Chino Valley council approves 390‑acre footprint and CUP for private Embry Riddle training airfield after heated debate

Chino Valley’s town council voted to approve a conditional use permit (Resolution 2026‑1303) establishing a 390‑acre footprint and four‑phase program for a privately owned airfield and associated aviation uses, a decision that split the council 5–2 and drew several hours of testimony from residents, applicants and staff.

The CUP authorizes a Phase 1 airstrip (described in the resolution as a 5,000‑foot runway, not to exceed 6,000 feet, with taxiway, apron and tie‑downs) and reserves later phases for classroom/hangar space, aviation‑related industrial assembly and commercial/office uses. Will Denji, assistant director of development services, told the council the CUP defines the footprint and performance standards but said each phase “will have to return back to council for a development agreement” that will set operational limits and enforcement mechanisms.

Supporters, including landowner Tom Perkins, framed the project as a private training field that would bring investment and jobs. Perkins said the airfield would be privately operated and that he expects Embry Riddle to be the lessee; he also told the council his family will fund contracted fire coverage if needed. “I will pay for CAFMA services to cover the airfield during the duration of this project if approved,” the applicant said when questioned about emergency response arrangements.

Opponents urged caution over noise, potential lead emissions from aviation fuel, the hours of operations and uncertainty about enforcement. Council members repeatedly pressed applicant and staff on detail: how the town will measure operations; what constitutes an ‘‘operation’’ versus a ‘‘touch‑and‑go’’; how averages and make‑up flights after weather closures will be handled; and who will be the formal point of contact for complaints.

Embry Riddle representatives and the applicant described an operational cap the materials call an annual limit of 80,000 operations (about 40,000 touch‑and‑go maneuvers), averaged on a rolling three‑year basis. An Embry Riddle presenter explained that a touch‑and‑go is two operations and that the proposed annual number averages roughly 110 touch‑and‑go events per day, with most activity concentrated in morning hours. He added night or very early‑morning flights would be a small fraction of activity: “Zero to 5% of the total flying,” he said, and that pilot‑controlled lighting and other measures would limit nighttime use.

Several council members cited competing priorities: long‑term economic sustainability and landowner rights, versus impacts to rural character and the day‑to‑day quality of life for nearby residents. Council member Larry, who supported approval, noted the Perkins family’s pre‑annexation agreements and argued the development is a calculated economic risk the town needs to consider. Council member Eric, who voted no, cited incompatibility with the town’s rural character and said he could not support the proposal at this time.

On emergency services, staff and the applicant said a private contract with CAFMA (the regional fire authority) is planned to provide coverage; whether a staffed station or a trailer/temporary suppression capability will be provided is to be determined during development‑agreement negotiations. Staff and the town attorney emphasized that many operational specifics—noise limits, hours (the draft referenced 5:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m.), monitoring, reporting and enforcement—remain items to be finalized in development agreements following the CUP approval.

The council’s approval establishes the footprint and allows the applicants to proceed to subsequent permitting and development‑agreement negotiations. Council members and staff said public oversight will continue: future phases, fire coverage contracts and operational rules will be the subject of additional hearings. The town attorney also explained that zoning and conditional‑use actions are not subject to a routine legislative referendum; the transcript records the attorney advising that statutory avenues for direct voter referral are limited.

The decision followed an extended public record, earlier Planning & Zoning recommendations, and extensive council discussion that highlighted both long-standing community divisions over growth strategy and the technical uncertainties the council asked staff and the applicant to resolve before construction could proceed.

The council directed staff to ensure the development agreement(s) spell out hours, monitoring, noise limits, a complaint process and a designated owner representative for town communications. The approval is procedural authorization of the CUP footprint and does not itself authorize construction; phases still require further approvals and permitting.