Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09261995 - C9 C.9 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on September 26, 1995 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers,Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson, Bishop NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Lease with JR Leasing, Inc. , for space at Buchanan Field Airport, Concord area. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that item C.9 from the September 26, 1995, Board meeting be CONTINUED to the October 10, 1995, agenda. 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 26, 1995 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By ,Deputy DATE: REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. NA.tiiE: AJ i�l�/�, % �'�' !/ PHONE: '�7 ADDRESS: ��,eZ �> >]/f: Cmt: �G C Cd I am speaking formyself OR organization: (,�)h r.n�'r,� Check one: A!V (NAME OF ORG17.AT10\ y I wish to speak on Agenda Item # ' My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. ? DATE: 210k2 -REQUEST TO .SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. q 04-7 NA.mE: �P�L- �, �EN;E - PHONE: ✓8-9 1 ADDRESS: �J �'(10 `(�� CrIY: Pc-Aspd 1�� ll_ I am speaking formyself OR organization: (NAME OF ORGANIZU-10\) Check one: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # C ' '9 My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. September 26, 1995 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine'Street Martinez, California Re: Agenda Item #C9 for September 26, 1995 on the Lease Between the Buchanan Field Airport and J.R. Leasing. This letter set out specific comments for your consideration before approving the above- identified lease. The Board should be advised that the lease appears to have substantive errors in it which may have negative financial consequences to the County and the Airport. Additionally, the lease has not fully addressed concerns of the neighboring residents. To address this latter point, the lease can be redrafted (as should be done to correct for the substantive errors), or the Board can direct the Manager of Airports to address residents' concerns on an ongoing basis as the lease is amended and as the Manager grants the special privileges to the lessee. 1. Apparent Substantive errors in the lease. I believe that the Airport intended that the "Minimum Rent" be thirty-six thousand dollars ($36,000.00) per year. Paragraph 6,-subsection A of the contract(page 3) specifies the "Minimum Rent"to be thirty-six dollars ($36.00). The contract specifies that a percentage of gross receipts (concession) be paid to the Airport over each"Lease Year." The "Lease Year" is defined as "any twelve (12) month period beginning July 1 during the term of this lease." However, the earliest that this lease could be signed is October 1, 1995, which is three-months out-of-phase with the lease year definition. Accordingly, over the first five years of this lease, the gross receipts will be divided over 6 years, rather than 5 years, leading to an overall lower percentage to the Airport. On this basis along, you should reject the current lease and demand a new lease that corrects for these errors. 2. The Hours of operation, as defined in paragraph 12, subsection A (page 8), should be changed such that sales activities on or from the contract premises shall not start earlier than 7 am, or thirty minutes after sunrise, rather than the stated thirty minutes before sunrise. 3. The Airport should give itself more negotiating leverage on the option to extend the lease for an additional five years. As now drafted,the Airport must unconditionally give the lessee the option to renew the lease for an additional 5 years regardless of the lessee's conduct, and does not give itself the ability to renegotiate the terms and conditions of the lease if the lessee's conduct is unacceptable to neighboring residents. This would preclude the County from taking specific steps to remedy the effects of the lessee's operations on the neighboring residents, and could potentially allow adverse conditions to occur for up to ten(10) years. 4. The Airport should notify the lessee that this 4.9 acre development is part of a larger planned development(see airport master plan and EIR) which is larger than 5 acres, and therefore requires a permit from the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. As part of permitting, the lessee will likely have to filter the oil from the rain runoff before the run Contra Costa County Board of Supervisor Page 2 off enters the adjacent drainage channel. The lessee may have to fulfill other or additional requirements. Such filtering can be readily and inexpensively incorporated in the design of the facility. For more information, you may contact Mr. Will Bruhns at 510-286-0838, or Mr. Martin Musonge at 510-286-1255. 5. The Airport should work with the neighboring residents to address their concerns. Respectfully Submitted, XHal . ea er 89.:Baylor Lane Pleasant-Hill, Ca.,94523 cc: Manager of Airports J.R. Leasing September 26, 1995 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine-Street Martinez, California Re: Agenda Item #C9 for September 26, 1995 on the Lease Between the Buchanan Field Airport and J.R. Leasing. This is an addendum to my letter of the same date on the same agenda item. 6. The Airport should immediately rectify its invalid environmental documents. Over a year ago, an airport agent stated in a funding application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission that some of the traffic analysis used in all of the Airport's environmental documents was seriously flawed. I brought this to the attention of the Board in a letter dated August 16, 1994,-a copy of which is.attached.hereto. A recent review of some of the traffic studies-indicates possibleadditional flaws in the traffic.analysis (such as a sum of approximately.500 vehicles-.that.".disappear"-on the westbound movement of Concord Ave. between-Diamond Blvd.^and the�northbound I-680*eeway entrance). Please be advised that implementing a development plan on invalid environmental___ documents is illegal and is an abuse of agency discretion, particularly in the case where the' agency itself has admitted the invalidity. An abuse of agency discretion is a common law finding and cannot be rectified by "waiting out" a statutory time period. An unusually long delay in rectifying an invalid environmental document could be viewed by court as an abuse, particularly in the case where the agency itself has admitted the invalidity. Separate incidences of abuse could compound upon one another to demonstrate that an agency is a willful abuser. A court could grant injunctions and stop a project when the project agency has abused its discretion. Respectfully mi ed Hal R. eager 89 Baylor Lane Pleasant Hill, Ca. 94523 cc: Manager of Airports (w/encl.) August 16, 1994 Mr. M. Walford Director; Public Works of Contra Costa County 251 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA Re: Diamond Blvd. Extension in Concord/Pacheco in Contra. Costa County. Dear Mr. Walford: The purpose of this letter is to inform you of several important matters regarding the Diamond Blvd. Extension. In order to comply with state law and satisfy your fiduciary duties to this county, you and your department must address each of the following matters in good.faith. I.' Your CEOA and EIR documents for the project are now invalid. The decision by County Public Works to significantly change the traffic analysis methodology for the intersection of Concord Avenue and Contra Costa Blvd. represents substantial and significant new information which requires redoing and recirculating the EIR which you are relying upon for the project. See Pub Res Code 21000-21177. This change in analysis methodology degrades the.level of service result at that intersection by 1y? to 2 grades. This significant new information concerning the level of service at the intersection, based on the altered methodology, was submitted to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in order to seek funding for this project. That submission to the MTC is a public record. It must be determined whether this change is valid, and, if valid, how the additional traffic generated by development of Parcel B will affect the intersection. In addition, your statements in a public meeting in April of 1993 further necessitate the need for recirculating a revised EIR. You specifically stated that you weren't [fooling anyoneO into believing that local traffic of this intersection would not increase once you built the Diamond Blvd. Extension. This information is also substantial and significant. I have relayed these facts to three separate environmental lawyers, who all concur that a revised EIR must be recirculated. 2. Your own admissions, as detailed above, indicate that you have failed to comply with the requirements of CEQA. Your admissions indicate that your traffic analysis Mr. Walford Page -2- Director, Public Works of Contra Costa County August 16, 1994 in the EIR is flawed. There is also a very real possibility that the traffic analysis at other intersections considered by the original EIR was done incorrectly. 3. You are now on notice that I want to be notified in writingof all pertinent dates regarding the recirculation of the revised EIR. I have alternatives to the Diamond Blvd. Extension which are more cost effective and substantially less damaging to the environment in view of your new methodology. I would like these alternatives considered by the revised EIR as project alternatives for the Diamond Blvd. Extension. In addition, you are on notice that I am formally submitting and hereby submit a Public Records Act request to inspect all county files containing or related to the present CEQA and EIR documents regarding this project. 4. This is .to formally notify you that the Diamond Blvd. Extension Project will necessitate the destruction of two to three acres of wetlands. This destruction will require..proper,permitting.from the,Army Corps .of Engineers.(EIA or EIS), and will likely ~require constructing four:to six acres:of replacement-wetlands adjacent to the project. I have significant information to submit to that permitting process and I want to be informed_of all pertinent dates, in writing, regarding the permitting process and that I be allowed to submit the following significant information: 1. 10 hours of video tape showing high wildlife utilization of the adjacent wetlands; 2. Still photographs of a snowy egret and a green-backed heron feeding in the wetlands in front of parcel B, and numerous photographs of fish in the wetlands; 3. The Declaration of Cheryl A. Moreiss listing the twelve species of birds identified near parcel B, attesting to the observation of a black- crowned night heron, two green-backed herons, a snowy egret, a great blue heron, and at.least.three loggerhead shrikes, each of which was either feeding in the wetlands or observed within -500 feet of the wetlands. 5. I want to be notified, in writing, of the start of the NEPA documentation process and of all pertinent dates thereof. The above information regarding the wetlands must be submitted in this process. Additionally, as your project has no mitigation measures for local residents in the adjacent mobile home communities, you are obligated to inform these residents, the Pacheco Municipal Advisory Committee, and the Pacheco Town Counsel of these dates as well. Since mobile homes can no longer effectively be relocated in California, it is essential that the NEPA process consider and reflect the adverse effects that this project will have on the mobile home communities. Mr. Walford Page -3- Director, Public Works of Contra Costa County August 16, 1994 I look, forward to you cooperation on these matters and the discharging of your duties in.good faith. —Z Hal R. Yeager 89 Baylor Lane Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 510-798-9784 (H) 415-391-6665 (W) cc: County Board of Supervisors ;Army.Corps-of-Engineers -Mr. .David Murray, MTC (2 copies, one for transmittal to the funding agency) Mr. Craig Goldblatt, MTC (2 copies, one for transmittal to the agency responsible for NEPA and CEQA compliance) Mr. Al McNabney, Audubon Society .Sierra Club DATE: REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM n (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) •{ Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. NAME: ov e-,T; PHONE: 0 -370 -, d ADDREss: E/ rO Lr-) CITY: Pa I am speaking formyself OR organization:. � u>� CSU 110C(L (NAME OF ORGANIZNTION) Check one: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # My comments will be: gener for against �. I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.