OF CHICO AIR SHOW AND ANTIQUE FLY=IN FOR COMMISSION SUPPORT TO REOUEST FU14DING FROM THE CITY AND CONFIRHATION BY THE COMMISSION OF SEPTEMBER 11 1993 FOR THE 1993 SHOW. Don Walker, Chair of the Air show committee, will discuss this item and will request: (a) That the commission support a request to the City Council for funding for future shows; (b) That the Commission approve the date of September 11, 1993; and (c) That the Commission approve a Request for Military Aerial Support application to the U. S. Air Force. (4) CHICO AREA TRANSIT BUS SERVICE REVISIONS. The Community Services Director will discuss this item, including letter to , employers at Chico Municipal Airport from Lynn McEnespy, City of Chico Transportation Coordinator. (5) ESTABLISHMENT OF PASSENGER STERILE AREA AND BAGGAGE HANDLING -AREA IN CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING. Discussion concerning application for and use of Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) for improvement of Airport Terminal Building by installing a sterile area ' (6) and an improved baggage handling area. STATUS REPORT FROM AIRPORT MANAGER CONCERNING NEGOTIATIONS WITH JAS 4.5. BUDGET/FINANCE. . The Airport Manager will discuss the status of the Airport Accounts' Receivable. 4.6. MATTERS FROM THE PUBLIC. S. COMMUNICATIONRi Communication items are being provided to the Airport commission primarily for its information. Accordingly, these matters will not be discussed unless a member of the Airport Commission or general public requests ouch discussion. However, no action shall be taken on these matters unless the matter is included as an action item at a subsequent meeting and included on the posted agenda as such. (1) Letter to Fred Davis from save our skies dated January 7, 1991. (2) Letter to Chair Gary short from save Our skies dated January 10, 1992. (3) Letter to interested Parties from Bob Hannigan, Chair of support our Air Port . (SOAP)' dated January 14, 1992. ' Page 2 of .3 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOORt A member of the general public may address the Airport Commission on any matter not appearing on the agenda which is of interest to such person and which is within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Where a member.of the general public seeks to address the Commission under Business From The Floor, the 'r Commission may ask questions of such person but may not discuss the matter unless and until the matter is included on a posted agenda at a subsequent meeting, or make one of the determinations listed on the first page of this agenda in the unnumbered section entitled 'Stems Not Appearing on Posted Agenda 7. ADJOURNMENT: Distribution: Commission - 5- Aero union, Vic Alvistur News Media - 7 Aero Union, Mel Detmer CH/ACM-K/AGSM/CH Secy - 4* Allan, Ella City Clerk and Council - B American Eagle Airlines, Diane Renner City Attorney - 1 Bartholomew, S.B., Inc. ACA - 1• Bell -Carter Foods, Larry Burgoyne CSD/DPW/Pl.Dir - 3• Brady's Mayflower, Jeff Day ADPW-E - 1* Chico Chamber of Commerce PIT/MA FAA Control Tower, Buck Dodson Chief of Police -.1 Fleetwood Motor Homes, Tom Matheson Finance officer - 1 Fortress -Independence, Karl Hall Fire Chief - 1 Lassen Land Company Extra - 6 Pacific Flight Services Raven Airtronics, Frank Baker schooler Flying Co., Harold Schooler Sierra Pacific Indus., Kendall Pierson 3-H Co., Ron Peterson United Couriers, Jerry Healy Valley mirror, Elaine Crewe David Everett 2259 La Quinta Chico, CA 95928 Don Walker I I Page 3 of 3 t �1 1 L� it ��l 1 H 150 January 9, 1992 Consultant McClintock explained that the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program, 908 of which is funded by the FAA through an aviation trust fund, was chosen as a vehicle by the city of Chico to update the environs plan primarily because certain noise abatement recommendations and measures which might evolve from the study are eligible for federal funding. For example, the City might be eligible to acquire additional land for noise abatement purposes at 80 cents on the dollar as well as portable or permanent noise monitoring equipment and insurance. Moving on to the tables presented in the handout, Consultant McClintock discussed the Aviation Activity Data and Forecasts, describing them as a rational and controlled basis for predicting events. Sources would include caltrane information, the FAA plan prepared every five years for all airports in the country and a review of historical aviation activity data compiled from FAA tower records kept at the Chico Municipal Airport. Regarding current and anticipated numbers of aircraft, Consultant McClintock discussed two types of operations: the local, or touch- and-go, operations and itinerant operations which either start or end at the CMA. Itinerant operations outnumber local by a ratio of two to one. In addition, current methodology employe two forecasts: the first uses indigenous, socio-economic factors such as population and income, while the second weighs factors for enhanced growth, such as attractiveness and location --in other words, the potential for growth beyond that normally associated with the traditional factors of population and income. Under the enhanced scenario, it is predicted that the airport will attract a growing number of sophisticated aircraft operations, including a flight school, and fall in with the general aviation trend emphasizing corporate aircraft. In comparing these forecasts', Consultant McClintock pointed out that the handout tables did not address the capacity of the airport to handle the projected demand because the figures representing the year 2010, for example, with enhanced growth level of activity, still fell well below the theoretical capacity of the facility, which is estimated at 355,000 operations per year. PUBLIC COMMENT Bob Hennigan, 5130 Linden Street, asked for elaboration on what was meant by the attractiveness of the airport, and consultant McClintock discussed the availability of land for airport -related growth and development. Be further responded to questions regarding the terms "decibel" and "CNEL", how aircraft noise is measured and what decibel levels actually mean in relation to makes and technology of aircraft, noise abatement takeoff procedures, and standard home construction. For example, a level of 65 decibels indicates the point above which speech interference begins to occur. Vince Phalan, 3010 North Avenue, questioned the inclusion of a flight training school in the enhanced 1995 forecast, and consultant McClintock confirmed that the enhanced forecast considered a school of similar magnitude to that which is currently proposed. He added that a report offering more detail was available if anyone was interested. Bart Bartholomew, 914 Arbutus Avenue, thanked the consultant for the comprehensive statue report but expressed concern over the source of some of the numbers, particularly as connected with a flight school. He added that the split between touch-and-go flights and itinerant flights was the reverse of his experience to date and asked what decibel levels would be used for the noise contour maps produced through this study. Community Services Director Lando indicated that the contract called for measuring CNEL of 60 or greater. Staff was also discussing preparing the 55 CNEL. Mr. Bartholomew stated that the purpose of the plan.was to protect the development of the town as well as the airport. Consultant McClintock responded to additional questions regarding the FAA's format for recording local flight operations and the difference between those and the actual monthly operations summaries kept by the tower. McClintock agreed that there was a potential inconsistency in forms and the division of aircraft operations but said that in Chico it was not a significant issue. City Manager Fred Davis informed Mr. Bartholomew that the tower records were in his office and available for review at any time. Dean Johnson, 78 Fairway Drive, discussed the inconsistency he saw in the handout between the growth projections for various types of aircraft and the dwindling of the single-engine aircraft industry as evidenced by the bankruptcy of Piper and other smaller companies. Consultant McClintock suggested that perhaps there would be a greater utilization of fewer aircraft but did not attempt to revise or defend the cited percentages. Publ is Cament 1 1 t [1 January 9, 1992 151 Robert Halpin, 935 Ivy Street, asked if a worst-case scenario was utilized in the modeling of noise contours, and Consultant McClintock responded that it was more practical to be as realistic as possible, perhaps even somewhat conservative, without grossly overstating the impacts. He suggested that the 1978 noise contours would best represent a worst case unless the economy improves. Mr. Halpin questioned whether the number of planes and flights could also be used to determine pollution levels associated with aircraft. In response, Community Services Director Lando reported that a proposal had been requested and received to do an air quality study. Although this study would not be eligible for funding under the provisions of the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Study, the City considered the air quality information important for determining if there are any current or potential problems. Mr. Halpin repeated one of the study's principle goals as exploring options* and asked what sort of options might be available --for example, alternative flight paths? Consultant McClintock answered that, although the FAA maintains certain alternatives be considered, the City has the discretion to develop additional noise abatement measures of its own. These could range from the preventive to the remedial and could include exclusionary zoning, operational alternatives, various takeoff and landing procedures and alternative departure routes --all of which could be incorporated into the noise model. He added that the draft report would be available for comment before the final report was prepared. Mr. Halpin, commenting on the two -to -one split between itinerant and local operations, asked for a further split between departing and arriving itinerant operations and was told it was an even 50-50. Be then asked what level of service could be expected should the airport approach its anticipated 355,000 operations a year and if more runways would be needed. Consultant McClintock replied that 355,000 was a theoretical number based on the existing runway configuration. with such an annual service volume, aircraft could still take off and land with only one to three minutes between them depending on the individual aircraft. The airport was capable of handling such a volume without stress and undue delay. Gary Short, Airport Commissioner, expressed his concerns about single-engine aircraft and how the model might apply to them. Be suggested that some of the numbers on multi -engine operations, especially for light turbo -prop, might be lower than is actgally the case, and if the model was from another city or the FAA, perhaps adjustments could be made to improve its accuracy for the Chico facility. Consultant McClintock, in noting that the point was well taken, remarked that one of the purposes of the meeting was to talk with those who are more closely involved with the airport. He admitted that the handout tables presumed the older, multi -engine aircraft could be phased out by the year 2010. However, Aero Union's use of aerotankers was clearly not falling off, and replacement aircraft would have to be figured in. one thousand multi -engine aircraft operations a year, for example, amounted to about three a day, which could contribute significantly to the size and shape of the noise contour. He repeated that, at this point, the charts and tables were still preliminary. Lee Gerton, 795 caprice way, was interested to know if takeoff and departure routes passed south over the Bidwell Ranch Subdivision which, as Community Services Director Lando said, was not included in the contours shown under the 1978 plan. In consideration of the development proposed for that area, the City had requested noise studies be taken by the diversion channel. Mr. Garton suggested that the U-2 spy plane and Desert Storm type planes be figured into the model. He also took exception to Consultant McClintock's earlier• assertion that area residents did not spend as much time outside on a year-round basis as those living further south. Tom Guarino, 500 Main Street, asked for clarification and distinction between two figures used to indicate airport capacity. Community Services Director Lando and consultant McClintock explained that :he number 355,000 came from the FAA airport capacity manual and represented the estimate of annual operations for an airport of the configuration of the CMA, whereas 372,000 was derived from projections contained in the existing Airport Environs plan. However, consultant McClintock added, when and if the forecast of aviation demand exceeded the airport's capacity, the City would have to go forward with capacity -enhancing projects. Community Services Director Lando reported that the specific plan for the airport adopted by the Airport commission and city council recommended a number of future improvements but did not include an additional runway. 1 1 �1 t 152 January 9, 1992 Mr. Guarino touched on the operational hours of the tower and its limitations and asked if data from other airports could be used for comparison. Consultant McClintock replied that a tower shutdown would certainly have an effect, but added that, despite the informational value of an airport -to -airport comparison, it wouldn't add much to the overall quality and effectiveness of the report. Mike Borzage, 1662 Vallombrosa Avenue, remarked on the number of design assumptions necessary in predicting, among other things, the future mix of aircraft.- He noted that the 1978 report was not completely on track with its design assumptions, and questioned the process and selection of sites for field noise monitoring necessary to approximate the actual uniqueness of acoustic environs. Consultant McClintock said that, although their original intent had been to test for two days at four sites chosen as being most noise sensitive in terms of either existing or future development, they were, for the most part, disappointed and decided to change their approach. In the long run, operations proved to be typical of the time of year and, if they didn't get as much data from each site as they had hoped, they were able to compile data from more sites than anticipated. ultimately, the more data compiled, the better, he felt, and it was better, too, to get representative samples of different types of aircraft than much information for one type. The ad hoc testing they found themselves doing provided.an expanded number of sites as well as a different -than -expected pattern. Mr. Borzage commented that the original report tested at 15 sites and asked about the percentage of error expected in a model and whether results were more objective when based on testa rather than projections. consultant. McClintock agreed that, if possible, it was desirable to compare the model with actual field data for each aircraft type, but that the percentage of error in the computer model was within three decibels. The model itself and its use as well as the caveats inherent in it would be explained in detail in the forthcoming report. Mr. Borzage next questioned the actual contour levels to be used on the noise exposure maps. If 65 to 85 CNEL were State -imposed. minimums, he said, he was opposed to designing only to minimum standards. At what point did the community decide what its own standards would be? Consultant McClintock responded that the State standard was indeed 65, but the contract with the City required contours for 60,.65, 70 and 75. In addition, the City had requested a cost estimate for including 55 CNEL as a contour. Ed Barnett, 988 Vallombrosa Avenue, expressed interest in the scope of the consultant contract with the City and its phases --aircraft projections, noise exposure maps and aircraft compatibility program -- and asked for information on the CEQA process. Consultant McClintock replied that it was a federal requirement for the FAR Part 150 study and would include a basic initial study checklist to determine if implementing the updated plan would have any significant effects on the environment. The City would then have a choice in how to deal with the effects, such as a full-blown Environmental Impact Report, mitigated impacts or mitigated declaration. At HrBarnett's query as to whether the Airport Environs Plan constituted a project and the consultant's reply that, while planning in and of itself did not represent a project although subsequent acquisition of land or easements did, Community Services Director Lando acknowledged a different interpretation of CEQA requirements. most plane do qualify as projects, he said, including the -Airport Environs Plan. Parte of the plan are strictly informational, he added, but the important thing was to start the CEQA process so the plan could be adopted at its conclusion. To Hr. Barnett's final question of whether the 1978 plan had CEQA clearance, City Manager Fred Davie responded that it was not necessary at that time. ADJOURNMENTS Community Services Director Lando thanked everyone for attending and declared the meeting adjourned at 9 p.m. Date Approved 'APR 2 8 1992 FRED DAVIS,---City Manager —� Airport Manager 'oumnent 1 1 1 0 N 0) m a 1WITREnt January 6, 1992 149 A motion by Commissioner Montgomery to delete Paragraph IV.B. from the proposed amendment to A.P.6P. NO. 90-14, entitled STATEMENT OF POLICY CONCERNING THE USE OF CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT CLEAR ZONES FOR ACCESS TO ADJACENT PRIVATE PROPERTY AND LAND USE WITHIN THE CHICO MUNICIP-AL AIRPORT ENVIRONS (•STATEMENT OF POLICr•)" was seconded by Commissioner Chesanow and carried by a vote of 4 to l; Commissioner Gosling opposed. Copies of lettere dated January 3, January 5 and January•6, 1992, from s.o.s. (Save our skies, a citizen group) relating to proposals for an airspace non -exploitation standard and a policy and procedure regarding leasing at the Airport were distributed to members of the commission. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:05 p.m. Date Approved JAN 2 R i44,o FRE DA , City Manager Airport Manager ADJOURNED MEETING AIRPORT COMMISSION January 9, 1992 CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ENVIRONS PLAN Minutes of Public information Meeting of Janus" 9, 1992 Community Services Director Tom Lando LA called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. in the Council Chamber of the Chico Municipal Center. 1 Cal l ROLL CALLS Airport Commissioners present: Daniel Chesanow, Brenda Crotte, Thomas Gosling, Robert Montgomery and Gary Short. Also present were four members of the Airport Land Use commission: Fred Davis, Brenda Crotte, Carl Waters and Nina Lambert. Staff present included City Manager Fred Davis, Community Services Director Tom Lando, Secretary Karen Willingham and Michael McClintock of McClintock, Becker and Associates, consultant working on the Airport Environs Plan. FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Ccapatibility community services Director Lando explained that the purpose of the meeting was to present an overview of the Federal Aviation Program and Environs Regulations (FAR) Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program and Plan ate Environs Plan update and to answer any questions about the program as well as to solicit public comment on the future of the airport. Be noted that the process of compiling and preparing the data would take ' approximately six to eight months, and he added that comoente pertinent to tonight's meeting would be accepted by phone or mail until the middle of next week. Consultant Michael McClintock referred to the information handout prepared for the meeting, briefly described the study and defined the term "airport environs" as, generally, the area both affected by the airport and that which affects it. As a result of the update in process, the area currently established as the airport environs by the 1978 Airport Environs Plan might well be amended. In any case, a public meeting regarding the area designated as the airport environs ' would be held later. The entire study, he added, would provide airport users and the public several opportunities to participate in the plan preparation. To that end, he encouraged those interested to follow the newspapers and attend the two additional public information meetings planned. ' Consultant McClintock further described the process involved in computer noise modeling; both for existing conditions and those forecast, including establishing a preliminary airport flight track, ' interviewing FAA tower personnel end looking at numbers and types of aircraft. Subsequently, two noise exposure maps would be developed: one using 1991 as a base year and a second based on a five-year forecast. (SPACE FOR FILING STAMP ONLY) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFE)IKINED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE DEC 17 1991 ' I In the Matter of a 11 i .... N o, t,ic.(p...9 f .. P.ulz. G... . ........ AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION State of California County of Butte ss. The undersigned resident of the county of Butte, State of California, says: That I am, and at all time herein mentioned was a citizen of the United States and not a party v to nor interested in the above entitled matter; that I am the principal clerk of the printer and publisher of The Chico Enterprise -Record That said newspaper is one of general circula- tion as defined by Section 6000 Government Code of the State of California, Case No. 26796 by the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Butte; that said newspa- per at all times herein mentioned was printed and published daily in the City of Chico and County of Butte; that the notice of which the annexed is a true printed copy, was published in said newspaper on the following days: Dec. 14, 1991. I certify (or declare), under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct, at Chico, California. Dated Dec. 16, 1991. ........................................................................ at Chico, California. ..., .. ............... (Signat ) CITY CLERK CITY OF CHICO No..................................... PY ...................... NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, January 9. 1992 at 7:00 P.in the City Council Chambers located at 421 Main Street, Chico, to discuss the update of the Airport Environs Plan. This discussion will include a briefing as to the method to be used in updating the plan. The public will have an opportunity to provide corn- ' mens and ask questions. This will include a brief description of the method to be used in making operation projections to be used in the update of the plan. Interested citizens are invited to attend . and/or provide comments in writingto I Thomas I. Lando, Community Services Director, . P.O. Boz 3420, Chico, CA 95927. •' PUBLISH: December 14, 1991 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT ' Fifth and Ma;n Streets CITYaCHICO P.O. Box 3420 INC 1871 ChICo. CA 95927 (916) 995.4693 December 10, 1991 ATSS 459.4693 Dear Airport Operator/Tenant The City of Chico is in the process of updating the Airport Environs Plan which was designed to comply with Federal Aviation Regulations Part 150 to provide noise protection for the airport. and assist in determining compatible land uses within the. environs of the airport. A public meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, January 9, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 421 Main Street, Chico to discuss the plan and to obtain citizen comment. On behalf of the City, I am interested in obtaining any information you have regarding your plans at the airport particularly as they regard aircraft operation. Any projections that you can provide for the next 5, 10 and 20. year period would be greatly appreciated. These and any other comments can be provided in writing to Thomas J. Lando, Community Services Director, P. 0. Box 3420, Chico, CA 95927 or. at the meeting. Sincer_el-y; Thom. Lando Community Services Director TJL:ce cc: City Manager City Council o�Commis sion AQP_..- . Mike McClintock`' Butte County Land Use Comm. Butte County Planning Butte County Administration FAA John Pfeifer Chamber of Commerce SOS/SOAP/CEPCO FR: CMA Environs Plan Chrono ce/wp/csd3/a:environs NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, January 9, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 421 Main Street, Chico, to discuss the update of the Airport Environs Plan. This discussion will include a ,! briefing as to the method to be used in updating the plan. The i public will have an opportunity to provide comments and, ask questions. This will include a brief description of the method to be used in making operation projections to be used in the '> update of the plan. Interested citizens are invited to attend and/or provide comments in writing to Thomas J. Lando, Community Services Director, P. O. Box 3420, Chico, CA 95927. Publish: E -R 12-14-91/12-15-91 NSR 12-19-91 5 s z f I t s e t AGENDA-.CHICO CITY COUNCIL (AND ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, .> PARKING AUTHORITY, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OR PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY FOR APPROPRIATE ITEMS AS LISTED BELOW) Chico Municipal Center - Council Chamber - 421 Main Street Adjourned Regular Meeting - Tuesday November 12 1991 - 7:30 P.Y. 1. CALL TO ORDER. 1.1. FLAG SALUTE. 1.2. ROLL CALL - CITY COUNCIL AND AIRPORT COMMISSION. 2. JOINT MEETING OF COUNCIL AND AIRPORT COMMISSION. The purpose of the meeting is for the Airport Commission to discuss with the Council its.plans, policies and procedures relating to the operation of the Chico Municipal Airport, with special emphasis on policies and procedures concerning the sale and lease of property. The Chair, members of the Airport Commission and staff will discuss the matters set forth in the following outline. A. City Charter provisions (Exhibit A). (Commission) 1. Powers and duties of the Airport Commission. 2. Policies of the Airport Commission. A copy of the History of the Airport is being provided as it includes the "goals" of the City Council and Airport Commission since its establishment by the City Charter on April 27, 1947. 3. Relationship with Council as provided by Charter and as a matter of practice. Statement ' of the Economic Development Policy of the City (AP6P #10-22 Exhibit B). B. Fiscal matters relating to Chico Municipal Airport (Budget pages Exhibit C). (Finance Officer and City Manager) Funding sources - rentals and fees, sale of Airport property, tax increment, entitlement (Airport Improvement Program), other grants (EDA, UDAG, etc.) C. Procedures for selling and leasing land at the Airport. (Commission) 1. Sale of Industrial Land (between Fortress Street and Cohasset Road) (Flow Chart - Exhibit D).' 2. Lease of land set aside for Aeronautical Activities (between Fortress Street and westerly edge of Aircraft parking area) (Flow Chart - Exhibit E). 11/12/91 Page 1. D. Airport Environs Plan. 1. Overview of 1978 Environs Plan. (Community Services Director) 2. Plan for 1991-92 study and update. (Mike McClintock of McClintock, Baker & Associates) E. Current Commission activity with regard to land use compatibility. 1. Avigation easements. (Community Services Director) 2. Correspondence with ALUC and Butte County Board of Supervisors (Exhibit F). 3. Statement of policy concerning land use for review with the Council 'and request to adopt at a subsequent meeting. (Airport Commission Minute Order No. 6-91 - Exhibit G). (Gary Short) F. Airport Master Plan (Chico Municipal Airport Redevelopment Project Area). 1. Types of uses. (Community Services Director) 2. Future tenants. (Commission) 3. West side plan. (Community Services Director and City Manager) 4. Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding requests and projects from joint planning conference. (Community Services Director) Following Council discussion, the Mayor will ask for any questions or comments from the audience. 3. ITEMS ADDED AFTER POSTING OF THE AGENDA. 4. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR. 5. ADJOURNMENT. If a closed session is needed, the purpose will be announced. Adjourn to Tuesday, 11/14/91 at 6:30 p.m. in Conference Room No. 1. 11/12/91 Page 2. Movanber 12, 1991 ADJOURNED REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - NOVEMBER 12, 1991 Pursuant to adjournment, the City council met in a joint meeting with the Airport Commission at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 12, 1991, in the Council Chamber. Present at roll call - Mayor Andrews and Councilmembers Fletcher, Francis, Hubert, McGinnis and Owens. Absent Councilmember Guzzetti. Airport Commissioners in attendance - Chairman Short and Commissioners Crotts, Gosling and Montgomery. Absent - Commissioner Chesanow. City staff in attendance - City Manager Davis, City Clerk Evans, City Attorney Boehm, Assistant City Manager Koch, Community Services Director Lando, Finance Officer Wong and Assistant Director of Public works Rose. Comcil & JOINT MEETING OF THE COUNCIL AND AIRPORT COMMISSION: Mayor Andrews Airport noted that the purpose of the meeting was for the Airport Commission Conn. to discuss with the Council its plane, policies and procedures relating to the operation of the Chico Municipal Airport, with special emphasis on policies and procedures concerning the sale and lease of property. Commissioner Short discussed the various powers and duties of the Airport Commission under provisions of the City Charter (copies provided to the Council) and policies which had been adopted by the Commission, provided a review' of the -History of the Airport', and discussed the relationship of the commission with the Council as provided by the City Charter and as a matter of practice. He then reviewed Statement of the Economic Development Policy of the city of Chico- (APaP i10-22) and requested direction from the Council regarding future goals and policies it wished the Commission to implement. Finance officer Wong and Commissioner Montgomery reported on fiscal matters relating to the Airport and reviewed Budget pages which outlined funding sources = rentals and fees, sale of Airport property, tax increments, entitlement (Airport improvement Program) and other grants (EDA, UDAG, etc.). Commissioner short then discussed procedures for sale of industrial land at the Airport (between Fortress Street and cohasset Road) as outlined in the Flow Chart provided to the Council and noted that the Airport Commission did not have authority to sell Airport property. City Manager Davie explained that all of the Airport land east of Fortress street was owned by the Redevelopment Agency with the exception of the railroad right of ways, and that sale proceeds went into the Airport Fund. Commissioner Gosling and the City Manager reviewed leasing of land set aside for aeronautical activities. The City Manager advised that the title to the Flow Chart relating to leasing of Airport property should be amended to read between Fortress Street and the westerly line of the aircraft parking apron' (not easterly). Community Services Director Lando advised that under local guidelines leases were exempt from environmental review; however, environmental reviews were recommended by the City Attorney. In response to Councilmember McGinnis, City Manager Davis and Commissioner Gosling explained that preliminary discussion of a lease proposal first occurred between the lessee and staff (typically the City Manager), and if a formal lease proposal resulted, it was submitted to the Airport Commission for its approval or to submit its recommendation when Council approval was required. They explained that this process was an endeavor to reduce the amount of Commission and Council time spent in review of proposals which were not formalized. In response to Councilmember McGinnis, the City Manager advised that leasee were negotiated as indicated on the Flow Chart, but a formal AP&P had not been adopted. community Services Director Lando provided an overview of the elements Of the 1978 Environs Plan, reviewed a plat indicating uses assigned to the various Airport zones, and reviewed a map indicating areas which required avigation easements. Mike McClintock of McClintock, Baker a Associates reported on the 1991-92 study and Environs Plan update and indicated that the plan would be based upon Federal Aviation Regulations. The update consisted of three phases: Phase I - development of aircraft noise exposure maps and a five-year forecast map which would require FAA approval. Phase II - noise compatibility program. Phase III - environmental review in. accordance with CEQA requirements. Community Services Director Lando discuseed avigation easements and land use computability. Commissioner crotts, a member of the Airport Land Use Commission, commented on the authority and powers of the ALUC and reviewed the City•s correspondence with ALUC and the Butte County Board of Supervisors regarding avigation easements. Commissioner Short reviewed Airport commission Minute order No. 6-91 which provided a 2-38 G C t 11 The Council recessed for ten minutes and reconvened at 9:45 p.m. ------------------------------- Mayor Andrews asked for questions or comments from the audience. Bart Bartholomew, 914 Arbutus, representing Save our Skies citizen group (S.O.S.), requested that he be given an opportunity to review 'S.O.S. Response to Airport Commission Presentation and Comments on the Airport Lease Process November 12, 1991•, copies of which were provided to the Council. Be indicated that their concerns focused primarily on the Airport Environs Plan, leasee and leasing procedures, duties and powers of the Commission, avigation easements, Municipal Code provisions and compliance with FAA Assurances. Mayor Andrews and Councilmembers indicated that they would like an opportunity to review S.O.S.'s response prior to discussion of the concerns which it addressed. Mr. Bartholomew requested that a meeting be scheduled at the earliest opportunity and that the following items be placed on the agenda for discussion: 1) CEQA requirements for environmental review in the lease process in connection with update of the Airport Environs Plan, and 2) review of staff's September report concerning assignment of Pacific Flight services leases, portions of which S.O.S. believed were inaccurate. In response to Bart Bartholomew, Community Services Director Lando explained that the completed Airport Environs Plan update would be a basis for preparation of subsequent environmental reviews which were required in connection with Airport leasee. Commissioner short reported that Mr. Bartholomew had addressed the same issues at the last Airport Commission meeting, and since the Commission relied upon the recommendations of McClintock, Baker L Associates as their consultant. in this matter, suggested that Mr. Bartholomew meet individually with Mike McClintock to discuss his concerns; however, Mr. Bartholomew had declined the offer. Bart Bartholomew stated that he would only meet with Mr. McClintock in a public meeting. Community Services Director Lando advised that there would be an initial meeting in which comments and suggestions would be received from the public. Mike McClintock reported that FAR Part 150 required one public information meeting for each of the noise exposure and the noise compatibility use elements and that it would be appropriate at those meetings for S.O.S. and others to address issues of concern. In addition, a formal public hearing would be required upon completion of the plan. councilmember McGinnis recommended that the Council schedule a workshop to discuss adoption of Administrative Policies and Procedures in regard to the lease application and negotiation process, and that the APLP include a written application by the leasee which outlined its obligations in regard to the lease process, and that it also include provisions requiring the applicant to pay for an environmental review. Councilmember Francis suggested that the Airport Commission develop the lease procedures and policies and submit its recommendations to the Council. councilmember Fletcher recommended that in developing the AP&P, the Commission obtain input from the public and Airport users. Following discussion, councilmember McGinnis moved that the Airport Commission review and recommend to the Council Administrative Policies and Procedures for leases of Airport property. The motion was seconded and carried with councilmember Guzzetti being absent. Ella Allan, 3618 Keefer Road, requested that S.O.S. be given an opportunity to address the Council earlier on the agenda in the future. 2-39 Plovcnnber 12, 1991 Statement of Policy concerning land use and requested that the Council adopt this policy at a subsequent meeting. The city Manager and community services Director then reviewed the Airport Master Plan (Chico Municipal Airport Redevelopment Project Area) in regard to types of uses, the west side plan and the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding requests and projects from a joint planning conference. Commissioner short discussed future tenants and asked for the Council's euggestione and recommendations. Mayor Andrews indicated that Potential tenants should be reviewed in regard to their impact on existing uses. Commissioner Short also advised that Pacific Flight Services was the only fixed base operator at the Airport, but another 410L operator had expressed an interest in locating at CMA. G C t 11 The Council recessed for ten minutes and reconvened at 9:45 p.m. ------------------------------- Mayor Andrews asked for questions or comments from the audience. Bart Bartholomew, 914 Arbutus, representing Save our Skies citizen group (S.O.S.), requested that he be given an opportunity to review 'S.O.S. Response to Airport Commission Presentation and Comments on the Airport Lease Process November 12, 1991•, copies of which were provided to the Council. Be indicated that their concerns focused primarily on the Airport Environs Plan, leasee and leasing procedures, duties and powers of the Commission, avigation easements, Municipal Code provisions and compliance with FAA Assurances. Mayor Andrews and Councilmembers indicated that they would like an opportunity to review S.O.S.'s response prior to discussion of the concerns which it addressed. Mr. Bartholomew requested that a meeting be scheduled at the earliest opportunity and that the following items be placed on the agenda for discussion: 1) CEQA requirements for environmental review in the lease process in connection with update of the Airport Environs Plan, and 2) review of staff's September report concerning assignment of Pacific Flight services leases, portions of which S.O.S. believed were inaccurate. In response to Bart Bartholomew, Community Services Director Lando explained that the completed Airport Environs Plan update would be a basis for preparation of subsequent environmental reviews which were required in connection with Airport leasee. Commissioner short reported that Mr. Bartholomew had addressed the same issues at the last Airport Commission meeting, and since the Commission relied upon the recommendations of McClintock, Baker L Associates as their consultant. in this matter, suggested that Mr. Bartholomew meet individually with Mike McClintock to discuss his concerns; however, Mr. Bartholomew had declined the offer. Bart Bartholomew stated that he would only meet with Mr. McClintock in a public meeting. Community Services Director Lando advised that there would be an initial meeting in which comments and suggestions would be received from the public. Mike McClintock reported that FAR Part 150 required one public information meeting for each of the noise exposure and the noise compatibility use elements and that it would be appropriate at those meetings for S.O.S. and others to address issues of concern. In addition, a formal public hearing would be required upon completion of the plan. councilmember McGinnis recommended that the Council schedule a workshop to discuss adoption of Administrative Policies and Procedures in regard to the lease application and negotiation process, and that the APLP include a written application by the leasee which outlined its obligations in regard to the lease process, and that it also include provisions requiring the applicant to pay for an environmental review. Councilmember Francis suggested that the Airport Commission develop the lease procedures and policies and submit its recommendations to the Council. councilmember Fletcher recommended that in developing the AP&P, the Commission obtain input from the public and Airport users. Following discussion, councilmember McGinnis moved that the Airport Commission review and recommend to the Council Administrative Policies and Procedures for leases of Airport property. The motion was seconded and carried with councilmember Guzzetti being absent. Ella Allan, 3618 Keefer Road, requested that S.O.S. be given an opportunity to address the Council earlier on the agenda in the future. 2-39 ` PROCEDURE AND POLICY NO. 90-14, "STATEMENT OF POLICY CONCERNING THE USE OF CHico MUNICIPAL AIRPORT CLEAR ZONES FOR ACCESS TO ADJACENT PRIVATE PROPERTY AND LAND USE WITHIN THE CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ENVIRONS ('STATEMENT OF POLICT•1 At the regular meeting of April 30, 1991, the Commission unanimously adopted in concept the STATEMENT Or POLICY and asked the Airport Manager to prepare an Administrative Procedure and Policy for formal adoption of the STATEMENT OF POLICY. At the regular meeting of July 30, 1991, the Commission directed that this item be placed on the agenda for this meeting, and that Notice of Public Hearing be published. Notice of Hearing has been published and interested parties have been notified. The Airport Manager will review the proposed Administrative Procedure and Policy No. 9-14. The Chair will declare the hearing open and receive information from interested i parties. If the Commission accepts the proposed Administrative Procedure and Policy No. 90-14, it should approve Minute Order No. 6-91. 4. REGULAR AGENDA. 4.1. SALES/LEASES/AGREEMENTS. (1) REQUEST OF ED HARDESTY FOR INCREASED ACCESS EASEMENT ACROSS THE NORTH CLEAR ZONE ALONG OASIS ROAD. At the regular meeting of July 30, 1991, the Commission rpqueeted that this item be rescheduled at the next meeting. If the Commission bas approved Minute order No. 6-91 in 3, above, this request should be denied upless the Commission determines, in accordance with Administrative Procedure end Policy No. 90-14, paragraph IV.A., that the granting of the easement "is in the interest of the Chico Municipal Airport ...� Rnd/or the City of Chico." T COPIES OP THIS AGENDA PREPARED: October 21, 1991 AVAILABLE FROM: City Manager's office POSTED: October 24, 1991 196 East Fifth Street Chico, California PRIOR TO: 5:00 P.M. Telephone: (916) 895-4803 . AGENDA -- AIRPORT COMMISSION CONFERENCE ROOM -- CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT REGULAR MEETING -- TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1991 -- 7:30 P.M. Items Not APpearinq on Posted Agenda: This Agenda was posted on the City Council Chamber Building Bulletin 3oard at least 72 hours in advance of this meeting. In order for the Airport Commission to take an action on an item not appearing on the posted agenda, other than merely acknowledging receipt of correspondence or other information, the Airport Commission must make one of the following determinations: (1) Determine by a two-thirds vote or by a unanimous vote if lase than two-thirds,of the commission is present, that the need to take.action arose subsequent to the Agenda being posted. (2) Determine that the item appeared on a posted Agenda for a meeting (� occurring not more than five (5) calendar days prior to this meeting, and the item was continued to this meeting. 1. ROLL CALL. �I 2. MINUTES. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 30, 1991. 3. HEARINGS. ` PROCEDURE AND POLICY NO. 90-14, "STATEMENT OF POLICY CONCERNING THE USE OF CHico MUNICIPAL AIRPORT CLEAR ZONES FOR ACCESS TO ADJACENT PRIVATE PROPERTY AND LAND USE WITHIN THE CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ENVIRONS ('STATEMENT OF POLICT•1 At the regular meeting of April 30, 1991, the Commission unanimously adopted in concept the STATEMENT Or POLICY and asked the Airport Manager to prepare an Administrative Procedure and Policy for formal adoption of the STATEMENT OF POLICY. At the regular meeting of July 30, 1991, the Commission directed that this item be placed on the agenda for this meeting, and that Notice of Public Hearing be published. Notice of Hearing has been published and interested parties have been notified. The Airport Manager will review the proposed Administrative Procedure and Policy No. 9-14. The Chair will declare the hearing open and receive information from interested i parties. If the Commission accepts the proposed Administrative Procedure and Policy No. 90-14, it should approve Minute Order No. 6-91. 4. REGULAR AGENDA. 4.1. SALES/LEASES/AGREEMENTS. (1) REQUEST OF ED HARDESTY FOR INCREASED ACCESS EASEMENT ACROSS THE NORTH CLEAR ZONE ALONG OASIS ROAD. At the regular meeting of July 30, 1991, the Commission rpqueeted that this item be rescheduled at the next meeting. If the Commission bas approved Minute order No. 6-91 in 3, above, this request should be denied upless the Commission determines, in accordance with Administrative Procedure end Policy No. 90-14, paragraph IV.A., that the granting of the easement "is in the interest of the Chico Municipal Airport ...� Rnd/or the City of Chico." (2) MINUTE ORDER NO. 7-91 AUTRORIZ MONTH NOTICE REQUIRED BY "AMEN AIRPORT. BUILDING AT 100 LOCKH C11ICO/AERO UNION CORPORATION)•• (5) The. Airport Manager will discuss this item, including the letter from Rob L. McWilliams, P.A., SEPO Project Manager, U. S. Department of Commerce central Administrative Support center, National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, dated October 4, 1991, and the attached ASOS SITE SURVEY REPORT. If the Commission agrees that the ASOS equipment should be installed at the Chico Municipal Airport, it should approve Minute Order No. r 4.2. PLANNING ITEMS. (1) MINUTE ORDER NO. 9-91 RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF CHICO, FOR 24 PERIOD. The Airport Manager will discuss this item, including letter from Aero Union r of way as public streets, it should approve Minute order No. 9-91. Corporation dated August 23, 1991. l r / If the Commission agrees that the provision of the AMENDED LEASE requiring a - six-month notice to extend the lease term may be waived, it should approve Minute Order No. 7-91. (3) MINUTE ORDER NO. 10-91 MODIFICATION OF LIABILITY INSURANCE LIMITS FOR LEASED PROPERTY - PACIFIC FLIGHT SERVICES, INC. Assistant City Manager Koch will discuss this item, including letter from Paul discuss this item, including memorandum to Airport Commission dated October 17, Richter, President of Pacific Flight Services, dated September 5, 1991. 1991, SUBJECT: CHICO MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (CMRPA). If the Commission agrees that the liability insurance limits for property leased to Pacific Plight Services, Inc., should be lowered, it should approve Minute Order No. 10-91. _ (4) REAPPRAISAL OF CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT (CMA) INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY AVAILABLE FOR SALE. The Airport Manager will discuss this item, including hie memorandum dated October 8, 1991. (5) The. Airport Manager will discuss this item, including the letter from Rob L. McWilliams, P.A., SEPO Project Manager, U. S. Department of Commerce central Administrative Support center, National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, dated October 4, 1991, and the attached ASOS SITE SURVEY REPORT. If the Commission agrees that the ASOS equipment should be installed at the Chico Municipal Airport, it should approve Minute Order No. r 4.2. PLANNING ITEMS. (1) MINUTE ORDER NO. 9-91 RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF CHICO, FOR 24 The Community Services Director will discuss this item. If the Commission agrees to recommend that the City Council dedicate the rights r of way as public streets, it should approve Minute order No. 9-91. (2) AIRPORT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1-91, RESOLUTION _OF THE AIRPORT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHICO MAKING ITS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON ADOPTION OF THE - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE AMENDED SOUTHEAST CHICO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT THE CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT,_ AND THE CENTRAL CHICO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. The Redevelopment/General Services Manager and the Planning Director will discuss this item, including memorandum to Airport Commission dated October 17, 1991, SUBJECT: CHICO MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (CMRPA). If the Commission makes the finding and determination that the proposed Amendments to the Redevelopment Plans conform to the General Plan of the City of Chico, it should adopt Resolution No. 1-91. Page 2 of 5 i Page 3 of 5 t (3) RESOLUTION NO. 2-91, RESOLUTION OF THE AIRPORT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHICO AMENDING CHAPTER 11R.08 OF THE CHICO MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED -USE OF THE AIRPORT", BY ADDING THERETO A NEW SECTION 11R.08.105 ENTITLED. "POSSESSION AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES The Airport :tanager will discuss this item, including City Attorney memorandum v dated October 1, 1991, and draft of ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO AMENDING SECTION 9.30.030 ENTITLED "PROHIBITION ON THE POSSESSION AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES", OF CHAPTER 9.30 OF THE CHICO MUNICIPAL CODE ' ENTITLED, "POSSESSION AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES". If the Commission desire@ to amend the Airport Rules and Regulations by adding Section 118.08.105, with regard to the possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages, it should adopt Resolution No. 2-91. (4) BRIEFING REGARDING NOISE COMPATIBILITY STUDY (CMA ENVIRONS PLAN f"PLAN-1) AND ?HE ?IME SCHEDULE RELATING TO THE PLAN. A representative of McClintock, Becker s Associates will be present to brief the Commission relative to the work to be undertaken in connection with the PLAN and the proposed time schedule. The Airport Manager will also discuss securing a proposal relating to impacts of aircraft on air quality. (5) APPOINTMENT OF AN AIRPORT COMMISSIONER TO SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE GENERAL PLAN TASK FORCE. �• The Airport Manager will discuss this item, including letter from Mayor Mary Andrews dated September 24, 1991. The Commission should appoint a representative and an alternate to serve on the General Plan Task Force, and the Airport Manager will inform the City Council of the appointments. 4.3. COMMITTEE REPORTS. Commissioner Crotts and/or the Airport Manager will inform the Commission concerning the Butte.County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) meeting of October 9, 1991. 4.4. AIRPORT MANAGER ITEMS. (1) .PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGES. The Airport Manager will discuss this item, including two memorandums from Manaqement Analyst Mann dated September 18, 1991. The City Council wag provided with this information at its meeting of October 1, 1991. (2) AIRPORT FEES. ' At the regular meeting of July 30, 1991, the Commission voted to accepted proposed revisions to the schedule of Airport Fees and to consider amendments at the next meeting. The Airport Manager will discuss this item. If the Commission desires to amend the Airport Fees, it should direct the Airport Manager to prepare the amendment in an appropriate form for adoption at (3) the next regular meeting. AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION (AOPAI PILOT ACTION ALERT REGARDING SENATE BILL 868 AND SENATE BILLS 1X 29 AND 145. The Airport Manager will discuss this item, including AOPA memorandum received August 13, 1991, together with letters written by Chair Short and commissioner ( Gosling to State Senators David Roberti and Mike Thompson and Assembly speaker \y Millie Brown, as well as the response from Senator Roberti dated September 16, 1 1991. (4) MAIL DELIVERY PROBLEM IN CMA INDUSTRIAL PARK. The Community Services Director will discuss this item, including letter from Matt York, President of videomaker, Inc., dated September 16, 1991. (5) AVIATION -AEROSPACE REEK, OCTOBER 6-12 1991. 1 The Airport Manager will discuss this item, including PROCLAMATION of the City of Chico.dated October 1, 19,91, and PROCLAMATION of the State of California dated September 12, 1991. Page 3 of 5 t U t (6) ALL -DAY CITY COUNCIL MEETING WITH DEPARTMENTS, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (WEDNESDAY. OCTOBER 30, :991). The Airport Manager will discuss this item, including his memorandum dated October 11, 1991, showing the time for the Airport Commission to meet with the City Council as 2:30-2:45 p.m, on Wednesday, October 30, 1991. Since the v Airport Commission will be attending a joint meeting with the City Council on November 12, 1991, policy matters relating to the airport can be discussed at that time. (7) DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE AIRPORT COMMISSICN'S PARTICIPATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE AIRPORT COMMISSION ON NOVEMBER 12, 1991, RELATING TO PROCEDURES AND POLICY MATTERS OF ?HE AIRPORT COMMISSION IN CONNECTION WITH THE LEASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY AT THE CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT. The Commission will discuss this item, including letter to City Manager Fred Davis from Bob Linscheid of the Chico Chamber of Commerce dated September 19, 1991; letter to Mayor Andrews from Henry Roberson of Air Carriage, Inc., dated September 26, 1991; letter to City Council Members from Jim Gallagher of Chico Economic Planning Corporation dated September 26, 1991; letter to the City Council from Airport Commissioner Crotts dated September 26, 1991; letter to the City Council from Airport Commission Chair Sary Short dated October 1, 1991; memo to Fred Davis from Gary Short dated October 9, 1991, and letter from Commissioner Gosling to the City Council dated October 20, 1991. (8) CITY OF CHICO BIENNIAL APPRECIATION DINNER ON FEBRUARY 13, 1992. The Airport Manager will discuss this item, including memorandum from the City clerk dated September 30, 1991. (9) LETTERS FROM CHAIR SHORT TO THE BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND THE BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION CONCERNING THE REQUIREMENT OF AVIGATION EASEMENTS IN CONNECTION -WITH -COUNTY BUILDI`tG PERMITS. The Airport Manager will discuss this item. 4.5. BUDGET/FINANCE. The Finance officer will discuss the statue of the Airport Accounts Receivable, including memorandum from the Finance officer dated September 4, 1991, SUBJECT: WESTERN AERO - REQUEST TO WRITE OFF ACCOUNT RECEI`JABLE. 4.6. MATTERS FROM THE PUBLIC. DISCUSSION RELATING TO LETTER FROM SAVE OUR SKIES (A CITIZEN GROUP) BY S. R. BARTHOLOMEW, CO-CHAIRMAN, DATED OCTOBER 22, 1991. Mr. Bartholomew will discuss his letter. 5. COMMUNICATIONS: Communication items are being provided to the Airport Commission primarily for its information. Accordingly, these matters will not be discussed unless a member of the Airport Commission or general public requests such discussion. However, no action shall be taken on these matters unless the matter is included as an action item at a subsequent meeting and included on the posted•agenda as such. (1) Letter from Cbico Chamber of Commerce Aviat'on Task Force expressing appreciation for the beautification of the entrance to the Chico Municipal Airport. (2) copy of summary of Annual Report of Aircraft Based at the CMA. (3) Letter Proposal from McClintock, Becker 6 Associates to respond to issues raised by -Save our Skies' (SOS) in opposition to airline pilot flight training school at Chico Municipal Airport, dated September 23, 1991. 6. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR: A member of the general public may address the Airport' Commission on any matter not appearing on the agenda which is of interest to such person and which is within the jurisdiction of the Commission. where a member of the general public seeks to address the Commissicn under Business From The Floor, the Commission may ask questions of such person but =ay not discuss the matter unless and until the matter is included on a posted agenda at a subsequent meeting, or make one of the determinations listed on the first page of this agenda in the unnumbered section entitled "Items Not Appearing on Posted Agenda". 7. ADJOURNMENT: The Commission will adjourn to November 12, 1991, for a joint meeting of the City Council and the Airport Commission. Page 4 of 5 Aero union, vie Alvistur Allan, Ella American Eagle Airlines, Diane Renner Bartholomew, S.A., Inc. Bell -Carter Foods, Larry Burgoyne Brady•s Mayflower, Jeff Day Chico Chamber of Commerce FAA Control Tower, Buck Dodson Fleetwood Motor Homes, Tom Matheson Fortrees-Independence, Karl Hall Lassen Land Company Raven Alrtronics, Frank Baker Schooler Flying Co., Harold Schooler Sierra Pacific Indue., Kendall Pierson 3-M Co., Ron Peterson United Couriers, Jerry Healy Page 5 of 5 Distribution: Commission - 5- , News Media - 7 CM/ACM-K/RCSM/CH Secy - 4 - city Clerk and Council -.8 City Attorney - 1 ACA - 1- CSD/DPW/PL.Dir - 3- ADPW-E - 1. chief of Police - 1 Finance officer - 1 Fire Chief - 1 Extra - 5 EE Hardesty Bachman b Associates Pacific Flight Services videomaker, Inc. McClintock, Becker b Associates i 1 1 1 Aero union, vie Alvistur Allan, Ella American Eagle Airlines, Diane Renner Bartholomew, S.A., Inc. Bell -Carter Foods, Larry Burgoyne Brady•s Mayflower, Jeff Day Chico Chamber of Commerce FAA Control Tower, Buck Dodson Fleetwood Motor Homes, Tom Matheson Fortrees-Independence, Karl Hall Lassen Land Company Raven Alrtronics, Frank Baker Schooler Flying Co., Harold Schooler Sierra Pacific Indue., Kendall Pierson 3-M Co., Ron Peterson United Couriers, Jerry Healy Page 5 of 5 t 1 I It r I i October 29, 1991 . 136 A motion by Commissioner Gosling that the commission make the finding and determination that the proposed Amendments to the Redevelopment Plans conform to the General Plan of the City of Chico and of the Chico municipal Airport and adopt Airport commission Resolution No. 1-91, RESOLUTION OF THE AIRPORT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHICO HARING ITS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE AMENDED SOUTHEAST CHICO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT THE CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AND THE CENTRAL CHICO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, was seconded and unanimously passed. The Airport Manager discussed this item, including City Attorney memorandum dated October 1, 1991, and draft of ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO AMENDING SECTION 9.30.030 ENTITLED "PROHIBITION ON THE POSSESSION AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES', OF CHAPTER 9.30 OF THE CHICO MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED, "POSSESSION AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES". He stated that in reviewing provisions of the Chico Municipal Code, there is a provision that alcohol cannot be consumed on public property, except in designated places; this was inadvertently omitted from the Airport Rule:. He further stated that the proposed regulation would not regulate consumption on private or leased property, but would ban it on all City -owned property at the airport, except when allowed by the Commission, as in issuing a permit for a special event. He stated this new Code section was patterned after the one relating to City Parke. In response to a query from Bart Bartholomew, the Airport Manager confirmed that the City Council makes the ultimate decision. Mr. Bartholomew then asked what is the distinction between the Airport Rules and Regulations and the standards for Aeronautical Activities, stating his understanding that Rules and Regulations'must go to Council, but the Standards need not. The Airport Manager replied that his understanding was correct, and explained that the Rules and Regulations have penal provisions, whereas the Standards do not. He further stated that the Council has never taken jurisdiction in matters relating to the Standards. A motion by commission Chesanow to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2-91, RESOLUTION OF THE AIRPORT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHICO AMENDING CHAPTER 11R.08 OF THE CHICO MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED, 'USE OF THE AIRPORT', BY ADDING THERETO A NEW SECTION 11R.08.105 ENTITLED, 'POSSESSION AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES" was seconded and unanimously passed. BRIEFING REGARDING NOI_SE COMPATIBILITY STUDY fCMA ENVIRONS PLAN I PLAN 11 AND THE TIME SCHEDULE RELATING TO THE PLAN. The Airport Manager gave a brief background concerning the Noise Compatibility Study (Environs Plan), stating that some two years ago the Commission asked staff to make application to FAA for grant money to conduct the study. He stated the cost was approximately $110,000, and in securing the grant, FAA pays for 908, making the wait for approval worth while. He further stated that the present Environs Plan is outdated, primarily because projections for types of aircraft and number of operations were substantially higher than the actual operations that have taken place since the adoption of the Environs Plan. He stated that at the time the last study was done Hughes Air West was operating out of 1'MA, using DC -99, which are generally acknowledged to be extremely noisy aircraft. Airport Manager Davie introduced Mike McClintock of the airport consulting firm of McClintock, Becker a Associates (MBA), which has been retained by the City to conduct the Noise compatibility study. Briefing Pao ding Noise C mtibilit Study UIREnvirons; Plan "Plan" and the Tine Scfiedule Relating to the Plan Mr. McClintock stated that the study process is contained in the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150, and that the process is not adversarial, but requires the cooperation between the City, the airport, airport users and the general public. Addressing the man with the video camera, he stated his opinion that this type of administrative record is an excellent idea; however, he stated that should anyone who has access to the tape misquote him or take his comments out of context, he would like the opportunity to view the unedited tape. Mr. McClintock went on to explain what MBA would be doing, stating that their approach is covered by the guidelines of FAR Part 150 studies. The first step is the development of noise exposure maps, using FAA Integrated Noise Model (INM). The resultant Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contours will be supplemented by taking actual noise measurements at various locations throughout the area. Briefing Pao ding Noise C mtibilit Study UIREnvirons; Plan "Plan" and the Tine Scfiedule Relating to the Plan October 29, 1991 137 They also will prepare a base map showing existing (90-91) land use of the area surrounding the airport. McClintock stated the second step would be to update the forecasts of aviation activities and develop contours based on a five-year horizon. He further stated a second component of the forecast would go to the year 2005 or 2010. Phase two will be to look at existing, as well as proposed, land uses, with projected land use changes. McClintock stated that the purpose of an environs plan is -to help the airport be a better neighbor to the community that it serves. During Ella Allan ascertained that HBA did not do the 1978 study, and asked how the firm was chosen to do the current study. Community services Director Lando stated that the City solicited proposals from many firms and also interviewed the firms, then chose the firm through the competitive process, basically choosing the one with the best qualifications and offering the best services for the beet price. Then the contract and the contractor had to be approved by the FAA. Les carton inquired if this study was in some way meant to be the the course of the study, HBA will make regular progress reports to impact report for the JAS, to which Chair short replied that was absolutely not the case, especially in view of the fact that.the the Commission and will have two public information meetings when application for the study was submitted before Chico had ever been preliminary information is available. He further stated that the In replying to commissioner chesanow's inquiry as to when the final third component is the environmental review wherein they will do an report could be expected, McClintock indicated the earliest would initial study to see if a negative declaration is appropriate, or if probably be April or May of 1992, and Community Services Director Lando added that it may take as long as 18 months to go through ALUC, an environmental impact report is called for. etc. Bart Bartholomew stated that he had read the City's application and Services Director stated the primary purpose of the study is to talk the grant agreement, and that in these documents the base year for about the environs of the airport, not the airport itself, and to the scope of work was given as 1989, not 1990-91, nor was there any area surrounding the airport. He further stated, however, that the mention of projections to 2005 and 2010. He questioned how the study would certainly provide some environmental information which subject matter had been altered and gotten into the study. , McClintock explained that when the application was submitted in 1988 Q or 1989, it was anticipated that the grant would be awarded at that N time and the work based on data collected then. However, it was not awarded until 1991, and FAR Part 150 requirements are very clear that Q� the study be submitted on a map prepared with respect to operations Q that occurred in or around the period the map was made. He further statedit is the intent of MBA to use as much information from 1991 m as pose ible, but may have to use a few months from 1990 to complete a _ Q calendar year for some of the data. Bartholomew stated that he didn't see how 1990-91 could be used unless the agreement is amended.' community Services Director Lando stated that the final agreement would be reviewed and, if necessary, clarified with the FAA. Be further stated that the intent is to have a usable study, and that it would be impossible to take measurements in the past. ( Bartholomew then questioned the projections into 2005 and 2010, ! stating these were not provided for in the agreement. C Community services Director Lando again stated that the final agreement would be reviewed and, if necessary, clarified with the FAA. The Airport Manager stated his understanding that MBA reviews each' phase in detail with the FAA, which McClintock verified. ' The Commission asked for a report at the next meeting regarding the review of the final agreement and any necessary clarifications with the FAA. Ella Allan ascertained that HBA did not do the 1978 study, and asked how the firm was chosen to do the current study. Community services Director Lando stated that the City solicited proposals from many firms and also interviewed the firms, then chose the firm through the competitive process, basically choosing the one with the best qualifications and offering the best services for the beet price. Then the contract and the contractor had to be approved by the FAA. Les carton inquired if this study was in some way meant to be the impact report for the JAS, to which Chair short replied that was absolutely not the case, especially in view of the fact that.the application for the study was submitted before Chico had ever been contacted by JAS. In replying to commissioner chesanow's inquiry as to when the final report could be expected, McClintock indicated the earliest would probably be April or May of 1992, and Community Services Director Lando added that it may take as long as 18 months to go through ALUC, etc. In response to a comment from Bart Bartholomew, the community Services Director stated the primary purpose of the study is to talk about the environs of the airport, not the airport itself, and to determine what land use restrictions would be appropriate for the area surrounding the airport. He further stated, however, that the study would certainly provide some environmental information which could be used in an environmental review for other matters. , 1 1 October 29, 1991 138 The Airport Manager stated that in order for them to make any projections they have to look at the Airport Layout Plan and the Airport Redevelopment Plan, and these plane show flight training as part of them; therefore, one of the things that must be done is try to estimate what impact flight training operations would have on the environs. At the Airport Manager's request that he brief the Commission on how the study is progressing, McClintock stated that they had planned to take noise measurements at four sites over a period of two days, but they ended up trying to take measurements at 8 sites; however, due to wind conditions, flight routing by the FAA tower, and general lack of air traffic over the sites during those days, they will have to return for at least one more day of measurements. McClintock stated that the findings and conclusions of the study are intended to be used in other environmental documents, not just to be put on a shelf, one of the reasons FAA is willing to fund such studies is that the results will be of use to ALUC and the County of Butte as well as the City of Chico. Bartholomew asked if MBA planned to involve members of the community in the process so they might share their ideas on what levels of activity are likely to be in five years. McClintock answered that public meetings are planned as soon as the basic data is obtained, and that the information would be available prior to the meetings. Additionally, McClintock offered to meet with S.O,.S. so they could share their thoughts with him. The Airport Manager also discussed securing a proposal relating to impacts of aircraft on air quality. He stated that the City has asked MBA to include an air quality element at the same time they are doing the -Environs Plan. Community Services Director Lando added that the FAA seems receptive to incorporating an air quality element in the same document. Mr. Bartholomew stated that if this is done, the City will encounter a great deal of resistance. Chair Short asked of Mr. Bartholomew and S.O.S. that any resistance and opposition be submitted in writing. APPOINTMENT OF AN AIRPORT COMMISSIONER TO SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE GENERAL PLAN TASK FORCE. The Airport Manager will discussed this item, including letter from Mayor Mary Andrews dated September 24, 1991. He stated that Mayor Andrews has specified that only one member from the Commission should- serve, houldserve, with no alternate. After discussion, Commissioner Gosling moved that commissioner Crotts serve as the Commission's representative on the General Plan Task Force, and that a request be submitted to the City Council that an alternate representative from the Airport Commission be allowed, and if allowed, that Chair Short serve as the alternate. The motion unanimously passed. COMMITTEE REPORTS. Commissioner Crotte reported on the Butte County Airport Land use Commission (ALUC) meeting of October 9, 1991, stating that one of the main points of discussion was the allocation of funds by Butte County Association of Governments (BCAG) for airport planning and a proposal from MHA. i Airport Manager Davie stated that this study is being sponsored by BCAG because it is an integral part of the Regional Transportation Plan for Butte County. He further stated that for Chico and oroville airports the study would be relatively easy, but most other airports within the county have had little planning work done. Commissioner Crotte stated that it is critical that the agricultural airports, such as Richvale and Jones, be protected by adequate planning. The Airport Manager stated that the State of California has given considerable powers and authority to the Airport Land use. Commissions, in an attempt to coordinate efforts between cities and counties with regard to land use around airports to prevent further lose of airports throughout the state because of lack of cooperation among public agencies. Appointment of an Airport Ccmnissioner to Jeas as Mriber of the General Plan Task Force Canmittee Reports 1 1 1 1� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX B CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FAR PART 150, AIRPORT NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM AND ENVIRONS PLAN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES McCLINTOCK, BECKER & ASSOCIATES Mr. Thomas J. Lando City Manager City of Chico P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 November 24, 1992 RE: Response to 9/24/92 Comments From S.O.S. Concerning Draft Final FAR Part 150 NEM Report For Chico Municipal Airport Dear Mr. Lando: MBA has reviewed the comments submitted by S.O.S. on the Draft Final NEM Report for Chico Municipal Airport. This letter has been prepared in response to S.O.S.'s comments, and where appropriate we have revised the final NEM report to incorporate S.O.S.'s comments or suggestions. However, many of S.O.S.'s comments are now moot, given that other changes to the final report have eliminated the bases for S.O.S.'s concerns. Our responses have been organized to coincide with the numbered paragraphs on the attached copy of S.O.S.'s 9/24/92 letter, as follows: 1. S.O.S. correctly states that forecasts from the NPIAS and CASP were set forth in the draft report, and that the forecasts were adjusted to normalize them to 1990 conditions. However, S.O.S. incorrectly assumes that MBA's operational activity projections were derived from the two forecasts. This point was made clear to Mr. Bartholomew at the September 3, .1992 informational meeting referred to in his letter. With respect to the alleged "manipulation" and "misrepresentation" of the NPIAS and CASP data, and "false and misleading" impressions of future airport growth, neither the CASP nor the NPIAS forecasts were used as the basis for projecting future activities. However, since the two forecasts were prepared prior to 1990, they were updated to reflect a 1990 baseline or starting point. Such an action cannot be characterized as data manipulation or misrep- resentation. However, in retrospect the forecasts should not have been adjusted by either MBA or S.O.S. 2. S.O.S.'s analysis of the NPIAS forecast data as set forth in the 1990-1999 NPIAS report, and as compared to the NPIAS data presented by MBA, was of particular interest. We were concerned about the obvious discrepancies in the data and researched our source of information. McCLINTOCK, BECKER & ASSOCIATES The figures cited by S.O.S. in the NPIAS forecast for Chico represented the most current NPIAS data. The forecast data used by MBA were from an earlier NPIAS report and were superseded by the data cited by S.O.S. We have corrected all references to the NPIAS forecast to refer to the 1990-1999 NPIAS data. We cannot, however, concur with S.O.S.'s modification of the NPIAS forecast data by extrapolating the NPIAS growth rates from a 1990 baseline . MBA erred in attempting to adjust the forecasts, and so has S.O.S. The NPIAS data presented in the final report is as set forth in the NPIAS document. One reason that it is not appropriate to attempt to adjust the forecast data is that such forecasts are "top-down" forecasts (i.e., from a nation-wide data base and allocated to various airports are on the basis of a percentage of national demand factors). Such forecasts may be updated annually, but all of the input variables are looked at and updated as required. These types of forecasts also tend to look at the long-term, and although fluctuations may occur on an annual or short-term basis, the longer term projections should remain constant. A projection "starting with actual 1990 figures" and using the NPIAS growth . rates is no more or less credible than MBA's attempt to "normalize" the NPIAS data to 1990 conditions. This is particularly so when one considers that actual 1991 activity levels were less than the 1990 figures used by S.O.S. to adjust the NPIAS data. Soon 1992 data will be available. Is it also S.O.S.'s intent to readjust the forecasts to accommodate 1992 conditions. To continually adjust long term forecasts on a short term basis is not forecasting but trend following. 3. A different situation exists with respect to the CASP forecast, in that it overstated the actual 1990 (and 1991) activity levels. S.O.S. faults MBA for "normalizing" the CASP data to reflect 1990 conditions and on its own, S.O.S. i readjusted the entire forecast using the CASP growth rates through 2005. MBA only changed (normalized) the CASP forecast to reflect actual 1990 conditions, the rest of the forecast remained unchanged (see S.O.S. Exhibit 5). S.O.S., on the other hand, completely re -did the forecast starting with 1990 conditions. This action served to change the character of the forecast and essentially invalidated it (it is no longer the CASP forecast, but is now S.O.S.'s forecast, but without benefit of the variables used by Caltrans). 4. Because of the conflicting methodologies used by MBA and S.O.S. in attempting to forecast future conditions, and given- the flaws inherent in both approaches, only one set of forecasts is used in the final report. This is consistent with the FAR Part 150 requirement for a five-year forecast noise exposure map which is based on... "Forecast aircraft operations at the airport for the fifth calendar year beginning after the date of submissions (based on reasonable assumptions concerning future type and frequency of aircraft operations..." (Section 150.21(a)(1)). Exhibit III -1 of the final NEM report graphically depicts the updated forecast and compares it with the S.O.S. forecast, and other forecasts. For 1997 McCLINTOCK BE KER C &ASSOCIATES conditions, both the S.O.S. forecast and MBA forecast are extremely close, and both include flight school operations. 5. Operations per based aircraft statistics are used regularly in airport master planning, but arguably only confused the forecast discussion for the FAR Part 150 study. All references to this statistic as a forecasting method have been deleted from the final report. 6. References to the CMA specific plan have been deleted from the report. 7. See Response #4. 'The assumption that the primary source of growth at CMA between 1995 and 2010 would be as a result of a major flight training facility was used as the basis for the updated forecasts. 8. Many of the flight school assumptions set forth by S.O.S. were considered in the preparation of the updated forecasts, including 60 percent touch and go operations for the flight training facility and 70,000 total flight school -- operations in 2010. We do not concur that 70,000 flight school operations (40% of total forecast operations) "understates" flight school growth. However, we are prepared to work with S.O.S. to refine our assumptions for 2010 with ! respect to the number of projected operations for both local and itinerant activities during the next phase of the FAR Part 150 study. 9. The purpose of the FAR Part 150 study is not to compare the environmental effects of various airport activity levels. Its purpose is to define the potential noise impacts for a baseline condition and for a five-year forecast condition in order to mitigate existing noise problems and to prevent the introduction of new noise-sensitive land use in the area subject to cumulative noise levels of CNEL 65dB and above. However, MBA has agreed to assess the potential noise impacts of a major flight school at CMA in the year 2010 in Phase 2 of the study to define a worst-case scenario for land use compatibility planning purposes. MBA.is not adverse to using the 190,000 annual operations figure set forth by S.O.S. as the basis for this analysis. In Phase 2 of the study effort, MBA will also evaluate the noise abatement alternatives required by FAR Part 150 (Section 150, 23(e)(2)), but cannot undertake any additional analyses outside our current scope of work. With reference to S.O.S.'s concerns about quieter jet aircraft technology in the post-1995 era and its effect on noise at Chico, it must be pointed out that since the FAA's integrated noise model (INM) is based on the noise emission characteristics of a wide range of aircraft types, and the CNEL metric represents the energy average of all aircraft operations over a 24-hour day, then not all aircraft will have an equal effect on the model. Some of the small jet aircraft anticipated to be in service at Chico through 2000 can be extremely noisy, and even if they represent only 1 % of total activity, their noise emission s characteristics can be the equivalent of hundreds of operations by light propeller driven aircraft. On the other hand, some of the new, small business jets are extremely quiet and it is these aircraft which are expected to be in service in the post-2000 era. Advances in quiet jet engine technology are not limited solely to large commercial passenger jets. S.O.S.'s statement that... , MCCLINTOCK, BECKER & ASSOCIATES even this small number of operations would not be flown by the larger jets where the really significant noise reductions are going to be realized" is not a valid statement and cannot be supported, given recent trends in jet engine technology. 10. The 1997 noise exposure map input assumptions assign 60% of projected flight school training operations to the "touch & go" flight tracks. A minimum of 60% of flight school operations for 2010 conditions will also be assigned to - touch & go tracks. 11. The statement alluded to in the draft report is correct. Because of the logarithmic character of the acoustical sciences a 20% forecasting error would result in less than a ldB (CNEL).difference. Similarly, a doubling of operations would result in only a MB (CNEL) increase and halving the total operations would result in a reduction only 3dB (CNEL).1 (5) These data and assumptions may be requested from the FAA. (6) Where such data are available they can be provided. (7) Not all flyovers were recorded on a graphic display. 1. This is fundamental acoustics and is characteristic of the logarithmic function (.e., when two identical numbers are added logarithmically, the sum of the two numbers is not a doubling, but only an increase of three). The use of computational data by S.O.S. to prove that a 20% increase in activity levels resulted in a 14.3 % increase in noise impacted land use is unfounded, because there is no such correlation. The area of noise impacted land use associated with a given noise impact scenario is a function of a number of variables including, but not limited to, the aircraft fleet mix and flight track and runway utilization factors. In other words, geometry and geography have as much or more to do with the area of noise impacts than would a simple 20% increase or decrease in operations. 12. The final report has been revised to reflect these conditions. 13. See response to #12. 14. The terms have been defined in the final report. 15. (1) Tables incorporating this information are included in Chapter V of the final NEM report. (2) The internal settings of the FAA's integrated noise model (INM 3.9) were utilized for these inputs. (3) Same as (2), above. (4) Same as (2), above. (5) These data and assumptions may be requested from the FAA. (6) Where such data are available they can be provided. (7) Not all flyovers were recorded on a graphic display. 1. This is fundamental acoustics and is characteristic of the logarithmic function (.e., when two identical numbers are added logarithmically, the sum of the two numbers is not a doubling, but only an increase of three). t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MCCLINTOCK, BECKER & ASSOCIATES (8) There is no "Page III" in the draft report. (9) See Tables.V-1 and V-2 for the requested information. Mr. Lando, this concludes our response to S.O.S.'s comments. As noted above we have made every reasonable effort to respond to the issues raised, and have rewritten various sections of the report to reflect the concern of S.O.S. At this time it is necessary to conclude Phase I of the study and move on to the more compelling issue of developing an updated Airport Environs Plan for Chico Municipal Airport. Respectfully submitted, McClintock, Becker and Associates A Subsidiary of P&D Technologies aR.Milintock, AICP Associate Vice President MRM/smh C ' P4 SAVE OUR SKIES Ot'' OFreCb (A Citizen Group) 8:+ P.O. Box.7815 Chico, CA 95927 DATE AGENDA FILE INFO CIRC _ Clerk _CM _ C:M Desk _J_ DCM _ AC;M-r f _ ACM- Gouncil_ ADTeADTech PersAnl September 24 , 1992 �chMedia _CA ACA COP._.CSD._FC,FO_ PIT _ Other M,; k ?rC Sec'l Staff rr Mr. Tom Lando C = 7' r :'.ti l City Manager/Airport Manager City of Chico F r P.O. Box 3420 CX - Chico, Chico, CA 95927 A 6.�.,..s Dear Mr. Lando: 1 11 THE DRAFT REPORT INDIGENOUS OPERATIONS FORECAST The Draft Report cites forecasts from both the NPIAS (National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems) and CASP (California Airport System Plan) and includes projections ostensibly derived from these reports. Both reports contain specific projections for Chico Municipal Airport by name. We believe that the published activity data for the Chico Municipal Airport taken from both the NPIAS publication and the CASP publication have been manipulated and misrepre- sented in the Draft Report resulting in a false :arid``"'Y' .., ... . .. `misleading p.. impression of future airport growth. The NPIAS Report Exhibits 1 & 2 (included herein) are taken directly out of the NPIAS document entitled..,"National Plan of Integrated 4 1- This report projects Airport Systems (NPIAS)` :<199;0�=.1<9;9.9:.. .. total operations at CMA of 62,000,65,000, and 71,000 re- spectively for the years 1990, 1995, and 2000. The 1990 figure (62,000 operations) is less than the 76,938 actual operations known to have occurred in 1990. If one takes the 76,398 operations as the starting point (as one must) and the rates of growth of the NPIAS report (0.95% for 1990- 1995, and 1.78% for 1995-2000) the forecast figures for the period 1990-2000 become: The following letter and enclosures comprise our written comments on the Draft Final Report of the "FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program: Airport Noise Exposure Map Report for Chico Municipal Airport." They supplement our verbal comments made at the public meeting on. September 3, 1992. 1 11 THE DRAFT REPORT INDIGENOUS OPERATIONS FORECAST The Draft Report cites forecasts from both the NPIAS (National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems) and CASP (California Airport System Plan) and includes projections ostensibly derived from these reports. Both reports contain specific projections for Chico Municipal Airport by name. We believe that the published activity data for the Chico Municipal Airport taken from both the NPIAS publication and the CASP publication have been manipulated and misrepre- sented in the Draft Report resulting in a false :arid``"'Y' .., ... . .. `misleading p.. impression of future airport growth. The NPIAS Report Exhibits 1 & 2 (included herein) are taken directly out of the NPIAS document entitled..,"National Plan of Integrated 4 1- This report projects Airport Systems (NPIAS)` :<199;0�=.1<9;9.9:.. .. total operations at CMA of 62,000,65,000, and 71,000 re- spectively for the years 1990, 1995, and 2000. The 1990 figure (62,000 operations) is less than the 76,938 actual operations known to have occurred in 1990. If one takes the 76,398 operations as the starting point (as one must) and the rates of growth of the NPIAS report (0.95% for 1990- 1995, and 1.78% for 1995-2000) the forecast figures for the period 1990-2000 become: 1 1 Ll (_ L� u CD SAVE OUR SKIES September 24, 1992 Page 2 1990--76,398 operations 1995--80,661 operations 2000--88,106 operations Exhibit 3 (included herein) shows in graphical form the actual data as it appears in the NPIAS report and the fore- cast starting with the known actual 1990 operations at the NPIAS growth rate. Also shown on Exhibit 3 is the forecast represented by the Draft Report.. as _the-..NPIAS:,"normalized. to h current year traffic " There are no computations or`expan .(.:.: •9Y d..N «r S °' TTrd.. '� ^ r ` ` ',t, anation of a�rhere tiea gu�resf irthe draft,epo�,t S.S. ...r tfr3:. ;c'i SK..•_ .nM. U..z :bH,c-aC.n.1a?: G .,.m_Wre •t, iv--. n,y pf •.c.ti>_. _ M.....�.: act=tta��NPI`AS forecast and. ,is �not....creaibte_ ln. conrrasz r Nf fi C` ri e igures at the prb}e`cIon' s�tartngh►3thactual 1990 fNPf �...rw?X.`Li �fFS �h: ..... .. .........a..+.... .,. .... ,.... _.. . _ .. _ .. The CASP Report Exhibit 4 (included herein) is taken directly from the CASP report entitled "The California Aviation System Plan -- Element II: Forecasts Volume 1" and shows the following forecast figures: 1990-- 82,956 operations 1995-- 88,773 operations 2000-- 95,842 operations 2005--103,872 operations In this case (opposite to NPIAS), the 82,956 operations shown for 1990 is more than the 76,938 operations known to have occurred in 1990. Again, if one takes the 76,938 oper- ations as the starting point and applies the rates of growth of the GASP report (1.36% for 1990-1995, 1.54% for 1995- 2000, and 1.62% for 2000-2005) the forecast figures for the period 1990-2000 become: 1990--76,938 operations 1995--82,333 operations 2000--88,889 operations 2005--96,336 operations Exhibit 5 (included herein) shows in graphical form the actual data as it appears in the GASP report and the fore- cast starting with known actual operations for 1990 at the CASP growth rates. We spoke to Frank Ramirez, Aviation Planner, CALTRANS division of Aeronautics, on September 9, who confirmed that the above procedure was a correct way to adjust the CASP forecast at a particular airport from 1990 onwards when the CASP 1990 figure and a known actual 1990 figure differ. He also stated that it would not be correct t fl SAVE OUR'SKIES September 24, 1992 Page 3 to take the known 1990 figure as a starting point (lower than GASP) and then use the CASP figures for each of the years thereafter. The Draft Report did the latter and represented it as the CASP report on page III -8.. This O falsely represents the CASP 1990-1995 growth rate for CMA traffic and is extremely misleading.. Exhibit 5 graphically illustrates this point. The misrepresentation is not as extreme as in the case of the NPIAS report but it also re- sults in a forecast showing greater.future operations than would be the case if the.CASP data were used correctly. it 1 The Draft Report Indigenous Forecast: On page 1 and 2 of our July 2 Airport Commission Chairperson Crc the then Draft Report statement tc through 1991 aircraft activity at average annual rate of almost 3.31 average rate over this period was present Draft Report is no better. following statement appears: 3 letter to you and tts, we pointed out that the effect that 1981 CMA had increased at an was wrong and the actual actually only 0.38%. The On page III -2 the "It is notable that over the most recent five year period from the end of 1985 through 1990, aircraft activity at Chico Municipal Airport has increased at an average annual rate of almost 3.2%. In addition, over th 10 year period from the end of 1981 through 1991, based aircraft were declining at an average annual rate of 1.5 per cent." The Draft Report now bases the argument on the narrow 5 year period from 1985 through 1990 and then projects this rate forward for the next 20 years! Had the previous 5 years been included as well., (i.e., the 10 year period from 1980 through 1990) the result would have been a decrease from 77,368 operations in 1980 to 76,938 operations in 1990 or an average annual decrease of 0.06%. The fact of the matter is that a marked depression in air traffic at CMA occurred during the early part of the 1980-1990 period fol- lowed by a recovery in the later part of the period. It is patently wrong to take the growth rate during the narrow period of recovery from an equally narrow period of decli- ning activity and then project that recovery rate forward for the next 20 years. Yet this is precisely what the present Draft Report has done. This point is convincingly demonstrated graphically by Exhibit 6 (included herein). The Draft Report Indigenous Forecast is shown totaling 138,959 operations for the year 2010. Also shown are forecasts starting at the same point in 1990 (76,938 operations) at the NPIAS growth rate and the CASP growth rate, respectively. Note the extremely close t 1 .o i SAVE OUR SKIES September 24, 1992 Page 4 agreement of the NPIAS and CASP growth rate forecasts and the striking contrast of both to the Draft Report forecast. One should remember (referring to the Draft Report assumptions on page III -4) that the Indigenous Forecast assumes that : * Local (Butte County) population growth will materialize as forecast by the California Department of Finance. * The public service infrastructure and environ- mental carrying capacity of the Airport envi- rons will neither constrain growth nor limit the future service role of the Airport. * The availability of local, federal and state government funding for airport improvements will not constrain growth. In other words, this forecast is supposed to represent what the best available evidence would indicate to a rea- sonable person the level of flight activity in future years will be if the airport is left to "seek its own level" in line with the above assumptions. The Draft Report Forecast clearly is not such a forecast and is not reasonable. We submit that the most credible forecasts are the NPIAS and CASP growth rate. forecasts. The final report should project a level of not over 105,000 operations per year for the year 2010 as a reasonable estimate of indigenous growth Operations Per Based Aircraft Statistic On page III -2 the Draft Report states: "Since 1977 the numbers of based general aviation air- craft have fluctuated from as many as 140 in 1981 to as. few as 105 in 1986. The most recent decade illustrates a more meaningful trend. Since 1981, based aircraft have steadily declined from some 140 aircraft to 120 aircraft in 19.91. Despite this observed reduction in the numbers of based aircraft, the numbers of opera- tions per based aircraft has varied widely over the same time period. This behavior of the operations per based aircraft statistic has been observed nationwide and is not merely a local phenomenon. This statistic is sensitive to fluctuations in the costs of fuel and rising operating and capital costs." (Underlining added for emphasis). • The Draft Report presents -no evidence whatsoever to substantiate the above underlined statement. t F� t t 1 1 L 1 SAVE OUR SKIES September 24, 1992 Page 5 The Draft Report goes on to say on page III -6: "The national general aviation fleet is expected to exhibit a 0.2 percent annual growth rate over the period 1988 through the year 2000, growing from some 217,200 aircraft in 1988 to about 221,100 aircraft by the year 2000. The greatest numeric increase is ex- pected to occur in those types used in business avi- ation including multi -engine propeller and turbine aircraft. This growth would be largely offset by a decline in light, piston aircraft. Total hours flown in general aviation aircraft are ex- pected to increase by five million, growing from 33.6 million hours in 1988 to 38.6 million by the year 2000. Multi -engine aircraft will account for the greater por- tion of the projected increase. The significance of these trends is inconclusive. It is likely that Chico Municipal Airport, with its mix of predominantly light, piston aircraft together with lesser numbers of larger transport aircraft will see relatively modest growth in the numbers of based air- craft in the foreseeable future under assumptions of indigenous demand. However, it is also highly possible that the ratio of operations per based aircraft will rebound as national and regional economic conditions improve. This could result in significant growth in total annual aircraft operations despite stable levels of based aircraft." (Underlining added for emphasis). There is absolutely no evidence cited why Chico in particular should behave differently than the previously explained national trends (taken from the NPIAS report). The Draft Report rell,n�e,�,on�Tthe.,,claimed significance of the so called !'operat `oris-:per.:;based ,aircraft„ tat b� c!' is not credible. This statistic is obtained by'diViding the number of operations recorded at CMA by the number of air- craft based at CMA and for an individual airport is a mean- ingless ratio. The operations at, an individual airport are not'flown by only the aircraft based at that airport --far from it. Depending on the airport, a large number of the operations are flown by aircraft based at other airports. Only on a total national basis using the total of all the flight operations and all the based aircraft for all the airports in the country could the statistic possibly have any significance. SAVE OUR SKIES September 24, 1992 ' Page 6 being used as an activity.forecast indicator. The statistic 5 appears to have been created out of thin air. It is not credible or relevant and any discussion of it should be deleted from the Draft Report. THE DRAFT REPORT ENHANCED FORECAST 1 The Airport Specific Plan: Ir� L� t L I (D The statement on page III -12 to the effect that a Specific Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport exists and that this "Specific Plan" indicates that provisions would be made for a major aircraft flight training facility is com- pletely misleading. Upon our investigation, the so called, "Specific Plan" was found to be nothing more than an un- dated, unnumbered, and unsigned drawing attached to the back of the Chico Municipal Airport Redevelopment Project Area Plan adopted by the Redevelopment Agency on June 1, 1982, over 10 years ago. This drawing indicates nothing more than 'the layout of various areas for planned airport redevelop ment in the most sketchy form imaginable, including busi- ness, manufacturing, and aviation facilities. Along with everything else are shown five widely separated small squares representing potential locations of five separate Fixed Base Operators (FBO's)--and that's all. The above has been incorrectly and improperly portrayed in the Draft Report as an Airport Specific Plan mandate for a major aircraft flight training facility at CMA. There ,have always been FBO's at CMA in the past. Their history fhas generally been one of financial failure and we hope that ithe present FBO and any future FBO's have better luck. At !any rate, the presence of FBO's on this drawing does not constitute a Specific Plan mandate for "a major.aircraft ,flight training facility." You indicated at the September 3 ,public meeting that you agreed that this statement was tot- ally incorrect. We trust that any reference to an Airport. 6"Specific Plan" calling for the establishment of a major flight school will be deleted in the Final Report. MAKE UP OF THE DRAFT REPORT ENHANCED FORECAST On page III -4, the Draft Report states that the En- hanced Forecast is based on the premise that enhanced air- port growth in the future will result from four causes or sources: * specialty business and FBO's including corporate aviation centers. * aircraft maintenance and major overhaul and modification facilities. 1 t u SAVE OUR SKIES September 24, 1992 Page 7 * additional aerial fire fighting operations, and * flight schools. The draft report projects that in the year 2010 that there would be a total of 173,115 operations at the airport under the so called "Enhanced" Forecast" and 138,959 opera- tions under airport growth that simply follows traditional driving forces (the so called "Indigenous Forecast"). This is a difference of 34,156 operations in the year 2010 to be made up of the four specific causes above and beyond that produced by traditional driving forces. Out of this total of 34,156 operations, the report projects that 33,401 operations would come from the flight school cause (the backup for 33,401 figure was sent to you with our letter of July 23 and is included herein as Exhibit 7). This leaves a total of only 755 operations that the Draft Report says would develop in the next twenty years from all three of the other stated causes of "Enhanced Growth" put together. It is therefore clear that the only source of growth that the Draft -Repo rt sees at;:CMA in-,tbe,',next 20� years that wC�`1d�3XesAirt�t3Ii'r anv.: saanificant increase in the"amount of flying :over,'± source` ,only', 4 -,;,occur naturally -..is. ,L from one t -trainingJ`f.acil .ty .""this is the ntained-fr inning of our movement"and 'we th'in�.m-tte� Draf4t^ Repnrtshiuli . skate this fact-.. explicitly.. This''is'the-bnly.Ypossible„"conclusion one can draw*" from the Draft Report ".Enhanced" Forecast." If an airline pilot flight school is ever proposed at CMA in the future, comparison of environmental impacts with a flight school and without a flight school will inevitably be an important issue. The Final Environs Plan Update Re- port will be a permanent official City document that is certain to be widely cited and it is therefore very impor- tant that _this.._report, ,fairl.y.;._and,.honestly .forecast ,wha :-. fl•igiit• •activity "potentially could• be• in`2010 if ` an .airline pilot flight school were to be located ati CMA .andi what..the- The point we are making is that in its written text the Draft Report misrepresents the make up of what the writer refers to as the "Enhanced Forecast." Any level of flight activity in excess of normal growth in the type of activity we have had in the past will come from only one cause --a major airline pilot flight training school. Further, the Draft Report understates the potential size of such a school. . .r. '.r7A%G-..y.•aJ «.aC^T ry, .y, -s.. f .•.A .... :. ' THE POTENTIAL SIZE 'OF 'A `MA.70It FI:IGHT =SCHOOL ,AT ,CMA Starting at the bottom of page III -12 the following statement appears in the Draft Report in regard to the size l� t SAVE OUR SKIES September 24, 1992 Page 8 of the Flight School included in the Draft Report "Enhanced Forecast": "For the Enhanced Growth forecast, an estimate of fu- ture aircraft activity was produced reflecting a level of activity consistent with specialized flight training facilities at other California airports. This Enhanced Growth forecast assumes that such a flight training fa- cility, or facilities, would not be operational until 1995. Beyond 1995 fight training operations are fore- cast to grow at an average annual rate of 3.0 percent.." (Underlining added for emphasis). Following on page III -14 the following statement then appears: "Under these assumptions, a total of some 17,125 oper- ations of single and twin engine operations are pro- jected for the year 1995. Under the Enhanced Growth forecast, these flight training operations are forecast to increase at an average annual rate of 3.0 percent through the 2010 forecast period. The number of flight training operations used in the Enhanced Growth Fore- cast are also derived in part from information presen- ted to the City of Chico by JAS in support of a pre- vious flight school proposal. Such operations can range from 4,800 annual operations as proposed by Korean Air Lines at Stockton Metropolitan Airport to over 70,000 current annual operations by Japan Air Lines at Napa County Airport. In Phase II of this study, the impact of increasing the flight training activities from 17,125 operations to 70,000 operations will be analyzed." (Underlining added for emphasis). The two underlined statements are at odds with each other. The first states that the Draft Report flight school projections are consistent with flight training facilities at "other California airports" and the second cites two such California airport examples with corresponding flight school activity levels. Neither example even remotely resembles the hypothetical flight school levels in the Draft Report. A further comment - the Stockton airport example cited cf 4000 operations per year is not an example of a "major 'flight school facility." The Napa airport example is very much an example of a major flight school facility. The flight school at Napa increased operations there by over 70,000 operations -per year within the first 18 months of its inception in mid 1972. We don't know the precise size of the school there now but we understand that at pre- sent the flight school produces well over 50% of the total operations flown there. In 1991 the FAA tower count at Napa was 182,290 operations so it seems certain that the present SAVE OUR SKIES September 24, 1992 Page 9 flight school traffic there exceeds 50%.of 183,390 or over 92,000 operations per year. There can be no doubt that the total operations with a major flight school such as the Japanese Airline (JAL) school at Napa would result in operations at CMA in the year 2010 at least at the 190,000 operations per year level shown by the curve entitled "S.O.S. with Flight School" on the annotated McClintock Becker page III -16 sent to you with our letter of July 23, 1992 (included herein as Exhibit 8). Even the McClintock Becker projection for total operations in 2010 (i.e.,"McB with Flight School") is nearly at that level, although, as previously noted, that projection understates flight school operations and overstates operations due to indigenous growth. COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IN YEAR 2010 OF AN AIRPORT WITH FLIGHT SCHOOL TO AN AIRPORT WITHOUT A FLIGHT SCHOOL r SEP i -T ulkp th t z, v orim►aiarf�i2D�KQ;►?hcut,� a fi g :.s csoo ya �n ; OA0 ope'rat°ions%year)':-•The. vast majority of the flying by anyone's projection according to the Draft Report information would be single engine and/or twin en- gine, piston driven and/or turboprop aircraft and environ- mental effects should be evaluated on the basis of present day noise and emission standards for these aircraft. We totally disagree with and challenge the following statement which appears on page 5-2 of the Draft Report: "The gradual introduction of quiet technology jet air- craft will result in a decrease in noise exposure by- yond 1995/96 despite a potential 125 percent increase in aircraft operations through the year 2010. Thus, 1995/96 conditions are expected to represent the upper bound to probable future community noise exposure levels." There is no evidence of any kind whatsoever in the Draft Report to support such a conclusion. While it may be true that jet aircraft (particularly large jet aircraft) are becoming quieter, very little of the projected future traf- fic is jet traffic. Refer to the breakdown on page 111-13 of the Draft Report. Only 1937 operations out of the 173,115 total operations projected for the year 2010 are jet powered (about 1% of the total). Even this small number of operations would not be flown by the larger jets where the really significant noise reductions are going to be rea- lized. SAVE OUR SKIES September 24, 1992 Page 10 We request that the Part II report include the noise maps for each of the conditions described above for the year ® 2010 (i.e., 190,000 operations/year and 105,000 operations/ year) Although we iev 'bele ior t best fthe City, to have tYiese maps 'prep'ared-, N we dare preparedoto `dog it' ourselves f i a RATIO OF TOUCH AND GO OPERATIONS TO TOTAL OPERATIONS We commented on this point on page 5 of our July 23 letter to you on the previous Draft Report. The present Draft Report does not respond to this very valid point. The FAA tower counts for total operations at Napa including the JAL flight school for the years 1988 through 1992 are as follows: (It should be noted that the flight school at Napa has been expanded during this period.) For the same period the ratio of touch and go to toil operations at Chico Municipal Airport has been about(30.7. It is apparent that flight school traffic at Napa must—be well in excess of 60% touch and goes to result in a mix of nearly 59% touch and goes for total operations.. Therefore, when the FAR 150 noise map calculations are made, projected flight scho9l traffic must be assigned at least 60% to touch and go flight paths. We don't think the presen 5 year noise maps prepared by McClintock Becker have done this but since the amount of flight school traffic included in their 5 year model is fairly small, any resulting error is prob- ably insignificant. The error will.not be insignificant in the 2010 noise maps and for this reason it will be important to use at least a 60% touch and go split on the flight school portion of the flight activity used for the FAR 150 noise calculations for those noise maps. RELATIONSHIP OF FLIGHT ACTIVITY FORECASTING ACCURACY TO MEANINGFUL ESTIMATES OF CUMULATIVE NOISE EXPOSURE On page III -1 the Draft Report makes the following statement:. TOUCH AND % TOUCH YEAR GOES 1 ITINERANT TOTAL -------- AND GOES -------- ---- 1988 --------- .93,419 --------- 69,287 162,706 57.4 1989 99,958 70,145 170,103 58.8 1990 1071884 76,162 184,046 58.6 1991 111,147 72,243 183,390 60.6 Ave. . . 58.90 (It should be noted that the flight school at Napa has been expanded during this period.) For the same period the ratio of touch and go to toil operations at Chico Municipal Airport has been about(30.7. It is apparent that flight school traffic at Napa must—be well in excess of 60% touch and goes to result in a mix of nearly 59% touch and goes for total operations.. Therefore, when the FAR 150 noise map calculations are made, projected flight scho9l traffic must be assigned at least 60% to touch and go flight paths. We don't think the presen 5 year noise maps prepared by McClintock Becker have done this but since the amount of flight school traffic included in their 5 year model is fairly small, any resulting error is prob- ably insignificant. The error will.not be insignificant in the 2010 noise maps and for this reason it will be important to use at least a 60% touch and go split on the flight school portion of the flight activity used for the FAR 150 noise calculations for those noise maps. RELATIONSHIP OF FLIGHT ACTIVITY FORECASTING ACCURACY TO MEANINGFUL ESTIMATES OF CUMULATIVE NOISE EXPOSURE On page III -1 the Draft Report makes the following statement:. SAVE OUR SKIES September 24, 1992 Page 11 "It is important to note that, in addition to being nearly impossible to achieve, absolute and precise accuracy in aviation forecasting is not necessary to attain meaningful estimates of cumulative noise ex- posure. This is due to the fact that noise impact computations involve logarithmic mathematical functions which are characteristic of the acoustical physical sciences. For example, an inadvertent 20 percent understatement of future aircraft activity (e.g., a forecast of 100,000 operations when 120,000 actually materialized would.yield a cumulative noise modeling error of merely 0.8dB CNEL. This error is substan- tially below the 3.OdB tolerance in noise measurement accuracy for permanent on-site noise monitoring systems as set.forth in the California Airport Noise Standards and is virtually inconsequential in land use planning." (Underlining added for emphasis). There are no computations or other evidence in the Draft Report to support this conclusion. We request that computational support be furnished for the statement or it be deleted from the Draft Report. Moreover, the statement that a 20% error in flight activity level is "virtually inconsequential" is clearly wrong judging from the noise exposure map data included elsewhere in the report. For instance, examine the con- sequences of the additional 12,254 flight operations of the Draft Report Indigenous Forecast 1995 flight activity over the 76,938 flight operations of the 1990 base year: 1990 Base Year 1995 Indigenous Forecast Difference 1990 Base Year I 76,938 operations 89,192 operations 12,254 operations Per Table V-3, 280 Dwelling Units Ex- posed to sound levels over 55 CNEL 2 a SAVE OUR SKIES September 24, 1992 Page 12 1995 under "Indigenous Forecast" Difference Per Table V-4, 320 Dwelling Units Ex- posed to sound levels over 55 CNEL 320-280=40 additional_ Dwelling Units Ex- posed to sound levels over 55 CNEL Therefore a 15.9% difference in flight operations (12,254 76938 X 100 = 15.9%) increases the number of Dwelling Units subjected to sound levels over 55 CNEL by 14.3% (40 ; 280 = 14.3%). This is almost a 1 to 1 rela- tionship (i..e., the increase in Dwelling Units subjected to sound levels over 55 CNEL is almost directly proportional to the increase in flight operations). If one carries out the same operation for the differ- ence between the 1990 base year and the Draft Report 1995 "Enhanced Forecast" the effect of flight operations is even more startling. A 38.3% increase in flight operations re- sults in a 71.4% increase.in the number of Dwelling Units subjected to sound levels over 55 CNEL. The statement that a 20% difference -in flight activity would have a negligible effect on sound level exposure is simply not true. EXISTING NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM At page IV -3 the Draft Report contains the following two paragraphs: "The FAA in cooperation with the City of Chico has developed a program of aircraft operational procedures to mitigate the effects of existing and future aircraft operations at Chico Municipal Airport.. That program represented many years effort to reduce the effects of noise in the Airport environs through a program of noise abatement procedures first identified in the 1978 Airport Environs Plan. Normal departure routes are right 45 degree turns from the right runways and left 45 degree turns from the left runways Pilots are directed to avoid over -flying the y n straight-out departure^ from Runway 13. rair— Underlin4 added for emphasis). n Ll ti s �G t i SAVE OUR SKIES September 24, 1992 Page 13 The first paragraph is only marginally true and the ,second paragraph is clearly not true. At a press conference held on April 28, 1992, Mr. Buck Dodson, the CMA FAA Tower Chief, publicly stated: * A source of confusion involves restrictions on flight patterns. Pilots can approach the airport from vir- tually any angle and will only fall under the tower's control if requested by the pilot, or if heavy local traffic warrants the tower's intervention. * A common notion that all pilots taking off from Chico must turn quickly to the foothills is also in error. Only aircraft in excess of 12,500 pounds --and even the commuter planes used by the United Express and American Eagle airlines weigh less than that --are asked to com- ply with the City's noise abatement procedures. * There is no ordinance requiring compliance (with the City's noise abatement procedures) and the FAA has no responsibility to enforce municipal policy. * Aside from basic flight safety procedures implemented throughout the United States, there are no special flight regulations for the Chico airport. There are procedures--recommendations--in place, but the FAA does - not regulate those. The FAA is only interested in safety. The fact of the matter.is that the City has no enforce- able noise abatement program at the present time. The so called "noise abatement program" is purely voluntary and even on this basis only applies to aircraft weighing over 12,500 pounds (about 1/2 of one percent of present day CMA flight activity). CHARACTERIZATION OF THE CHICO HABITAT ENVIRONMENT At page V-7 the Draft Report contains the following statement with reference to how noise exposure values should be interpreted in the Chico Urban Area: "In the Sacramento Valley where air conditioning is extensively used in homes, schools and public build- ings, doors and windows are normally kept closed for major portions of the year, thus reducing exterior to interior sound transmissions." This statement badly mischaracterizes the living en- vironment in the Chico area by implying that residents spend most of their time at home indoors. Chico is an area of parks, open.space, bike paths, backyards, and swimming t t 1, Q 9- 1h SAVE OUR SKIES September 24, 1992 Page 14 pools. Most residents spend substantial time in their y.:. yards, patios and gardens -- sharply contrasting to the rather sterile environment suggested by the cited paragraph from the Draft Report. DEFINITION OF TERMS MISSING FROM DRAFT REPORT k E The following symbols and/or terms are used in the r Draft Report but not defined as to meaning. Clear def- initions and/or explanations should be included. s I i 1. Terms "SID" and "ILS" as used on page V-5 of the Draft Report. 2. The A frequency rating as referred to on page V-12 of the Draft Report. Is this the same use of the term as it appears in the FAR 150 Regula- tion where it refers to the A -weighted sound pressure level LA in Sec. 150.9 (a)? 3. The terms Lmax, Leg, and SEL as those terms are used on page V-12 of the Draft Report. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE APPENDIX TO THE DRAFT REPORT Section A 150.103 of the FAR 150 Regulation provides that information upon which the noise maps are based be provided to the general public so that interested parties are provided the opportunity to substantiate the results. Very little of such information is provided in the Appendix to the Draft Report and we request that the following in- formation (as stated in the FAR Regulation) be added: 1. 11(2) Airport activity levels and operational data which will indicate, on an annual average -daily basis, the number of aircraft, by type of aircraft, which utilize each flight track, in both the -standard daytime (0700-2200 hours local) and nighttime (2200-0700 hours local) periods for both landings and takeoffs." (A150.103 (b)(2)) 2. 11(3) For landings --glide slopes, glide slope inter- cept altitudes, and other pertinent information needed to establish approach profiles along with the engine power levels needed to fly that approach profile." A150.103 (b) (3) ) 3. 11(4) For takeoffs --the flight profile which is the relationship of altitude to distance from start -of -roll along with the engine power levels needed to fly that takeoff profile; these data must reflect the use of i 1 . I t s 1 r SAVE OUR SKIES September 24, 1992 Page 15 noise abatement departure procedures and, if applic- able,'the takeoff weight of the aircraft or some proxy for weight such as stage length." (A150.103 (b)(5)) 4. 11(6) The government furnished data depicting air- craft noise characteristics (if not already a part of the computer program's stored data bank)." (A150.103 (b) (6) ) S, If the government furnished data depicting aircraft noise characteristics is'part of the computer.program's stored data bank, a printout of those portions of the stored data that were actually used should be provided. 6. With regard to the actual sound measurements that were taken we note that the data contained in the pre- sent Draft Report Appendix is not complete. We believe that Table 2 should also report the Leg and SEL mea- surements that were recorded for each flyover: 7. We also note that the sound plots have been included in the Appendix on only a selective basis. Only 25 of the 67 flyovers, or 370 of the total have been repor- ted. The balance of the plots should also be reported. 8. The mathematical computation that is the basis of the statement on page III of the Draft Report should be included 9. The data shown on Tables V-1 and V-2 are incomplete and of little value unless one knows what number of operations 1000 of each category corresponds to. The actual number of operations for each line entry in each of the three years 1990, 1995, and 2010 is the relevent data and should appear in the tables. SHB/crs. Very truly yours, SAVE OUR SKIES (A Citizen Group) By : I. /_/• S. H. Bartholomew Co -Chairman r l The remaining pages of the National present data on the 3.692 airports in the Plan summarized by State. Explanation of Terms and Abbreviations Used In the Tables OR, so SO an CHAPTER5' STATE SUMMARIES AND INDIVIDUAL AIRPORT DATA Plan of Integrated Airport Systems . The airports have been grouped and 1. City - The city generally associated with the airport. though not necessarily geographically exact. 2. Airport - The official name of the airport or designated abbreviation. 3. Private (PVT)- An indication that the airport is privately owned. 4. Reliever - The specially designated general aviation type airports which provide relief to congested major airports. 5. Service Level (SVC -LVL) - One of the five basic airport categories which reflect the type of public service provided the community. The service levels also represent funding categories set up by Congress to assist in airport development: TAe CR category is limited to only eleven (11) airports and has been combined with RL in all summaries. PR — Commercial Service - Primary CM — Commercial Service - Other CR — Reliever Airport with Commercial Service RL — Reliever Airport GA — General Aviation Airport 6. Airport Role (ARPT Role) - The role of the airport in the NPIAS insofar as its design influences the aircraft it can accommodate or, in the case of air carrier airports. the routes and markets it serves nonstop. *BU = Basic Utility *GU = General Utility *TR = Transport Type L = Long Haul (over 1,500 miles) M = Medium Haul (500 - 1,500 miles) S = Short Haul (less than 1,500 miles) HE = Heliport SP= Seaplane Base ST= STOLport (airport to accommodate short takeoff/landing aircraft) 23 • The Basic Utility 4BU) airports accommodate most single-engine and many of the smaller twin -engine aircraft. General Utility I (GUI) airports accommodate virtually all general aviation aircraft with maximum gross takeoff weights of 12.500 pounds or less. General Utility II (GUII) airports which serve larger airplanes with maximum gross takeoff weights of more than 12,500 pounds. TR airports are designed for business jets and transport type aircraft. 7. Based aircraft (BSD-ACFT) - The number of locally owned normally hangared or based at the airport. 8. Enplaned Passengers - The number of commercial passengers boarded at the airport - CY-1988 Data 9. Operations-Intinerant - The total number of takeoffs and landing exclud- ing touch-and-go operations. When stated for commercial service air- ports. they include only the operations of the scheduled airlines and air taxis. 10. Operations -Total - The number of takeoffs and landings, including touch- and-go operations and other training. 11. Estimated Eligible Development Costs - The estimated total costs of . airport improvements which are eligible for Federal development grana tinder the Airport Improvement Program. 12. Airmen - Licensed pilots. 13. Busiest Markets - The pairs of cities which currently exchange the most scheduled passengers. 14. Longest Nonstop Flights - The pairs of cities representing routes flown without intermediate stops. 15. Aircraft (GA) - Active general aviation aircraft which are registered to owners living in the State. 16. C, 5, 10 - Current, 0-5 years (1990-1994), and 6-10 years (1995-1999) - The timeframes used in the NPIAS. 17. ABC. WA33. - Three -and four -character airport location identifiers under each airport name. I, Category 18. I. II, III. NP - Type of instrument approach available, Category II, Category Ill, and Non -Precision. �l X 4 N f� CALIFORNIA OF INTEGRATED AIRPORT SYSTEMS NATIONAL PLAN PRIMARY AND COMMERCIAL SERVICE SYSTEM EligIDM DeV1,100 s"I Costs M AI OOg nnwl AClrvrlr Commercial Serwce - C Service Airport BasaO Enpeneo Tout Special Reoon• Alrcralt Passengers Operations Oyer alw" Programs structwn $IanNfCl UpgraOe t Cap+u r Total - . Level Row Avpon C 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4550 ANAHEIM 5 CM S 5 5 4 10 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 NEW 10 CM S 10 7 9 C PR S 12 69 11 12 86 85 150 0 300 0 0 450 ARCATAfEUREKA 5 PR S 12 71 0 0 0 0 614 614 ARCATA 10 PR S 12 68 13 84 ACV 1 C 0 0" 0 00 0 0 0 0 23000 AVALON 5 CM S 10 5 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 1.084 NEW 10 CM S 16 8 0 29 C PR S 329 127 27 35 119 158 800 0 1700 0 0 2300 BAKERSFIELD 5 PR S 332 148 0 0 0 0 0 0 MEADOWS FIELD 10 PR S 335 184 40 158 BFLI C PR M 327 1525 112 244 1300 0 50000 0 79100 130400 BURBANK 5 pR M 330 1890 127 261 0 0 36000 0 0 36000 BURBANK-0LENDALE•PASADE M 333 2343 142 287 10 PR BUR 1 RELIEVERS'. VAN NUYS AQUA OULCE AIRPARK CANIARILLO wnrTEwIAN CHICO C :":5 PR PR S 122 22 S 123 15 6 11 62 65 200 0 3250 0 0 0 500 3450 600 "71 100 0 0 CHICO MUNI 10 PR S 124 18 13 C1C1 PR S 614 63 10 235 294 300 50 1700 0 400 2450 CONCORD 5 5 PR S 620 78 20 0 150 0 0 30 180 BUCHANAN FIELD PR S 626 97 25 343 CCR NP t0 C PR M 271 440 77 204 2400 4600 6800 0 4500 18300 FRESNO 5 PR M 273. 507 96 249 0 1000 0 18000 19000 FRESNO AIR TERM 10 PR M 276 629 100 287 FAT1 RELIEVERS' FRESNO-CHANDLER DOWNTOWN S 97 12 6 45 0 0 2300 �. IMPERIAL C 5 PR PR S 97 16 6 45 0 400 0 1900 0 0 197 197 IMPERIAL CTY t0 PR S 98 20 7 45 0 to IPL C PR S 80 11 12 5 5 16 17 0 400 1800 0 0 76 2000 78 INYOKERN 5 PR S 80 15 6 19 0 0 0 0 INYOKERN 10 PR S 81 1 IYK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2335 IRVINE 5 CM S 0 5 1 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 NEW 10 CM S 0 N C pR M 700 588 17 28 439 475 1700 4900 58W 900 4000 17300 4000 LONG BEACH BEACH /DAUGHERTY F PR M 707 714 725 899 33 510 0 4000 0 0 LONG 1U M LGB • S" REuEVER AND GENERAL AVIATION SYSTEMS for addibOM l data. 83 `THE NPiAB x �'ORECABT-r;AS�.�: FtE'PRESENTED IN -`•THE ..NiCB • `D�iAFTt 1tE PORT • � i Ove. .............. _ h THE NPIAS FORECAST GROWTH / RATE FORECAST STARTING WITH 1990 CMA ACTUAL OPERATIONS 76 9 3 8 I. 70 THE ACTUAL NPIAS FORECAST ��2000 SHOWN IN THE NPIAS DOCUMENT I; NPIAS FORECAST .SDS l . I I JN 1 pnPf^ OmO.o. ooOnp 000^10 00000 O.^Nln 1 <K 1 I•^f00 COW n-= PiI IOW 1 ON^NO fPnfP OnPO^ 0 . . . . . . . . . 0^ff0 OOO�O.O 1 �n I �7: 1'•n 1'•mo olnnmm neo n.p ..... n. moos -n IMnOOo 00^I-.+ 011'1 VNOf00000 ^^nn � 1 1vw1 r... nn•vn^ •1f ^ • J 1 1 <1 I N 1 1 00000 00000 00000 1 1 < 1 NNNNN 00.0.00 n^-^- ' < • 19, • aWa I � 1 es • f" ' f^•100 Oo00f O1'11'•a^ 000^0 00000 Of'/NN W �( ^0^00 IIOO.M 01'Inf^ OOnIVP NiINNN QOnPN <;< ..no OnOO/1 f1`I 1'•w. 00'1.0 00000 OffNn . . . . . . .. . . . . . 1 r1w l'1N0 PN^wm OM.�. O^1'11.1• OPO^1'1 1 O: I O: I wn000 PO^^PI Onnnn OOOOO ^H^� • rIM NI�/V ^IY 1�YI/� I�NIV NI'1 I < I C. 1 � 1 • W I I ' ♦� n1.n1010 ♦ �v I 001'InN 1 W nO^PO W 1 ^ N^ ; 1 I •OLLL 0~10..000 000100 ONIN Op ^.fff 00000 1 WOWK I NNNf111 ^Ar1Nn PPOnn fffff n00PP N<100000 fffff go I mom, . O 0'1 n •p 11101^00 JU-1 thA P � 13W 1 O. 1 OOP 0 0 0 WU ; OOOf 1 _ fr1N Nn JZOI ^• nWv 1 n A n b•h • ZN •001'•0 WN 1 < 1 M•1f N1p IL 1 n O N ..CO -0.00 00.0-00 PPOONO .P PPONPOOOO ONO nO PONPOO NO wO ONP OON nONO N O OO PPPOO PP O O P PPO O W > 1= O U Z0 I N N N N o n I JJ<W i 1 : UU<•Uu: ' BO[ ; r : I W J W W J Y W v I 1 J p • 1a J N ' Ia _U 1 I W W I I � • 1 ►. L W N •Z N < L • I I I : 1 . • I 1 a . 1 ti R` I W gu L 0: 0 • I 1 J J J J J _ �................_.::.._�....:. r.....,.._.. .. ._..._.....__....___._... _•............ ..... _39 ONwfw Q P n m i O.00w• ONnfs 001vfC f wlnwr nn00 O 01'101'1 O P^O.f ♦ nN O N f f Nn o < a U. Fz!F >< 7 N O.+.wwP O'.No O" 0-- - OOnPO 0;0^ it 0^ 0- On^ N.O 00 QON fp^oN O.O m.00 - O NNnOn 000^^ •'I I.I^^f Oo^^0 •V NI'•fN a . r Q ^ ^ ^ n ^ H O 00000 O O O O q OOOOO 00000 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O P P 0 OfwnP OP^PO O^I. .-0 ^ Own^� pmNN111 00 P •'I0020 nOP Of n111 N. ...... pn.pNO f0^ON Onnfp 00000 ^ NNNNIp 000^^ ^^^^^ 00^r11p r1'If.f r1'I IIfN •1 /1 r1 ^I rl Z W W m b Qi ' W 001+1'1N NNOnO ffOwP 0P^nP1 ^ nl vl'1 � . f f f f f NI.IM^M ^•1111^^ NNOOw •11••11 /111 w O N N OO w ONOO iO -g-o- n NO w ON O it m OPPOO M J j J wO nN PO PPP n w r Q w O N N OO w ONOO iO -g-o- n NO w ON O it OPPOO OPPOO O O O OPPOOOPPOo r wO nN PO PPP n ^ ^ ^ n ^ a f O 0 P N W W N W N P W � Z N m � a N .. J } < Iy v < < W 8 >f N g W W o < J J N W W < J O J 6 � a O O O O 8 y m N J N > < A W < rrW W ` N .�7 r rrW � 07 07 • � V X e3 7— / 2 Lie,) 1 THE ACTUAL CASP FORECAST SHOWN IN THE CASP DOCUMENT THE CASP FORECAST AS J4 IP40 104014 REPRESENTED IN THE McB. DRAFT REPORT 40" YY 773 -46r., X2 Y— 333 THE CASP FORECAST GROWTH o 0 A:l RATE FORECAST STARTING WITH 1990 CMA ACTUAL OPERATIONS CAC 7�10 46p000 .�a000 �� o o o CASP FORECAST iow 90 - /moo /3000 F MCB DRAFT REPORT FORECAST --�,F � I � /20 OGD - -- 7 / COMPARISON OF MCB FORECAST / TO FORECASTS AT NPIAS AND CASP / GROWTH RATES / i Y04 407 �~ 96 239 i. 9D 000 , • / / � • / .FORECAST AT CASP GROWTH RATE I8o66/ FORECAST AT NPIAS GROWTH RATE 76 9 3 S J - I i cv r Year 1990 1995 -2000 � 2005 2010 l l McClintock Becker CMA Forecast Operations with Flight School Figures Deducted Compared to McClintock Becker Indigenous Forecast MCC/B Flight. Flight Piet Enhanced School School HcC/B tic -C/ 1995 2000 "Enhanced" Indigenous (Per McC/B) (Per McC/B) 76,938 - - 76,938 76,938 106,423 17,125 - 89,298 89,192 128,508 19,853. 5,000 103,655 103,398 149,150 23,016 5,797 120,337 119,867 173,115 26,681 6,720 139,714 138,959 1 Greater Chico Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 3038, 500 Main Street Chico, Caliiornia 95927 (916) 891-5556 June 18, 1992 To The Airport Commission: ,..w z 21992 CITY MANAGER CITY OF CHICO 8y We greatly appreciate the two meetings conducted by the Airport Commission on the subject of "noise". A public forum for factual information is most welcome, particularly when a knowledgeable expert in the field is available to answer questions and explain technicalities. There are currently two other issues involving airport activities that have been raised by some members of the community and we feel that these issues need to be addressed in the same professional manner. Too much misinformation has been presented to the community as "fact", too many facts have been treated by the media as mere "opinion". We believe that an adjourned meeting should be held to address the subject of "air pollution", with an expert from the Air Resources Board, perhaps the person who did the original pollution calculation in connection with the flight school would be available to answer -.questions from both the commission and the public. In addition., we would like to see another special meeting devoted to the topic of "safety". Perhaps Buck Dodson could suggest someone from the FAA qualified to fill this need. The Aviation Committee anxiously awaits your response to these issues. Sincerely, Tom Guarino Staff Liaison cc: Aviation Committee DATE AGENDA FILE ^ INFO CIRC _ Clr•rK _CM _C�.1 Desk DCN _ACM -I< ( ACM. Cot:nCi: lt;, ar.- ADTcach- PersAni Media _CA _ACA _COP _ CSC _LFC _ FO _ PIT _ Other r W +^. t.. Lr — Sec l Stan 1 CITYorCHICO INC. 1872 1 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Fifth and Main Streets P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 (916) 895.4893 ATSS 459.4893 February 20, 1992 Vincent Phelan 3919 North Avenue Chico, CA 95926 Dear Vince: Thank you for your letter of January 24, 1992 regarding the FAR Part 150 Study. Your comments have been passed on to Mike McClintock of McClintock, Becker and Associates (P&D Technologies) for their consideration in drafting a report. Based upon the comments we have received including yours, the City has requested that McClintock, Becker and Associates include information regarding the future 55 CNEL line. Again, thank you for your comments. Sincereiy; Thomas J. Lando Community Services Director TJL:ce c c : ar,w arfine City Manager FR: Airport Environs Chrono ce/wp/csd4/a:phelan 1 3010 North Avenue Chico, CA 95926 January 24, 1992 Thomas J. Lando Community Services Director City of Chico Dear Tom, Please consider my comments pertaining to the FAR Part 1,501 Airport Compatibility Program and Environs Plan Update as invited at the January 9, 1992 meeting. To promote enhancement of the long-term.compatibility of the Airport and the surrounding Chico community, I recommend that the McClintock, Becker and Associates Survey determine the existing 1992 aircraft noise levels and the forecast of future noise exposure levels be measured at the base minimum criteria of 55-dBA C:BL. Such measure- me-its would correspond wifth the exterior noise levels representing the minimum criteria as found in Table 10-1 of the Draft Z,nvironmental Impact for the Bidwell Ranch Specific Plan, December 1991. The minimum criteria of 55-dBA CdEL would ;Hatch the base noise level specified in Table 5-1, noise Abatement Priorities, the City of Chico General Plan. ` Your consideration :in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, PkSLq Vincent F. r'_-.elan DD f/ ;l 4f;riK. EG"r Jk Ft E G6 CS!,-DISIPLD DPW B3 PKS j CITY OF CHICG/ADPIN-E SRE-CP— SPE COr�4M..0 i i Y SERVICES DEPT. �C Cn' ✓ h:K�y��O - February199 4 2 Mr. Mike McClintock 1291 E. Hillsdale Blvd. Suite 217 Foster City, Ca. 94404 Mr. McClintock: I have reviewed the revised flight track exhibit for the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. It is my opinion this revised map is an excellent overall depiction of the ' flight tracks used at this airport. Sincerely, Dennis W. Dodson Manager, Chico Air Traffic Control Tower C i . Date: January 21, 1992 To: Buck Dodson From: Mike McClintock Subject: Revised Flight Track Exhibit Attached for your review and comment is a revised flight track exhibit for the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Update. The revisions are pursuant to my conversation with Roy on January 10, 1992. Please make any corrections or additions you feel are necessary, and re- turn the map to me at the following address: McClintock, Becker & Associates 1291 E. Hillsdale Boulevard, Suite 217 Foster City, CA 94404 If you have any questions, please contact me at (415) 349-4424. I am also sending you a copy of a flight track exhibit prepared in 1990 by Greiner Engineers for a noise study for the Drake Homes develop- ment. Any comments you might have on the accuracy of this exhibit would also be appreciated. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. cc: Fred Davis Tom Lando t t t t t CITYor CHICO 11 INC 1872 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Fifth and Main Streets P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 (916) 895-4893 ATSS 459.4893 Robert Halpin, Director Environmental Advocates Community Legal Information Center California State University, Chico Chico, CA 95929-750 Dear Mr. Halpin: February 24, 1992 Thank you for your letter of January 10, 1992 regarding the FAR Part 150 Airport Study. Your comments have been provided to our consultant McClintock, Becker and Associates for their review and information. You are correct in stating that the Study focusses on noise impacts and land use compatibility. However, to answer the concerns expressed by a number of members of the community, City staff has recommended that the City Council consider appropriating funds to perform an air quality analysis. This analysis would consider the projection of future airport operations in its analysis. I anticipate this request for funds will be before the City Council on March 3, 1992. The consultant will discuss the relationship between aircraft operations and corresponding noise levels as part of the Noise Exposure Map process. So rather than attempting to explain the physics of acoustics at this time, let me respond to your question concerning the relationship between increased noise levels versus increased air pollutant emissions. If aircraft operations at Chico Municipal Airport were to double over a one-year period (and all other factors such as aircraft fleet mix, day -evening -night split, and runway use were to remain -constant), the resultant increase in cumulative noise level, as expressed in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL, dB), would be only three decibels for any given point on the ground. The reason for this is that noise increases are calculated on a logarithmic scale. The "options" referred to on page 2 of the handout are noise abatement and land use compatibility planning measures that will be considered during the Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) component of the study. These measures consist of airport management and operational options to control noise, and remedial and preventive land use strategies to protect both the airport and the community. These options will be presented and discussed at the next community information meeting in March or April. r Robert Halpin -2- February 24, 1992 With respect to your question concerning "who is using the airport and for what reasons?", I am not sure I understand the question. All operations at the airport are conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) which control the use of the Nation's airspace, and which prohibit discrimination against a given class of aircraft or airport user. As noted, the forecast tables being prepared for the FAR Part 150 Study does not breakdown the numbers of aircraft operations by category of user, but by type of aircraft as required by the regulation. The forecast chapter. of the Noise Exposure Map report will, however, indicate which types of aircraft may be engaged in a particular activity (e.g., heavy multi -engine propeller [Hvy. M -E prop.] aircraft are those typically associated with the Forest Service air attack base and Aero Union fire -bombers). Finally, the Annual Service Volume (ASV) of an airport is defined as "a reasonable estimate of an airport's annual '. capacity." ASV accounts for differences in runway use, aircraft mix, weather conditions, and other factors that would be encountered over the course of a year. ASV is not directly equatable with the level of service (LOS) determination used for streets and highways because LOS is generally determined for the peak hour, while ASV is a measure of annual capacity. Capacity at an airport can be enhanced through such capital development measures as new runways. However, no such projects are anticipated for Chico Municipal Airport now, or within the horizon upon which the study is focused. I hope the foregoing has served to answer your questions.. We are looking forward to your continued participation in the FAR Part 150 Study process. Sincerely, Thomas J. Lando Community Services Director TJL:ce cc: CityManager *s, :n4mmm IFR: Airport Environs Chrono ce/wp/csd4/a:halpin t t - .. 1 F_ I I Environmental Advocates Community Legal Information Center California State University, Chico Chico, CA 95929 10 January 1992 (916) 8984354 Tom Lando Community Services Director Chico, CA Dear Tom Lando,.. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to make comments on the FAR PART 150 AIRPORT NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM and ENVIRONS PLAN UPDATE. This letter is in response to your request for written comments as a follow-up.to our enquiries made at last night's meeting. We understand that this study .is focused on determining the noise levels associated with Chico Municipal Airport'.s operations, however, the issue of air pollution generated by airport operations i.s very much a concern of ours. Will the data collected during this noise study be applicable to determining the amount of air pollution associated with airport operations? It is our understanding that an increase of operations of similar types of aircraft producing the same decibel levels will result in a maximum of only a 3 decibel increase. For example, if an aircraft generates 65 decibels at a given point, ten of the same aircraft operating all at the same time would generate only 68 decibels. Is this a correct assumption? If itis, our concern is that there.may be some confusion on the part of the general public that the insignificant increase in noise levels will be equated somehow to an insignificant increase in air pollution levels. How do you plan to avoid this misconception? On page 2 of the update handed out at the meeting, there is reference to "explore options.". What are the "options"? Is it possible to find out who is using the airport .and for. what reasons? Table 1 refers to General Aviation Activity, but does not break the operations down into categories that are distinctive. Can the operations be separated into categories such as recreational, commuter, commercial commuter, air freight, water bombers, etc.? AGENDA._ ftE CSO DESK^mac c&kOIST_PLD DpW_>0_Ks- ADPW-0&M SRE-CP- SR,E, *_A_^I TC CM AC*D�..UIMK .PJ18�c��=—�•lr Taos wo c.a P w West Second & Cherry Street, Chico, CA . JAN is 1992 CITY OF CHICO COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT. Community Legal' Information Center California State'University, Chico Chico, CA 95929 916 898-4354 Can you explain "Annual Service Volume" and the 355,000 operations per year capacity? Is this a level of service determination similar to that which is used to determine LOS ' of streets or highways? Is the "capacity" determined by existing conditions or with the enhancement of the airport runways, tower operations or ' other services related to airport activity? Thank you for your time and consideration of our enquiries. ' Si a ely, r +' Rober alpi Director Environmental Advocates I, 1 loos FAQC a Paw West Second br Cherry Street, Chico, CA 1 1 11 CITYorCHICO ,,INC. 1872 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Fifth and Main Streets P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 (916) 895.4893 ATSS 459.4893 S. H. Bartholomew Save Our Skies P. O. Box 7815 Chico, CA .95927 Dear Bart: February 20, 1992 Thank you for your letter of January 21, 1992 regarding the . FAR Part 150 Airport Study currently underway.. Your comments have been provided to Mike McClintock of McClintock, Becker and Associates for their information in revising the air operations projections. I should note that it is staff's position, which will certainly be -the subject of discussion at an Airport Commission meeting, that future projections include the operation of one or more additional fixed base operators who are required to provide flight training. I believe this is not only reasonable but provides the most conservative basis on which to prepare the Airport Environs Plan. In response to your comments and others, we have asked the consultant to prepare a CNEL 55 noise contour. Finally as stated before, City staff concurs that'if the Environs Plan is to be adopted, environmental review for the project will be necessary. Sinc�eiy, Thomas Lando Community Services Director TJL:ce cc: City Manager FR: Airport Environs/Chrono ce/wp/csd4/a:bart SAVE OUR SKIES ' (A Citizen Group) P.O. Box 7815 Chico, CA 95927 ' January 21, 1992 _ D Thomas J. Lando �v IED I Community Service Director i City of Chico Community Service Department Fifth and Main Street JAN �, 21992 P.O. Box 3420 ' Chico, CA 95927 CITY OF CHICO COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT. Dear Mr. Lando, Thank you for your letter of January 10 enclosing the preliminary draft of McClintock, Becker & Associates methodology for aviation activity forecast figures for the ' FAA Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study currently underway at CMA. Unfortunately, your mailing reached my office sometime in the middle of last week when I was out of town. ' Consequently, neither I nor the other S.O.S. people who attended the January 9th meeting saw this supplementary material until this past weekend. We met and briefly ' reviewed the material on Monday January 20th but respectfully request that we be given additional time beyond January 22 to properly formalize our comments to you. You may recall that you were going to look into and ' advise the basis for the 17,125 operations in 1995 characterized as representing a "potential large-scale flight training facility", and we are wondering how and when ' we can obtain this information prior to finalizing our comments. . Even though we request additional time to finalize our formal comments we believe we should give you the bottom line of such comments we can make at this time as follows: 'zJ. the nenhanced, gr '14.. orec&tt7' sncludes ,aer u c ''uses t econsi�deato.be�,r�ss�e dation:. t,as nat This communf .'S'i`T settled th Iti.O I u f whee-her -.Ch .c tx zen . Yn� - uch „ ze o ant, +at o pPr VA o , they Ci y ng >ise 's} hat would esu3 �' n .-,;).r ted .� 3e eof .fi�:gt,_ac_,tivty. The =enhanced =-forecast results in ' an airport that in 2O�years would be over twice the size it is today. This kind of growth will not occur without the establishment of an airline pilot flight school which thousands of Chico Area residents oppose. Absent such a use, the airport activities in 2010 will be far less. With such a flight school use, our data indicates that the ' traffic forecasts after 1995 are seriously understated and if the enhanced forecast was otherwise correct that the traffic in year 2010 would be more like 250,000 operations per year rather than the 173,000 forecast. ' /W.CSDDESK� AGENDA._ME— CSA-DIST .;ZZ !;.90..--PKS a- t The FAR Part 150 study should be made for a projection that can reasonably be expected to occur given the history of the past fifteen years and the present well documented socio-economic/demographic national and local trends as ably stated by Mr. McClintock in the draft report. We believe that even the indigenous forecast overstates the probable growth. In our view, the 2% growth. line on McClintock, Becker & Associate Exhibit 1 represents a reasonable maximum that is likely to occur which exceeds by many times the 0.2% national general aviation fleet average discussed by Mr. McClintock on page 5 of his draft report. We note this is consistent with the CASP forecast shown on Exhibit 1 and except for the unexplained jump in operations between the years 1990 and 1995, exceeds the growth rate indicated by the FAA NPIAS forecast on Exhibit 1. In summary, we do not believe either the enhanced or indigenous forecasts developed by McClintock, Becker & Associates are supportable. If sometime in the near future we could examine their actual numerical computations, and be allowed to ask questions about them, we may have further comments. On a somewhat different note, we wish to state our belief that the CNEL 55 contour should be included for all sound maps as it was for the 1978 Environs report. In this respect, we note the EIR for the Bidwell Ranch project includes the CNEL 55 contour. Also, although we felt it unwise to use it in the particular way suggested, you also recently proposed the use of the CNEL 55 contour_ to define the boundary of the airport environs. Clearly, the FAR study should determine the footprint of the CNEL 55 contour on the noise maps Finally, we strongly maintain that the CEQA review portion of the proposed McClintock, Becker & Associates scope is not appropriate as part of a FAR Part 150 noise compatibility study. Noise is only one of several environmental effects and the FAR Part 150 study is not a "project" for which a CEQA review is required. CEQA reviews for any particular aeronautical project at CMA should be carried out on -a project by project basis under CEQA and the provisions of the Chico Municipal Code to evaluate all the . potential adverse environmental effects: As previously mentioned, we may wish to offer additional comment if you will disclose to us the source and basis of the flight school figures and can make copies of the consultant's computations available to.us as we request. Very truly yours, SAVE OUR SKIES (A Citizen Group) S. H. Bartholomew .1 1, s DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS 323D FLYING TRAINING WING (ATC) MATHER AIR FORCE BASE CA 95655 Mr Thomas J. Lando Community Services Department City of Chico . P.O. Box 3420 Chico CA 95927 17 Dec 91 Dear Mr Lando Thank you for your letter of 10 December 1991. The Ai.r Force is preparing to close Mather AFB effective 30 September 1993. Our airfield operations will be drawn down steadily, and will cease approximately 30 April 1993. We anticipate no impact on your airport operations after that time. If you would like more �\ information on the closure of Mather and. the plans for reuse of the base, I recommend you contact Mr Dee Reynolds of the Sacramento County Executive's Office. If we can be of any further help in your planning process, please feel free to contact me at (916) 364-4009. Sincerely, STEPHEN H. BONNER, Capt, USAF Chief of Closure Operations 323d Flying Training Wing R0s#s Vr AGENDA FLEJ Og CSD DES CSA -DIST pLD__DPW_ BD__PKS AD. -MI -O&M ADPW.E._ SRE-CP_ SRE TC CM 1/ ACM-D___OTHER ID,* t: "49 .1 � DEC 18 1991 CITY OF CHICO COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT. APPENDIX C CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FAR PART 150 AIRPORT NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM AND ENVIRONS PLAN FIELD NOISE MONITORING RESULTS OCTOBER 17-19, 1991 Table 1 LOCATION OF NOISE MONITORING SITES Chico Municipal AIrport Noise Monitor Site Location Date Time 1 East Eaton Road west of Ceres Avenue 10/17/91 1759-1816 2 Keefer Road east of Hicks Lane 10/18/91 1015-1709 3 Field at east end of East Lassen Ave 10/18/91 1420 4 Hicks Lane west of Oasis Drive 10/18/91 1451-1543 5 Lupin Avcnue at Ceres Avenue 10/19/91 0921-1023 6 Bridle Drive 10/19/91 1004- 7 Ceres Avenue south of Rushmore Avenue 10/19/91 1056-1234 8 Rio Bravo Drive @ Limousin Drive 10/19/91 1131-1430 Table 2 FIELD NOISE MEASUREMENTS Chico Municipal Airport Aircraft Lmax -Location Date Time Type Oper Rwy (dBA) Min Max Avg #1 - East Eaton Road west of Ceres Avenue 10/17/91 1759 SEP Dep 13 74.8 10/17/91 1805 DC4 Dep 13 73.8 10/17/91 1816 TEP Dep 13L 64.1 Summary 64.1 74.8 72.8 #2 - Keefer Road east of Hicks Lane 10/18/91 1015 SEP Dep 31 R 57.7 10/18/91 1037 SEP Dep 31 R 66.1 10/18/91 1040 SEP Dep 31 R 50.2 10/18/91 1050 TEP -Duke Dep 31 R 82.0 10/18/91 1051 SEP Dep 31 R 84.6 10/18/91 1102 Metroliner Dep 31 R 70.0 10/18/91 1127 Jetstream Dep 31 R 66.1 10/18/91 1210 SEP -Cherokee Arr 13L 61.6 10/18/91 1219 SEP -Cherokee Dep 31 R 67.4 10/18/91 1227 TEP -Twin Cessna Arr 13L 77.1 10/18/91 1230 TEP -Baron Dep 31 R 72.2 10/18/91 1231 SEP Dep 31 R 68.6 10/18/91 1243 Metroliner Arr 13L 71.9 10/18/91 1248 TEP -Cessna Dep 31R 68.1 10/18/91 1251 SEP Arr 13L 60.9 10/18/91 1312 SEP -Cherokee Arr 13L 64.2 10/18/91 1316 SEP -Cessna Dep 31 R 67.2 10/18/91 1329 SEP -Cherokee Dep 31R 56.0 10/18/91 1333 Metroliner Dep 31R 74.4 10/18/91 1341 SEP Dep 31R 71.4 10/18/91 1438 TEP Dep 31R 72.7 10/18/91 1455 Metroliner Dep 31R 72.7 10/18/91 1521 SEP Dep 31 R 69.7 10/18/91 1529 TEP -King Air Dep 31R 68.3 10/18/91 1534 TEP -King Air Dep 31R 72.1 10/18/91 1541 TEP -King Air . Dep 31R 74.0 10/18/91 1548 TEP -King Air Dep 31R 77.0 10/18/91 1556 TEP -King Air Dep 31R 71.5 10/18/91 1603 TEP -King Air Dep 31R 67.2 10/18/91 1619 TEP -Bonanza Dep 31R 66.2 . 10/18/91 1625 SEP Arr 13L 65.0 10/18/91 1638 TEP -Bonanza Dep 31R 71.2 10/18/91 1644 SEP Dep 31 R 72.8 10/18/91 1648 SEP Arr 13L 70.5 10/18/91 1654 Jetstream Arr 13L 74.7 10/18/91 1705 TEP -Cessna Arr 13L 75.7 10/18/91 1709 SEP Dep 31R 58.9 Summary 50.2 84.6 73.9 Table 2 Continued Summary 61.7 61.7 61.7 #7 - Ceres Avenue south of Rushmore Avenue 10/19/91 1056 SEP Arr 31 R 64.5 10/19/91 1129 SEP Arr 31 R 58.9 10/19/91 1234 SEP Arr 31R 65.8 Summary 58.9 65.8 63.9 Aircraft Lmax Location Date Time Type Oper Rwy (dBA) Min Max Avg #3 - Field at east end of East'Lassen Avenue 10/18/91 1420 Metroliner Arr 31 L 61.1 Summary 61.1 61.1 61.1 #4 - Bend in Hicks Lane west of Oasis Drive 10/18/91 1451 Metroliner Dep 31 R 69.2 10/18/91 1517 SEP -Tomahawk Dep 31 R 62.6 10/18/91 1524 TEP -King Air Dep 31 R 72.0 10/18/91 1530 TEP -King Air Dep 31 R 68.6 10/18/91 1535 TEP -King Air Dep 31 R 76.6 10/18/91 1543 TEP -King Air Dep 31 R 71.8 Summary 62.6 76.6 72.0 #5 - Lupin Avenue at Ceres Avenue 10/19/91 0921 SEP Dep 13L 51.6 10/19/91 0939 Jetstream Arr 31 R 70.5 10/19/91 0950 Jetstream Arr 31 R 75.3 10/19/91 0951 TEP -King Air Arr 31 R 80.3 10/19/91 0957 SEP Dep 13L 61.8 10/19/91 1002 SEP Dep 13L 53.0 10/19/91 1023 Metroliner Arr 31 R 70.2 Summary 51.6 80.3 73.7 #6 - Bridle Drive 10/19/91 1004 SEP T&G 13R 61.7 Summary 61.7 61.7 61.7 #7 - Ceres Avenue south of Rushmore Avenue 10/19/91 1056 SEP Arr 31 R 64.5 10/19/91 1129 SEP Arr 31 R 58.9 10/19/91 1234 SEP Arr 31R 65.8 Summary 58.9 65.8 63.9 Table 2 Continued Aircraft Lmax Location Date Time Type Oper Rwv (dBA) Min Max Avg #8 - Rio Bravo Drive C) Limousin Drive 10/19/91 1131 SEP De P 31 L 67.8 10/19/91 1137 SEP Dep 31 L 71.0 10/19/91 1241 SEP Dep 31 R 55.8 10/19/91 1319 Metroliner. Dep 31 R 70.9- 10/19/91 1321 SEP Dep 31 L 68.6 10/19/91 1408 SEP Dep 31 L 71.4 �. 10/19/91 1420 SEP Dep 31L 76.6 10/19/91 1428 SEP Dep 31 L 66.7 10/19/91 1430 Jetstream Dep 31 R 65.1 Summary 55.8 76.6 70.7 SEP - Single engine propellor driven aircraft TEP - Twin engine propellor driven aircraft an sr ri rr r r �r �I r� an r we C.1-11CO AI1II1010' III I,I) NOIS1 MONITORING. NOISL; I*;VI':N'I' SUMMARY '1 F,1'OR11' F: I. A F' c I:: I! T I M[ 11'• 1 ISI I (.,11.1 F I-: SITE # _1 _ AU U NI';SS Eaton Rd Ceres _Ave 'I'I N;I I'; 1759 . 181 6 II;�(►1I�MlI,N'1' B&K SLM 2231 w/Western Graphtec �NiI;�'I'IIII;R ....__.. ..._.. .__.Lear A1cUi tock, Becke?• A- ,4ssociOrs 170CT91 mf 90 80 LSI -J 70 Ld Q� :D 60 Ld 50 z 40 O 30 CJ:-11CO AIR.PO[�'T 1111IJ-D NOIS'11: MONITO[flNG COMPO( TIT: NOIS' IINFNT SUMMARY 0 FLAP`Tl) TIME IN 1,11NIJITS SITE #—Z—ADj)jZj-i:SSKeefev Rd. @1 Flicks Lane .111pV11-1, 1015-1709 D18OCT91 AIT) I -� Clear EQUIPMFNII-1 B&K SLM 2231 w/Western Graphtec I .-j W1':AT111":J AfeCtintock, Becke2- A- Associates ROME LEINE MAI 1,111. - : 101 W ill a al Film, F MO. WSW= 02GRA r'-w1w. a P 0 FLAP`Tl) TIME IN 1,11NIJITS SITE #—Z—ADj)jZj-i:SSKeefev Rd. @1 Flicks Lane .111pV11-1, 1015-1709 D18OCT91 AIT) I -� Clear EQUIPMFNII-1 B&K SLM 2231 w/Western Graphtec I .-j W1':AT111":J AfeCtintock, Becke2- A- Associates IM as low mommmmom CHICO AIRP01"O" NOISI,: MONITORING COMPOSHT: NolSI-: 1,:Vl,:N'I' SUMMARY 5 1 1.5 2 2.5 East Lassen Ave. 1420 18OCT9 SITI---I # --3- A D 1) R F, B&K SLM 2231 w/Weslern GraphlecClear WIIATI McChittock, flecke-)- A-Associ(ttes i NA M KRA W—M 5 1 1.5 2 2.5 East Lassen Ave. 1420 18OCT9 SITI---I # --3- A D 1) R F, B&K SLM 2231 w/Weslern GraphlecClear WIIATI McChittock, flecke-)- A-Associ(ttes I CtIIC0 AJ.I.X".P0R.1' 1*111-l'o[d) N0I.SII': MONII.'ORING COMPOSITI-: NOISI-: II:VII',NT SUMMARY RET)ORT ................. .... ..... Dr_ I,SS Hicks Ln. Oasis D 1451-1543 SITE # A- At ..... . .... DATI F',QUIPMENI'11 B&K SLM 2231 w/Wesiern Graphtec. WI 1: ATI I FINClear ------------ AfcClintock-, flecke7- et Assori0es Monza= gocccz= ku. WIN OR M.M rim, W MIk 0 .9 U NMI I I I A�w rq.M.M. -fil I I 0 mumommomm ................. .... ..... Dr_ I,SS Hicks Ln. Oasis D 1451-1543 SITE # A- At ..... . .... DATI F',QUIPMENI'11 B&K SLM 2231 w/Wesiern Graphtec. WI 1: ATI I FINClear ------------ AfcClintock-, flecke7- et Assori0es IM m m = m m loo cn 90 LtJ 811 --j 70 Ld Q-/ ::) 60 V) V) Li cl/- 50 n- ZI 0 V) 30 w an wo m -m m m l m CHICO AIRPORT 1111,11) NOISF: MONITOJ'�[NG RFTORI, I I I I COMPOSITI'. NoISI*',' [-,'Vl':N'I' SUMMARY 0 .1 'I IMF 111 t -11l-11.1 ITS SITE #-5ADDRI-,SS Lupin Ave_..-,cis .....C... e....r.e...s......Ave..__ 111IN11,1 0921-1023 DKII 1 90CT9.1 1'Q111PM1P#NjB&K SLM 2231 w/Westei n Graphlec --C--e---a--r ----- McClintock, Becke?- & lfssoci(r(es Fill P US mmimm NEW W N.Mmal I rm. -Mm. Ow. 171m, 0 .1 'I IMF 111 t -11l-11.1 ITS SITE #-5ADDRI-,SS Lupin Ave_..-,cis .....C... e....r.e...s......Ave..__ 111IN11,1 0921-1023 DKII 1 90CT9.1 1'Q111PM1P#NjB&K SLM 2231 w/Westei n Graphlec --C--e---a--r ----- McClintock, Becke?- & lfssoci(r(es I I I 'I'ORING REPOR"J." CHICO MUNI' NO.IS.I.-.', MOM COMPOSITI.-I NOISF: 1,.:Vl-',N'I' SUMMARY SITE # -6 A DD R E, S S Bridle Drive . ......TI NI 111 1004 DATE, 190CT91 FIQUIPMENI-I B&K SLM 2231 w/Western Graphlec.W -- 1I:- 1 All t F: R Clear C -- ME w SITE # -6 A DD R E, S S Bridle Drive . ......TI NI 111 1004 DATE, 190CT91 FIQUIPMENI-I B&K SLM 2231 w/Western Graphlec.W -- 1I:- 1 All t F: R Clear iffe(Yintock, BecA-e?- a- Associ(ytes 100 T 90 L,.j 80 LLJ -i ?o bi 60 M 50 40 0 V) 30 II CHICO AIRPORT 1`111:1-J) NOISI--: MON11"'O RING REPORl' COMPOSITF: NOISE ll:Vlf',N'I'S[.JMMAI-?Y 0 SITE # --Z-- A DJ)1�1-11S�Ceres Av. 01, Rushmore Av.1111N,.11,1 1056-1234 I I 1--iQUIPM.NN'l B&K SLM 2231 w/W.es..l,er-t-i-,Gr.aph-.te.c W F: ATI McClintock, Becker A- Associates UMM I RAM I I Flom PP. W -M MAI 0 SITE # --Z-- A DJ)1�1-11S�Ceres Av. 01, Rushmore Av.1111N,.11,1 1056-1234 I I 1--iQUIPM.NN'l B&K SLM 2231 w/W.es..l,er-t-i-,Gr.aph-.te.c W F: ATI McClintock, Becker A- Associates �■r rr r rr r rr rr rr rr r rr r�r rr +r rr rr rr rr r� CHICO AIRI'OR'C I�'[I�,I_�l) NOISF MONI'T'ORING REPORT COMPOSIT11,' NO1S1f; EX N'1' SUMMARY I 1.'. I -_1—A- *.F.I► FIMF III h11I'll I.11F_S SI'1'> R i o B r a v o Dr._ri1_Limousin 'I'I M I_': 13 19 _1321 1-,RUIPMCNT B&K SLM 2231_ w/Western Graphlec McClintock, Becker ct• Associates leg I 1.'. I -_1—A- *.F.I► FIMF III h11I'll I.11F_S SI'1'> R i o B r a v o Dr._ri1_Limousin 'I'I M I_': 13 19 _1321 1-,RUIPMCNT B&K SLM 2231_ w/Western Graphlec McClintock, Becker ct• Associates rr irr rr r r �r rr rr �r r rr r� r lCIICO AI.RPO]_�'l' f.�,{RF:PORT ('OMPOSITN NO ISI? I?VI1,NT SUMMARY l 1.5 El_�I'SEfi I1ME li•i MPAUTI: SITE # g ADDR1,:5S RioBravo Dr. (_F,1 Limousin �I'I n,l I_� _.1 420 _1 430 I.1;RU.IPM.LN`, B&K SLM 2231 w/Western Graphtec WI:l1`I'IJII:R McClintock, Decke?• &• associates DAT 190CT91 Clear r.` r®®®r r®®®� r�®®r MENU IM r �I►®mE l 1.5 El_�I'SEfi I1ME li•i MPAUTI: SITE # g ADDR1,:5S RioBravo Dr. (_F,1 Limousin �I'I n,l I_� _.1 420 _1 430 I.1;RU.IPM.LN`, B&K SLM 2231 w/Western Graphtec WI:l1`I'IJII:R McClintock, Decke?• &• associates DAT 190CT91 Clear r.`