HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12052000 - SD5 57
TO. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Mark DeSaulnier ContraCosta
DATE: December 5,2000 County
SUBJECT: Airport Land Use Plan Real Estate Disclosures
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMEND that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County oppose
the proposal set forth the Airport Land Use Plan requiring real estate
disclosures for all properties impacted by Buchanan Airport.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:—XX—YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD
COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED
OTHER
See Addendum for Board action, .
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPER 0RON ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED
*District `1 Seat Vacant PHIL BATCH9LOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY
ADMINIISTRATOR
BY--____(] 0 °
,DEPUTY
Contact: Betty Fisher, Office of Supervisor DeSauinier
cc: CAO
County Counsel
Director of Public Works
Director of Community Development
Director of Airports
Airport Land Use Commission
BACKGROUND
The Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) proposes
that all properties within 2.65 miles of any part of any runway at Buchanan
Field be subject to a real estate disclosure statement when the properties are
sold, leased, or rented. It is estimated that the proposal would apply to over
17,000 homes on approximately 26 square miles of central Contra Costa
County, including substantial portions of the cities of Concord, Martinez, and
Pleasant Hill, and the entire towns of Clyde and Pacheco. By statute, the
2.65 mile distance defines the complete area of the Commission's authority.
Disclosure is currently done by the real estate industry in accordance with
existing State law on real estate disclosure. Any specialized language for
airport disclosure should be established by uniform State legislation and
applied throughout the state (as has been done for the disclosure of
earthquake faults, and flood zones).
The language contained in the suggested proposal is vague, open to diverse
interpretation and possibly subject to extensive future litigation.
The cities of Concord, Martinez and Pleasant Hill have taken actions officially
opposing such legislation.
Notice and advertising of ALUP meetings and workshops has included poorly
defined maps and has failed to notice all those impacted by the disclosure
regulation of the specifics this impending regulation which affect their
property.
2
ADDENDUM TO ITEM SD.5
DECEMBER 5, 2000
On this date, the Board of Supervisors considered the recommendation by Supervisor
DeSaulnier that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County oppose the proposal set
forth in the Airport Land Use Plan requiring real estate disclosures for all properties
impacted by Buchanan Airport.
Supervisor DeSaulnier presented the item and requested that an additional
recommendation be added that the Board of Supervisors allow the Chair to send a letter
to the Chair of the Airport Land Use Commission expressing the Board's opinion on this
matter.
The following persons presented public testimony on the matter:
Wayne Goodman, 480 Monte Ande, Pleasant Hill, commented on maintaining the status
quo and in opposition to the disclosure proposal;
Dave Bonini, 825 Golf Club Circle,Pleasant Hill, commented against airport disclosure;
Dr. Brian T. George, 750 Golf Club Circle, Pleasant Hill, Communities for a Better
Diablo Valley, commented in opposition to airport disclosure;
Hal Yeager, 89 Baylor Lane, Pleasant Hill, People Over Planes, commented in support of
Supervisor DeSaulnier's proposal opposing disclosure.
All persons desiring to speak having done so, Supervisor DeSaulnier moved to
recommend that the Board of Supervisors oppose the proposal set for in the Airport Land
Use Plan requiring real estate disclosure for all the properties impacted by Buchanan
Airport and he also moved that the Chair send a letter in the strongest possible language
asking for the current situation in terms of disclosure stay status quo.
Supervisor Uilkema seconded the motion.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the proposal in the Airport Land Use Plan
requiring real estate disclosures for properties impacted by Buchanan Airport is
OPPOSED by the Board of Supervisors; and the Chair of the Board is AUTHORIZED to
send a letter to the Chair of the Airport Land Use Commission expressing that the current
disclosure process remain status quo.
CLYDE CIVIC IMPROVEMENT ASSN. , INC.
109 Wellington Avenue
Clyde, California 94520
November 1, 2000
,V
Alice Davis
President
Board of Supervisors
County Administration Buildling
651 Pine Street
Martinez, California 94553
Attentions Airport' Land Use Commission
Gentlemen:
Clyde Civic Improvement Assn. , Inc. is a volunteer group of
residents elected by the residents of Clyde to represent them in
matters relating to their welfare.
In this regard, on behalf of all residents of Clyde, this will
declare to you that all residents of Clyde have indicated their
strong resistance to your proposed plan to alter the present
flight plan to 1.1 miles to the East of the present flight. This
would bring the flights directly over Clyde. We have been
tolerant of the existing flights for many years; however, this
change would be totally unacceptable to the residents of Clyde.
We question why this is being done and strongly suggest that they
be moved to the West of Clyde which would bring them over the
vacant land between Clyde and the Ultramar Refinery.
We also resent the imposition of a new Real Estate Disclosure
Requirement on our homes. This would lower our property values
by around 5%, or possibly more, during down real--estate markets.
It would also interfere with our ability to recover damages from
the Airport due to increased noise.
Please add our concerns to the many that we know have already
been registered.
Sincerely,
CLYDE CIV C IMPROVEMENT ASSN. , INC.
26�
Alice Davis
President
cc: Supervisor Mark De Saulnier - District #4
cc: "People Over Planes, Inc. " - Pleasant Dill
t** reCydodpaj
6.wAb
00 OCT
city of Pleasant Hill ,4 ,p
October 2, 2000
William Manning, Chairman
Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission
651 Pine Street, North Wing, Fourth Floor
Martinez, CA 94563
Dear Chairman Manning and Members of the Airport Land Use Commission:
On September IS, 2000,the"City Council reviewed the Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
and the impacts which the proposed changes might have on the City of Pleasant Dill.
The City Council does not support any buyer awareness measures. It i tl}p conclusion of the City
Council that information disclosed during real estate traniactio A`is the responsibility of the seller,
and the determination of what to disclose should be ultimately the decision of the seller. The City
believes that the.additional disclosure policies would be duplicative and may be misleading.
The Council also opposes the relocation of safety zone 2 because there is no compelling evidence
that a 2,500 foot long safety zdhd Ye necessary;or that the safety zone should be relocated because
the landing threshold is no longer displaced 300 feet. The current safety zone 2 appears more than
reasonable.
The proposed regulations for the addition of safety zone 4 are less stringent than those of the City.
Therefore, the Council opposes the creation of safety zone 4 because the regulations are
unnecessary and duplicative.
The maximum interior noise level standard for single family residential development in Pleasant
Hill is 45 dB CNEL which is consistent with the state noise insulation standards. Therefore, the
Council opposes the proposed ALUC policy of a 40 dB CNEL maximum interior noise level for
single family residential development.
If you have any questions about our position, please contact Amy Barry at (925) 671-5213.
Sincerely,
Chuck Escover
Mayor
c: Ken Brody, Shutt Moen.Associates, 707 Aviation Blvd., Santa-Rosa, CA 95403 r
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
�pgory Lane - Pleasant Hill - California 94523-3323 - (925)671-5270 - FAX (925)256-8190
CITY OF CONCORD CITY COUNCIL
1954 Parkside Drive,MS/01 Helen M.Allen,Mayor
Concord,California 94519-2578 r.,;., Laura M.HofTmeister,Vice Mayor
FAx: (925) 798-0656 i " ' t+, Bill McManigal
t Mark A.Peterson
a' Michael A.Pastrick
ea
ME OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 2: 53 t ynnet Keihl,City Clerk
Telephone: (925) 671-3158 Thomas Wending,City Treasurer
nt' Edward it.James,City Manager
January 31, 2000
William Manning,Chair and Members of the
Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission
c/o Contra Costa County Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, North Wing, Fourth Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Chair Manning and Members of the Airport Land Use Commission:
On June 11, 1999 the Chief of Planning for the City of Concord sent you a letter outlining
the City's concerns regarding the Major Issues paper prepared for the Airport Land Use
Commission, dated March 1999. Subsequently, the Commission released the Buchanan
Field Issues paper dated November 1999, discussing comments by public and local
government agencies.
We believe that some of the issues brought forward in our earlier letter have not been
adequately addressed in the most recent Buchanan Field Issues paper (November 1999).
Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to restate and expand on our original
comments.
L More restrictive standards. The City of Concord believes that the relationship
between the proposed new regulations and public safety has not been established.
Regulation of land use in the proposed new safety zones are a significant concern
of the City of Concord due to the area's generally industrial and/or commercial
land use designation, their proximity to freeways, and the potential opportunities
for continued economic development. The City of Concord believes that a more
detailed study is required to determine whether such increased restrictions on new
buildings would substantively reduce risks.
Pages 9-10 of the Buchanan Field"Issues paper provide some explanation of the
reasoning for the location of proposed safety zones 3 and 4. The City believes
that extensions of safety zones out 2,500 and 2,900 feet (for southeast and
northeast safety zones, respectively) must consider the specific mix of aircraft
operations anticipated at Buchanan Field and the actual underlying land use. Use
of dimensions recommended by the Caltrans Handbook without consideration of
the specific local conditions is not acceptable.
1
e-mail: cityinfoOci.concordxa ms • website..- ww%v.ci.concord.cx.us
A second key concern is the proposed new restrictions on building height. Under
the current proposal, some properties within City of Concord and the proposed
safety zone 4 would be reduced from an allowable 140400t height limit to three
stories (approximately 30 feet). We understand that these restrictions are not
proposed for airspace protection, but instead as a risk'reduction measure to ease in
the evacuation of buildings should an aircraft collide with a building. There are a
number of buildings over three stories within the southwest safety zones. The
City of Concord believes that a more reasonable approach to address potential
evacuation-related safety concerns would be to institute additional protective
design measures, as outlined on page 18 of the March issue paper. Such
additional design features could be adopted by local agencies based upon the type
of use, location, and overall building design, rather than by placing a somewhat
arbitrary height limit on development.
The City is also concerned about the proposed new restrictions on occupancy.
Because the proposed limits could result in substantial detriment to economic
development in an important area of Concord, the City asks that more specific
information documenting the relationship between the identified risk and the
proposed occupancy restrictions be provided.
2. Similar standards for Buchanan and Byron Airports. The November issue
paper appears to have taken into account the large differences between the
surrounding environs of the Buchanan and Byron Airports. The preparation of
different plans with different standards for each airport seems appropriate.
3. ALUC to review individual development. The Buchanan Field Issues paper
notes that those actions requiring discretionary local approval would be subject to
ALUC compatibility criteria but not necessarily reviewed by the ALUC. A
reference further down on page 12 states that the list of "major actions" which
would be submitted to the ALUC for review should be determined by agreement
between the ALUC and each local agency. However, the preliminary list of
"major actions" suggested for review appears excespive. We acknowledge that
particular applications may benefit from an additignal review by the ALUC.
However, the suggested list of"major actions" for ALUC review, would represent
a large increase in the number of projects reviewed by the Commission. The
current proposal would have the Commission review projects as small as
residential developments with five or more units throughout a substantial portion
of Concord. The City of Concord continues to strongly support keeping the
existing process whereby the City takes action on individual development
applications without ALUC review as long as the City requirements are
compatible with the ALUC plan.
2
4. Flight operations have decreased. We are concerned about the basis for
development of the three future Airport Operations scenarios examined in the
March Major Issues paper.
Business jets (all categories) are projected under all`scenarios to increase 229
percent. Turbo props are projected under all scenarios to increase 96 percent.
Business jet operation have increased from 2,900 to 4,800 operations during the
period 1987-1997, a 66 percent increase over a ten-year period. However,
operations scenarios examining an increase of 229 percent in the business jet
category, almost four times the recent historical growth, seems excessive. In
addition, Scenario C assumes an addition of 20,000 annual operations by
scheduled airline aircraft, a large number,given that none currently exist.
Because of the substantial impact that the proposed regulations could have on
economic development opportunities in Concord, the City requests that the basis
for the scenarios and how they were translated into the proposed regulations can
be more thoroughly discussed in the issues paper.
S. Major community input. In our June letter we emphasized the need for major
community input at an early stage in the evolution of the plan. However, much of
the public input to date has been in response to existing operations, rather than in
the formulation of modifications to the land use plan. Although public notification
has been given for the previous meetings through newspaper advertisements, the
Commission should consider notifying individual landowners when considering
policies which would substantially reduce their property rights.
As stated on page 6 of the earlier March Major Issues paper, "individual
communities must decide what is an acceptable level of risk". In order for the
public to evaluate acceptable levels of risk,, more information is needed on the
relative risk of accidents for various types of aircraft operating or anticipated to be
operating at Buchanan Field.
6. Disclosures. Our understanding of this proposal is. that real estatedisclosure
statements would be required throughout the airport influence area. The
disclosure statement would include language identifying the area as subject to
routine overflight of aircraft at or below traffic pattern altitudes. The City
continues to strongly oppose the implementation of such a disclosure requirement,
because of its potential adverse impact on property values. The City sees such a
requirement as unnecessary and supports the continuance of current practices.
7. Noise contours. We understand the reasons for average noise standards rather
than single event noise standards.
3
With respect to the Possible Alternatives set forth in the Buchanan Field Issues paper, we
offer the following:
Relative to the imposition of height limits in the various safety zones, the City recommends
Alternative A (no new safety zones) at this time. We do' not believe the consultant has
provided ample justification to revise the existing safety zones. As such we will likely
engage our own consultant to provide the expertise necessary to review and comment on the
proposals, and to offer counter proposals where appropriate. With respect to Buyer
Awareness Measures, the City supports current practices over new disclosure requirements.
The above comments address issues of great importance to the City of Concord. The
proposed ALUC Plan alternatives could have significant negative impacts on economic
development within Concord and its Sphere of Influence. The City of Concord is willing to
continue working toward an updated plan which better balances existing and future safety
risks with private property rights and the economic development goals of the City. If you
have questions about our concerns, please let me know.
Very truly yours,
Edward R.J es
City Manager
cc: Members of the City Council
Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier
Joe Tanner, City Manager,City of Pleasant Hill
Lydia Du Borg, Assistant City Manager
Brian Dolan, Principal Planner
4
wary VL6►�"J41ll,LY1 bl�J• {7+��»'��'.
VJIGAitDXW41 1' XBCLi}8uRz OT LOcATX OK WITHIN THE BUC:WMAN AIRPORT
XXrLUX iCX AREA TOR REAL ESTATE SALES AND RENTAL AGRZRXRN 'B
. 118] rJW5, the consultant for the Buchanan Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) has proposed that cities require realtors to
disclose location within the Buchanan Airport Area of Influence
to potential buyers and renters; and
W392RZASs, the request for cities to require disclosure of location
within the Airport Area of Influence was discussed at the
February 16, 2000, City Council meeting and testimony was taken
from the public; and
118EAB, the City of Martinez does notice the ALUC of all new
subdivisions within the area of influence and the ALCU requires
that location within the Area of influence is noted on the
property dead; and
118nEAS, the airport runways do not run towards Martinez and the
City of Martinez does not know of complaints filed regarding
airplane noise in the City; and
WNZRW1s, the Area of influence appears to be a circle drawn
around the airport and do*sc not reflect increased noise levels in
these areas caused by the airport activities; and
WNBUZARp it appears that most r+ealtors do disclose properties
affected by airport noise and requiring realtoras to disclose
location within the Buchanan Airport Area of influence may direct
more complaints to the City when the City has no control, over the
airport.
XM,V TX3RXr X# BE IT RLBCILVND that the City Council of the City
of Martinez does not support the proposal by the consultant to
the ACLU that individual cities require realtors within their
district to disclose the locution of properties within the
Buchanan Airport Area of Influence when they are for sale or for
rent.
I xapxsy cXR'T'2FY that the foregoing is a .trues and correct copy of
a resolution duly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Martinez at a Regular Meeting of said Council held on the 3rd day
of March, 2000 by the following vote:
AYES: Council.memb+ers Lewis, Schroder, Woodburn, Vice Mayor Ross
and mayor Menesini
NOES: None
ABSENT: none
I HA1ZD HERNANDEZ., CITY
CITY OF MARTINEZ
r
�. ale,
to
� ..
$
1p
SAN
co
. +
IS
C�
C�
�} o `
cs '+
C ..'t M�
n
CIA, Q
g , �,� ;,z o it• two+•
< a` �
C.
c
cy
gam' ' htn
r > +
I t t I , %4 f-..--
.a cro C7a 19
. � .» vo � is � ... r• ;3 ti"
—""'"-..-
The Board of Supervisors �1J�1�1 C.l Phil Batchelor
Clerk of the Board
Carta an
County County Administration Building Administrator
651 Pirie Street; Room 106 (925)335.1900
Martinez, California 94553-1283 Cau�1�
John Gioia, 1st District
Gayle Uilkerna,2nd District
Donna Gerber,3rd District "Ate
Mark DeSsulnier,4th District ti
Joe Canclamilla,5th District
December 8, 2000
Airport Land Use Commission
C/o Bob Drake, Staff
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street,4 h Floor-North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
On behalf the of Board of Supervisors,I wish to advise you that at its regular meeting
on December 5,2000,the Board reviewed and considered your.proposal that all
properties within 2.65 miles of any part of any runway at Buchanan Field Airport be
subject to a real estate disclosure statement when the properties are sold,leased or rented,
and is unable to support it.
Attached for your information is a certified copy of the Board's action.
Z
,
A GrERB
Chair of the Boar of Supervisors
cc. Board of Supervisors Members
Community Development Director
Public Works Director