HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05181993 - IO.6 TO:. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I-0' 5----L.
Contra
FROM:
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Costa
s
A _ County
May 10, 1993 c4~'
DATE: srA'coon t
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON HELICOPTER TRAINING OPERATIONS AT
BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . REQUEST the Public .Works Director and Manager of Airports to
ask the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to evaluate the
alternate off-airport touch-and-go helicopter training sites
identified as sites 3, 4, and 9 in the attached memorandum
from Harry York, Executive Vice President of the Concord
Chamber of Commerce, and provide their comments to the Public
Works Director regarding the acceptability of these sites and
their comments regarding why these sites are or are not
feasible alternatives to the present touch-and-go operation at .
Buchanan Field Airport. In addition, the FAA should be asked
to attend any and all of the meetings noted below in order to
provide their professional input on the acceptability of the
alternatives which are being explored.
2 . AUTHORIZE the Concord Chamber of Commerce and Aviation
Advisory Committee (AAC) to contact any or all of the land
owners of each of the sites identified on the attached
. memorandum from the Concord Chamber of Commerce in an effort
to -determine the willingness of the property owners to have
their property used for helicopter ' touch-and-go training
flights .
3 . REQUEST the Aviation Advisory Committee and Concord Chamber of
Commerce, utilizing staff resources from the Public Works
Department and Manager of Airports, to convene all interested
members of the Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council, Pacheco
Town Council, People Over Planes, Vine Hill residents, and The
Airports Coalition (along with any other interested
organizations and individuals) and ask that they address the
following agenda:
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES, SIGNATURE:
RECOMMEND ION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD ITTEE CCj /0 j� as e/
APPROVE �THER G ! G �. 6 lLr .�'� "
SUN
NE Mc AK JEFF SMITH
SIGNATURE S
ACTION OF BOARD ON Mar R , 1 9 9 3 APPROVED AS RE M"
ED OTHER
Supervisor Smith advised that he opposed Recommendations 1 through 7
but concurss with 8 through 13.
The following persons appeared and spoke : Dorothy Sakazaki , 737
Central Avenue, Martinez, for Mt. View Sanitary District; Don Mount, 1309 Gragg Lane, Concord
for People over Planes; Donna Davidson, 1000 Temple Drive, Pacheco; Patrick Corr, 6950
Morgan Territory Road, Clayton for H.A.I. ; Jouce Jones, 45 Ruthrford Lane, Pacheco, for
Town Council; Will Price, 220 LaEspiral, Orinda for The Airports Coalition; and Barbara
Allenza, P. 0. Box 6264, Concord for Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council.
The Board discussed the matter and approved the recommendations, with Supervisors
Powers and Smith voting no.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: III. IV and V NOES: I and II AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED May 18, 1993
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Public Works Director
Manager of Airports
County Counsel BY DEPUTY
I .O.-6
* Review the alternative sites identified by the Concord
Chamber of Commerce and comment on the feasibility of
each.
* Review the comments and conclusions of the FAA on each of
the sites identified by the Concord Chamber of Commerce
as a part of determining the feasibility of each site.
* Review the reports from the Concord Chamber of Commerce
and AAC on the willingness of the property owners to
cooperate by allowing touch-and-go helicopter training
flights to take place on their property as a part of
determining the feasibility of each site.
* Engage in a dialogue on the noise complaints which have
been and continue to be received from residents in the
area of Buchanan Field Airport and determine what actions
can be taken which will alleviate these complaints.
4 . REQUEST the Public Works Director and Manager of Airports to
ask the FAA to make available to the County the services of
any mediation/facilitation staff they may have available to
assist the AAC, the Concord Chamber of Commerce, the Pacheco
Municipal Advisory Council, the Pacheco Town Council, People
Over Planes, residents of the Vine Hill area, and The Airports
Coalition to reach a mutually acceptable set of
recommendations to our Committee and the Board of Supervisors.
5 . AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, Manager of Airports, AAC
and Concord Chamber of Commerce to make use of any volunteer
facilitator who may be willing to make his or her services
available to the County.
6 . REQUEST the AAC and Concord Chamber of Commerce to return to
our Committee at any point that they feel their efforts to
reach a consensus among all parties have reached an impasse
and that other options need to be explored so that we can
again attempt to reach some level of consensus among all the
involved parties.
7 . REQUEST the Public Works Director, Manager of Airports,
Concord Chamber of Commerce and the AAC to report to our
Committee on September 13, 1993 on the following, based on
their meetings with other organizations and individuals, as
outlined above:
* The feasibility of each of the sites examined by the
Concord Chamber of Commerce, given the results of the
FAA' s evaluation, the response of the property owners,
and the acceptability of the sites to the pilots .
* Any measures they can suggest to resolve the noise
impacts of the helicopter training flights, including any
proposed changes in flight patterns .
8 . DIRECT the Public Works Director and Manager of Airports to
proceed with the installation of the noise monitoring
equipment and testing to determine whether the equipment
should be accepted by the County at the end of the 60 day test
period.
9 . Assuming that the decision is made to keep the noise
monitoring equipment at the end of the 60 day acceptance
period, DIRECT the Public Works Director and Manager of
Airports to make at least quarterly reports to the AAC on the
status of the noise monitoring tests .
10 . REQUEST the Public Works Director, and Manager of Airports to
explore the helicopter modeling suggested by Don Mount of
People Over Planes and report to our Committee September 13,
1993 on the feasibility of this modeling.
-2-
I.O.-6
11 . DECLARE and CLARIFY the intent of the Board of Supervisors not
to pursue an amendment to the existing noise ordinance or a
new ordinance regarding a performance-based noise standard
until the new noise-monitoring system has been installed and
operative for a sufficient period of time. Further, DIRECT
that no additional funds shall be expended at this time for
the development of a performance-based noise standard
amendment or ordinance except for the necessary time
involvement of personnel as specified in this report.
12 . REQUEST the AAC to review and analyze performance-based single
event noise standards based on existing ordinances in other
jurisdictions and preliminary results from the County' s noise-
monitoring test results and make their comments and
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors by June 30, 1994 .
AUTHORIZE County Counsel to assist the AAC, Public Works
Director and Manager of Airports, upon request, in reviewing
performance-based noise standards and ordinances from other
jurisdictions .
13 . REQUEST the Public Works Director, Manager of Airports, AAC
and Concord Chamber of Commerce to make a final report to the
Board of Supervisors by October 1, 1994, on the results of the
noise monitoring tests, along with their comments and
recommendations for what steps the Board of Supervisors should
take in view of the test results in pursuing a performance-
based noise standard(s) .
BACKGROUND:
On April 6, 1993, the Board of Supervisors took three hours of
testimony and took several actions related to helicopter training
flights, as are outlined in the attached memo from the County
Administrator' s Office dated April 8, 1993 . Several of these
actions asked staff to make further reports to our Committee on May
10, 1993 .
On May 10, 1993, our Committee received the attached reports from
the County Counsel ' s Office and the Public Works Director. Deputy
County Counsel Sharon Anderson presented the report from the County
Counsel ' s Office and Assistant Manager of Airports Tracy Williams
presented the report from the Public Works Department.
Unfortunately, Supervisor Smith was unable to be present for this
meeting, but the entire meeting was audio-taped by his staff so
that he could review the entire content of the testimony and
discussion.
Ms . Anderson noted the difficulty and cost of undertaking any
amendment to the existing noise ordinance in view of 1990 federal
legislation.
Ms . Williams noted that the solution appears to be to find an off-
airport site for the helicopter touch-and-go training flights. She
noted, in reviewing the history of this subject, that staff had
identified and investigated some 15 possible off-airport sites.
Most have been rejected for one reason or another. Most recently,
staff met with officials from Tosco Oil Co. While the Tosco
officials seemed interested in being helpful, the FAA has cautioned
against further consideration of the Tosco site because of safety
concerns . Staff recommends abandoning the Tosco site on the basis
of these concerns.
Ms . Williams also noted that, in conjunction with Harry York from
the Concord Chamber of Commerce, sites have been explored northwest
of the airport. Discussions have been undertaken with the property
owners . Staff would like to conduct a 60 day noise test to
determine the acceptability of these sites .
It was also noted that the noise-monitoring equipment has finally
been delivered. Staff are presently involved in a sixty-day
acceptance test to determine that the equipment works properly
before the County agrees to final acceptance of the equipment.
-3-
I .O.-6
Ms . Williams also reminded the audience that Mr. Corr, the owner of
Helicopter Adventures, Inc. (HAI) , has made it clear that there are
presently no circumstances under which he would agree to operate
out of the Byron Airport. It will be at least two years before the
Byron Airport is developed to the point that it might be a suitable
facility for helicopter training purposes . Ms . Williams also noted
that The Airports Coalition, which represents pilots and airport
lessees, is willing to work with the airport staff on a
performance-based noise ordinance.
Virginia Schaefer, Chair of the AAC, asked that our Committee try
to separate the issue of noise from the issue of safety. She noted
that they are not necessarily the same thing and that noise
problems do not necessarily result in safety problems. She urged
the Board of Supervisors to actively pursue the Acme site for
touch-and-go operations . She also indicated that the AAC urges the
Board of Supervisors not to give further consideration to the use
of the Byron Airport on the basis that it is not a well developed
site and that Mr. Corr has made it clear that he will not use it.
Ms . Schaefer indicated that the AAC is willing to continue to work
with Mr. York and the Concord Chamber of Commerce on locating and
evaluating various off-airport sites. She indicated that a great
deal of time and money has been spent acquiring the noise-
monitoring equipment and that the Board of Supervisors should make
use of the equipment and rely on .the results of the testing. She
feels that the noise-monitoring equipment will provide reliable
data for a legally defensible performance-based, single event noise
ordinance. She suggested that the noise-monitoring equipment be
used for a one-year period through approximately June 30, 1994 .
Harry York, Executive Vice President of the Concord Chamber of
Commerce, presented the attached written report and commented on
it. Mr. York noted that from his flights and analysis that sites
3, 4, and 9 on his memo are the most feasible sites . It was noted
that the owner of site four is Allied Signal . Mr. York indicated
a willingness to approach the property owners to determine their
willingness to cooperate, if that is what the Board of Supervisors
wants .
Supervisor McPeak indicated that the FAA should be asked to
evaluate all of the sites identified by Mr. York and that the
Concord Chamber of Commerce and AAC . should be authorized to
approach the property owners of any of the sites which appear to be
feasible to determine the willingness of the property owners to
have their property used for touch-and-go training flights . She
also indicated that while HAI has been the most visible in these
discussions, consultation should proceed with all three companies
which are doing helicopter training at Buchanan Field Airport.
Wally Wiggs, speaking on behalf of the Pacheco Municipal Advisory
Council, presented petitions signed by some 250 individuals
protesting the helicopter training flights and urging that they be
moved to some other location.
Supervisor McPeak suggested that the AAC and Concord Chamber of
Commerce make a presentation to the Pacheco Municipal Advisory
Council on the alternative sites they have investigated.
Mr. Will Price, speaking on behalf of The Airports Coalition,
reminded our Committee and the audience that HAI is entitled to use
Buchanan Field Airport. He suggested that if the County wants to
curtail helicopter training flights at Buchanan Field Airport, this
can only be done by finding an alternative off-airport site that is
acceptable to Mr. Corr. He suggested that the current noise
ordinance is illegal and unenforceable, but that the pilots have
agreed to comply with its terms anyway. Mr. Price also suggested
that amending the existing noise ordinance is unrealistic and that
an entirely new ordinance is needed. He also noted that his
organization is willing to work with the County on noise studies .
Mr. Price suggested that while there might be a very real perceived
noise problem, there may not be a noise problem based on FAA
standards. However, he readily admitted that a perceived problem
is very real for those who perceive that a noise problem exists .
-4-
I.O.-6
Bruce Arrigoni, speaking on behalf of the Mt. Diablo Pilots
Association, objected to the possible expenditure of $1 million on
a the development of a single-event, performance-based noise
ordinance and indicated his concern with protecting the legal
rights of pilots .
Frank Bell, speaking on behalf of Pacific States Aviation, noted
how remote the possibility is that anyone would be killed or hurt
by a helicopter falling out of the sky. He indicated that the
solution to the noise problem is an off-airport site for touch-and-
go training flights .
Damon Helmantoler expressed his concern with the lack of scheduled,
commercial flights from Buchanan Field Airport.
Supervisor McPeak noted that the Airport Master Plan provides for
commercial flights and that the lack of scheduled, commercial
flights at present is not the fault of the County or the Airport
Master Plan, but rather is due to the economic conditions with
which the airlines have been faced.
Gerry Greth noted that pilots have put a lot of time and money into
trying to cooperate. He maintained that there is not a noise
problem, and that he wants to keep the airport strong and is
willing to cooperate in any way possible.
Kennard Cole suggested that the County defer further work on a
noise ordinance until: 1) Data has been collected and analyzed, 2)
A careful analysis has been performed regarding whether or not the
cost of implementing such an ordinance is justified in view of the
noise test results, and 3) Concerned parties have made a renewed
effort to obtain an off-airport site for helicopter training.
Ron Sorenson indicated that he agreed with the statements of the
other members of The Airports Coalition.
Russell Roe made the following points: 1) Airport users have to
accept the responsibility for not having been involved in the past,
but that they are now involved and will stay involved and that they
are willing to work with other groups to find a reasonable solution
to the noise "problem", 2) All Board members are responsible for
airport issues, not just Supervisor McPeak, and 3) A performance-
based single event ordinance is too expensive. He also noted that
the noise levels determined in an ordinance which is acceptable to
the federal government will set noise levels so high that no
helicopter will violate the noise levels and only high performance
jets will be covered. -He suggested that the County may want to
return the noise-monitoring equipment since it may be a waste of
money. He also suggested that all activity should be located at
the airport and opposed any efforts to seek an off-airport site.
Supervisor McPeak responded by pointing out that a wide variety of
groups have recommended that the County acquire the noise-
monitoring equipment, which is also used for continuous monitoring
of the noise contours in the Airport Master Plan, not just to
justify a single event performance-based noise ordinance. She
agreed that a single event noise ordinance would not address
helicopters and that that is why she has opposed such an ordinance.
Donna Davidson noted her concern with noise issues near her home in
Pacheco.
Don Mount, speaking on behalf of People Over Planes (POP) ,
indicated that there is a noise problem, and suggested that the FAA
could make available staff who could mediate the discussions among
all of the various organizations if mediation is needed. He also
suggested that there are helicopter modeling programs available
which might be of assistance.
Hal Yeager of POP indicated his concern with the residents of
mobilehomes .
-5-
I.O.-6
Dorothy Sakazaki, speaking on behalf of the Mt. View Sanitary
District, maintained that the noise tests which had been done were
not accurate because they were done on a Saturday morning without
all of the other noise from I-680 and Highway 4 which the residents
of the area are subjected to during peak commute periods during the
week. She also suggested that because the Vine Hill area is in
something of a valley, there is an "echo" effect from surrounding
noise which magnifies its impact on the community. She also
maintained that pilots do not always follow their assigned flight
patterns . She indicated her concern with safety issues as well as
her concern with the preservation of the wetlands and bird
population.
Barbara Allenza, speaking on behalf of the Pacheco Municipal
Advisory Council, suggested that noise monitoring is related to
safety factors . Noise monitoring can pick up on unsafe practices .
She also noted that if things are not properly regulated, property
values will be degraded and all of the residents of the area will
be affected in a negative way.
Patrick Corr, owner of HAI, indicated that he believes the two
sides are much closer than they might like to admit. Both want a
safe airport. Both want noise to be minimized. Both want
different flight patterns for touch-and-go flights . He indicated
that the public process which has been followed the past few months
has given everyone an opportunity to blow off some steam and then
begin to work together. Mr. Corr indicated that he is more than
willing to work with POP and the other groups in locating an off-
airport site. He indicated that he needs to have POP and the other
concerned groups get involved in the issue. He suggested that a
solution ought to be available without the need for further
government ordinances and regulations .
Supervisor McPeak acknowledged that Mr. Corr has been taking the
lead, that there have been obstacles with each site that has been
identified and that Byron is not a viable alternative. She asked
Mr. Corr how he would suggest that we get all parties together.
Mr. Corr suggested that the Concord Chamber of Commerce or AAC
could provide the leadership in convening all involved parties.
Fred Davis, of the FAA, was asked by Supervisor McPeak to comment
on the existing flight pattern and the proposed eastern flight
pattern. Mr. Davis indicated that the existing flight pattern was
designed to maximize the efficiency of the airport and the safety
to all parties . He suggested that the eastern flight pattern is a
problem 90% because of safety concerns and 10% because of
efficiency concerns. He noted that 75% to 80% of current airport
operations are at the east side of the airport. Moving the
helicopter flights to the east side would run the very great
possibility of interference with other traffic by fixed-wing
aircraft.
Mr. Davis also indicated that he had reviewed both the Tosco and
Acme sites . He acknowledged that the Tosco site was rejected
because of safety concerns . He indicated that he has concerns with
any touch-and-go training flights operating within a 3-5 mile
radius of the airport, but that he was willing to review and
evaluate any site which is suggested. In response to a question
from Supervisor McPeak about what he would suggest be done about
noise issues, Mr. Davis indicated he would be willing to make any
attempt possible to balance safety issues and efficiency issues
with noise concerns . He indicated he was willing to look at any
alternative but would have to give priority to safety and
efficiency over purely noise concerns.
Following the conclusion of all testimony, Supervisor McPeak
proposed the above recommendations. Upon review of the draft
recommendations and a review of the audio tape of the meeting,
Supervisor Smith indicated that he had the following concerns with
the recommendations being proposed by Supervisor McPeak.
-6-
I .O.-6
"I have grave concerns regarding potential County liability for
safe operations at any off-airport landing site. Any emergency
which may occur would be away from the airport and thereby more
difficult to deal with effectively. This would, in my opinion,
subject the County to great liability since the creation of such a
site would be at our request.
Also, the potential cost of siting such a landing site, combined
with the significant expense already incurred in staff time and
consultant time, is not warranted at this time. We should not
embark on such a potentially costly endeavor, at least until we
have the noise-monitoring in place and are able to evaluate the
results of that testing.
I suggest that we proceed with Recommendations 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
and 13 only at this time and wait for those reports before we do
anything else about alternative sites . "
On the basis of the above concerns, our Committee is forced to file
a partially split report with the Board of Supervisors, with
Supervisor McPeak endorsing all of the above recommendations and
Supervisor Smith endorsing only Recommendations 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
and 13 on the basis of his above noted comments .
-7-
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
C 0 N T R A C O S T A C 0 U N T Y
Administration Building
651 Pine Street, 11th Floor
Martinez, California 94553
DATE: April 8, 1993
TO: CITIZENS CONCERNED WITH THE FUTURE OF HELICOPTER
TRAINING FLIGHTS AT YCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT
FROM: Claude L. Van Marte stant County Adminiator
SUBJECT: ACTIONS TAKEN BY TH D OF SUPERVISORS ON
APRIL 6, 1993
Following the receipt of some three hours of testimony on April 6,
1993, it is our understanding that the Board of Supervisors took
the following actions (all actions were approved unanimously except
as noted) :
1 . The Board agreed to proceed w� the process of amending the
County's existing noise ordinance, recognizing that there are
many steps involved and that it will take many months to
obtain the data from the new noise monitoring equipment which
will make it possible to formulate a legally defensible
single-event, performance-based provision in the noise
ordinance. This will be discussed again at the meeting of the
Board Is Internal Operations Committee (Supervisor Sunne Wright
McPeak and Supervisor Jeff Smith) on May 10, 1993. This
discussion is also to include the formulation of a workplan
and timetable for the adoption of a noise ordinance.
2 . The Board acknowledged that Buchanan Field Airport is and will
continue to be an important general aviation airport in the
region. The Board also acknowledged that Buchanan Field
Airport is an important economic and job-creating resource_ in
the region and that the Board should promote its economic
capabilities. In this regard, the Board agreed to call on
business leaders in the area to help advise the Board on how
to improve the aviation business capability of Buchanan Field
Airport. The Board acknowledged and reaffirmed the language
in the Airport Master Plan addressing the economic importance
of Buchanan Field Airport.
3 . The Board directed the Public Works Director and Manager of
Airports to continue to study various off-airport sites for
helicopter training touch-and-go flights and to bring
information regarding any identified feasible sites back to
the Internal Operations Committee on May 10, 1993 and as they
are identified.
-2-
4 . The Board directed the County Counsel to terminate any and all
agreements with outside counsel regarding the preparation of
or research into the feasibility of an amendment to the noise
ordinance or any other ordinance. County Counsel was also
directed to prepare a final report on this subject including
the research from outside counsel and present it to the
Internal Operations Committee on May 10, 1993 .
5 . The Board directed County Counsel to cease all work on an
Ordinance attempting to regulate helicopter training flight
patterns which might have been presented to the FAA in an
effort to obtain the FAA's concurrence for the County to
impose such regulations in this County. [This motion was
approved on a 4: 1 vote with Supervisor McPeak opposedl .
6 . The Board referred back to its Internal Operations Committee
'the draft letter to the County's Congressional delegation with
the request that the Committee determine the most appropriate
way to communicate with the County's Congressional delegation
and the FAA as well as to define more precisely what it is
that is to be communicated and what the Board should ask the
County's Congressional delegation to do. The emphasis here
should be to request a dialogue with the FAA and to request
their assistance in solving problems, not in getting into a
confrontation with the FAA, or our Congressional delegation.
7 . The Board agreed to accept the offer of the Concord Chamber of
Commerce to assist the Board in any way possible to resolve
the problems associated with helicopter training flights and
to improve the climate for business in and around Buchanan
Field Airport.
The Board of Supervisors also reaffirmed its previous order that
the draft ordinances be reviewed in advance ' by the Aviation
Advisory Committee in order to provide a forum for broad input from
the aviation community and general public. Information regarding
this meeting can be obtained from Buchanan Field Airport by calling
646-5722 .
The Internal Operations Committee of the Board will consider these
and other related issues, as follows:
Monday, May 10, 1993
10:00 A.M.
Board of Supervisors ' Chambers - Room 107
651 Pine Street, Martinez
-3-
You are welcome to attend this meeting and offer your comments and
recommendations regarding any of the matters which are under
consideration by the Committee. We will attempt to provide you in
advance with any written staff reports which are available to us by
May 6, 1993.
CLVM:amb
van4-24-93
cc: Supervisor Tom Torlakson
Supervisor Tom Powers
Super-visor- Jeff Smith --
Supervisor Gayle Bishop
Supervisor Sunne Wright McPeak
J. Michael Walford, Public Works Director
Victor J. Westman, County Counsel
Hal Wight, Manager of Airports
Memo to: Contra Costa Board of Supervisors
From: Harry York, EVP Concord Chamber of Commerce
Problem•
A perceived or real noise problem with helicopters flying in
and out of Buchanan Field in Concord. In particular the perceived
noise from helicopters conducting training exercises, flying a
certain pattern, on and over the airfield. At the patterns highest
point, it carries the helicopters off the airfield and over the 680
freeway into the Pacheco area. It is in this Pacheco area the
perceived or real helicopter noise problem comes about.
Alternative solutions:
Fly the tightest, safest pattern possible over or near the air
field, or find a suitable off airfield location to fly the training
patterns and landings.
Review of the solutions:
The best airfield flight pattern seems to be one that flys
southwest to a point on the airfield that Center Ave. would
intersect with the runways, then turns to follow Center Ave. to the
680 / Pacheco Blvd area. The pattern then turns north over 680 and
continues to the Central San. facility, and turns back to the end
of the runway.
To limit noise and visual impacts, and TO BE SAFE this would
seem to be the best on site alternative.
A number of off site locations have been looked at including
a couple of new ones I suggested.
The off site locations I reviewed were the following:
1) The Tosco site; 2) the hills east of the Navel Weapons
Station; 3) a knoll at the very north end of the same hills; 4) a
location on a chemical plant' s property just east of the weapons
station and adjacent to the river; 5) sites on the weapons station;
6) the Acme Fill site; 7) the hills west of Martinez; 8) a site
just south of Highway 4 & the Cummings Skyway turnof f; 9) and a
site in Alhambra Valley.
1) The Tosco site as been ruled out by the tower chief.
2) .,The hills east of the weapons station have a too varied of
terrain.
3) The knoll south of old Port Chicago is a possibility,
although further study is needed for flight practicability.
4) The location on the chemical plant property would work if
an approval could be received from the property and business
owner(s) .
5) The Navy said "no" on use of the Navy property. (This needs
to be clarified if it ' s a "no" to use anywhere on the base, or a
"no" to the use of the Navy's helicopter pads) .
6) I received a "No Way" response f rom two contacts I made for
the possible use of Acme Fill location. From a flight training
stand point, location relative to the airport, and a location
relative to homes . This seems like an excellent site, but there are
a lot of environmental / legal concerns .
7 ) The hills to the west of Martinez are to rugged and have
power lines located along the ridge.
8) The location south of Highway 4 & the Cummings Skyway turn
off could possibly work, if an agreement could be worked out with
the property owner.
9) The site in Alhambra Valley would work. It has a large open
valley with only one ranch home located near by. There are power
lines running down the east side of the property but are far enough
away as to not cause a problem. The downside of this site is the
distance it is located away from the airport .
I would rank the off site locations as follows :
#4) The site along the river on the chemical plant property as
first . It is a close location yet remote relative to, any homes,
and safety equipment could reach the site quickly.
#9) The location in Alhambra Valley is good, but a distance
from the airport . Because of the remoteness of the location, it
would take sometime for safety equipment to arrive.
Simply keeping the existing airport flight program may be the
best solution. It keeps the activities on or near the airport,
within site and control of the FAA tower . And the airport has the
needed safety equipment .
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE l Q/�
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY -61- 11101V'-3MARTINEZ,CALIFORNIA /
! 0.
Date: May 10, 1993 a 7YL
To: Internal Operations Committee
From: Victor J. Westman, County Counse
By: Sharon L. Anderson, Deputy COuny Counsel
Re: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO COUNTY'S AmPORT NOISE
ORDINANCE AND RELATED AI1:?PORT ISSUES
On April 6, 1993, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to cease work on the
proposed ordinance specifying flight patterns, minimum altitudes and prohibiting flight
over residential areas and schools. Staff was directed to proceed with the process of
amending the noise ordinance. Prior to April 6, attorney, Michael Scott Gatzke had
been retained to evaluate the proposed amendment to the noise ordinance and the
overflight ordinance. A copy of Mr. Gatzke's report has been furnished to each
Supervisor.
Mr. Gatzke's report is consistent with the previous memoranda from this
office, provided to you on November 3, 1992 and February 16, 1993. Due to the present
federal statutory and regulatory restrictions on aircraft regulation, it is Mr. Gatzke's
opinion that there is little likelihood that the FAA would approve an amendment to the
County's existing noise ordinance. He estimates that the studies and hearings that
would have to be preformed prior to submitting the ordinance to the FAA would require
a minimum of one year to complete, at a cost exceeding$1 million dollars.
Attached is a copy of Orange County's General Aviation Noise Ordinance,
which could be used as a model for the amendment to Contra Costa County's noise
ordinance. A performance-based noise ordinance would, of necessity, be based upon
noise level data collected at Buchanan Field Airport. We are advised by the Public
Works Department that a minimum of one year's representative noise level data would
have to be accumulated before any change to the existing noise ordinance could be
prepared.
SLA:la
slab\a\noiseoad ioc
• ARTICLE 3. NOISE r
GENERAL AVIATION NOISE ORDINANCE
Sec.2-1-30.1. Policy. (1) No aircraft may engage in commercial operations at John Wayne Airport
(a) As proprietor of John Wayne Airport,the County of Orange,by its at night.
Board of Supervisors,is empowered to restrict or deny the use of its Airport (2) For purposes of this section,general aviation aircraft operations at night
based upon noise considerations and finds it is in the public interest to shall mean takeoffs between the hours of 10:00 p.m.and 7:00 am.(8:00
minimize any risk of potential liability to the County of Orange for claims of on Sundays);and landings between the hours of 11:00 p.m.and 7:00 am.
damage caused by noise associated with aircraft operations at John Wayne (8:00 a.m.on Sundays).
Airport.This article reflects the intent of the Board of Supervisors of Orange (c) Scheduled departure time prohibition.No commercial airline aircraft
County to enact a reasonable regulatory scheme,using the legislative pro- shall be permitted to operate with a scheduled departure time after 9.30 p.m.
cess,to minimize noise and any potential for damage liability,which does not or before 6.45 am.Monday through Saturday or before 7.45 am.on Sunday.
unjustly discriminate between types,kinds or classes of aeronautical uses. For purposes of this subsection,"scheduled departure time,shall mean the
(b) Any aircraft operator or person desiring to use John Wayne Airport for departure time listed or posted in published schedules or advertised to the
the purpose of commercial airline or general aviation operations shall be public, or listed in the Official Airline Guide "OAG." as the planned
authorized,pursuant to this article,to engage in such use provided that all departure time from the terminal gate.
aircraft operations are in compliance with noise standards as forth in this (d) in addition to the enforcement remedies provided for in sectioif 2-1-
article.Consistent with the noise standards as enumerated in this article,the 30,14,violation of the noise or operating limitations of this section shall be
Board of Supervisors ofOrange County does hereby grant a revocable license cause for termination of the passeagerskline lease oroperating agreement by
to use John Wayne Airport by commercial airline and general aviation the County of Orange against such operator and shall be subject to th
aircraft as such are defined in this article. penalties and/or fines set forth in Section 8 of the JWA Phase 2 Commercial
Sec.2-1.30.2. Remedies for violation. Airline Access Plan and Regulation.
(a) It shall be unlawful cooperate,pilot or authorize to pilot an aircraft in Sea 2-1-30.5. General aviation operations.
violation of sections 2-1-30.4 or 2-1-30.5 of this article.Violation of said (a) No aircraft may engage in general aviation operations at John.Wayn
sections shall be a misdemeanor as provided in section 2-1-30.14. Airport if it generates SENEL levels,as measured at John Wayne Airport
(b) No aircraft shall be operated at John.Wayne Airport in violation of Noise Monitoring Stations,MI.M2 and M3, which are greater than the
sections 2-1-30.7,2-1-30.8,2-1-30.9or2-1-30.10.TheCounty Counsel shall SENEL values:
be authorized to commence in the Orange County Superior Court civil M1 100.8 dB
actions,including but not limited to actions for injunctive relief,to enforce M2 100.9 dB
and/or prevent any violation of said sections. M3 98.5 dB
Sec.2.1.30.3. Definitions. (b) Curfew.
(a) Sound exposure level shall mean the level of sound accumulation (1) No person shall operate any general aviation aircraft at night if it
during a given event,with reference to aduration of one(1)second.More generates SENEL Ievels at any monitoring station,either on takeoff or
specifically, sound exposure level, in decibels, is the level of the time- landing,greater than 86.0 dB SENEL,with the exception of John Wayne
integrated A-weighted squared sound pressure for a stated time interval or Airport Noise Monitoring Stations Ml and M2 which shall be 86.8 dB
event,based on the reference pressure of twenty(20)micronewtons per and 86.9 dB SENEL respectively.
square meter and reference duration of one(1)second. (2) For purposes of this section,general aviation aircraft operations at night
(b) The single event noise exposure level("SENEL"),in decibels,shall shall mean take-offs between the hours of I0.0D p.m.and 7:00 a m.(8:00
mean the sound exposure levet of a single event,such as an aircraft fly-by, am.on Sundays);and landings between the hours of 11:00 p.m.and 7:00
measured over the time interval between the initial and final times for which a.m.(8:00 a.m.on Sundays).
the sound level of a single event exceeds the threshold sound level. For Sea 2-1-30.6, General exemption.
implementation of this section,the threshold noise level shall be at least(20)
decibels below the numerical value of the single event noise exposure level The following categories of aircraft shall be exempt from the provisions of
limits specified in section 2=1-30.4(a),2-1-30.5 or 2-1-30.6,as the case may sections 2-1-30.4 and 2-1-30.5:
be.Specific SENEL limitations,for purposes of this article.shall be deter- (a) Aircraft operated by the United States of America or the State of
mined at each monitoring station without"trade-offs"between monitoring California;
stations. (b) .Law enforcement,emergency.fire or rescue aircraft operated by any
(c) Take off shall mean.the flight of an aircraft from the time it com- county or city of said state;
mems its departure on the runway until.it has attained an altitude of one (c) Aircraft used for emergency d an emergency which as
dwusmW(1,000)feet above ground level. been officially proclaimed y comment a tharity purssuantttto the laws
(d)Lauding shall mean.the flight of an aircraft from the time it descends of the United States.said State or the County;
below one thousand(1,000)feet above ground level for its land approach (d) Civil Air Patrol aircraft when engaged in actual search and rescue
until it is taxied from the runway. missions;
(e) Commercial airline aircraft, for the purposes of this article.shall (e) Aircraft engaged in landing(s) or takeoff(s) while conducting tests
mean those aircraft operated as a federally certificated air carrier at John under the direction of the Airport Manager in an attempt to rebut the
Wayne Airport under a current Certificated Passenger Airline Lease or presumption of aircraft noise violation pursuant to the provisions of
Operating Agreement granted by the Orange county Board of Supervisors. sections 2-1-30.7 or 2-1-30.9•
(f) Quarterly period for purposes of this article,shall mean successive (f) Emergency aircraft flights for medical purposes by persons who provide
three-month periods occurring at regular intervals four(4)times a year,the emergency flights for medical purposes.provided written information
first quarter of any given year beginning on the first day of April,the last concerning the emergency is submitted to the Airport Manager for all
ending on the thirty-fust of March. emergency aircraft flights within 72 hours prior to or subsequent to the
(g) General aviation aircraft,for purposes of this article,shalt mean all departure or arrival of the aircraft. It is intended that the exemption
other aircraft operated at John Wayne Airport,except those as defined in provided for in this subparagraph shall have the same meaning and be
section 2-1-30.3(e)or exempted under section 2-1-30.7. interpreted consistent with,and to the same extent as Public Utilities
Sea 2.1-30.4. Commercial airline operations. Code Section 21662.4 as enacted or as it may be amended.
(a) No commercial airline operator, using commercial airline aircraft, Sec.2-1-30.7. Presumption of aircraft noise violation.
may engage in commercial airline operations at John Wayne Airport if such (a) In the event that the Airport Manager determines to his reasonable
aircraft generate SENEL levels averaged over each quarterly period, as satisfaction that available published noise measurements or historical
measured at John Wayne Airport Noise Monitoring Stations,Ml,M2 and noise data gathered and maintained by John Wayne Airport,for a particu-
M3,which are greater than the SENEL values: lar type or class of aircraft,indicate that it cannot meet the noise levels set
M1 100.8 dB forth in sections 2-1-30.4 or 2-1-30.5.it shall be presumed that operation
M2 100.9 dB of such aircraft will result in a continued violation of the provisions of
M3 98.5 dB sections 2-1.30.4 or 2-1-30.5, and any aircraft of such particular type or
(b) Curfew. class will not be permitted to land on,tie down on,or be based at or take
off from John Wayne Airport, except in bona fide emergencies for the of the violation. `
preservation of life or property; provided, however, that the owner or Sec.2-1-30.13. Enforcement officials.
operator of such aircraft shall be entitled to rebut such presumption to the The Airport Manager, the Manager of Airside Operations, the Airport
reasonable satisfaction of the Airport Manager by furnishing evidence to Access/Noise Officer,and such other Airport employees as aredesignated by
the contrary. the Airport Manager,all acting under the direction and control of the Airport
(b) The Airport Manager shall attempt to notify all aeronautical users of Manager,as well as Airport security personnel,are authorized to enforce the
the list of aircraft not permitted at John Wayne Airport by means including, provisions of this ordinance[division)pursuant to the provisions of Section
but not limited to, notification to the Federal Aviation Administration, 836.5 of the State Penal Code.
business and general aviation organizations and John Wayne Airport fixed Sec.2-1-30.14. Enforcement procedures.
base operators.
(c) In the event any specific aircraft of the type or class of aircraft not (a) Violations of sections 2-1-30.4 ort-1-30.5 of this ordinance[division)
excluded at John Wayne Airport under subsection(a)generates SENEL shall constitute misdemeanors punishable asset forth in section 1-1-34 of the
levels in violation of the levels set forth in sections 2-1.30.4 or 2-1-30.5 of codified Ordinances of the County of Orange.
this article,it shall be presumed that operation of such aircraft will result in (b) As an alternative to the issuance of a misdemeanor citation,
a continued violation of the provisions of sections 2-1-30.4 or 2-1-30.5 and enforcement officials described in section 2-1-30.13 are authorized
such aircraft will not be permitted to land,tie-down,or be based at John to issue a Notice of Noise Violation to any aircraft, aircraft owner,
WayneAirportprovided,however,that the owner or operatorof such aircraft aircraft operator, or anyother person for any violations of sections
shall be entitled to rebut such presumption to the reasonable satisfaction of 2-1-30.4, 2-1-30.5 or 2-1-30.10. The determination of whether to
the Airport Manager under procedures and limitations specified in section issue a misdemeanor citation or Notice of Noise Violation shall_be
8.93 and Section i l of the Phase 2 Commercial Airline Access Plan and within the sole discretion of the enforcement officer.
Regulation if a commercial aircraft, or if a general aviation aircraft by (c) Notice of Noise Violation
ifutnishing`contrary evidence,including,but not limited to,any change in (1) A Notice of Noise Violation shall include a citation of the section
operating personnel,any retrofitting measure,any change in engine or of violated,the noise readings at John Wa•ne Airport Noise Monitoring
maintenance or performance of a noise qualification test Stations MI,M2 and M3,the time and date of the violation,the type and
See.2.1.30.8. Denial of use of airport. registration number of the aircraft,the name of the aircraft owner,the
)Ih toe;event that any aircraft owner or operator has three (3)or more pilot,if known,and any other pertinent information.
violations of sections 2-1-30.4 or 2-1-30.5 of this article within any three- (2) A Notice of Noise Violation shall be sent by registered mail to the aircraft
year period,then for a period of three(3)years after the date of the third owner and/or aircraft operator,if known,within 30 days of the date of
violation,such aircraft owner or operator shall be denied the right to land or violation.
take off from John Wayne Airport,except in bona fide emergencies for the
preservation of life or property as reasonably determined by the Airport (d) Right to Appeal the Notice of Noise Violation.
Manager.and shall be denied the right to lease,rent or use space for aircraft (1) Within 30 days after receipt, the Notice of Noise Violation may be
(including tie-down)at the Airport insofar as the County has the right to deny appealed by sending a Notice of Appeal by registered mail to the Airport
such use of John Wayne Airport. Manager.
Sec.2-1-30.9. Exclusion of violation-prone aircraft. (2) The Notice of Appeal shall be in writing and shall set forth a"Statement
In the event that any aircraft is operated by any aircraft owner or operator of Disputed Issues"which shall be a concise statement of(i)each factual
who has three(3)or more violations of sections 2-1-30.4 ort-1-30.5 of this issue and(ii)each legal issue relevant to the violation.The Notice of
article within a three-year period then it shall be presumed that operation of Appeal shall also contain true and correct copies authenticated by
such aircraft will result in a continued violation of the provisions of sections affidavit or declaration made under Penalty of Perjury of all documents
2-1-30.4 or 2-1-30.5 of this article and such aircraft will not be permitted to relevant to the factual or legal issues raised by the "Statement of
land or tie down,be based at or take off from the Airport except in bona fide Disputed Issues,"and relied on in filing the appeal.The Notice of Appeal
emergencies for the preservation of life or property;provided,however,that shall also contain a concise statement of the relief sought by the filing of
the owner or operator of such aircraft shall be entitled to rebut such the appeal.The Notice of Appeal shall further contain appropriate and
presumption to the reasonable satisfaction of the Airport Manager under full citation to any relevant legal authorities.
procedures and limitations specified in Section 8.9.3 and Section 11 of the (3) Upon receipt of the Notice of Appeal,the Airport Manager,in consulta-
Phase 2 Commercial Airline Access Plan and Regulation if a commercial tion with County Counsel,shall determine whether any of the legal or
aircraft,or if a general aviation aircraft by fumishing.contmry evidence, factual issues raised by the Notice of Appeal are meritorious.If merito-
including,but not limited to,any change of operating personnel,any retro- nous factual or legal issues are raised, the Airport Manager shall
fitting measure,any change in engine or of maintenance or performance of determine whether to(1)uphold the violation;(2)modify the violation;
a noise qualification test. (3)grant the relief requested in the Noticeof Appeal;or(4)set the matter
Sec.2-1.30.10. Unlawful to use Airport after use denied. for heating to hear further evidence and/or argument.
(a) it shall be unlawful for any aircraft owner or operator to.land an If the matter is set for hearing,the hearing shall be conducted in an
aircraft on or take off an aircraft from the Airport or lease or rent space informal manner and shall not be governed by the Rules of Evidence.
(including tie-down)for aircraft at the Airport after such owner or operator (e) Airport Manager's Decision.
has been denied use of the Airport in accordance with the provisions of
section 2-1-30.8;or (1) Written notice of the Airport Manager's decisionon the Notice ofAppeal
(b) It shall be unlawful for any aircraft owner or operator to land an shall be given to the party filing the Notice and all other interested parties
aircraft on or take off an aircraft from the Airport after such aircraft within 30 days after receipt of the Notice,or,if a hearing is set.within
has been excluded from the Airport pursuant to the provisions of 30 days after the date of the hearing.
sections 2-1-30.7 or 2-1-30.9. (2) The decision of the Airport Manager concerning violations is final and
Sec.2-1-30.11. Culpability of instructor pilot. binding upon all parties.
In the case of any training flight in which both an instructor pilot and a Sea 2-1-30.15. Enforcement.
student pilot are in the aircraft which is flown in violation of any of the Violations of section 2-1-30.4,2-1-30.5 or 2-1-30.6 of this ordinance[divi-
provisions of this article, the instructor pilot shall be presumed to have sion)shall constitute misdemeanors,punishable asset forth in section.1- 1-34
caused such violation.The instructor pilot shall be entitled to rebut such of the Codified Ordinances of the County of Orange.
presumption to the reasonable satisfaction of the Airport Manager by Sec.2-1-30.16. Education,transition or modification period.
furnishing evidence to the contrary.
Sea 2-1-30.12. Culpability of aircraft owner or lessee. Section 2-1-30.4(a) or 2-1-30.5 of this ordinance [division] shall not be
enforced prior to July 1, 1985. Such period is to permit education of the
For purposes of this article, if the actual pilot of an aircraft cannot be aviation community in the existence of the herein noise limits; to provide
identified,the owner or owners of an aircraft shalt be presumed to be the pilot reasonable notification as to those aircraft presumptively incapable of meet-
of the aircraft with authority to control the aircraft's operations,or presumed ing noise limitations;and to allow a reasonable period for transition to quieter
to have authorized or assisted the operation;except that where the aircraft is models or modification of existing equipment to permit compliance with
leased,the lessee shall be presumed to be the pilot,or to have authorized or noise limitations.
assisted in the aircraft's operation.Such presumption may be rebutted only Secs.2-1-31-2-1-39. Reserved.
if the owner or lessee identifies the person who in fact was the pilot at the time
my-05-1993 11=05 PRC(*! CCC BUCHANAN AIRPORT TO COUNTY ADMIN. P.02
PUBUC WORKS DEPA►ll TN ENT
CONTRA,COSU COUNTY
DATE: May 10, W3
TO: Internal Operations tonmxittee
FRtaM: x« Krhael WaNDrd, Public Works Director
SUWRCP. Hefiopter Training Operations at Bush ield Airport
�acicgrorrnd:
On JannttrS* 26, 1993, the Board of Supervisors refierrcd to the Intetnat Operatbw
Committee the issue of attempting to identify alternative sites on which to locate hoNoopter
training Rights. The Co miuee met with interested citizens, orgauftadoru, and affoncd
parties an February 8,1993,and again on February 22, 1993,and scheduled a third meeting
for May 1Q,1993. The Committee dirocted staff to respond to several actions resulting from
these meetings.
Can March 9, the Board of Supervism accepted the report of the Public Worlm D1wc or
regarding alternate tra wg patterns for Helicopter Adventures, Inc. (fjQ and requested
an update on April b, 1993, identifying alternate flight paths, information on the off-site
investigation procc 4 initiating FBO negotiation, and other related issues. On Appal C
1993,after the public Work Dh.�ect es report and some tb ree hom of tcstimouy,the Board
of Supervisors took several aWons relating to the issue of helicopter training operations at
F3 xbanan Meld Airport. The following report responds to several Board of&Vavhwe and
Internal Clperativns CDmmittee'S WOODS.
AetW=taken,by the LmtmW Opwatfon Committee on Febmw7 22, L40.(Not.gt oogy
On)
Direct County t:awd with aJpqttiate fit'from 6e,Pk"c Works Dimes and Afivmw Of
. hvor4 to,prgaw an amtm*nva to the easft ?Vole Or07artee 'witfch would errant a
perfmmanco-baW no=Stam indudog a sfrrd d fnr w*event nofim molder^as w U
as the 0M c4n&w gmdfted in the Akporl Master Pl=
stagy
Any new performaneo-based noise ordinance must be based upon comprehensive noise level
data collected at the airport. The Manager of Airports took delivery of the Airport Noise
1
MAY-05-1993 11:06 FRC)M CCC BLjCHANAN AIRPORT TO COUNTY ADMIN- P.03
Monitoring System on April 15, 1993. On-site demonstration and aomptance testing has
begun. The planned completion date is June 3, 1993. Assuming that the on-site
demonstration test remains on schedule and is approved, airport staff wM begin Collecting
comprehensive data from the noise monitoring equipment at that time. Staff has been
advised to collect a minimum of one year of representative noise level data befbw adopting
any changes to the r,*ting noise ordinance. Such data would account for seasonal noise
level variations reflected by diff ienco in wind, temperature, and operational, changes
tbroughout an witrage year. Pilot organzations have expressed a willingness to assist staff
and support any E*and reasonable amendments to the esisting noise ordinance. Staff wM
work with these orltnizatatzns and arrange for noise loml domonstrvton tests at the
appropriate time. Actual preparation of the amendment to the noise, ordinance would be
done by County Cowisol atsuch time as sufWent data is available to enact a perftmawe-
based noise standard.
DPW the PuW Work Domaw t&fbnvffd the draft notse Ordinance to dw Aviiam AAuory
Cmminx OAQ for dt&mmmen4 n*xsdM my comms to be fimw*4 to the Cxa*
Adm*=&atoes Qfby Friday,April 31% 1993-
The AAC recognizes this is a concern to the Board of Supervisors and has organbrA a
subcominiftee to,specfficaUy address the Usuo of a draft noise ordina=. The subcoaunitbee
indicates OW they are prepared to review and comment on the draft ordinance immediately
upon receipt,but they would be uncomfortable recommending adoption without at least one
you of data.
Deet the PuWc No&D&tWor to write to each of throw &4004afs and m3wd—!----"a
have conWZ=n&d to the C"inty&nce March 1.. 1992 mwtim the wffadm of heftcqW=at
Buchanan -YM Abpor4 fonvarft the written position of the Pacheco Munidpal AdWsory
Councd, and mqu%Uv comments on that pmk=
fttux Aswnt:tenftpos9=vokedbyPMACwas "Wedeqdedunardmou*toAm*uW.
the nwx*for any 4"aw tr"q 44 do**at we can to cru 4fy the&4ft fVW paWm
and wait until aff or w=of the Pv&*WjrghU can be dkeoW so the Bpm Abportm
Mus statement and request for c=montswas fomardedtoall ine�dualsmdo-i , I lions
who complained to the airport about helicopter ftbts since March 1992.. 102 letters,were
sent March 17$ 1993. 43 responses were recobvd. 21 concurred and 22 did not cm=.
At the March 9, 1993 Board of Supmvisors mooting,Patrick Corr,representing Helicopter
Advenuarx., I=,was one of the last persons to q=1 In his presentation be kA=ftd he
felt them was some question as to whether the Board of Supervisors had the#& to deny
him the use of RudUnaa Field for his business. He also stated that if,the Board of
Supervisors could prevent him from doing helicopter training at Buchanan Field,under no
2
MnY=05-1993 11:05 FR(X, CCC FU(:1-014F94 R T WORT TO COUNTY RIM T N. P.04
circumstances would lie move the business to Byron. He also rejected the sugpsting that
the student pilots fly to Byron during their lessons for touch and go training. He indicated
that his busfness!reeds certain amenities in the community surrounding it,none of which are
aaveable at Byron. He said that, of the 13 airports in the greater bay area, Byrom would
rank 13th in terms of meedag leis needs.
Direct the PuNk Works Dbsaor to prime a form which can be used by staff at Hudia zan
fildd Akport'to card mula*oarttpla ,from rhe same b ividreal within tate mw day or
weep Unpk cart the use of d*four as soon 49Pow5 a and fonvard a copy of the farm to the
mwzbm of die Board of Supervisors prior to ft tm�rttario
Statm The form was created by airport staff and approved by the Board of Supervisors on
Ivl=h 16, 1993.
Actions taloa by the Board of Supezviison on April ON 3:
(NQt prcdou*reported on)
the Board d eaed the Public Wada D'ovaor crud Manager`of App+orts to continue to sMdy
vari' a off-az� sisal for he iavpUr ttrdt N9r urwh-rte flkhts and to Wv inforrrz CWn
mgwdiM imy id endfted fen Ibk sites back to true Internd Qp=tfons Carnmittee on May 10,and
ar OW are idem
Stales:
Stam with the full cooperation of HAI is continuing tho search for an off-airport site for
helicopter touch and go training operations. These included an area of Tosco Refinery's
property,saes sir miles northe=and sites approximately seven miles northwest
Tosco officials indicated that they may be willing to consider One or two potential sites,but
would need to discuss the matter and gain approval. Of their advisory commit =
Subsequently, staff met with local FAA officials regarding the same suubjeet. 'Trice FAA
strongly cautionod against a Tem altematie-,, cifmg serious concerns with regard to safety
and related air tra#fio issues. Any pattern involving landing on Tom property would mix
fwd wing and rotarywing aircraft M unwoeiuted ilunits„ jeopardi�g safety. For these
reasons staff re commends that no fortha consideration be given to sites at Tosco.
Staff jiew several routes with HM looking for potentially compatible off-airport sites. A
route approximately sbr nautical miles to the northeast of Buchanan Meld Airport appears
to have some potential. Appropriate follow-up actions are underway. A route with a touch
down site apprw=ately seven nautical miles to the northwest was also r„xplored Adxhdonal
information will be reported as it is developed.
3
` MAY-05-1993 11:07 FROM CCC: BUCHAtAN AIRPORT TO COUNTY ADMIN. P.05 '
7U&ard Weed to accept dw iffia of dw Concord Charaba of Cotttrrr&=to"Sist the Board
zn aw way possible to reserve the problaw asser=ted wah hdwopw hu aung fl&as and to
bnpprove Cib nate for bSit; SS in and around Buclum ?i I rmid Airport
Stattm. Staff met with Many York, Ecemdve Director for the Concord Chamber, of
Commerce, on April 8 to bring him up-to-datz on the varim off-airport training ates
already considered or curnently under consideration and to discuss ways in which the
Chamber could be of assistance in finding and implementing a suitable site. Mr.York has
established a Chamber subcommittee which includes Mr.Alex Qzuna,fdr_WMiam b1anning.
and Iris.Virginia&baefcr. They have agmed,to make contact with officials of the Concord
Naval Weapons Station to discos if an off-airport remote helicopter site for touch and go
framing operations on or near their properly would be fcasible. 11ey will also assist in
negotiating with other property owners as approp `nate. 11is subcommittee may report
independently on Meir progress.
.aKw:n�w�
e=14
cG IL wji 0 Mar W CCAiparf
S.AD&Wq Co=l CoMd
4
TOTAL P.05
DATE:
REQUEST TO SPEAK IFORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) 7
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before
addressing the Board.
NAME: PHONE:
ADDRESS: 0 K oZ Cay: 6bti C-0, eo 9
I am speaking formyself OR organization: P14CU--r-cig Molid eiee c, 4,oi roto'
Check one: (NAME OF ORGANIZNTION)
I wish to speak on Agenda Item #1 O 6
My comments will be: general X for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these com ents for the Board to consider.
,
n� pmolu►o.94 rnA nLC. 4 U-)l G-GS sy�3m , rnej
7"D �l PES �i 1 t 6? mc_ &FIg a< he-'Fl-rt o IUS T 1GA),00 6 �0
r.sro Nis o v p- -,mss LU / Th HrLcCOPV-CA
t4o is E, "T'l 1 S I S I PPnF EAvT,1 7 1 Lle o f MQ/V y I)Vte 7P 070FN�s