Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08142001 - D.4 D � 4 TO: • BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: MAURICE M. SI-HU, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR al Costa DATE: AUGUST 14, 2001 Ctj County SUBJECT: AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (AIP) GRANT APPLICATION TO UPDATE THE BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN, BUSINESS PLAN AND FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATION PART 150 NOISE STUDY SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION 1. Recommended Action: REQUEST the Public Works Director to work with District IV to conduct adequate community meetings regarding the proposed grant request submittal for Federal and State funding to complete the Airport Master Plan, Business Plan and FAR Part 150 Noise Study at Buchanan Field Airport, and to report back to the Board of Supervisors on September 25, 2001 with recommendations. H. Financial Impact: The total cost of the Airport Master Plan and Business Plan is $540,000. Ninety percent (90%) or $486,000 from the Federal AviationAdministration, four and one-half percent (4.5%) from the State of California in the:amount of$24,300, and five and one-half percent (5.5%) local share of$29,700 will be funded from the Airport Enterprise Fund. Continued on Attachment: YES SIGNATURE: 4v _ COMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE "PPROVETHER SIGNATURES ACTION OF BO ON August 14, 2001APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED_OTHER XX On this da , .the Board. of Supervisors continued this matter to.-',September 25, 2001. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action VOTE OF SUPERVISORS taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on XX UNANIMOUS(ABSENT --- ) the date shown. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: kF:df ATTESTED: Auau s t 14� 2001 C:\My Doc menta\Word Files\B0\200l\bo8-l4 BuchananMasterPlanIdoc JOHN SWEETEN, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Orifi.DM Public Works(Airport) conffi4: (David Mendez 646-5722) Administrator Cc: County Administrator Public Works Director Public Warks Accounting Auditor/Controller Aviation Advisory Committee By l ,Deputy Federal Aviation Adnumshabon CALTRANS SUBJECT: AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (AIP) GRANT APPLICATION TO UPDATE THE BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN, BUSINESS PLAN AND FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATION PART 150 NOISE STUDY DATE: August 14,2001 PAGE: 3 H. Financial Impact(continued...) The total cost of the FAR Part 150 Noise Study is $365,000. Ninety percent (90%) or $328,500 from the Federal Aviation Administration, four and one-half percent (4.5%) from the State of California in the amount of$16,400, and five and one-half percent (5.5%) local share of $20,100 will be funded from the Airport Enterprise Fund. M. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: The last Master Plan for the Buchanan Field Airport was completed in 1990. The Airport and the surrounding communities have experienced significant changes. Over the last ten years, several issues surfaced between the Airport and the surrounding communities and within the Airport itself. The master planning process, which is similar to a specific plan, will be a good vehicle for the Board to involve the Public in discussing and resolving these issues. The County has committed to continue to operate the Airport as a commercial air carrier airport. Within this context, the master planning process will allow the decision makers and the public to reassess the goals and objectives for the airport development and to modify the plan and the priorities as necessary. Several issues are highlighted below to demonstrate the need for the master plan study. These issues are by no means all inclusive. Diamond Boulevard Extension: Diamond Boulevard Extension is part of the current master plan. This road was included in the master plan to ease the congestion on Contra Costa Boulevard and Concord Avenue. It is also intended to serve the planned airport terminal on Sally Ride Drive just off the Diamond Boulevard/Marsh Drive corridor. If the Board desires not to pursue the extension of Diamond Boulevard, the master plan may have to re-evaluate the locations of many planned facilities including the terminal facilities. Navigational Hardware: Through the efforts of the control tower, the aviation communities and the airport staff, many planes are being routed to approach the airport from the northeast. The aviation industry is changing. More jet planes are expected to station at Buchanan Field. The master plan will look at the impacts of approaching aircrafts and the navigational needs for the faster planes. Compatibility with the Fire District Plan: The Fire District has expressed a desire to locate a fire station in the vicinity of Highway 4 and Solano Way in Concord. • SUBJECT: AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (AIP) GRANT APPLICATION TO UPDATE THE BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN, BUSINESS PLAN AND FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATION PART 150 NOISE STUDY DATE: August 14,2001 PAGE: 4 Should the Airport participate in a joint facility with the Fired District at that vicinity? Non-aviation use of airport land: Currently, several large parcels of land are designated for commercial use. The master plan will provide a forum to discuss the best use of these parcels of land both from the economic development and the community compatibility perspectives. The last FAR Part 150 Noise Study was completed in 1989. This new Study will update the 1989 FAR Part 150 Noise Study. This updated study will provide the County with current data regarding any noise impacts to the communities surrounding the Airport. The FAR Part 150 study is an integral part of the Airport Master Plan and should be updated. These two documents were completed in a corresponding fashion in 1989. This study would also provide for extensive public input regarding Airport related noise issues. The FAR Part 150 Study will: • Provide an updated Noise Exposure Map and its supporting documentation. • Provide a description and analysis of alternative measures considered. • Categorize the parties responsible for implementation. • Develop a noise compatibility program. • Provide a schedule of implementation IV. Consequences of Negative Action: There will be inadequate community meetings regarding the proposed submittal of Federal and State funding for completion of the Airport Master Plan, Business Plan and FAR Part 150 Noise Study. Since requests for Federal funding must be submitted on or before September 31, 2001, there will be a one-year delay to apply for the Federal Aviation Administration grant funds. DA THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on August 14, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Gioia, Gerber, DeSaulnier, Glover and Uilkema NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None RE: AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (AIP) GRANT APPLICATION TO UPDATE THE BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN, BUSINESS PLAN AND FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATION PART 150 NOISE STUDY On this day, Supervisor DeSaulnier requested this item be continued to September 25, 2001. The Chair notified members of the public that they may speak on the item now or upon its return date. The following person presented testimony: Dr. Brian T. George 750 Golf Club Way Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 The Board of Supervisors moved to continue this item to September 25, 2001. I 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: August 14 .2001 John Sweeten,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By: Deputy Clerk County of Contra Costa OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR MEMORANDUM DATE: August 10, 2001 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Gina Martin, Chief Clerk of the Board Oki SUBJECT: AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM VV GRANT APPLICATION DA ON 8/14/01 AGENDA As promised, here is the report from Maurice M. Shiu pertaining to Item DA on the 8/14/01 agenda. The report was unavailable at the time the packets were assembled. Rather than hold up the entire packet, we decided to fax this report under separate cover. Thank you. REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. •��L� 1 ��� — � ��� Name: I �f d Phone: Address: �s� G� G ✓ W City: C I am speaking for myself or organization: 6hW4,.,V1b0S t organizati CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: / My comments will be: general for against i I wish to speak on the subject of �irx� I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for Board to consider: SPEAKERS 1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda item is to be considered. 2 . You will be called on to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone at the podium. 3. Begin by stating your name and address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the representative of an organization. 4 . Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before speaking. 5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard) . Remarks by Dr. Brian T. George President of Communities for a Better Diablo Valley before The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, Tuesday, 14 August 2001. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board: We all know the reasons why the Public Works Director's request should be denied., but--nevertheless--they still need to be stated publicly. First, his phrase "Adequate community meetings" to be held between now and Sept. 25 on an. FAA grant request of this nature is transparently cynical. I mean that the ramifications of this grant request are seriously far-reaching and complicated in the extreme. The Public Works Director and Airport Manager both understand this fact. They had plenty of time over this past year to route a request of this nature through the Airport Sub- committee, but they chose not to do so. Instead, they waited until the dog days of August, the height of the vacation season and just before the board is going on its own vacation, to slip this proposal in under the public radar. Moreover, they insult the public by allocating all of five or six weeks--much of this time being while members of the Board are on vacation-- for some kind of speciously labeled "adequate community meetings" before they report back with their so-called recommendations. The second reason to reject this request is its basic premise: that the Airport Master Plan, Business Plan and Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150 Noise Study need to be redone. This premise might or might not be valid. But one thing is for certain: it needs to be studied. And there is a time and a place for initial consideration of proposals like this one --such forums are the fact gathering meetings of the Board's Airport Sub-Committee which. can then report back to the full. Board. This proposal is nothing more than a bureacratic end run around a public fact gathering process. The objective is to construct an unbreakable chain of commitments placing the County further in thrall to the F.A.A. and God only knows what kind of budget busting debts incurred by pie in the sky dreams of enticing commercial air carriers into this 1950s era airport. Beyond this last point, and thirdly, it needs to be emphasized that with every grant from the F.A.A. comes attached strings so that the county, through this Board, increasingly loses control of its land. When you accept dollars from the FAA, you are making a. Faustian bargain in. which we, the county tax payers, lose control over users and uses of the airport. To a great extent this has already taken place. The process will be pushed further along if you acquiesce to being stampeded into applying for another FAA grant. At the least, the board needs to be fully appraised of what it is getting into. The underlying thrust of this proposal is to create a new Buchanan Field Master Plan etc. which will attempt to lure expanded commercial air carrier service.Whether or not this can ever be done, given the limitations of Buchanan Field., is highly debatable. What is not debatable are the dangers of making rash decisions such as applying for huge FAA grants aimed at tailoring a master plan that only possibly might benefit the interests of one part of the community, but which definitely will come at the expense of the community as a whole. This all bears deeper analysis than can be done over the next five to six weeks. Therefore, deny this proposal outright and instruct the Public Works Director to work through the Airport Subcommittee to explore these issues with plenty of time before deadlines. He should not attempt to set policy by deadline extortion. Finally, at another time I stated before this Board that critical decisions regarding the airport were being shaped below the surface of public awareness by narrow private interests, some county administrators, and. airport bureaucracy who do not have to account to the public for their actions..This issue before you today is a prime example of how the public interest can be so easily set aside by this invisible process.