The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 05241994 - S.2 e ,. <, TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FRCX: SUPERVISORS GAYLE BISHOP, DISTRICT III �'Z SUPERVISOR XhRK DESAULNIER, DISTRICT Iv DATE: MAY 24, 1994 SUBJECT: DIAMOND BOULRVARD EXTENSLON AT BUCHANAN FIELD 8P2CIFIC REQUEST(8) OR R39 NDATION(S) ig BACRG>3Gt7 M AHD JUST17rZCATIOH I. RoClamemded Action: ACCEPT report on concerns of local residents to the proposed Diamond Boulevard extension project at Buchanan Field Airport and REr'ER item to the Transportation Committee for review of citizens concerns and report back to the Board. II. y4namcial 11MMt: None III. Reasons for Recomaendatians and Baokaround: on may 18, 1994 several residents of the area around Buchanan Field Airport appeared at the Transportation Authority meeting to express their opposition to the Diamond Boulevard extension project. The extent and nature of the convents require a full review of the history behind the proposed project. CoMlnmd on Anaehmaw:_ SIGNATURE: RECOMMEKDATiON OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMEAIDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER OGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER_ Y OF SUPERVISORS _ UNANIMOUS(ABSEW I AYES: NOES: i hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of ion taken and entered on the minutes of the Agger; pgy�AZN; an act Board of SuperoI rs on the da.shown. > a ATTESTED: PHIL SATCH a d County AdminBs/y �. o Supe Orig. M. Public Works (Admit.) Deputy cc: County Administrator �►_...--.---- County Counsel Director, GMEDA Mector, Public yltorlcs S. 2-- � PACHECO TOWN COIaNCLI 45 Rutha * d Lane Pa4h¢co, CA 94553 COUNCL 510-370-0880 May 12, 1994 RECEIVED Metropolitan Transportation Commission MAY 2 41994 101 Eighth St. Oakland, CA 94607-4700 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA Co. RE: Diamond Boulevard Extension - 1995 TIP\1994 RTIP Roadway Project Application We do not support the Diamond Boulevard Extension (DBE) and ask that MTC withdraw the DBE application for Federal ISTEA funding for the following reasons:. 1. Contra Costa County Director of Public Works, Michael Walford, stated in a public meeting 04-1.4-93, that this project would not be an adequate reliever to T-680. In fact, the ISTEA application includes an explanation that traffic relief will primarily consist of easier access when traveling from the east to the west side of the airport. The main purpose of the DBE is not to provide traffic relief in the area but to enable the County to lease out Parcel B for development and build a proposed terminal on the west side of the airport, both of which will generate more traffic. (See items- 17 & 23 in the ISTEA application. Copy of 04-14-93 tape available upon request.) 2. The county has stated in various documents that DBE should be funded by private developers of Parcels A and B on airport (County) property and by airport funds. Due to assurances that the DBE will not be paid for with any locally generated funds and the fact that there is no way to guarantee that local taxpayers' monies are not included in ISTEA funds, we believe DBE should not be paid for out of ISTEA funds. (See attached letters dated 06-12-90 and 12-14-90, Airport Master Plan EIR, Vol. I, Page I-39, and Response to City of Pleasant Hill Comment on the EIR.) 3. The ISTEA application for the Diamond Blvd. Extension leaves several unanswered questions. MTC should require County Public Works and the Contra Costa Transporation Authority (CCTA) to answer these questions. (See attached list of Additional Questions & Comments.) The County's determination to dodge private funding of the DBE can be further evidenced by their recent attempt to include Pacheco with the Airport in a bid for redevelopment funding. It was only through the diligence of the people in Pacheco that redevelopment was rejected for the first time in county history. What residents desire most: from our county officials is good faith; however, it would appear that the County has made a concerted effort to deter our participation in the ISTEA funding decision for the Diamond Blvd. Extension. Mr. Wal.ford told residents on 04-14-93 that the traffic study would be updated Metropolitan Transportation Commission May 12, 1.994 Page 2 new figures would be included in any application for funds and that we would be kept informed regarding the DBE funding process. CCTA assured residents of surrounding communities that they would be notified by CCTA of any meetings and new documents regarding the DBE. Subsequently, none of the concerned residents were informed of developments leading up to the important 5-13-94 MTC meeting. We received the ISTEA funding application for the DBE, but withheld comments pending receipt of the new traffic study due from Public Works. Nearly a year later, on 04-22-94, we discovered, by accident and after the fact, that CCTA approved the DBE application for ISTEA funds on 04-20-94 and found out about the 5-13-94 MTC meeting at the same time. We were not notified by Public Works or CCTA of any meetings, dial not receive the updated traffic study, and never had the opport:uni_ty to view a copy of the ISTEA application approved by OCTA. We have since determined that the ISTEA application submitted to CCTA and MTC is the exact one we reviewed nearly a year ago. The updated traffic data was not even included in the application. We received a copy of the new traffic study only upon our prodding; however, we cannot compare the old and new traffic figures because Public Works provided only a portion of the new study. A Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council member was informed that the study is 15-20 pages long, yet was he was given only seven pages of a DRAFT report. We cannot help but feel that County officials have tried to placate us with misleading promises and misinformation, stalled us, put roadblocks in our way, and now are trying to railroad a favorable MTC decision for Federal funding of the Diamond Blvd. Extension. In view of the above, and to protect: its own integrity, we feel that MTC Should withdraw this ISTEA funding application from consideration. Sincerely, C�tz �• oyce L. Jones President, Pacheco Town Council cc: California Attorney General, Daniel Lungren U.S. Attorney General, Janet Reno Congressman George Miller Senator Barbara Boxer Senator Diane Feinstein California Governor Pete Wilson California State Senator, Daniel Boatwright California Stat=e Assemblyman Robert Campbell Contra Costa County Clerk of the Board & Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County Public Works Pleasant Hill City Council Concord City Council. Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS & COMMENTS RE THE DBE ISTEA FUNDING APPLICATION: 1. Pg. 1, No. 3. What EIR was certified in 1989? The Airport Master Plan EIR, upon which this application is based was certified on 5-8-90, as stated in No. 23. 2. Pg. 2, No. 4. Where will the $528,300 LOCAL match come from? 3. Pg. 3, No. 9. How can the County indicate the need for rehabilition of Concord Avenue if that information is "N\A"? Describing this as a "replacement or rehabilitation project:" is misleading. The primary focus is building a NEW road. 4. Pg. Vii, No. 12. Why is the traffic accident data not supplied? The phrase ". . .but almost certainl.y will show increased accidents. . ." is guesswork and unsubstantiated. 5. Pg. 6, No. 16(c) . Why is this not answered? 6. Pg. 6, No. 17. When were these LOS ratings taken - 1986, 1987, or 1989? Why use such outdated information? 7. Pg. 7, No. 20. Why does the project stop at Sally Ride Drive even though our County Supervisor and Public Works have held meetings with residents to provide assurances and concessions regarding the widening Marsh Drive up to Solano. And where would these funds come from? 8. Pg. 8. Why use outdated traffic figures from 1986 & 1987? Even the Airport Master Plan EIR used 1989 figures. Figures from the long-promised traffic study update should have been used. 9. Pg. 9, No. 23. What "relocated terminal"? The first paragraph states the DBE will provide access to the "relocated terminal." That should state, proposed or future terminal because there is no terminal on the west side of Buchanan Field Airport. However, residents have been told that the DBE is necessary before building a new terminal on the west side of the airport. Basically, what we see is an incomplete and misleading application based on old traffic studies, developments that did not occur, and unsubstantiated assumptions that this road will improve circulation on highways 680, 4 .and 242. J.Michael Waltord Contra Public Works Department Public Works Director Costa 255 Glacier Drive Martinez,California 94553-4897 Milton F.Kctor CCountyFAX: (415)646-1147 Deputy Director June 12, 1990 Maurice E Mitchell Deputy Director Robert McCleary Executive Director Contra Costa Transportation Authority 2702 Clayton Road Suite 202 Concord, CA 94519 RE: Measure C Funding for Diamond Boulevard Extension Dear Mr. McCleary: This letter is our official notice to withdraw the Diamond Boulevard Extension project from the proposed Implementation Plan of Measure C_ The Board of Supervisors on April 24, 1990 voted to withdraw the project from the Implementation Plan. They feel that the project should be funded by development fees from the Buchanan Field Airport area since the project benefits future development in that area � Attached is a copy of the Board Order directing us to withdraw the project. Very truly yours, J. Michae afford Public rks Director JMW/MMS/eh c:Diamond5l.mC.t6 Attachment cc: Supervisor N. Fanden Supervisor S. McPeak Supervisor T. Powers Supervisor R. Schroder Supervisor T. Todakson P. Batchelor, County Administrator H. Bragdon, Community Development H. Wight, Buchanan Airport x , W � ?if1b3N0N1-10 ° c � a 090310•x1 J 00 � b 1d r-1 4r-1 O 4 O pX10 wto :R ob NN O V O b 0 V 0x-1 O •r1 � +JcaO • 4J N A CA 10 w 00 O N U (0 ,000 OAU 0 0ONgON -Pc A WO 0 N W, .,,1 0 0) �4 O 0 '0 44 0 W 0 ri A �. p 0 r♦ r01 0 71 c m rA � r1 0 r•1 �0 O AMM .'I 0wU ro � t m � � bWin USN ''' U•U f� , Ql -r1 r' o f0.1 f•1 U V 0 4 ` Z rl 0 0 row . o Q ^ � v O � 14 O 3 .0r-I0 tones V •rl 14 rel ON k 0 •.i O cn u 44 r. P4 0 -, tp v ani N 4V0Vrao 'dr13 Nro 3 N v 0 a 04-ri w 4j o � � w v 0 N b 4.J 0 t3)44 W A'. 0 D 0 9 O k p 0 vr� xP OV4JVb N •d4Jb U N a -rq 40 ' oA0 4400 bS1b A10 OQ0V0 GOU00 -tr H0 ON 0% 0 H0 > 3aN + 09r1 W4 U) u x o `D- 0 0) U c 3 A � - U1 r-1 0' M 0 0 r4 o w ON k 0)) co 0 ra . 14 •r1 0 -r1 A •r1 V 0 .0 Hro x ,�,' 4•11 U) :J N W N >1 •n� C 1 �7 h o'd r-11cac •r1ovN b3 NU k 00ro00 0W ca A co r. ro NaUtA4JOV +JOn •• 14 %D 0 0 (d 0 O (ox4 x 0 0 0 0 � ••• U M z r-1 Ul 0 4J 0 +J c U i-) h U U O O O UuV Economic Characteristics The development of Parcels A and B would be at the sole expense of private devel- opers. The costs of improving the public works infrastructure to support develop- ment of either parcel would also be borne by the developer, either in the form of a development fee or reimbursement to the County for infrastructure improvements initially funded by the County. Stage I (1989-1993) airfield improvements programmed for Stage I implementation include the widening and realignment of Taxiway J, associated taxiway edge lighting, and the initial construction increment for new Taxiway M 48 The total estimated cost for Stage I improvements and capital purchases is approximately $16.7 million. Not included as part of this cost is an additional $250,000 for drainage improve- ments along Marsh Drive as part of the program for improving this street. This would either be paid for by the developer of Parcel B or reimbursed to the County if constructed by the County prior to the development of Parcel B. Stage II (1993-1998) development is programmed for the second five-year period, and includes development of the remaining west side areas, development of the northside building area, an overlay of the east aircraft parking apron, and the re- maining airfield improvements 49 Total Stage II costs are estimated to be approxi- mately $3.9 million. Total project costs over the anticipated ten-year implementa- tion period would be about $ 20.6 million. Fundingsourc s. There are a varietyof sources from which financingfor airport fa- cilities end development can be obtained. These include grants frothe state and federal governments, loans from the state, airport revenue bonds, private invest- ment, and self-financing S0 Terminal area improvements would be paid for by the air carrier and commuter airlines. The Airport Master Plan report concludes that 'Buchanan Field is capable of over- all financial self-sufficiency during the 10-year planning period."51 A short-term . deficit is projected to result from proposed Stage I improvements if fees associated with the anticipated development of Parcel B are not forthcoming.12 These fees would be utilized to fund the Diamond Blvd. extension and Marsh Road improve- ments. Absent a developer for Parcel B, the County may have to seek alternative funds for the Diamond Blvd./Marsh Rd. project." The proposed golf course lease would be a revenue lease, with payments to the County going into the Airport Enterprise Fund of the Public Works Department. The current minimum golf course rent is $300.00 per month, plus 3 percent of gross income. The proposed minimum rent would become $1,000.00 per month, plus 3 percent of gross income. 48. Hodges&Shutt,et p.III-38. 49.kW.,p.III-38 and N-21. 50. ibid.,pp.IV-1 to IV-5. 51. ibid.,p.V-6. 52. ibid. 53. ibid. I-39 f The anticipated noise levels for the projected operations of BFA are base don a computer simulation. It cannot be determined whether these figures are correct unless verified by an ongoing noise monitoring system such as 14 proposed in the Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program. Consequently, there should be no increase in operations permitted until the noise monitoring system is in place to ascertain that noise impacts will not exceed the established levels. Projected Demand for Scheduled Air Carrier Service: The DEIR (page I-35) states that "the demand for scheduled air carrier and commuter airline service will exceed the limitations imposed by the Interim Access Plan, the County is obligated to review the environmental consequences of amending the plan to accommodate forecast demand levels." In our reply to the Notice of 15 Preparation, which is hereby incorporated into our comments in full, it is indicated that these projections are based on faulty assumptions and present an inflated estimate of future demand. These overestimates of the demand for scheduled and commuter air carrier service are then used as the rationale to increase the level of scheduled and commuter air carrier activity, build a new terminal, and commit public funds for a variety of related improvements. The DEIR has not responded to these comments. Economic Considerations: The DEIR page I-39 states that the development of parcels A and B would be at the sole expense of private developers. The DEIR does not specify whether this includes the cost of the Diamond Boulevard extension and other extensive off-site roadway improvements. In addition, 16 the DEIR (Page I-39) states that absent a developer for parcel B, the County may have to seek alternative funds for the Diamond Boulevard./Marsh Road project. The risks and benefits of this financing plan need to be explained more thoroughly and in more objective terns in the DEIR. Further, statements are made in the DEIR that terminal area improvements 17 would be paid for by scheduled and commuter air carriers. The DEIR does not specify how this would be done; Are landing fees sufficient to pay for the construction of the new passenger terminal? Air Quality: The section of the DEIR dealing with air quality, including the three-page supporting documentation in the appendix, is cursory, inadequate, and does not present information or analysis to substantiate the surprising conclusionary statement that there will be no significant impacts. As acknowledged in the DEIR page I-41, air quality is an essential factor in this report, since the California Air Resources Board must certify that the airport project will be "located, designed, constructed, and operated so as 18 to Ply with applicable air. . . quality standards" prior to receiving federal funding for certain airport development projects. The air quality analysis in the DEIR is wholly inadequate. Consider the following: -the Bay area is a non-attainment area under the federal Clean Air Act for ozone; -the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAMQD) has specified a 150 lb. a day maximum of ozone precursors (hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen); -table III-9 on page II-89 of the DEIR indicates that the project will exceed the 150 lb. per day threshold, with 574 and 561 lbs. per day of oxides of nitrogen in the year 1992-2010; -4- 11. Opinion noted. There is no evidence that Buchanan Field is unsafe. The Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for setting and enforcing safety standards for airports. The Airport has been certificated (i.e., licensed) by the FAA for operations. 12. Opinion noted. The Federal Aviation Administration is the regulatory safety agency for airports. Buchanan Field maintains airport firefighting and rescue (ARFF) capabilities in excess of that required by the FAA, for both existing and forecast levels and types of aviation activity. 13. The County Board of Supervisors accepted the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program for Buchanan Field on May 3, 1988. Since then the County has proceeded with the implementation of the majority of the adopted short-range (through 1993) noise control measures within their areas of responsibility. Attach- ment 1 provides the status of this implementation as of 1/1/90. For those Noise Compatibility Program elements not yet implemented, some will be implemented during 1990-91, some are ongoing, and some are the responsibility of other agencies, including the cities of Concord and Pleasant Hill, and the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission. Given that the period for implementation is through 1993, the County is already ahead of its schedule in implementing these measures. 14. Comment noted. The consultant's statement is in direct conflict with that of another City of Pleasant Hill consultant, who, in a report to the City, validated the noise modeling input data and assumption used in the FAR Part 150 study (Charles M. Salter &Associates, Consultants in Acoustics, December 1987). The FAR Part 150 noise modeling formed the basis for the noise impact analyses in the DEIR. 15. Opinion noted. No response necessary, as the City's consultant has mis- stated the purpose and intent of the forecasts. 16. As stated in the DEIR, it is the County's intent that private developers will be responsible for paying for the costs of infrastructure improvements, access im- provements and traffic mitigation measures associated with the development of Parcels A& B. Although the County may assume some initial responsibility for some of these improvements or mitigation measures, the costs will eventually be reimbursed by the developers of Parcels A and B. CEQA does not require an analysis of economic impacts, as requested by the City's consultant. 17. The statements are correct. Proposed terminal improvements would be funded through an Airport Use Agreement. Landing fees are a part of such an agreement, as are leases and concession fees. Landing fees alone would most likely not be sufficient to finance proposed terminal improvements. The combined landing fees, and lease and concession fees should be adequate to finance any needed terminal development. The financial or economic feasibility of such an undertaking is outside the scope of CEQA requirements. 2 The reference to the location of the required summary information is con- twined in the same paragraph of the DEIR as the incorporation reference (p. 1-8, Technical Characteristics). 7. The County would negotiate the acquisition of any required easements. Condemnation of such easements is also an option available to the County. Funding for such acquisition would be carried out through a combination of air- port enterprise funds and federal grants. 8. A discussion of the noise characteristics of the individual aircraft compris- ing the existing and projected fleet mixes at Buchanan Field is not appropriate to the project description section of a DEIR. This information is discussed on pp. III- 56 through III-68 of the DEIR. Table III-1 (p. III-59) sets forth the range of types of aircraft likely to be based at Buchanan Field from 1987 through 2010. 9. The DEIR is clear on this subject. The County proposes to negotiate the costs of any off-airport infrastructure improvements with the developers of Parcels A and B. 10. Opinion noted. No response required. 11. The Diamond Boulevard extension is needed to mitigate existing traffic problems. The proposed extension has been included in Contra Costa County and City of Concord policy plans for many years, based on traffic studies of the surrounding area. The proposed extension predated the Parcel B development proposal, although a previous EIR completed in 1983 stated that the extension would be essential to the development. 12. Opinion noted. 13. Opinion noted. The fact remains, and the DEIR acknowledges, that the By- ron Airport is to accommodate projected east Contra Costa County general aviation demand. This is demand that might otherwise have to be accommodated at Buchanan Feld. The conclusion that the Byron Airpark site is the only other reasonable and feasible airport site has been supported through general aviation airport site selection studies carried out by the County. The most recent of these is entitled,"East Contra Costa County Airport Site Study, Phase 1 Site Identification and evaluation." (October 1984). The report notes that 'Previous Contra Costa County airport studies dating back at least a decade identified the need for one or more new airports in the county to relieve the parking and operational pressure on busy Buchanan Field. Continued urbanization in the western and central sections of the county has essentially eliminated the possibility of developin. a new airport in those areas. Now, however, rapidly growing population in the east county, coupled with the (then) probable closure of Antioch Airport [...], has shifted i • . June 28, 1993 � - From: Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council (PMAC) To: SUPERVISOR Sunne McPeak Subj: DIAMOND BLVD. EXTENSION PROJECT Ref: (a) Development Program Report for Diamond Extension area of Benefit (REV. June 9 , 1986) r Encl: (1)- Proposed Change to Marsh Drive in .Front of Rancho Diablo MHP PMAC is alluding to Page 3 of reference (a) , that states that the subject plan may be updated through staff/community action pro- viding input to the Board of Supervisors for formal approval. The Diamond Blvd. Extension Project with revisions adopted by the Board of Supervisors on 9 June 1986 is being questioned by PMAC and the citizens of the local community. The area in question is Marsh' Drive from ARIA (located at the entrance to Concord Cascade MHP) north to just short of the curve past Rancho Diablo MHP. It is the belief that reference (a) plan falls short in giving consideration to the residents of Rancho Diablo MHP, and that by bringing in Diamond Blvd. into Pacheco, the highest impact will be j on the residents who live in the area of Marsh Drive. These resi- dents do not want Diamond Blvd. brought into Marsh Drive, but if it has to be brought into Marsh Drive, the residents want the roads widened prior to bringing in more traffic generated by connecting Diamond Blvd. and Marsh Drive. A general survey was accomplished by two members of PMAC (Mr. J. Minick and Mr. J. Schneider) and a resident of Concord Cascade MHP (Mr. R. Tomlin) in determining how to reduce the major impact to the area of Marsh Drive and the Mobile Homes located there. Their findings were to widen Marsh Drive past Rancho Diablo MHP and cover over the ditch all the way to the culvert. This would increase the proposed widening of Marsh Drive length approximately 1500 feet . Also, the residents of Rancho Diablo' MHP feel that they should have the same considerations afforded to the other two MHP' s (i.e. ,sig- nal lights and turn lanes , per enclosure (1') . The roadway as it rounds the curve is 42' wide with 8' walk ways on either side. There is ample room and many ways to .manipulate the area to pick up an additional 6-7 feet to make four (4) 12' lanes around the curve. (Enc. 2) PMAC as advisors to the County Supervisors recommend revising reference (a) to include the survey taken by our appointed repre- sentatives on this subject. Respectfully, Mr. W. Wiggs President of PMAC cc: Mr. J. Minick, Mr. J. Schneider, Mr. R. Tomlin, Y Imuo s000 tx \ Pic 1 ;. AQ ` A4 t"��' c'9 7d �ti� P W{► Q 7.t� W U l= ve , IVo v 7-A ; IJP e A- e ?` 74 t3-pF� v F' /3 j / L �� ..._.....n::..:... 64kAea A Viae " 'TaY44 Yale Y4aaa*d, %64yowia ms23 May 18, 1994 Contra Costa Transportation Authority 1340 Treat Boulevard Walnut Creek, California 94596 Re: ISTEA Federal Funding for Diamond Blvd. Extension MTC 1995 TIP/1994 RTIP Roadway Protect Application Dear Commissioners: The. ISTEA Federal funding application for the Diamond Blvd. Extension (DBE) should be withdrawn from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and the application should be investigated by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. CCTA ranked and submitted to the MTC an inaccurate ISTEA application. The application contains unanswered questions, unsubstantiated statements, incomplete information, and outdated data - a combination which produces an incorrectly-ranked project with a false high-priority status. The ISTEA application is based on the Environmental Impact Report for the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan. The EIR does not adequately address the impacts of the Diamond Blvd. Extension. And according to the Director of Public Works, Mike Walford, "The traffic report was done when they did the Master Plan about 3 years ago. . . the report considered 680,000 square feet of office space." The allowable square footage to be considered has been reduced by over 200,000 square feet. When residents realized the County would gain an unfair advantage by applying for any Diamond Blvd. funding based upon use of the old traffic study, Mr. Walford agreed to update the traffic study and keep residents informed. He told me he'd notify me of any meetings, and the progress of funding requests. In June 1993, he sent me a copy of the most recent revision of an ISTEA application, but with further assurance that the new traffic study was progressing. In 7/93, CCTA's Martin Engelmann sent me updated intersection traffic counts which I planned to use to verify the new traffic study. The County did not even use the new traffic study in the ISTEA application. And according to Mr. Walford, he did not receive a copy of the draft new traffic study until 4/27/94 - a week after CCTA approved the ISTEA application and passed it onto MTC. The validity of the ISTEA application lessens every day. The true purpose for the Diamond Blvd. Extension is questionable. The DBE will add traffic to the area instead of relieving traffic congestion. The County must have the new road built before it can build a traffic-cgenerating passenger terminal on the west side of its Buchanan Field Airport. And residents have been told by County staff that the DBE is essential if the County hopes to lease out Parcel B (more traffic) near the proposed new terminal area. And we have been assured repeatedly that developer fees from Buchanan Field Airport Parcels A and B - not taxpayer's money - will pay for the Diamond Boulevard Extension. The need for traffic relief is overshadowed by the County's desire to make money off its Airport property. Diamond Blvd. Extension May 18, 1994 Page 2 The first item for the CCTA to check is in a memo your office received from Public Works on 5/11/94. "The federal environmental process (NEPA) for the project has not been completed. If the project is granted ISTEA funding, the County will pursue the NEPA document. As part of the NEPA process, the community will have an opportunity to comment on the project.° Once the Federal government grants those funds, there will be no need to pursue the NEPA document! It is no wonder residents want the CCTA to withdraw this ISTEA application now! Sincerely, Andrea M. Wise 64 Baylor Lane Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 (510) 686-2059 c: California Attorney General, Daniel Lungren U:S. Attorney General, Janet Reno Congressman George Miller Senator Barbara Boxer Senator Diane Feinstein California Governor Pete Wilson California State Senator Daniel Boatwright California State Assemblyman Robert Campbell Metropolitan Transportation Commission Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Pleasant Hill City Council Concord City Council Martinez City Council Pacheco Town Council Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council Contra Costa Times San Francisco Chronicle Martinez Gazette