Airport expansion gets clearing from council

An odd mix of opponents squared off against an equally strange mix of proponents of the plan to expand the Chico Municipal Airport this week and after three hours of staff reports, testimony and a short City Council discussion, the proponents won.

On a 7-0 vote the council adopted a motion of intent to certify the final environmental-impact report and adopt the Master Plan for the $38 million improvement that would extend runways, build a hangar to house aircraft, expand the terminal and develop the west side of the airport for industrial and commercial use.

Funding for the project, six years in the making, would primarily come from the federal government, which would pick up 95 percent of the tab. That money comes from a user fee collected from every commercial passenger ticket sold in America, but is not guaranteed because it is doled out on a competitive basis. Safety issues, like the expansion of a runway, rank high in consideration of priorities. A consultant to the plan as well as City Manager Tom Lando both expressed confidence the city would get it. If it did, the city would have to pay $1.9 million for the improvements.

However, airport manager Bob Grierson expressed some doubt that the city would get the money because in the wake of Sept. 11, airport security has trumped safety in qualifying for these funds.

While supporters talked about improving the runway as a means of attracting new businesses and more commercial air flights, the immediate need is to ensure the safety of the creaky fire-fighting tankers the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection flies out of there during the fire season.

A current lack of demand for commercial flights makes it unlikely that more commercial jets will come even with the extended runways; and the current facilities can handle them right now.

Neighbors to the north of the airport and local environmentalists banded together to express their concerns about the expansion. Extending one runway to the north by 1,878 feet means the relocating 3,000 feet of Mud Creek, which crosses the airport 1,200 to 1,500 feet north of where the runway now ends.

Pilots, real estate interests and Chamber of Commerce folks argued the need for the expansion.

Environmentalist warned that playing with nature was risky business and that a number of species, including juvenile Chinook salmon and various raptors—eagles and hawks—would be adversely affected.

Jim Brobeck of the Butte Environmental Council said that while BEC supports the airport and nearby industrial park, it objects to the realignment of the creek because of the threat to species there.

Paul Hendrick, a neighbor to the north, said he too supported the plan with the exception of the extending the runway to the north. He, too, cited wildlife as the reason. He was followed by Sacramento attorney Jeff Scharff who questioned the process, charging the Master Plan was adopted prior to the completion of the environmental reports. He also questioned the scientific feasibility of moving the creek.

If adopted, he warned, “This project will find itself in court.”

After it was adopted, Scharff referred questions of a lawsuit to Hendricks, who said it was still too early to tell.

The number of neighbors affected was unclear, with one claiming up to 15 households will feel, hear and see the effects of the extended runway. Airport manager Grierson said that only two are really in the flight path. For those who are, the Federal Aviation Administration will pay for increased insulation and improved windows and doors as a means to lessen the noise associated with takeoffs and landings from the altered airport.

Supporters of the expansion included the Chico Chamber of Commerce, real estate interests, economic developers and a some pilots, including those who have flown the CDF tankers, that “stagger off the end” of the existing runway on their ways to fight fires.

In the end the council voted unanimously to adopt the EIR, but, at the request of Councilmember Coleen Jarvis, included suggestions from Roger Cole, an advocate for the protection of local waterways, that will beef up the creek alteration procedures and also ensure that 3,000 feet of the creek not moved will get added protection.

To make its finding the council had to declare two "overriding considerations" on the EIR that say public benefit outweighs the fact that nothing can be done to mitigate two of the 20 environmental impacts associated with the improvements—vehicle traffic noise on area streets and the loss of open space.