Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06021987 - 2.6 T'0 BOARD OF SUVEkV �i�r%z'P FROk: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: June 2, 1987 SUBJECT: Reynolds and Brown Development at Buchanan Field Airport. Response to Board Order dated February 24, 1987 Specific quests or Recomomdat ons A Background i Justification I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the County Lease Manager: (1 ) Advise Reynolds and Brown that the Development Agreement allows them to proceed with their original project, so long as all aspects of the project are beneath federally prescribed airspace surfaces. (2) Advise Reynolds and Brown that the Board of Supervisors is very concerned over the image presented by a ten story building on the airport. (3) Advise Reynolds and Brown that the Board of Supervisors strongly encourages Reynolds and Brown to initiate discussions with the County Lease Manager regarding the feasibility of reducing the height of the ten story building while keeping the general architecture and appearance of the project substantially the same. (4) Secure payment of all lease option payments which have not been made by Reynolds and Brown. II. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Loss of $20,000 per month until issue is resolved. Ill. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUNO: On February 24, 1987, Supervisor Sunne McPeak' introduced a letter from Reynolds and Brown to Alan Pfeiffer, County Lease Manager, dated January 30, 1987, wherein Mr. Jon Reynolds advised that a consultant to Reynolds and Brown, Mr. Robert Rebuschatis, had determined that the development proposed by Reynolds and Brown, and approved by the Board of Supervisors, for the northeast corner of Concord Avenue and John Glenn Drive, penetrates the FAR-77 (Federal Air Regulations - Part 77) imaginary surface. Mr. Reynolds advised that Mr. Rebuschatis does not consider the penetration serious "except for the safety aspect." Continued on attachment: X Yes Signature.- Recommendation ignature:Recommendation of County Administrator Reco Adation of oa rd Approve Other: Commi tee Ifignature(sl: Action of the Board on: Approved as Recommended Other„z Supervisor McPeak advised that she could not support the actions recommended by the Public Works Director,: and that in her opinion the Board needs to direct Public works to meet with Reynolds and Brown to - determine whether the development agreement can be renegotiated to reduce the height of the proposed building so it is no greater than the buildings in the immediate area. . IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED THAT the Public Works Director CONVENE meetings with Reynolds and Brown to determine whether by renegotiation the development agreement can be modified to reduce the height of the building to be constructed by Reynolds and Brown under its option to ground lease, and also to look at what may be interim uses allowed under the General Plan or Development Agreement to generate revenue in the short term for the County. Vote of Supervisors I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN UnaAnyemous (Absent ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ' MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF Absent: Abstain: SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN. CC: Public Horks Attested y.P7 County Counsel Phil Batche erk of Be County Administrator Board of Sup rvisors and County Administrator By x.11... i Obviously, any penetration of established "safety" zones is serious indeed and Mr. Reynolds' and Supervisor McPeak's concern over this finding was well founded. The Board of Supervisors referred Jon Reynolds' letter to the Director of Public Works, Airport Land Use Commission (.ALUC), staff to the ALUC and County Counsel for review as to the feasibility of reducing the height of the proposed development or using some alternative land use such that the safety zones around Buchanan Field would not be compromised. The Public Works Department was very concerned over Mr. Rebuschatis' findings because prior to seeking proposals for development of the parcel in question, the Department had very carefully determined the maximum elevation to which a structure could be built over the entire site. The elevations of this "maximum height envelope" were presented in the request for proposal documents and it was specified that no proposed structures or appendages thereto would be allowed to penetrate these surfaces. It should be emphasized that the request for proposals did not specify a maximum number of stories that could be built on the parcel , only the maximum height, The consultant who advised the County as to the type of development which should be sought for the parcel , Gruen + Gruen, referred to the tallest structure as eight stories. The proposal from Reynolds and Brown indicated the tallest building at ten stories. The height of the proposed building did not change. Reynolds and Brown merely proposed to reduce the distance between floors so as to obtain two more stories, and a 25 percent increase in floor space, in the same sized . building. The point being made is that the height of the building, not the number of floors, is the critical issue. The "clear zone" which determines these heights or elevations for Buchanan Field, is determined under two types of analysis prescribed by federal procedures. These are referred to as FAR-77 and TERPS. The first, Federal Air Regulation Part 77, establishes a series of sloped and horizontal imaginary surfaces around the airport based on the ultimate length, width and location of the runways and their intended ultimate use (visual approach, non-precision instrument approach or precision instrument approach). These ultimate parameters are shown on the Airport Layout Plan for Buchanan Field, a document approved by the Board of Supervisors and utilized by the FAA in reviewing all develop- ment on and around Buchanan Field to determine its compliance with FAR- 77 imaginary surfaces. The Reynolds and Brown site is adjacent to the approach to Runway 32R. The Public Works Department utilized the considerably more restrictive criteria of a precision instrument approach (50:1) overlay on Runway 32R in setting the height contours over the Reynolds and Brown parcel . The Airport Layout Plan shows the ultimate utilization of Runway 1L-19R as precision instrument, Runway 14L-32R as. non-precision instrument, and the two small runways 1R-19L and 14R-32L as visual. These designations require approach slopes of 50:1, 34:1 and 20:1, respectively. It is important to note that the . FAR-71 imaginary surfaces are based on the ultimate utilization and instrumentation planned for Buchanan Field and are therefore much lower than the imaginary surfaces which would be applicable to the current level of instrumentation and development of Buchanan Field, This point is made because the February 24th Board Order indicates some confusion over the height of the Reynolds and Brown building being based on the current "decision point altitude" and therefore becoming an obstruction when "more advanced radar or instrumentation technology is installed" at Buchanan Field. Such is not the case. The height of the Reynolds and Brown project is based on the FAR-77 imaginary surfaces, which are determined using the adopted Airport Layout Pian, which is based on ultimate, not current, runway configuration and level of instrumen- tation, The TERPS, or Terminal Instrument Procedures analysis, examines the airspace required for instrument approach and departure of aircraft under (1) precision approach (2) non-precision approach (3) circling approach, and (4) departure, Also included is an analysis of missed approach procedures and the required airspace. A TERPS analysis of Buchanan Field shows that there are a number of "obstacles" ranging from existing terrain (Mt. Diablo!) to various buildings, light poles and trees. Both the Airport consultants TERPS analysis and Mr. Rebuschatis' TERPS analysis of the proposed Reynolds and Brown ..project indicate it to be clear of required airspace under both existing and ultimate configuration and instrumentation of Buchanan Field. After receiving Jon Reynolds January 30th letter and a copy of Mr. Rebuschatis' report, the Department directed our consultant, Hodges and Shutt, to reanalyze the proposed development for compliance with FAR-77 and determine the discrepancy between their previous analysis and Mr. Rebuschatis' report. It was determined that Mr. Rebuschatis did not analyze the ten story building "as shown on the Development Plan" as stated in Jon Reynolds letter, but instead moved it to the opposite _end of the property in order to examine a "worst case scenario. " When advised by the Department that the Development Agreement between the County and Reynolds and Brown would neither allow the relocation of the building 'nor its penetration of the FAR-77 imaginary surface, Mr. Rebuschatis reanalyzed the Reynolds and Brown proposal . The results, presented by Mr. Rebuschatis in an undated letter to Peter Reynolds, written during the first part of March, 1987, was that the proposed building, located as shown on the Development Plan, was "clear of the protective FAR-77 surfaces." The Hodges and Shutt review once again confirmed that the ten story building did not penetrate the FAR-77 surfaces. In response to the February 24, 1987 Board Order, Bob Drake, Community Development Department staff to the Airport Land Use Commission, also reviewed the data related to the proposed Reynolds and Brown develop- ment and the FAR-77 imaginary surfaces and found they were not in conflict. As a result, the Airport Land Use Commission, on April 8th, determined "that the subject site abuts but does not include any portion of a designated safety zone. Further, the Commission was advised by staff that no portion of the project's buildings would be allowed to penetrate the structural height limits that the Commission has established for this site." The complete text of the ALUC corres- pondence to the Board of Supervisors, dated April 21 , 1987, is appended to this Board Order. The County Grand Jury, in a report dated February 11, 1987, expressed concern over the siting of a ten story building so close to Buchanan Field runways. In response to the Grand Jury report, the Aviation Advisory Committee also undertook a review of the Reynolds and Brown development to determine its conformance with Buchanan Field airspace. Their findings, presented in a report to the Board of Supervisors dated April 6, 1987, were that "the TERPS analysis indicates that all of the proposed (Reynolds and Brown) structures clear and provide no conflict with any of the current or proposed approaches to Buchanan Field." Their examination of the FAR-77 criteria, however, showed that a penetration of the FAR-77 imaginary surfaces did exist, not with the ten story building where everyone's attention has focused, but with the shortest, five story building in the project. The penetration is four feet and can be eliminated through a minor relocation of the building. Since the Development Agreement requires no penetration of the FAR-77 surfaces, this relocation must be done, or the building must be shortened. The AAC advised that they did not know if the buildings would still be clear when equipment such as air conditioning towers and window washing cranes were included. The answer is that the develop- ment agreement requires that both the buildings and any attachments thereto be clear of FAR-77 surfaces. The complete text of the AAC correspondence to the Board of Supervisors dated April 6, 1987, is appended to this Board Order. The conclusion is that all parties now appear in agreement that with minor relocation or modification to the shortest building, the proposed Reynolds and Brown project will be clear of all FAR-77 prescribed safety zone surfaces and all TERPS analyzed maneuvers , both for existing and future facilities and instrumentation planned for Buchanan Field. The issue does not end with that conclusion, however. Both the ALUC and the AAC agree with the County Grand Jury that constructing a ten story building on the Airport is not a prudent or wise thing to do, even if it meets all federally determined safety parameters. Before making recommendations, the Department would also like the Board to be -aware of the following factors which have bearing on the actions which the Board can or may wish to take. There has been discussion by some parties that the airspace defined by . the federal government under their FAR-77 regulation and TERPS analysis do not provide. adequate safe clearance, especially in emergency situations. Two points are important in relation to this concern. First, under normal operating conditions, airplanes are nowhere near the limits or edges of these surfaces or safety zones. The limits are set at considerable distance from normal operating lines so as to provide a "safety zone" to accommodate the airplane that is not where it is supposed to be or is experiencing an emergency situation. The magnitude of these safety zones has been determined by the FAA using data and experience compiled over many years and, in -their judgment, provides a reasonable and appropriate degree of safety for both the airplanes and the community surrounding an airport. The accident record of the aircraft industry would indicate that the rules, regula- tions and inspections required by the FAA provide a greater margin of safety than those imposed on any other mode of transportation. The second point is a caution that the Board of Supervisors should carefully avoid making any decisions or imposing any limits regarding airspace. The FAA has already made determinations and adopted regula- tions describing appropriate airspace around an airport, and therefore the liability connected with the adequacy of those regulations lies with the FAA. Liability costs associated with aircraft accidents can be extremely high and it is important that the Board not get involved in making safety zone decisions which could result in the County's sharing of the liability in this area with the FAA. In 1984, the County solicited proposals for the development of the 13 acre parcel at the corner of John Glenn Drive and Concord Avenue. Three were received, all similar in the magnitude of the development but widely different in architectural treatment and financial return to the County. The Reynolds and Brown proposal was judged to be the best in all aspects. After lengthy negotiation, the County Lease Manager worked out the details of a Lease and Option to Lease with Reynolds and Brown and the documents were presented to and approved by the Board of Supervisors. The current status is that Reynolds and Brown have an Option to Lease and they have, until recently, been paying the County $20,000 a month to keep it in effect. This option gives Reynolds and Brown the right to sign a lease with the County, the wording of which is prescribed in the option document. This option can be extended until June 30, 1989. Another extremely important factor that the Board of Supervisors needs to consider is that the Board and Reynolds and Brown have each signed a Development Agreement covering the ultimate development of the 13 acre parcel as proposed by Reynolds and Brown and agreed to by the County in 1984. A development agreement protects both parties, but in so doing constrains either party from taking unilateral action which would substantially change the concept, scope or general appearance of the development. County Counsel advises that the 10 story building could be lowered, with the lost floor space possibly being made up through other minor project changes, without a breach of the Development Agreement; however the request to do so must come from Reynolds and Brown. The quality, appearance, scope and financial return of the proposed Reynolds and Brown project are all very advantageous to the County so it is very important that the County work with Reynolds and Brown to resolve the problems which have arisen without jeopardizing the project or giving Reynolds and Brown ground to claim the County has breached the Development Agreement or Option to Lease. By letter to the County Lease Manager dated March 16, 1987, Jon Reynolds claimed that the Board of Supervisors, by their Order in February 24, 1987, breached the Development Agreement when, based on the information in Reynolds's January 30, 1987 letter that the develop- ment penetrated the FAR-77 surface and therefore seriously jeopardized safety, the Board directed that staff investigate lowering the building -or finding an alternative land use. He also advised that due to the agreement breech by the Board, his firm was suspending further option payments to the County. Based on all of the foregoing information, it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors direct the County Lease Manager to contact Reynolds and Brown and advise them that the Development Agreement allows them to proceed with their original project, including the 10 story building, so long as all aspects of the project are clear of FAR- 77 and TERPS imaginary surfaces and that such appears to be the case if a minor change to the small building is made. He should further advise them that- the Board of Supervisors is very concerned, as the result of concerns expressed by the Grand Jury, ALUC, AAC and various citizens, over the image presented by a 10 story building on the airport and the inability of most people to understand the technical reasons that it can be considered safe despite its location. He should further advise Reynolds and Brown that the Board of Supervisors would strongly encourage Reynolds and Brown to initiate discussions with the County's Lease Manager regarding the feasibility of reducing the height of the ten-story building, adding equivalent square footage at another location, while keeping the general architecture and appearance of the project substantially the same. It is further recommended that the Board of Supervisors direct the County Lease Manager to secure payment of all Option to Lease payments which Reynolds and Brown has failed to make, since the recommendations in the Board Order of February 24, 1987, were based on information contained in Jon Reynolds' letter of January 30, 1987 , and subsequently found to be false. The breech of agreement was therefore the result of Jon Reynold's, or his consultant's, erroneous information to the Board. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AVIATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE 171 John Glenn Drive Concord, CA 94520-5606 (415) 685-0722 DATE: April 6, 1987 TO: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, FROM: Aviation Advisor Committee - Barry R. Basse, Chairman SUBJECT: Reynolds and Brown 'Airport Center Office Park' project on Buchanan Field Airport site . ----------------------------------------------------------------- Background In May of 1981 , Gruen Gruen & Associates completed a marketing and feasibility study for the County focusing on 'surplus' property at Buchanan Field Airport. The 13 acre site at the corner of John Glenn Drive and Concord Avenue Was one of the locations covered in the study. The report recommended low-rise and mid- rise use of the property and referred to aid-rise as equivalent to the adjacent Reynolds and Brown Airport Plaza development . In August of 1981 , the AAC reviewed the marketing and feasibility study and then recommended further traffic studies and limitation of development to the available acreage with no consideration given to appropriating any airport property currently being used for aviation purposes. The AAC also recommended that every effort be made to ensure that aviation related businesses be sought as tenants for the airport property considered in the study. In August of 1984, the AAC was given a presentation by Reynolds and Brown covering the proposed Airport Center Office Park to be located on the 13.3 acre airport site . The center piece of this development was a 10 story office tower. The AAC was advised that this presentation was being given to us as a courtesy as the development bid had already been awarded to Reynolds and Brown. The AAC was also advised by the manager of airports that the buildings in this project were well clear of all FAR Part 77 surfaces and that the TERPS analysis showed no conflict with any of the approaches. The AAC was then further advised that the leases had already been signed and there was nothing more to be done . It is apparent that a great deal of work by airport and county page 2 staff was put into the development of the Airport Center Office Park lease between August 1981 and August 1984. Unfortunately the AAC was not included as part of the information loop during this period. Somewhere between the Gruen Gruen & Associates study and the lease documents, the development for this airport site grew from a 7 story mid-rise to the 10 story project that is currently at issue . The present issue concerning FAR Part 77 clearances and airport operational safety were surfaced by the developer Reynolds and Brown after they received a report from one of their consultants raising the question. The matter was brought before the ALUC for their consideration. The structures involved are actually on airport property, therefore the responsibility for recommendations, control and action is directly with the County as the owner and operator of the airport. Since the AAC is a public agency of the county, two requests were made, following the ALUC meeting, that the Airport Center Office Park matter be placed on the February 1987 AAC agenda for review of the clearance and operational concerns expressed by Reynolds and Brown. The County Grand Jury had also expressed concern over the scope of this project in their report dated February 11, 1987. The AAC at its February 24, 1987 meeting discussed the clearance issues and the Grand Jury references and recommendations relating to the Reynolds and Brown project. The manager of airports advised the AAC that the consulting firm of Hodges & Shutt had been retained to further evaluate potential FAR Part 77 and TERPS Interference issues. The AAC sent a memo to the Board of Supervisors recommending that no action be taken on the Reynolds and Brown project until the consultant's findings were reviewed. At the March 24, 1987 AAC meeting consultant Dave Hodges presented his report regarding the clearances of the Airport Center Office Park project as it relates to FAR Part 77 surfaces and TERPS. With respect to the TERPS analysis, he concluded that none of the structures as currently configured would pose a conflict with present or proposed approaches to Buchanan Field. With respect to FAR Part 77 airspace, the 10 story structure just clears the base of the Part 77 horizontal surface, while the ■id- height structure in the complex is well clear of all FAR Part 77 surfaces. The lowest structure, in its current location, penetrates the FAR Part 77 transition surface for runway 32R by approximately 4 feet. The FAA will likely consider the structure to be an obstruction to air navigation if constructed in the location currently planned. Public comments received from the 30 local citizens and pilots present at the March 24, 1987 meeting did not favor such a tall structure on airport property. Public comments stressed that the . County should set a good example and provide leadership for the page 3 surrounding cities with regard to lower building heights around the airport. Several concerned pilots voiced strong opposition to a structure of such height in the airport operating environment even if it did pass the technical FAA clearance minimums. All but one of the AAC members present objected to the height of the 10 story structure. Findings 1) Hodges & Shutt report, after discussions with the Reynolds and Brown consultant and a careful review of all the pertinent maps and data, that the following appear to be the facts in this case : A) The tall ( 10 story) structure clears the FAR Part 77 horizontal surface by a foot or so. He could not be definite on whether or not the building height supplied by Reynolds and Brown included air conditioning towers and window washing cranes (i .e . the SENO experience) . B) The mid-height structure in the complex is well clear of all FAR Part 77 surfaces. C) The lowest of the structures surprisingly DID penetrate the FAR Part 77 transitional surface for runway 32R by approximately 4 feet . The building must either be moved slightly on the site or lowered to clear the transition surface . If this is not done the building will likely be classified as an obstruction to air navigation by the FAA and so noted on the aeronautical charts. D) The TERPS analysis indicates that all of the proposed structures clear and provide no conflict -with any of the current or proposed approaches to Buchanan Field. 2) According to our consultants report, if the lowest structure In the complex is either lowered or relocated slightly in order to clear the FAR Part 77 transition surface for runway 32R, there is no conflict and no reason, from a regulatory standpoint, that the project could not go forward as designed. 3) Public comment at the AAC meeting was not in favor of a 10 story structure on the airport. Citizen comments reflected concern for public policy making that, on the one hand is trying to coordinate lower building heights adjacent to the airport with the cities of Concord, Pleasant Hill and Martinez but at the same time is willing to go ahead and allow one of the tallest buildings in the area to be constructed on the airport Itself. Public comment favored the County taking a position of leadership with regard to restricting building heights around the airport. page 4 4) Pilot comment -at the AAC meeting was also in opposition to the additional height over the existing Airport Plaza buildings. The pilot comments reflected a desire to eliminate the project altogether. If that could not be done then at least limit the structures to the same height as the Sharaton Hotel . 5) There is a perception on the part of most AAC members that constructing a 10 story structure on the airport is not a prudent nor wise thing to do. The proposed structure would certainly create a potential for an operational problem under emergency conditions that is currently not a factor the pilots must contend with. The Board of Supervisors is encouraged to consider carefully the events and studies of the past year when deliberating the future of the Airport Center Office Park tower. The costs incurred today as a result of prudent study and consideration may well be minor when measured against future events. c Recommendations --------------- 1) The AAC recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct appropriate County staff to confer with Reynolds and Brown and suggest to them the following: a) The lowest structure in the complex either be lowered or relocated slightly on the site to clear the FAR Part 77 transitional surface for runway 32R. b) Relay the public and pilot concerns expressed over the height of their proposed 10 story office tower. Convey to the developer the pilots' grave concerns for potential emergency operating difficulties imposed by this structure . c) The 10 story structure be reduced to the same height as their Airport Plaza unit (7 stories) , or lower. The reduced structure could very possibly be made wider and still allow the same leaseable square footage with little or no change to the economic position of either the developer or the county. The suggested change would likely reduce some landscaping but would vastly improve the acceptability of the project to the pilots, concerned citizens and the AAC. 2) The AAC further requests that the County convey to Reynolds and Brown the AAC's deep appreciation for their concern and Interest In assuring that the proposed project meet all FAA requirements. Beyond that, they are to be commended for their sincere concern for both operational and public acceptance of their project. Air ort Unid Use Commission Contra p Costa County Administration Building, North Wing County P.O. Box 951 Martinez, California 94553- Phone: 372-2091 April 21, 1987 The Honorable Sunne Wright McPeak, Chair Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Supervisor McPeak: RE: February 24, 1987 Referral of Airport Center Project (Reynolds & Brown) On behalf of the Airport Land Use Commission, we wish to thank the Board of Supervisors for the opportunity to review aviation safety considerations on the Airport Center Project. This subject was discussed at the Commission's April 8th meeting. Staff advised the Commission that the project was not previously subject to review by the ALUC because the Commission has, to date, not asserted project-level review authority as allowed by State law. The Commission reviewed the project for compatibility with the adopted ALUC safety policies. The Commission determined that the subject site abuts but does not -include any portion of a, designated safety zone. Further, the Commission was advised by staff that no portion of the project's buildings would be allowed to penetrate the structural height limits that the Commission has established for this site. Notwithstanding these determinations, the Commission expressed concern that this project might pose unacceptable public hazards. These risks stem from the location and height of the project near the ends of two major runways. The Commission feels that the buildings would be too tall for the site. The concern is that the ability of pilots to make emergency approach and take-off maneuvers, and missed-approach procedures would be severely compromised. z. An opportunity will be available in the near future to re-assess what might constitute more suitable development of this site. A master plan study for Buchanan Field is underway and scheduled for release early next year. The study will address development of the airport property including the subject site. The study might suggest a scaled-down project design or alternative land uses for the site which might be worked out with Reynolds & Brown. Prior to final Board action of the master plan proposal , it must be referred to the Commission for public hearing and review to determine its conformity with ALUC policies. In view of the additional review of airport development, it was felt that development of the Airport Center office project should be deferred. By unanimous vote, the Commission is urging the Board of Supervisors to use its influence to suspend the project pending adoption of the airport master plan. At the same time, the Commission would have no objection to the project proceeding if a reduced scale development can be arranged to the mutual satisfaction of the County and Reynolds & Brown. We wish to thank the Board again for providing an opportunity to comment on this project proposal . Sincerely, 4-t-'-Zen Gordon Gravelie, Chairman Airport'Land Use Commission RHD/ap/ cc: Public Works Director County Counsel General Services - Alan Pfeiffer Manager of Airports Reynolds & Brown ALUC Commissioners ALUCII/ACP.RD