HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04272004 - D4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS .f�,- .•
Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP ="F Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ,,,. County
DATE: APRIL 27, 2004
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON BUCHAN'AN FIELD RFP PROCESS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
1. ACCEPT a status report on the Buchanan Field Airport Request For Proposals (RFP)
process from the Community Development Director on behalf of the Interdepartmental
Screening Committee on Aviation Alternatives for Buchanan Field ("Screening
Committee") in accordance with the Board Order of December 9, 2003.
2. ACKNOWLEDGE the comments received to date from the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA as the ultimate arbiter of the disposition and development Of
federally funded airports), concerns raised by Congressional Representatives Ellen
Tauscher and George Miller, and comments from the City of Concord, Contra Costa
County Aviation Advisory Committee, and others.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE 11 1 "
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COM MI EE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON April 27, 2004 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X
See attached addendm for Board action.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT None } CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
ABSENT: _ ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
Contact: P.Rocha,CDD-Adv.Ping.(925)335-1242 ATTESTED April 27, 2004
cc: County Administrator JOHN SWEETEN, CLERIC OF THE BOARD OF
County Counsel SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Public works Dept. s
Mgr., Division of Airportsi�
BY.j DEPUTY
.............. .11.11....
........ _
...........__11.1.1. _111.1. _.. ...... _
............ . ._._.
........ .............. ..._1111...
April 27,2004
Board of Supervisors
Status Report on Buchanan Field RFP Process
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION — continued
3. DIRECT the Screening Committee to submit the Buchanan Field RFP to the Board for
consideration and approval by May 25, 2004.
4. DIRECT that the Buchanan Field Airport RFP, which would invite the submission of
proposals to develop Buchanan Field for non-aviation uses, must at a minimum require
respondents to address the following concerns related to a replacement airport.
A. DEMONSTRATE that a replacement airport, either equivalent to or better than
Buchanan Field, can be located and developed in central Contra Costa County prior
to conveyance and/or development at Buchanan Field. This requirement must be
satisfiedby presenting a clear and specific replacement airport plan as part of any
proposal. The replacement airport plan must include the identification of a location
for a replacement airport and describe the adequacy of the location in terms of
aviation and environmental constraints. The plan must also include a program for
acquisition, financing and development of the replacement airport.
B. DEMONSTRATE that the proposed location for a replacement airport in central
Contra Costa County has a reasonable likelihood of approval by the Federal Aviation
Administration, State and Federal resource agencies (e.g. US Fish & Wildlife
Service, CA Dept. of Fish & Game), or other agencies with jurisdiction of the site.
C. DEMONSTRATE that the proposed replacement airport in central Contra Costa
County would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations,
and orders.
D. DEMONSTRATE that the proposed replacement airport in central Contra Costa
County can be constructed and placed into operation before the Buchanan Field site
is conveyed, in whole or in part, to an entity for non-aviation development.
5. DIRECT that the Buchanan Field Airport RFP require respondents to explain how they
would prepare an analysis of the fiscal and economic impacts of the development of the
replacement airport and non-aviation development at Buchanan Field on Contra Costa
County government and cities adjacent to the replacement airport and Buchanan Field.
6. DIRECT that the Buchanan Field Airport RFP require respondents to include in their
response an affordable housing program addressing moderate, low, and very low
income housing needs in a fashion similar to the Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing
Program.
7. DIRECT that the Buchanan Field Airport RFP provide 120 days for a respondent to
submit a proposal and 120 days for a review and evaluation of proposals submitted in
response to the RFP.
......... ... _.. _
.. ...................................... ....... _
. ..... _......__.
. ................................
. ...................
April 27, 2004
Board of Supervisors
Status Report on Buchanan Field RFP Process
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION —continued
8. CONSIDER and SELECT from the following options regarding the scope of potential
development at Buchanan Field:
A. OPTION "A": Allow RFP respondents to identify and select the areas of the
Buchanan Field airport property they desire to develop for non-aviation uses.
B. OPTION"Bn: The Board would select the areas of the airport property it believes are
appropriate for non-aviation development. Under this option,the Board would have
the choice of identifying in the RFP the areas of the airport property that would be
considered for development. For example, the Board could choose just the airfield
area, the aviation related use areas (fixed base operations, hangars, tie down
areas), and the golf course but exclude the non-aviation commercial use areas; or,
choose just the golf course and the non-aviation commercial use areas.
If Option "B" is the preferred option, the Board at this meeting should select the
preferred area of the airport property to be identified in the RFP for consideration of non-
aviation development.
As noted above in recommendation#5, under either option the RFP respondents would
be required to explain how they would prepare an analysis of the fiscal and economic
impacts of their development proposal on Contra Costa County government and cities
adjacent to the replacement airport and Buchanan Field.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None at this time. However, as previously noted in the 12/9/2003 Board Report, the
initiation of the RFP process is a significant undertaking, which has now initially been
underwritten from an allocation of $50,000 from the Dougherty Valley Regional
Enhancement Fund, and the County's costs associated with this effort are ultimately to
be reimbursed by the respondents to the RFP.
BACKGROUND 1 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
On December 9, 2003,the Board of Supervisors directed the Community Development
Director, Public Works Director, County Administrator, and County Counsel to assemble
an interdepartmental screening committee for the purpose of preparing a Request For
Proposals (RFP) to invite the submission of proposals to develop Buchanan Field for
non-aviation uses. The December 9, 2003 action also directed that staff to either submit
the RFP to the Board for consideration and approval within 140 days or submit a report
to the Board in the event of an unanticipated delay in the preparation of the RFP.
__. _........ 1111.. _
.. ...............__..._....... . _. _. . 1111 ......._..
. ........_.. .. ... ..._.. __
........ .........-_..............
1 111................................
Apri127,2004
Board of Supervisors
Status Report on Buchanan Field RFP Process
Page 4
BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION - continued
The purpose of this report is to provide a status on the RFP process, to acknowledge
the comments received to date from the FAA, Congressional representatives, and
others, and to seek the Board's guidance and direction on certain key issues that have
emerged since the December 9, 2003 action. It is now anticipated that the RFP will be
submitted to the Board for consideration and approval at the May 25, 2004 meeting.
Shortly after the December 9, 2003 Board action, the Screening Committee initiated
work on the RFP and retained the services of a real estate economist and an aviation
operations/airport planning firm to provide advice and technical assistance. In the course
of RFP preparation, the Screening Committee became aware of important and
significant correspondence exchanged between several parties that directly relates to
the possible closure of Buchanan Field. Attached for the Board's consideration under
Exhibit 1 are the following letters related to the possible closure of Buchanan Field since
the December 9, 2003 Board action:
1. 12/24/2003 Letter from Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier, Chair, Board of Supervisors to
Mr. Andy Richards, Regional Administrator, FAA — letter sent at the behest of the
Board's 12/9/2003 action.
2. 1/20/2004 Letter from Andy Richard, Regional Administrator, FAA to Supervisor
Mark DeSaulnier— in response to the 12/24/2003 letter.
3. Joint Letter from U.S House of Representatives members Ellen Tauscher and
George Miller, dated 1/22/2004, to the FAA Administrator.
4. FAA Associate Administrator response to joint letter from Representatives Tauscher
and Miller.
5. 2/11/2004 Letter from Ed James, City Manager, City of Concord's comments on the
Buchanan Field RFP Process.
6. 2/201/2004 Letter from Russell Roe, Chair, Contra Costa County Aviation Advisory
Committee, comments on the Buchanan Field RFP Process.
7. 3/10/2004 Letter from Helen M. Allen, City of Concord, official position of Concord
City Council on the Buchanan Field RFP Process.
As noted in the FAA letters, a substantial issue to be considered in their decision to
release the County from grant agreement obligations that would enable the closure of
Buchanan Field for use of non-aviation purposes is the construction of a replacement
airport. Based on this FAA comment, the Screening Committee recommends that the
Board provide cleardirection that the respondents to the RFP,at minimum,address the
need for a replacement airport facility in central Contra Costa County by demonstrating
that the replacement airport:
• Will be either equivalent to or better than Buchanan Field;
• Can be located and developed in central Contra Costa County prior to
conveyance and/or development at Buchanan Field;
April 27, 2004
Board of Supervisors
Status Report on Buchanan Field RFP Process
Page 5
BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION —continued
• Has a reasonable likelihood that it can be approved by the Federal Aviation
Administration, State and Federal resource agencies (e.g. U.S 'fish & Wildlife
Service, CA Dept. of Fish & Game), or other relevant agencies;
• Can comply with all applicable State and Federal laws and regulations;
• Can be built and be operational before the Buchanan Field site is conveyed, in
whole or in part, to an entity for development of non-aviation uses.
The Screening Committee has identified a concern with fiscal impacts associated with
the development of Buchanan Field for non-aviation purposes and development of any
replacement airport facility. These impacts include the potential short-term loss of
revenue from existing ground leases on Buchanan Field, sales taxes, and transient
occupancy taxes, and the longer-term consequences for the County's fiscal health when
Buchanan Field is developed and a new replacement airport is built; and becomes
operational. The Screening Committee believes the Board should understand the
potential fiscal impacts about future decisions relating to the Buchanan Field
development and a replacement airport. The comments from the City of Concord to
date have also raised concerns with fiscal and economic impacts to Concord associated
with the closure of Buchanan Field. Consequently, the Screening l Committee is
recommending that the Board provide clear direction to RFP respondents asking them
to explain how they would prepare a fiscal and economic impact analysis of the
development of both the replacement airport facility and the non-aviation uses at
Buchanan Field on Contra Costa County government and cities adjacent to the airport.
The Screening Committee has discussed the need for clarity on the Board's stated
interest to provide affordable housing as a part of the development of Buchanan Field.
The December 9,20103 action identifies the need to provide a mix of housing, including
workforce housing and opportunities for lower income households, but it is not explicitly
stated as one of the objectives for the development of non-aviation uses at Buchanan
Field. The Screening Committee recommends the RFP be more explicit by requiring
RFP respondents to include an affordable housing program addressing moderate, low,
and very low income housing needs in a fashion similar to the Dougherty Valley
Affordable Housing Program.
The Screening Committee has discussed the need to allow a sufficient length of time for
respondents to prepare and submit proposals in response to the RFP and,also to allow
the County sufficient time to review and evaluate the proposals submitted in response to
the RFP. The December 9, 2003 action did not address this issue of time to prepare a
proposal and the time to review and evaluate the proposals. However, the Screening
Committee advises that the RFP should be clear by providing 120 days for the
respondents to prepare a proposal, and a commensurate 120 days for the County to
review and evaluate proposals.
April 27, 2004
Board of Supervisors
Status Report on Buchanan Meld RFP Process
Page 6
BACKGROUND I REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION - continued
Finally, the Screening Committee has discussed how respondents to the Buchanan
Field RFP should address their plans for future development of Buchanan Field. Should
the respondents assume that the entire airport property, all 495 acres (including the
airfield, aviation related uses, non-aviation commercial uses, and the golf course), is
under consideration for development?The December 9, 2003 action did not specifically
address this question. The Screening Committee recommends the Board consider and
select from two distinct options:
o OPTION `°A": Leave the question of what areas on the airport property to
develop entirely up to the RFP respondent,essentially allow them to propose
the areas to be developed;
or,
o OPTION "B": The Board would select the areas of the airport property it
believes are appropriate for non-aviation development. Under this option,the
Board would have the choice of identifying in the RFP the areas of the airport
that would be considered for development. For example, the Board could
choose the airfield area, the aviation related use areas (fixed base
operations, hangars, tie down areas), and the golf course but exclude the
non-aviation commercial use areas,or, choose the golf course and the non-
aviation commercial use areas.
If Option "B" is the preferred option, the Board at this meeting should select the
preferred area of the airport property to be identified in the RFP for development
consideration.
As noted under recommendation #5, regardless of which option is selected by the
Board, the RFP respondents would be required to explain how they would prepare an
analysis of the fiscal and economic impacts of their development proposal on Contra
Costa County government and cities adjacent to the replacement airport and Buchanan
Field.
Attached to this report under Exhibit 2 is an aerial photograph of the Buchanan Field
airport property,which delineates the aviation uses, non-aviation commercial uses,and
the golf course. This aerial photograph is provided to assist the Board members in
considering its options and choices in what areas of the airport property should be
included in the RFP.
Attached Exhibits (2)
1. Correspondence received since the 12/9/2003 Board action
2. Aerial photograph of Buchanan Field Airport Existing Uses
G:Advance P3anung3adv-ptanSosrd Grdem\Status Report RFP Buchanan-B004-27-04.doc
EXHIBIT 1
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED
SINCE THE 1219/2003 BOARD ACTION
X, y
{ f
71
... �,�,. Ya+' d tif. ": r f t�*�' 6�j,f yR�Y ?a,*t �• _
f
y> �: •.. ..8 • V ��� .,3' �/ 4} '�} � ••s f� � s � ry�n e'� ^sus:
f � ,
As IM"
OT
ism
w'
fff ¢
f
4 Kq }
�yi 5
�s
7C f': : f f f�• > >
p s � f
f
f
n
f!
RAW
W.
/ t.
f s
yi{
r�� .. ,
fj f
::� a �,:�" /f� ip 4f �; a$ f 4f,h,�,,f /y'�ey/Y .*",�C,,ar.,",,. '_ ✓� t
pf
f
✓r� 1; > ;:.� � t� !, .:fit }: � s 1�' Z t '' 7 -4x #•Si
oil
E y+: � ir� >„�: ft fj' f✓•sy /f',� - fJ
f 55 S
#''f
F'; { `$ � f 4t `Y,•£ "�tf"�4..f /� � �Y �'� F�r ? ft! �.,,,A` S f
pyo
.9f 5 rf t
fy" 'iP.-' .?'y
e'er; 5 }3 7 L t ± tA oil up ,
p� fJ/
/.' ra '_ ✓ � 1, � .. ¢
t.
two A
It
r
f
.: res s $
MIF
`�lr�3a
2425 Bisso Lane,Suite 110 Chairman
Concord,California 94520-4817
Contra Costa County
(925)646-5763 Board of Supervisors
(925)646-5767(FAX)
dist4@bos.co.contra-costa.ca-us Mark DeSa lr. er
Supervisor,Distciot rV
Clayton,Clyde,Concord,Pacheco,Plessmi hull
walnut Creek
December 24,2003
IvLr.Andy Richwds
San Francisco Airports District Office
Federal Aviation administration
831 Kitten Road,Suite 210
San Francisco,California 94010
Dear Mr.Richards:
Since my last meeting with you,our Board of Supervisors has det=ained that it is in the best interest of
our County to examine how wo can make better use of our two airport properties. To that end,on
December 9 we adopted the attached legislation.to seek a Request,for Proposals that will study possible
new uses for Buchanan.Field in our central County and erliancement ofByyron Airport in Bast County.
Our Board rnade clear that any plan must be based upon a clear and demonstrable irnprovetnent for
aviatian in our area.
We recognize that there is concern about whether it is possible to achieve the twin objectives of
alleviating our critical housing steed and enhancing aviation. I strongly belies that it is possible and
That we have w,obligation to book at all options. T'^ere is a serious question whether either property
currently is providing our citizens with maximumbenefit. `There also does not appear to be potontial
for real improvement unless we explore the development of new uses that could generate resources for
the ersl=cement ofgeneral aviation and cargo operations while providing needed housing and
transportation in our rsost heavily populated areas. Thew exists a very reel possibi3ity haat BYachanan
could be moved within Central County,to a site more conducive to aviation and still provide the other
bents we seek.
You and Mz.Rodriguez tirade clear to rhe that you have no interest in reducing the number of airports,
However,if we are able to create a dy-narnic that permits us to have a regional facility that is much
stronger than what we achieve today with our two,outmoded small facilities.I am$are you would wart
to consider that oppor;t miry. I appreciate your vier that what we are currently involved with is a Local
land use matter and that you would not anticipate me poading until such time as an actual proposal has
been developed,if at all, NVe are ming the fmt step with that in mind. ,
Unless you advise us root to proceed,it is our int rtion to strove forward with this first step. Whom we
have completed the research acrd exarr#hed our options,we will give you,our report and b-py°Wpa-ed for
furtber discussions with you. As always,I am happy to answer my questions and we look forwand to
meeting with you again once we have completed our study.
Sissccrely,
Mark DeSaulraio: t
J irt1�( kC 7� ll It nntAll
u,��a.�f 6eiust y,�,yr� x� v�av�p v,erys P#StL :fres cXLttJ �#BtuG
Departrnent Wasta€ -Padlic Realon 839 Mitten Rood,Suite 270
of Transpoftll n ,Dlyislon S:Alinazma,CA 0401 O
San FrIncisco Airport District of a 1,300
Federal Aviation
Administration
January 20, 2004
lam.Mark DeSaulnier°
Sup=-visor District T
Contm Costa.County Boaxd of Supervisors
2425 Bisso Line, Suite 110
Concord, CA 94520-4817
Dear r.DeSaulnier.
Thank you for your letter of Dacember 24,2004 informing the Federal Aviation
A.d=iastratiou (FAA) of the Contra Costa County intent to conduct a land use planning
study. We have reviewed the December 9,2003 Pesolufion authorizing a Request for
Proposals 0R�F)to undertake a study to explore alternatives for aviation and compatible
land use measures in support of housing and ortation_ I'e also understand that as
part of the study, Che County intends to consider new rion atmnautical uses for Bachanar
Field(CCR) and possible enhancement of Byrom Airport(C83).
While the FAQ,encourages County officials to move forward with ar, update of the local .
transportation and land use planning efforts, from an avlataou.perspective,itis the FAA's
opirdon that both cif these airports are critical reliever airports as para of the National
Plan of lntegmted Airport systems OQ AS), and play a vital role in the local,regional,
Ate and national transportation systems.Needless to say,both asrpor'ts play an important
role for civil aviation that extends beyond the limits of'Ie County.
To that end,the FAA has provided Federal funds for airport construction and
improvements and for master plan updates for the Byron and RLIchanan Field Airports
totaling over S 14 million in the case of CCR and over S24 mon in the case of C83. In
addition,,Buebman Field was conveyed to the County by the Federal Gov=meat under
the Surplus Property Act of 1944 to be used as an airport. Because land was accltai-red.
with Fed rral -ands at both airports, the Federal obligations nm in perpetuity.
In accepting Federal fun.d€ng,namely it terms of surplus property`transfers and Airport
improvement Brame (,AIP) fa ds,the County lits agreed to speck tm=and
conditions,i.e„, Federal obligations,required by Federal statute, and has obligated itself
in binding agreements to comply with those obligatioris.The County's ob gatictns
includc, among ether tags, commitments to sake he airport available for public use as
an airport;not to permit:any activity that would interfere with use as an airports wid riot to
dispose of the sirport7 or encum- ber the amort title or of ter interest in the airoorr,property
and facilities du ng tine period of Federal interest. Consequently,f'he Co=fy may not
uUldl =,-,rrn„-.�n� �ei �; � � n 1)
�arl.aay!c%-2 A'Lovv an.ra_v'V v-Vs 10+I asstx xau Av%j W�-vwd
close the airport without FAA's consent and without a fo,-=l release of*Ie city from the
terms of the applicable Federal. obligations,
A County's request for release of Federal obligations would be considered on its tuex%ts.
The decision to grant or deny the request would be gcided by the statutes,regulations,
and FAA policy appiicabje to the spec 5c types of ar-eements involved, including the
repayment of any ATP grant funds as prescribod in FAA Order 5190.6A, Chapter 7
"Release, Modification, Reformation or Amendment ofAirpor rA reements" acid 14 Code
of Federal Rcgulations Dart 155 `"Release o,f airport property ftom Suurplus properlY
disposal rest°Hcdow,"
However,the concurrence of the Associate Administrator for Airports (ARP-1)is
required before granting any release.from the obligations of a graut agreemenT which
would enable a sponsor to abandon or dispose of in entire airport for nan-ai•port
praposes.:a request to re+ease an,entire airport shall be considered by ARP-I on a
case-by-case,basis without lirnitation to the guidelines contained in FAA{girder 5190,6A.
we Mote that FAA has only rarely considercd application for release of all sponsor
obligahions enout to allow for the closure of the asrpoet, and then only in unusual
cizeumstaaces, often including the construction of a replacement airport. in this case, the
FAA,would take into acco=t the facts that Buchem Field, as a major reliever airport,
accommodates more than 156,000 operadons per year and serves as the base for over 580
aircraft ars one of the most critical areas in the Co=try from an aviation inkastructure
standpoint.
The vital role of CCR is reflected by the level of investment made by the Federal
Goverment,and the sponsor's willingness to invest and develop the facility in recent
years,is decidedly into naistent with a request for closure. The prospects for FAA
concurrence in closing Buchanan Fiela are highly unlikely in light of the circ .stances
we believe the County could advance as justification for such closure.
I you have additioaaa'questions or need information regarding the,Airport Tmprovemew,
Program grant agreement obligations please cont=I& Andrew Richards,Manager,
Airports District Office at(650) 876-2894 or fir. Joseph Rodriguez, Supervisor
Environmental Fla in,g&Coaopl<ance Section at(650)876-2805.
Sincerely,
4,
Andrew M.Richards
J C,^rr. 1�1.1 1J'!nl"7 n -1r \I�j �j 1 i,a'I .��n ia, l �,stn n' 6t:
�F3 � -Fe 16002/003
Fax to: Centra Costa County Board of Supervisors 1/23/0-4
C=vmg if t4Baldtib oma
zm*t�j
JAN Z
The Honorable MaHoa Blakey
Federal A.vision Administration
Soo bAtpondeWA A.ve nue,SW
Washington,DC 20591
Dean`Adi inif'ator Blakey.
We writa to daelare our strong opposition to tlaa closing of Swam Field Airport in Centra
Costa county,California and request FAA°a gcaeitio€i on this proposal.
We recently received a ropy of a letter daW Decezuber 24,2003 ftm Contra Costa C,*=ty
Supwy,ixorr Marr DeSwdaier to your Re=al Maaagar,Mr,Andrew li i&,ingWring
about FkA.'s position on his zmd the County's damirm to conduct a land-use std that would
contemplate non-svia$on rues at Burma Field. AA the letbor staff,the study would
c ntmpl closs*Bucc a awd developing ng hour on,the site, &
se n i ces ebmbgra in the Couuty and expanding Byron.A ort.
We belie w that Buchan=held is an important eleMe nt ofthe 600WInic u*s6tacturo of
Cel Conti Cosmo County and our region..We also believe that Bucy Field will
ccsutiwe to be an important asset in the r#gion's aviation inlimtrttcture.We.reccgei=TW it
beailss tae rega n both wilyreepct tx)our local ezoamay and with respect to the i3nP&Mut
role that it plays in enwStacy simstions and as a reliever art for SPO,Salt lose and
0aWand Airports.
As your hollow,Bucha=is built on access#edam land sided by the Navy to the Coin°for
the scle purpose of proviftig aviation sere to tree region. Furthermore,aaplaw imately S14
ujillion in fedi grafi through the Anport Improvement mgr.=have 1bom used by the
Cowity to develop and emhance air services at Buchanan. Given she Co'stwy'a dbligadow to
the hdaral Sovw=cut for this Land and p&st ftdin&it appeal that the County would face
hi final a 'I &uat+tic hues to close Buchan..
€ur support of contbauits operations at B+ahanan Fscuf 4e0s riot dmini$h=sCOAS suppert
firs the Byron ahporL Wit believe that pol ulat ion growtlu and growing z==fttW activity in
IbA%region requim continuing improvenimM upgraded,and operation expwmiow of the
Byron,wilily,along with a vital l3ucham Field. Bath airpolu play an iz%iporunt role in
rodu tint cargo air traMe at m region's lamer airports and infmtuctx=investments should
continue w bv wa&at bath foiliti.es to ani out cowxws growing needs,
While,we=Zoumgc anart lauad'Wo planning_ and r opize the need to develop xrxcs�C
d&Td9bla hoc g,wo arc concasnvd that tato County wiBI spm scam mourees to conduct a
inti
rrrr = nr,.
l Ua032" M-C177-10F� 7 yy,,, y.
M V. 6 E 1 e
01/22/2004 18;59 PAX 40
asfaoa
shady that Watetnpiates clow Budume when the County's ou=w fiduciary obliptions to
Your ag=cy and die federal govannazat appw to make oloan n*u impossible.
We nqud eig your resp=a melwfe your position on the role tat'BuaMnan Field and its
potential closure. We would also appreciate a thosouO dau rOon of the process king the
County should they commue m pursue it elope plea.
A-2 the elected If deml represewativeA of this region,we feel is is impost to convey our
strong opposition to the closum ofthis'valuable asset
`lank you in advance and we lock forward to your prompt rMonse>
Sincerely,
FU17AA-A A.. LA
1
C3,TA CMR e5;?=M!IL
..Member ofCOASM8S ':caber CoAgress
Aar �i 7 = ?004 . ? 04PIv; SJFERV 1 SOR MARK SE SAJ!N1 ER
INe .4040 P : 21/0g3
o
e
J-111 D991Wff a%r Offioa of ft A ndata 8e0 WeWdartae Am.6W.
of'gon Roth+ Admintwator forAtrpertrs Wash[vigOn,DO 2001
Adn*%Wr*11On
FEB - 9 2004 MAR�1 RECT
Tho Honorable Men 0.Tauscher
House of Repre t tives
Washingto%DC 20515
r)car Congresswoman Tauscher.
AdY611LIM Or Blakey has ashen.the to=pond to yoUr IOU=ofJanuary22,cosigned
by Congressman George NMer,about your oppostdon to the proposed closure of
Buchman Field Airport CCR)by Contra Costa County(County),
This Federal Aviadon Administration(FAA)zwoumps the county to move forurard
Zvi&an update of the loml urihaport and land use planning dforts,which include
aviadott. However,it is the FAA's position that CCR is a critical reliever airport in the
NidorAj Plan oMtegratcd Airport Systems. Bath CM and Byron Airport play an
important role for aviation that extends beyond the iimzts of the county.
The FAA has provided Federal.;funds for airport coustuetion and improvements and for
toaster Plan updates for CCR and Bymrt Airport. The toted amount of Federal ftmds
used at CCR.and Bymu Airport exceeds$34 million. Also,the Federal Cova=mc zt
transferred CCR,to the county under the Surplus Property Act of 1944, `lerefore,
must relnfark man—dm°rt. Because Federal gids paid for land at both airports,the
fe—deW obligations rua forever.
In accepting.Federal funding,natuely in surplus property trawferi and Airport
improvement Program maids,the county has agreed to spec Federal obligations, The.
county's obligations i=ludtr commitments to make the airport available for public uzsc
as an airpoxt. They do not allow any use that would inter ro with use as an airport.
Thus,thkcqst��y� �`ls� "� ��itlmut�A�}s r►s tend w�r�•at a fazm�
rel ase=Lie
-cit -ft' &v tem t fibre: pgls hle f`edc .Cbligado**,- . .
A aqunees request for release ofFedeai obligadons depends on its merits. he
decis"zort to Vmt or deny the request depends on the statutes,regulations,and FAA.
policy applicable to die spt cific types ofagr=mants iavolved. The decision by FAQ,
vvill adhere to guidance ire.FAA Chet 5190.6A,Chapter 7"Retetse,Mad catio&
Reformation or�Amendment ofAirporrAgraementi'and 14 Code of Federal -viation
Regaladons Part 155",Bale=s gfAtrpar t Property frorn Surplus Property Disposal
Ralrzcfions," 1 have taclosed a copy of tho PAA.Order.
0 ,4J4b!
2
1 note that FAA.has or ly rely considered application for release of all spont~or
obligadons to allow for the clowe of the airports=4 then oaly in the highly unusual
case that'the closing was a.benefit to dvit aviation. In dis case;CCS.is a major reliever
airport,with mom then 156,000 ope tions ymly, and serves as'the but for more thin
Sgt?aircraft. Continued operation of CCR is etme,�ely iniportmt for civil aviation in
ceartA- California.
Aocoxdingly,the impose of tho airport and the invatmwt in.the airport by the
p adoral Govommm are xuconsistent with a request for closure.
1f'you or your staff Dred fuer help,please contact It+!r.David BaUoM Assistut
Administmtor for Govemment and JnduMy Afl rs,at(202)267®3277°
We'have cent an idautical leiter to CoxWresssrttan,Nfillerr.
Sincerely,
''g'''oodie Woodward
Associatc Administrator
for Airports
ldnclosure;
FE-2-11-2004 WED 12;2'. PM OITY 01F 0NO RD �AX NO, 92h*198U 36 _ F, U1
ft"a COMM H%mbdaY U. Alien, Mayor
1950 llkddo Nive Laara M, Ho#`fM6010r,Viet Mayer
Concord, California 90IM57,� St AV, B011131Na
Bill McMILni l
c1ePa�ncse: ( ?s`�sa71 53 Mw-k A, Peteraoix
�� Y �Ullman, C.'ity Ct�s'k
Xhawtu WeliCling, City Troaurer
tdwaj4 It,jamu,tatty Manager
February 11, 21104
VU FAX: (925)335-1222
(HARD COPY SENT VIA&ROLsi-AR"I LI
Dennis M. Barry, AICD
Community Development Director
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street,4th Floor,North Wing
Ertinez,CA 94553-0095
RE', City of Concord's Comments on ties Biiechanan Field Airport•RF'Process
Dear Mr, i
This is in response to your letter dated January 14, 2004 requesting the City of Concord's input.
on Cony Costa County's Request For Proposals (R'') regarding the permanent conversion of
Buchanan Fuld ,Airport from aviation operations to an alternative use. As stated in your letter,
the Board of Supervisors(Board)directed County staff to pmpam the RF for distribution in late
April.
It is not appropriate for the City to provide comment at this time. We find the RFP process
adapted by the Board to be seriously flawed; until meaningful dialogue is undertaken with other
vested jurisdictions and agencies. this process should not proceed. As the primary local
jurisdiction impacted by any change in use of the airport, Concord and the business and
residential constituents it represents am disenfranchised- The City believes that, due,to the
location of the airport entirely within our Sphere sof Influence and the importance it plays within
the region's 'i rlsportstion network, we should,be equal participants in deciding what process is
undertaken with respect to any change in land use at Buchanan Field, The following lists the
many reasons why Concord strongly recommends reconsideration of the Board's direction,
First and foremost,the County needs to explain why it is pursuing a RFP for reuse of Buchanan
.held Airport, while on the other hand pursuing a RFP for the Buchanan Field Airport. Master
Plan, These actions are contradictory and reflect a imprudent use of public funds, The letter of
opposition from Congressional Representatives Ellen T'auscher and George Miller, dated January
22, 2004. ernphasi2as that any pursuit of reuse of the ail-port would not be a fiscally responsible
use of the County's resources, 'Meir letter further highlights Buchanan Field"s role as a reliever
airport for SPO, San Jose and Oakland Airports and the County's obligations to the Federal
government with respect to the land and past funding,
FUuther, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) provided clear direction that it would riot
approve the closure of the Buchanan Field in its letter to Supervisor DeSaulnier, dated January
20, 2004, The FAA. indicates that Buchanan Field is Viewed as serving a vital mole US a major
reliever airport, and conoludes that "prospects for FAA concurrence in clueing Buchanan Field
ve highly unlikely'.
mr to cStyiatfu s�c�rceosd.t .its « wbaikc www,ei:yefeonewxLo%!!g
k - l -�UU4 WhU 11e;U M U 1TY U� UUNUUKU _ MA NU, „de_0(MlU0a0
Dennis M.Bw y,AICD
February 11,2004
page 2
The City Council Inas not taken an official position on the Buchanan Field Airport regarding this
issue. However, based can Supervisor D aulnier's report at our January 6, 2004 meeting, the
Council expressed serious concerns that the County's actions represent a flawed process, The
Council stated their concerns include the potential loss of. a) economic benefits to the
surrounding area, b) transport services to local businesses; c) future opportunities for businesses;
d) a staging area for emergency preparedness and disaster relief, e) a key link in the regional
aviation network;and f)the airport's integral role in the surrounding transportation network.
The RFF process the County has chosen to pursue is counter to the Shaping Our Future (SOF)
Project that has been undertaken during the last two years. The mission of SCF is to "develop a
community-based ur€ified vision and implementation strategies to ,guide the growth and
development sof Contra. Costa County, while preserving and enhancing the quality of life for all
Contra Costans". Kay SOF Principles adapted by bona the County and the City of Concord
include:
Principle 12, Agency to Agency Cooperation - states that `Ihe aff=ed
jurisdictions commit to recognizing the established sphere of influence lines and
agree to cooperative, comprehensive planting sea that future laxed use and
development standards will be compatible. Any development in Spheres of
Inftuence should be consistent with such ply developed jointly'by affected
,jurisdictions"(emphasis added);
Principle 14, Common Voice > states that "United responses to local, regional,
state and other regulating entities based on values and well-being of the regional
Contra Costa community is valued by the County and local municipalities";and
Principle 15, Common 'Vision % status that "The County and local municipalities
principally agree and acknowledge that Shaping Our Future Vision will guide
land use and transportation planning and coordination among jurisdictions",
I express my personal disappointment that the County's current approach visola%s the very
process that the County initiated over two yeas ago and played a lead rale in developing. The
RFP process you are embarking on does nothing to acknowledge the significance of Buchanan
Field Airport within the City's Sphere of Influence and interferes with our land use authority to
strategically plan for infrastructure, growth, and economic development. It flies in tho face of
smart growth principles,
It is noteworthy that the Board sof Supervisors' action, taken on December 9, 2003,
acknowledges "that Contra,Costa County and the Bay,Area have a.present and long term housing
crisis" as one of the masons to pursue the reuse of the airport. The City questions whether a
present and long term housing crisis exists within Central County to such an extent that it
,justifies closure of the region's only airport. The Bay Area Council recently'published a report
card as to how the Bay Area is fairing in terns of meeting housing needs, Contra Costa County
was the gDly county that received an A+ (1999-2Qt12), and the City sof Concord received a B,
based on providing 91% (1,022 units) of its projected housing need (1,236' units), Although
housing is certainly an important Bay Area issue, the City would argue that the County as a.
Wye Fr U i T'Y U� UUHUU fJ NMA NU, "lle!J MUO.`O _ r, t3Z
Dennis M.Barry,AICD
February 11,2004
pea
whole hes been doing a good job in meeting those needs and has already planned to n=t future
housing needs by means other than the closure of an important,regional transportation facility.
The City believes that the Buchanan field Airport is ut valuable and unique asset to the Bay Area
region and should be recognized as such in planning for the future. The City will pardcipaw in
the Airpon Master Plan process with Swded optimism in the hopes the PAA will continue to
recce the importance of this facility to the region and the Bay Area'. If you have any
questions or would like to discuss this further,please contact me at 671-3150.
Very truly yours,
Edward R.huts
City Manager
cc: ernbem of the City Council
Members of the planning Commission
County Board of Supervisors
Mornbms of LA.FCO
Craig Labadie,City Attorney
John Sweeten, County Administrator
041tr i33.doc
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Aviation Advisory Committee
February 20, 2004
Keith Freitas
Director of Airports
550 Sally Ride Drive
Concord, CA 94520
Dear Keith,
This letter responds to the Beard of Supervisors' Order of December 9, 2004, "Exploring
Alternatives for Aviation in Contra Costa County," and to Dennis Barry's letter to me
dated December 24, 2004.
The members of the Aviation Advisory Committee (AAC) have thoroughly reviewed and
discussed the implications of the Board's Order and of the related Request For Proposals
(RFP). Our response is twofold. First, the AAC is responding to the more general
request in the Board Order, as stated, "REQUESTED input from the Aviation Advisory
Committee," which we interpret to mean input on the broad subject of exploring
alternatives to Buchanan Field—specifically the notion of closing it. Second, the AAC is
responding to Mr. Barry's more specific request for input on the RFP itself, as stated, "ft
is advised that the Contra Costa County Aviation Advisory Committee should provide its
input on the RFP in a timely manner..."
I. Explorinz Alternative for Aviation in Centra Costa County
After careful consideration and discussion, AAC members unanimously oppose
closing Buchanan Field for the following primary reasons.
• Buchanan closure would have a huge negative impact on the aviation
infrastructure of Central County. We already know that aviation and other
businesses at Buchanan will not move to Byron Airport as an alternate aviation
site, The County has spent $25 to $30 million dollars on the Byron Airport over
the last fifteen years and no businesses have moved there.
• Buchanan provides vital medical and law enforcement flight operations to the
benefit of Contra Costa and neighboring counties.
• Buchanan has the capacity to accommodate emergency commercial and military
air traffic should a natural disaster or act of terrorism diminish the capacity of
one or more Bay Area major airports or military bases.
• Buchanan closure would result in the irreplaceable loss of open space in Central
County.
• The FAA has provided clear direction in its letter to Supervisor DeSaulnier that it
views Buchanan Field as a vital link as a regional reliever airport and that,
"...prospects for FAA. concurrence in closing Buchanan Field are highly
unlikely."
• A special study conducted as part of the Byron Airport?Master Plan Update found
that significantly increasing flight operations there is not viable because of
inadequate roads, unwillingness of Alameda County to further impact Route 580,
and difficulties expanding Route 4. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority
has a similar viewpoint.
• The FAA, State of California, and Contra Cost County have spent over
$3,500,000 over just the last two years on improvements to Buchanan Field
• The recent Economic Impact report adopted by Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors outlines Buchanan future income. The AAC seriously questions the
likelihood of an alternative to Buchanan Field producing more favorable
economics.
• There is virtually no public support to closing the Airport. To our knowledge, no
civic or public group has come forward in support of airport closure.
* Local area governments and impacted cities aggressively oppose closing
Buchanan Field.
• Nearby homeowners/renters are wary of the idea of replacing the airport with
high-density housing; which would impact local traffic, schools, and community
facilities.
• Area Congressional Representatives Ellen Tauscher and George Miller urgently
oppose the closing of Buchanan Field on grounds of County fiscal responsibility
and Buchanan's viability as a reliever airport.
• Local businesses and their Chambers of Commerce, who benefit from the
availability of the airport, strongly oppose closing Buchanan Field, and reject the
concept that Byron would be a viable alternative.
11. The Request for Proposals
The Aviation Advisory Committee believes that The RFP Process is hawed and
should be stopped before any more costs are incurred by the County both in staff time
and in funds used. We offer the following supporting rationale:
e Buchanan Field has a significant influence on neighboring jurisdictions --
predominantly Concord, Pleasant Dill, Martinez, Pacheco, and, ultimately on all
the cities and communities of Contra Costa County. Yet this RFP appears to
ignore the right of the elected community 'leaders in these jurisdictions to have
input to the decision process, the outcome of which could have enormous impact
on the communities and citizens in which they live and serve.
• The RFP appears to be in conflict with the Board's decision to accept and spend
over $900,000 in Federal grant funds for a "Buchanan Field Master Plan
Update." Whereas the RFP process narrowly focuses only on alternate uses of
the property and possible increased economic factors.
• The Master Plan Process which the Board has already set in motion is the
appropriate vehicle for answering this question and indeed has the proper tools
embodied in the FAA Approved Master Plan Update. This process will
guarantee the involvement of all jurisdictions of local governments as well as
heavy citizen and community input. It has within its guidelines a structure for
consideration of all the issues such as traffic and infrastructure, the aviation needs
of Contra Costa County. Further, it can answer the question of alternate uses for
the property and how that would impact the future of aviation and commerce in
the County both economically and environmentally.
If the Board continues to move forward with the RFP, the AAC believes that the RFP
should require the respondents to specifically address every concern expressed in part
one of our response. By "address," we mean offering viable solutions that each
respondent would be accountable to develop and implement.
Should you feel that additional rationale and details would be useful to the Community
Development Director, AAC members will be pleased to respond with elaboration on any
of the subjects mentioned or to comment on others you may bring up which are pertinent
to the Board's consideration..
Respectfully submitted with the unanimous approval of the AAC,
Russell Roe
Chairman, Aviation Advisory Committee
cc: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, Dennis M. Barry
CITY OF C NVC01W RECEIVED Ci COUNCIL
T
i95O Parkside Drive, MS/91 H len M. A.ilen, Mayor
Concord., California 94519-2578 L ra M. Hoffineister, Vice Mayor
FAx: (925) 798-063(i MAR 1 8 2004
sx. an Bonilla
'f Bi l McMantal
F I� � ° i'.4' `'°' r°1." ... `- .__ 1'k'A. Peterson PL
€3rF.cgoF:�sPvia�ox aArl
ry Rae Lehman, City Clerk
Telephone_ (925) 671-3158 ��� �,� Thomas Vi'entlin City ty,
Treasurer
Edward R.fames, City Manager
March 10, 2004
VIA FAX: (925)335-1913
The.Honorable Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Chair ATTN: Clerk of the Board
And Members of the Board of Supervisors (HARD COPY SENT VIA REGULAR MAIL)
Contra Costa County
651. Pirie Street
Martinez,CA 94553-1229
RE; Buchanan Field Airport_ RFP Process
Dear Chair Glover:
At its meeting of March 2, 2004, the Concord City Council voted to express their opposition to
the County's initiation of a Request for Proposal (RFT) process that seeks to convert Buchanan
Field from aviation use to alternative urban development. The Council strongly supports the
paints made. in City Manager Fd James' letter of February 11, 2004, to Dennis M. Barry, Contra
Costa'-s Community Development Director (copy attached for your reference). In addition, the
Council wishes to state conceals regarding the impact on medical and emergency response
capabilities should the airport close.
The City Council supports the need for an airport due to the role Buchanan Field plays in
Concord's continued economic development as a job center, the economic vitality it-affords the
City, the transport services it provides for local business, and future business opportunities it
attracts to the area.
We appreciate your taking our concerns into consideration as you contemplate further action
related to the Buchanan Field RFP.
Very truly yo rs,
Helen M, Allen
Mayor, City of Concord
cc: See attached listing
Attachment
(nml. citrir;fo al ci.cor7ccr!'d.ca.us 0 wpbsilr xv�� c.citvofroncnrd.org
Honorable Federal Glover, Chair
March 8,2004
Page 2
cc: Members of the Concord City Council
Members of LAFCO
Congressional Representative Ellen O. Tauscher
Congressional Representative George Miller
Andrew M. Richards,Manager, Airports District Office,Federal Aviation Administration
Woody Woodward, Associate Administrator for Airports, FAA,Washington,D.C.
Senator Tom Torlakson
Assemblymember Joe Canciamilla
Nicholas Virgallito, Fres. & CEO, Greater Concord Chamber of Commerce
John Sweeten, County Administrator
Keith Freitas, County.Director of Airports
Dennis M. Barry, County Community Development Director
Pat Howlett, Concord Representative, County Aviation Advisory Corrazaission
ADDENDUM TO ITEM DA
April 27, 2004
The Board of Supervisors considered the status report on the Buchanan Field Request For
Proposals (RFP)process.
Dennis Barry, Director, Community Development Department and Pat Roche, Principal
Planner, Community Development Department presented the staff report and recommendations.
Supervisor DeSaulnier presented new requirements for the Airport RFP for the record and
requested that language be incorporated into the recommendations.
The Chair then invited those who wished to address the Board on this matter. The following
persons presented testimony:
Dianne Cole, Friends of the Concord Airport, 2420 Tomar Court, Pinole;
Greg Feere, Contra Costa Building Trades Council, 935 Alhambra Avenue, Martinez;
Gary Canepa, 3431 Brookside Drive, Martinez;
Brittany Shores, P.O. Box 5674 Concord;
Dale Peterson, 1875 Arnold Drive, Martinez;
Lou Paulson,Firefighters Local 1230, 112 Blueridge Drive, ?'Martinez;
Greg Armstrong, 334 Willowcreek Lane, Martinez;
Brian T. George, Communities for Better Diablo Valley, 750 Golf Club Way, Pleasant Hill;
John Dalrymple, AFL-CIO, 1333 Pine Street, Suite E,Martinez;
Wayne Goodman, 480.Monti Lane,Pleasant Dill;
Dave Bonini, 825 Golf Club Circle, Pleasant Hill;
Ron Brawn, Save Mount Diablo, 61 Kevin Court, Walnut Creep;
Guy Bjerke, Home Builders Association, P.O. Box 5160, San Ramon
Supervisor Glover requested that in addition to the recommendations presented today, he
requested the following concerns to be included in the RFP:
• Provide information of infrastructure possibilities in East County
• Improvements to the Byron Airport
• Secondary education in the.Bay Point area
Supervisor DeSaulnier then moved to approve the staff s recommendations with option."A",
with the amendment that the County remain as a whole based on current lease revenues from
non-aviation uses; include the request from Supervisor Glover; include the comments from Lou
Paulson, Firefighters Local 1230 regarding capital improvements with the County's public
safety. Supervisor Gioia second the motion and the Board took the following action:
Page 2
Item D.4
April 27, 2004
• ACCEPTED the status report and recommendations as presented today on the Buchanan
Field Airport Request for Proposals(RFP)process from the Community Development
Director on Behalf of the Interdepartmental Screening Committee on Aviation
Alternatives for Buchanan Field("Screening Committee") in accordance with the Board
Order ofDecember 9, 2003;
• APPROVED Caption "A"to allow RFP respondents to identify and select the areas of the
Buchanan Field airport property they desire to develop for non-aviation uses and in
addition
® DIRECTED staff to incorporate language provided in the New Requirements for Airport
RFP as presented today to include information of infrastructure possibilities in East
County, capital improvements with the County's public safety, Supervisor Glover's
comments and return to the Board of Supervisors with an RFP for approval within 4
weeks.
THIS PACKET CONTAINS
THE FOLLOWING:
New Requirements for Airport RFP
Statement by County Supervisor Mark 'DeSaulnier
Buchanan Field Airport Letters
From. Landfills to Airports
Airport Budget
8 Chamber of Commerce Local Business Survey
.NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT RFI":
L TOTAL FEASIBILITY STUDY OF NEW AIRPORT:
• To include engineering, siting, land acquisition,financing,outreach to
stakeholders including neighbors, community leadership airport users and
operators.
II. COMPLETE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS:
• To include cost basis,tenant occupancy, leases,sales tax and assessed
valuation, new revenue for local government, public safety, education,
infrastructure and environmental issues and ad valorem property tax.
• Determination of final footprint of project.
• Guarantee that the County's lease income from the airport property will
remain at or higher than present levels to assure that funds will be available
for operation of new airport.
• Fully facilitated charrette process for widest possible community
participation.
• Design process which invites innovative architectural standards.
• Report on the effect of property values in the surrounding area.
• Project to include environmentally sensitive programs such as on site
recycling and maximum energy conservation.
• Objective third party study on impact of airport safety and security.
Ili. POTENTIAL PROJECT BENEFITS:
• New state of the art airport with up-to-date safety and security.
• Significant funding for county traffic mitigation including light rail to
BART,Vasco Road widening and improved traffic flaw in surrounding
area.
• Capital investment for education, libraries, convention/conference center
and open space.
• Substantial new revenue for local government from increased land values,
hotel occupancy tax, leases and sales tax.
• Creation of new jobs and economic benefits to business and government
from additional employment in the area.
• increased housing stock and housing affordability.
• Compliance with Contra Costa's Shaping Our Future program.
Statement by County Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier
April 27,2004
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
I believe the time has come for bald ideas to help alleviate Contra Costa County's revenue,
housing and traffic problems while, at the same time,providing hundreds of new jobs and
creating a state-of-the-art aviation facility for this area. To that end,I have today introduced
revisions to the Board Order that Supervisors unanimously adopted last December calling for a
request for proposals to redevelop the County's Buchanan Field property and, as part of the
overall project, build a new general aviation airport to serve the central county area as well as the
broader aviation needs of the region.
At a time when local government is so starved for funding that our libraries,health services and
care for the neediest of our citizens is threatened,we.must seek new ways to meet these needs
without further adding to the burden of local taxpayers. Our preliminary analysis indicates
redeveloping Buchanan and building a new airport may add significantly to our property tax
base, generate significant new sales tax revenue while, at the same time, creating a ripple effect
that would add jobs and significant economic benefit for business in the area.
I believe I would not be serving my constituents or the greater needs of the entire County if I did
not seek to determine the feasibility of linking these projects and carefully examine what benefits
could reasonably be expected to result for the people of Contra Costa County. Currently the
400 acres at Buchanan Field produce very little revenue that goes to helping as balance the
County budget. Redevelopment could generate millions of dollars for local)government,create
hundreds of jobs and provide an important pool of new housing that fits the Shaping Our Future
plan. In addition, airport users would be provided with a new airport that would meet the highest
safety and security standards. I believe we have an obligation to look at the facts, study the
options and not be afraid of proposing bold new ideas that may provide a brighter future for our
people.
2425 Bisso Lame, Suite lltl Contra Costa County
Concord, California 94520-4817 Board of Supervisors
(925) 646-5763
(925) 646-5767 (FAX)
dist4@bos.co.con*.ra-costa.ca.us Mark DeSaulnier
Supervisor, District IV
Clayton,Clyde, Concord,Pacheco,Pleasant Hill
April 15, 2044
Dear Friend:
There has been a lot of publicity lately about a proposal to possibly relocate Buchanan Field
Airport to another location away from homes.
To date, I have heard from. over 804 residents who have registered complaints of excessive
noise, fuel emissions, and safety concerns. Since you reside in a neighborhood near the
airport, your opinion is important to ane. I hope you will take a moment to read this and let
nae know your thoughts.
Buchanan Field Airport, built in 1947 when Concord was a small rural town, is owned and
operated by Contra Costa.County. It currently houses 591 single and multi-engine planes,
jets and helicopters- and registers 430 operations a day. It has the most incidents in the
United States of two planes operating on the same runway at the same time-higher than
evert Chicago's O'Hare Airport.
From 1985 to date, over 47 accidents have been reported, resulting in 20 fatalities-many
due to poor weather conditions, pilot error (many are student pilots) and mechanical failure.
The most serious of these accidents was the December 1985 tragedy when an airplane
:missed the approach and crashed into Sun Valley Mall.killing 7 people and injuring more
than 75,
While much has been done to increase safety, prevent accidents and limit engine noise over
homes, it does lead nae to ask one important question: Would it make more sense to
relocate the airport to n safer location ea way frorn honwa and farnf l'ry residences?
I think this is an issue worth exploring, But, to do this effectively, I need your input.
Mould you take a moment to fill out and return the enclosed carol to me as soon as
possible? Please be sure to include your e-mail address if you have one. This will enable
me to keep you updated regularly as we begin to explore our options.
Thank you, in advance, for your input. Your opinion is important to me.
Sincerely,
VUAOFZ
Mark DeSaulnier
Supervisor
Nct printed at public expense. ,wp
r.2Contra Costa County2425 Bisso Latte, Site i IG
Concord, Quifornia 94520-4817 � ,� board of Supervisors
(925) 646-5763 ,
(925) 6116-5767 (FA-11C)
ctist4@bos.co.cofttra-costa.ceL.us Mark DeSaulnier
Supervisor, District IV
Clayton, Clyde.Concord,Pacheco,Pleasant Hill
Letter to Opinion Leaders (2408)
Nance April 15, 2004
Ti tie
Address
City, State Zip
Dear (First Name),
Change is often difficult to digest. But, in this era of tight budgets, vire must look for new,
smarter and better ways to provide programs and services for our residents-without relying
on.tax increases.
We rnust also have the courage to look at new solutions- new options-that we have not
considercd putting on the table before.
I am referring to my recent proposal to explore the possibility of relocating Buchanan. Field
Airport in Concord to another location-and, instead, use this valuable land for what could be
a variety of purposes which could benefit our communities.
Some say this idea.is a shot in the dark. I say it is time we get out of the dark and shed some
lierit on neva options in the; 21st Century. I think we should consider.
Buchanan Field Airport was built in 1947, when Concord was a small, rural town. It now
blouses 591 planes and registers 430 operations a day. it is located in a highly populated
residential and commercial section. of Concord. To date, 47 accidents have beers. reported--- 20
fatalities, including the 1985 tragic crash of a plane into Sun Valley Mall. killing,7 and injuring
more than 75. Question: Would it make sense to explore relocating the airport to a
ore appropriate, safer location away fir-am homes and businesses?
The land which currently houses Buchanan Meld Airport is a highly desirable location of
North Concord, zoned residential and commercial, and with access to 680, 242 and near
Highway 4. Would it make sense to explore the varied options for this land which may
better serve our residents and neighboring' communities?
If we didn't e.cpJ re these new options, we wouldn't be doing our Jobs.
As a respected leader in our community, I ask only this of you: Deep an open mind to new
solations to some-of our age-old problems. Thank you for listening.
Sincerely,
Mark DeSaulnier
2425 I3isso lane, Suite I Iv Contra Costa County
Concord, California 94520-4817 Beard of Supervisors
(925) 646-5763
(925) 646-5767 (FAX)
dist4@bos.co.contr,,i-costa.ca.us Mallk DeSaLIlniel
Supervise, District IV
Clayton,Clyde; Concord, Pacheco;Pleasant Hili
Fetter to Mobile Home Park Residents (563
Name April 15, 2004
Address
City, State ,Zip
Dear (Smith Family, Mr. Smith or Ms.. Snaith):
As a.mobilehome park resident, I know you have concerns. I am.listening.
When park owners threatened to raise rents, I spearheaded a rent control ordinance to stop
theme.. When you opposed the Diamond Blvd. extension, I fought against it. And when you said
yoq wanted Pacheco Town. Center, I pushed for its completion.
Now, we have a similar issue with Buchanan.Field Airport. I have heard from over 800
residents who reside near the airport and.have registered complaints of excessive noise, fuel
emissions, and safety concerns.
Buchanan Field Airport, built in. 1947 when Concord was a, small., rural town, is owned and
operated by Contra Costa.County. It currently houses 591 airplanes and registers 430
operations a day®and has the most incidents in the United States of two planes operating on
the same runway at the same time. This is higher than evert. Chicago's O'Hare.
From 1983 to date, over 47 accidents have been, reported., resulting in 20 fatalities- many clue
to poor weather conditions, pilot error (many are student pilots) and mechanical failure-
The most serious of these accidents was the December 1.985 tragedy when. an ,airplane missed
the approach and crashed into Sun. Valley Miall Idiling 7 people and injuring over 75.
While touch h as been done to increase safety, prevent accidents and limit engine noise over
homes, it does lead me to ask one important question: Would it mcLke inure sense to relocate
the airport to aa. more appropriate,i ate, staffer- location ax aay f frorn homes and r obileia a me
pa-arle residence-s?
I thiszk this ;iss aa-i issue worth exploring. But, to do this effectively, I need your input. Would
y-gu e-ke a moment to fill out and retum Alae enclosed card taa me as soon us possible?
Please be sure to include your e-mail address if you have one. This will enable me to keep you
updated regularly as we begin to explore this issue.
Thzmk you, in advance. for your i;iput. Your opinion is importzmt to rne.
Sincerely,
Mark DeSaulnier
Supervisor
P.S. I Wily be hoiding a town hall meeting on April 271n at 7:00 p.m. to discuss issues directly
�. I would like to see the County study the passibility of relocating
` Buchanan Fief Airport to a safer location away from homes.
I would like the County to explore options for the land now housing
Buchanan Field Airport(a new library,community center,new
1 piayfields,etc.).
Please continue to keen}me informed.
Comments:
PLEASE PRINT: -
DV
U is
Nacre
A.
GOODAddress
city ip��de
HINGHome Prone
E-Mail
Not printed or mailed at taxpayer expense. maid for by Supervisor Mark DeS"Inier Office Holder TO#940352. ''
From Landfills to Airports
EPA Policies for Acceptable Uses of Closed Landfills
For over eighteen years the Environmental Protection Agency has characterized and
remediated municipal landfills under its Superfiind program. The Agency's ultimate goal is to
provide protection of human health and the environment for both current and future users of the site.
The Superfund Redevelopment Initiative reflects the Agency's belief that the EPA's
responsibility to local communities to clean up contaminated properties in a manner that protects
human health and the environment, generally should be carried out in such a manner that cleanups
are protective of anticipated future land use.
The EPA recommends that Superfund sites be recycled in a variety of forms, including
redevelopment of the site (e.g., construction of an airport, sports field, or golf course), reuse of
existing resources on the site(e.g., a new business in pre-existing buildings), or enhancing the
ecosystem on and around the site.
EPA is working with community leaders to determine remedial action objectives for
cleanups that will allow for reasonably anticipated future land uses inhere possible.
EPA believes that reuse should help to ensure proper maintenance of the remedy while
providing tangible benefits to key stakeholders, especially the surrounding community. The passible
benefits of reuse include:
+ Positive economic impacts for communities living around the site including new employment
opportunities, increased property values, and catalysts for additional redevelopment activities.
® Stakeholder acceptance of the municipal landfill presumptive remedy because of potential tine
and cost savings, and increased involvement in the restoration and redevelopment process.
* Enhanced day-to-day attention,potentially resulting in improved maintenance of remedy
integrity and institutional controls.
+ Improved aesthetic quality of the area through discouragement of illegal waste disposal or
trespassing on restricted portions of the site, as well as increased upkeep of the site by future site
occupants.
Re-developing Closed Landfill Sites is Not a New Idea
Utilizing closed solid waste landfills and old hazardous waste landfill sites for the
redevelopment and placement of new airports is not a new concept. In fact, it has been successfully
done in dozens of states in the U.S., for many decades, and includes large international airports such
as LaGuardia International Airport and JFK.International Airport, both in New'Fork City. Listed
below is a sampling of landfills in the United States that have been successfully converted to
functioning airports, which benefit each of the local communities.
l
Westchester Department of Public Works Landfill Westchester County
Airport Expansion
Westchester, NY
Environmental studies showed that a former county Department of Public Works landfill has
contaminated surrounding soil. The property had been used to dump trees, leaves and other organic
matter, but also contained chunks of garbage and asphalt. A plan to remove the contaminated soil is
currently underway. After the clean-up,the Westchester County Airport plans to utilize the former
landfill area for aircraft support.
Today, the airport is noted as having one of the largest based corporate fleets in the United
States. The 700 acre facility has two intersecting runways, the longest 6,550 ft. The airport serves
several commercial service operators and over 400 based aircraft, including helicopters.
Decently, Westchester County Airport enplaned and deplaned over 1 million passengers annually.
Beecher Landfill South Suburban International Airport
Will County, Illinois
The proposed South suburban Airport is best known as "Peotone" after one of the five semi-
rural towns that encircle the site. The South Suburban Airport is planned to be the largest airport in
the Chicago region.Blueprints call for the eventual acquisition of 24,000 acres of eastern Will
County—an area nearly three times the size of O'Hare.
The intended site encompasses Beecher Landfill,a 6000 x 3000 foot municipal landfill
serving the citizens of Will County. Before construction can begin in or around the area,the landfill
roust be cleaned and capped. 'Supporters of the South Suburban Airport envision the airport
becoming Chicago's primary airport, which would accommodate over 1.6 million flights a year.
Dorton Air Force Base- San Bernardino International Airport Expansion
San Bernardino, California
The 2,165-acre Norton Air Force Base site began operations in 1942 and served as a major
overhaul center for jet engines and the general repair of aircraft. The site had the responsibility of
providing maintenance and logistics for liquid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Past hazardous waste management practices contributed to existing contamination problems
throughout the base. These practices included burial of drums and other unspecified materials;
disposal of waste oils, solvents, and paint residues into landfills; and storage of contaminants in
leafing underground tanks. A major area of contamination on the base was Area II Landfill.
After clean-up, Area II Landfill and the surrounding area(1065 acres)were transferred for
reuse. The landfill has been integrated into the San Bernardino International Airport. The airport
accommodates approximately 60,000 customers a year.
Ultimately the master reuse plan is to redevelop the former base area into an intramodal
transportation hub for foreign freight, with 8.7 million passengers a year.
2
Enterprise Avenue Landfill- Philadelphia International Airport Expansion
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
The Enterprise Avenue Landfill was located on City of Philadelphia property in an industrial
area near the eastern end of the Philadelphia International Airport. The landfill encompassed a total
of 57 acres. Until 1976,the Philadelphia Streets Department used the site for the disposal of
incineration residue, fly ash, and bulky debris. In addition, drums containing various industrial and
chemical wastes were buried illegally at the site by several waste handling firms. In response to the
situation, the Philadelphia Water Department conducted exploratory excavationsduring 1979 to
confirm the waste dumping.
EPA recommended that the landfill be capped and that a groundwater monitoring system be
installed around the perimeter of the landfill. The cap was completed in October 1997 and the
groundwater is monitored twice a year.
In December 1999,the City of Philadelphia Department of Aviation completed the
construction of new 5,000-foot runway(one of four at the airport) located northeast of the
Philadelphia International Airport. A section of this runway crosses atop a portion of the Enterprise
Avenue Landfill.
The Philadelphia International Airport ranks 17th in Passenger Traffic, 13th in Aircraft
Operations, and 15th in Cargo Tonnage among U.S. Airports. It accommodated 24.7 million
passengers and handled 524,771 tons of cargo and air mail in 2003.
George Air Force ,Ease- Southern California Logistics Airport
Victorville, California
George Air Force Base occupies 5,347 acres. The base, which was closed in December
1992, supported tactical fighter operations and provided training for air crew and maintenance
personnel. The former base landfill site,Northeast Disposal, is contaminated with jet fuel,
chlorinated solvents including trichloroethylene, volatile organic compounds, and medical wastes.
Northeast Disposal clean-up commenced in 1998,but other areas of the former base are still being
overhauled.
Site plans for George AFB include an international air cargo center and business hub. When
the entire Base is ready for reuse, plans are to convert the base into the Southern California
Logistics Airport. SOLA will be a dedicated air cargo facility with a 5,000-acre business complex
integrating manufacturing, industrial and office facilities with nine core business units that include:
Aviation Maintenance, Rail Complex, Real Estate Development, Military Defense Programs, Flight
Testing, Advanced Flight Training, Charter Passenger Service, and a Business &Executive Jet
Travel Center. Ultimately the airport will support 4 million passengers a year.
3
Pease Air Force Base, Landfill 5- Pease international Airport
Portsmouth/Newington, New Hampshire
The Pease Air Force Base site maintained aircraft from the 1950's until 1991 when the base
was close.. In support of its missions, Pease AFB .generated various quantities of fuels, oils,
lubricants, solvents and protective coatings. Some of these materials contaminated site soils,
groundwater, surface water,and sediments. When closed in 1988, ensuing environmental studies
showed that an area of the base, Landfill 5, was severely contaminated. LF-5 encompasses
approximately 23 acres in the northern section of Pease AFB.
Records indicate that LF-5 was used continuously from 1964 to 1975 as the primary base
landfill, although some disposal occurred as late as 1979. Domestic and industrial refuse reportedly
disposed of in the landfill includes waste oils and solvents, paints, paint strippers and thinners,
pesticide containers and empty cans and drums. In addition,the landfill received sludge from the
base industrial wastewater treatment plant.
After excavation, consolidation, and construction of a cap over Landfill 5 (completed in
1996)the airfield was converted into a fully operational commercial airport. The 1702 acre Pease
International Airport currently services civilian and military aircraft and sees yearly traffic of
approximately 40,000 customers. Pan American Airlines and Boston-Maine Airlines fly in and out
of the airport daily.
The airport is located in the towns of Portsmouth and Newington, Rockingham County,New
Hampshire.
North Coastal/Palomar Airport Landfill- McClellan-Palomar Airport
Expansion
Carlsbad, California
The North Coastal/Palomar Airport Landfill was owned and operated from 1962-1975 by
the County of San Diego. The site covered approximately 70 acres of the 241 acre airport property.
Three canyons were carved into the south side of the mesa forming units I, II,III. The estimated
time of operation of each unit is as follows; Unit I operated from 1962-1968,Unit II operated from
1968-1972 and Unit III operated form 1972-1975. The estimated disposal area for Unit I consists of
9 acres with 214,000 cubic yards of waste. Unit II consists of 5 acres with 195,000 cubic yards of
waste, while Unit III is comprised of 19 acres with 697,000 cubic yards of waste.
The majority of the waste accepted was residential.waste. However, the landfill also
received commercial, industrial, agricultural and pathogenic waste, including treated sludge. The
amount of residential waste received daily ranged from 30 tons to a maximum of 200 tons. In 13
years of operation, the landfill accommodated approximately 830,000-1,100,000 tons of solid
municipal waste.
Unit I now houses hangers for the storage of private aircrafts. The remaining area of Unit 1
was paved for automobile access. Unit II now includes maneuvering room for aircrafts, aircraft tie-
down areas, and paved access to additional hangers outside the landfill boundaries. Unit III remains
undeveloped open space and serves as an approach to the airport.
4
The McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Flan has outlined fixture improvements for the
airport property within the next 15 plus years. The airport currently accommodates approximately
200,000 passengers a year and handles general aviation as well as corporate and commercial flights.
Cold Hollywood Landfill Captain Walter F Duke Regional Airport
Expansion
St. Mary's, Maryland
The Old Hollywood Landfill was a four acre area used by the residents of the St. Mary's
County for the burial and disposal of solid waste.
The property has recently been dedicated for airport use as a part of the Captain Walter F.
Duke Regional Airport in St. Mary's County. The airport is currently rehabilitating the landfill in
order to continue their run-way extension. The Captain Walter F. Duke Regional Airport serves an
average of 55,000 operation a year.
Bergstrom Air Force Base Landfill- Austin-Bergstrom International
Airport
Austin, Texas
The Bergstrom.AFB closed in October 1993. Upon its closure, contamination and hazardous
waste problems were found in the Bergstrom six-acre-landfill. The waste at the landfill was moved
and the site was capped. 23 80 acres of Bergstrom was then turned over to the Federal Aviation
Association for the construction of the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (4000 acres).
The completion of the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport was the first U.S. conversion
of an Air Force Base to commercial airport since the end of the Cold War. A multi-use facility, the
airport serves general aviation, commercial aviation,the State Aircraft Pooling Board, and the
Texas Army National ward. The airport saw more than 7 million passengers in 2001 and an
average of 240 commercial passenger flights per day(arrivals and departures).
Nelson Landfill- Nelson Municipal Airport
British Columbia
Back in the 1930's,Nelson's citizens and City Council Megan construction of a landfill from
garbage, dirt, and rock.In August 1947 an aircraft made an emergency landing on a 600 ft. roadway
leading to the landfill. This prompted local air-minded enthusiasts to press for an airfield at the site
of the landfill. Eventually, the landfill was closed and capped.
In September 1971,plans to build a 2,300 ft.x 75 ft. paved runway at the former landfill site
commenced. Years later, a 500 ft. run-way extension was added.Nelson Municipal Airport supports
light aircraft as well as the Nelson Mountain Air flying school, medical emergencies, and helicopter
flights.
5
Drayton Road Landfill- Cleveland Hopkins International Airport
Cleveland, thio
Cleveland Hopkins International Airport recently completed a $1.5 billion expansion and
renovation program. Included was a new runway, built to accommodate growing travel demand. In
order for the runway to be built, the airport had to close, fill, grate, excavate, and cap the Grayton
Road Landfill. The project included removing over 6540 cubic meters of solid waste.
The new runway at Cleveland-Hopkins is 1.3 miles long and allows up to ten more takeoffs
and landings per hour. The airport is a hub for Continental Airlines and passenger numbers in 2002
reached close to 11 million.
LaGuardia International Airport
New York, New York
On December 2, 1939,New York City's first major commercial airport opened for business
as New York City Municipal Airport-LaGuardia Field. It was built jointly by the City of New York
and the Federal Works Progress Administration on the former site of the Gala Amusement Park and
on the landfill between Flushing Bay and Bowery Bay. wilding on the site rewired moving the
landfill from Rikers Island,then a garbage dump, onto a metal reinforcing framework.
In 1947,the airport's name was officially shortened to "LaGuardia Airport."Today,the 680-
acre facility employs more than 9,000 people and serves more than 20 million passengers each year.
John F. Kennedy International Airport
New York, New York
Construction of the John F. Kennedy International Airport began in April 1942, when the
City ofNewYork contracted for the placing of garbage fill over the marshy tidelands of Jamaica
Bay. The garbage fill, very similar to the fill used in the construction for LaGuardia.Airport, was
transported from a municipal waste disposal facility in New York.
Planned at first for 1,000 acres,the airport grew to five times that size. Today, JFK Airport
consists of 4,930 acres and handles more than.300,000 operations a year.
6
AIRPORT
BUDGET
tnterprlse Fund General Ledger Detail
Fiscal Year 2003-04
Buchanan 0&M Revenues - {
$2,�i'4,417,00
Buchanan CJ,P, Revenues(FAA)
Buchanan 0.1.13. Revenues(state) $98,550.00
Total Buchanan Revenues _ $47961,297.00
Byron 0& M Revenues $335,246.00
>3yrtin C.i_r. Revenues(PAA) $555,000-00
Byron C,I.P.,.Revenues(State) $38,250.00
`dotal Byron Revenues; $928,496.00
-fatal Revenues --enterprise
Buchanan 01'M Ex nditures 128.00
Buchanan G.I.P.Sxpenciltures $1,888k330.00
° 1't+ttures
at Buchanan i=xpendi $4,322, 58,310
_.-... ... ..,... ._,...,....
Byron 0&M Expenditures _ $950,668.00
Syron C.I.P. Expenditures $616,667.00
Total Byron Expenditures — 54,5337,335fl0
Total E onset-Ente rise Fund
Ente rise.Fund Revenues 5�+6p8[�9f� n3�J 0/�^
_..w. �....... ��JPVOZ/k73�7.U1J
• ...dam .......... ....... _
Enterprise Fund Expensas $5,889,793.00
_..,.. $0.013-
Budget/COR 2003-04101strict IV Report
4123/2004
Fiscal Year 2003-04 �
A C
avenge
Code Category Budget 2003104
3 9183 ltenant Paid interest $200.00
__.
5 9193 Tiedowns/Key CardsfTransient _ $133,500.00
7 .9194+ Control Tower hent _W, $20,001.00
8
9 9196 Hangars _ . $662,694.00
10 9195 1 uel Flowage _
_._. ___
�w._... $80,000.00
11 _ ,919*a Avle#lon Crriur�d Rent _ $235,446.00
12 9196 Aviation Concession $130,960.00
13 9196 Rental Car _._._ .. $£0,600.00
14 9196 Nfln Aviation Crud Rent $1,510,667.00
15 9196 Non Aviation Concession $116,647.00
15 _ Sub-total (9196) v$2,797,017.00
17
18 982 lnterfund Revenue $10i3.0U
1$ __ ........., i. ......
_.. ___. __..,,...._.,.. . _.
20 9895 Mise. Current Services i W $500.00
21
22 9915 Utilities $20,600.00
23 W75 Misc. $500.00
24 9975Landsca r Takes $2,000.00
_.. u. Sub-total (9975), $23,100.04
_._ .... .... SuSub-Total0
, ps
28 . Fevti851 $2,974,4'17.00
29 9210 IState Share of AlP Projects $98,550.00
30
31 9522 lFAA Share AlP Pr2jActs $1,888,330.00
32 _ ,Sub-Total Capital kevenuesE $1,986,888.00
33 _ i
34 L 'rote/Audh4imrr Rovenues p90€f 2�7�
RUdOet/CCR 2003_04/rtavanue Detail OlaViat IV Report
4/2312004 Page 1
Buchanan ReCdAirport.Revffnues
(April 23, 2004)
i Aerosmith Aviation
F/Y 2003-04 Budget- 535,000
Space; Leasing apace from Buchanan Field Properties(Concord Sec)
Term. Effective 9/1/35 Month to month(aircraft charter)
American Air-kites
F/V 2003-04 Budget: $360
Space: Leasing space fTom Nation Lekas
Term: Effective 3/12/91 Month to month(aerial advertising)
Apex Aviation
Ftp'200344 Budget, $109,544
site#t
Space! 38,850 square feet
Term- Effective 9127/83 5 years with five 5 year automatic renewal options. Expiration date: 8/31/1.3
De#2
Space; 72,917 square feet
Teretes: Effective 8/1/90 5 years with five 5 year automatic renewal options- Expiration date, 7/31/20
9 Avis Rent A Car
Ft`s''/2003-04 Budget: $24,000
Space., Sub-leasing space frorrr Pacific States Avlatior:
`Genets. Effective 11/1/02--month to month(rental car)
> Buchanan Airport Hangar Owners Assoc.
F/Y 2003-04 Budgett $61,905
Space. 143,850 square feet
Term-. Effective 9(1/03 10 years—Expiration date: 8/31/13
Buchanan Airport Hazsgar Co,
FN 2003-04 Budget: $9,690
Space: 124,72.5 square:feet
Term: Effective 2/1.6177 Bldg.6 3Q years—Expi,-atior date: 2/1.6/07
Budgat/Ravenuus Disnict IV R&part 1
Buchanan Field Alrpvr!Revenues
(April 23, 2004)
> Buchanan Aviation Services,Inc,
F/Y 2403-04 Budget: $2,200
Space: Leasing space from HG Limited
Term: Effective 8/1/98 Month to month
Buchanan East Hangar Co,
€'/Y 2003-04 Budget: $7,056
Spaced 17,250 square flet
Term: Effective 7/1/84 30 years—Expiration date: 6/30/14
Buchanan Fields Coif Course,Inc.
F/Y 2003-04 Budget: $187,865
Space: 41 acres
Terms. Effective 1011191 20 years,w!t13 2 ten year options—Expiration date: 9/30/11
> Budget Car Rental(JR Leasing)
F/Y 2003=04 Budget: $166,352
Site#1
Space. Office spacc&parking—26,465 square feet
Car washing site—5,310 square font
40 auto parking spaces
Terms. Effective 10/1/92 5 years,with i five year extension period—Expiration date. 9/30/02
site 02
Space: 85,084 square feet
Terms. Effective 4/1/92 20 years,with 2 ten year options—Expiration date: 3/31/12
8 CALS`fAR
F/Y 2003-04 Budget. $9,000
Space- Office space: 450 square feet
Ramp space: 900 square feet
Terms: Effective 2/23/93 Month to month
> Concord Jet Services,Inc.
F/Y 2003-04 Budget: $91,360
Space-, 216,701 square feet
'farms: Effective 5/25/92 50 years—ExTiration date: 5/31/32
Budger/R.evcnues District IV Report 2
Buchanan FieldAirport Revenues
(April 23,2004)
> Concord Mitsubishi
F/Y 2003-04 Budget. $15,408
Space: 107 auto perking spaces at the end of John Glenn Drive
Term: Effective 3/1197(amended 2/1/99) Monte to morntii
> CCC Sherif€s Department
F/Y 2003-04 Budget: $9,220
Space: 1.58,557 square feet
Term: Effective 911/02--Expiration date: 8131/0
> Data Matrix
F/Y 2003-04 Budget: $5,000
Space: Leasing space from H G Ltd.
Terms-, Effective 8115100 Month to Month
EX S,Inc.(Ca.ffno)
F/Y 2003-04 Budget: $41,827
Space: 10,243 square feet
`Perms: Effective 6/1194 5 years with 3 one year options. Expiration date: 2/1102
> HO Lin,iced(Grover)
F/Y 2003-04 Rudgeta $30,900
Space: Master Lease: 77,000 square feet
Ramp lease: 78,750 square feet(30 tiedown spaces)
Term! Effective 1016164 Mastcr lease: 50 yrars—Expiration dace, 1015/14
Effective 1€1/1/81 Ramp leiLse: 33 years--Expiration date: 1015/14
)0' Milan Haven
F1'Y 2003-04 Budget; 5300
Space: Leasing a hangar from the County
'Perm: ESeetive 9/1.196 Month to month(alroraft mtce,)
BudgetMevenucs Diwict IV tteport 3
Buchanan Field Airport Revenues
(April 23, .20 4)
> Helicopter Adventures
1Y 2003-04 Budget: $5,500
Space: Leasing space from Grover
Toon: Effective 1111/89 Month to month(flight insn'ttction&charter)
> Hertz Corporation
FN 2003-04 Budgets $28,00€2
Space; Leasing space from Navajo Aviation
Term: Effective 2111/00 Month to month(rental car)
)Do L.C.A.Inc.
/Y 2003.04 Padget: S98, O3
Space. 265,699 square feet
Term- Effective 9/1193 40 years—Expiration date: 7/31/33
> Mari=Lekas
F/Y 2003-04 Budget- $25,990
Spaces 60,813 square feet
Term, Effective 7/7164 55 years—Expiration date: 7/6/19
> Lithia Automotive Group
F/Y 2€303-04 Budget: $238,542
Space; 6.1 acres
Term: Effective 8/21185 35 years—Expiration date. 9/21/24
> Mediptane,Inc.
F/Y 2003-04 Budget. $70,500
Space: 4,740 square feet(during construction--leasing space From Concord Jet)
Term: Effective 5/1/913 5 years—Expiration date: 4/30/03
> Mt.Diablo Pilots Association
F/Y 2003-04 Budget. $7,593
Space. 24,564 square feet
Term: Effective 311/95 5 years—Expiration date; 2/29/00
Rudgzt/Rcvenues District IV Report 4
Buchanan.weld Airport Revenues
(April 23, 2004)
➢ Pacific Mates Aviation
FIY 2003-04 Budget, $100,228
Space: piaster L=c: 125,2 33 square feet
Ramp Lease: 132,308 square feet(40 tiedown spaces)
Term- Effective 3/1163 Master Lease: 50 years—Expiration date: 2128/13
Effective 7111€11 Ramp Lease, 33 years—Expiration date: 2/28/13
> R,A.I-1.,Corporation
RIY 2003-04 Budget-, 55,400
Space.: Leasing space tram Grover
`Perms- Fffective 11.11191 Month to month
9 Reynolds&Brown
F'/Y 2003-04 Budget„ 5550,000
Space, 575,225 square fcct
Term: Effective 1./7/9'7 50 years—Expiration date: 1/7147
> San Francisco Welding(Roger Picchi)
1v/Y 2003-04 Budget. S28,536
Space: 37,500 square feet
Term: Effective 1/1:/92 5 years with five 5 year automatic renewal periods. Expiration date: 12131121
> Sheraton.Hotel
ly/Y 2003-04 Budget: $320,10.4
Space-, 333,325 square feat
Term. Effective 7/1.175 55 years—Expiration date: 513 1/3 7
Sterling Aviation
F/Y 2003.04 Budget: S51,468
Space: Master Lease: 55,000 square feet
Ramp Leas:: 93,150 square feet(32 tiedown.spaces)
'Perm: Effective 12119161 Master Lease: 30 years with two 10 year options(captions exercised in 1991)—
Expiration date: 12/10/11
Effective 7/1/81 Romp Leasee 10 years with two 10 year captions(options exercised in 1991)—
Expiration date; 12/18/11
SudgcVR.evoruas Distdot IV Report
Buchanan.Field Airport.di iev hues
(April 23, ,200 )
> Sterling Avion.as Rs Maintenance
F1Y 2003-04 Budgets $12,000
Space: Leasing space from Grovcr
Term: Effective 311196 Mouth to month(avionics repair)
> George Valente
d.b.&LINa Stan Valley Ford
F/Y 2003-04 Budget: $90,016
Space- 96,703 square feet
Term, Effective 3116165 51 years—Expiration date: 3/16/16
> Wells Fargo Batik
F/Y 2003-04 Budget, $13,200
Space: 76 auto pee!-,e spaces at the end of John Glenn Drive.
Term! Effective 511196 S years with optional 5 year extension period—Expiration date: 4/30/06
FAA Control Towtr
F/Y 2603-04 Budgeti $10,000
Space! 2,621.67 squaro feet
Term: Year to year
> Tiedowns
F/Y 2003-04 Budgets $130,000
County Owned Hangars
FIV 2003-04 Budget-, S372,660
SucipttRcvenu«r,District TV Report 6
i0 I� P.09
now
Please fax your opinion right away to our County Supervisors.
Mark DeSaulnier -Fax: 646-5767 w Phone: 646-5732 w E-mail:dist4@a bos.cccounty.us
Federal Glover- Fax: 427-8142 w Phone: 427-8138 w E-mail: dist5@bos.cccounty.us
Millie Greenberg- Fax: 820-662.7 w Voice: 646-6065 w E-mail: dist3@bos.cccounty.us
Gayle Uilkema - Fax: 335-1076 w Voice: 335-1046 w E-mail: dist2@bos.cccounty.us
John Gioia - Fax: 510-374=-3429 w Voice: 374-3231 w E-mail: distl@a bos.cccounty.us
1. What is the #1 local issue affecting your business today? (Please check.box.)
• gime F1 Traffic D Quality of Education D Taxes U Low-Cost Housing
• Other/Comment
2. Do you support closing Concord Airport and replacing it with high-density housing? ZI Yes J No
Comment
3. At the Tuesday, December 9 meeting of the County Board of Supervisors there is a proposal
to spend. $50,000 to study closing the Concord.Buchanan Airport and replace it with high-density
Dousing. Do you feel that this is a wise expenditure of the taxpayers'money? ❑Yes D No
Comment
4. Please keep roe informed on how the Board of Supervisors'voted on this issue. ❑Yes J No
Optional Information
Name Name of Business
Address City/State/Zip
E-mail Address Phone # Fax #
AIRPORT
BUDGET
tzmerprise Fuad General Ledger Detail
Fiscal Year 2003-04
Bs�c arian C I : everauas 62,07 ,417,00
Buchanan C.I.P. Ravenuas(fAA
C.I.P. f Is888,33D.t3Cf
BuchananRevenu��(State) $98,550,00
-- -------
Total Buchanan Revenues'�_.�,.,....$.4:961,297,00
3
$335,248.00
}Tran C_I_P.€ avenues(FAA) ... $555,000.00
I Yr ri'C,I.F' Rivenues(State) $38,260.00
Total Byron Ravanuas
Total $..5,889,763.00
qq_��++.yy._�vry^-.�+��_y_q_....�$y._p._p._p..?..�__../�.,,rt�{.{�,.y..�,y.�a.�.____.......�....... .... ..� ..� ,.�x1R�Hyy y�+/���j rp,gysy/('}}{{��
dr 4S�iic,inan of lvl q!Rp nditures _........«.., ••_••._� ,. ,4 $2 434,12-8 0
Surhanan C.I.P.Expenditures $1,888,330,00
Total Buchanan Expenditures; 64,321468.00
rcn C&Mxpendiiture i $950,668,00
l yrcr�C.f,!'.IrxpendEtures ..
_ .... _ $816,607,0€
Total19yrQn E er aii6r�a�_
Total � anew-Enterprise Fund�, $5,880,.-M.00
i .
nt rprlsaeFund`Revenues
��,_ $5,889,793.00
Enterprise Fund pe saes w $6,869,703.00
13,130
Budget/CCR 2003a04/01sirt-#IV Kepgrt
4/23!2404
_Fiscal Year 2003-04
A i
Carle Category Budget 2003/04
3 9133 Tenant Paid Interest � OC3,00
�._.._... . . .........._... ....,.._w.w__._.. �._ ......�...$�_
9193 TiW c3dx+Ct�/lCta
Cards/Transient
$133,5i} 3,00
7 9194 cntrc!Tower Rent $20,000M
i
9 91
$662,694.00
10 _.9196 u 1 �ia�a�� 80,C 00.00
11 J < iP�viati n Ground Rent M _ _ $235,449.00
12 919 !Auiatln wcnci�s €gin: . .. ...._ _ l_ $130,980.01
3 9196 !Rental Car E $60,600.00
14 —§_1—95 Ivan Auiatior, Gmd. eFt_..
159190 ;than�uiatlt�n � ncess€an6.84 .00
5 _ __ .__.... ....5t b-to alv(9 96C L_$2,797,017.00
17
18 9852ferfund Revenue �. ......_. $100.00
19
20 9e395 m4E. Current s $500.00
21
22 9975 l itlll.es 20,600.00
__�..... ._...__e.
23 9975 Fisc. L500,00
_ .... _.�....,..___
24 9975 Lendsce e Taxes $2,000.D0
25 Sub-total (9975)1-., F23,100.00
26i
27 _.... ,... t8b-Total'Ops. Revenues $2,974.,4117.00
8 __
291--9-2 10 ......1 Mate Share cf AIP Prcje is ( %) __._m$98,55t�,00
_
30
31 $1,888,3300
° 32 _. .. .Sub-Total apical Reue.6�es t'986'880.0033 i . ..W
Total ftdlaahaq Revenues
nue s
Budget/CCR,2003-04/Ravensaa Detail District IV Report
A/2312004 Fuge 1
(April 23, 2004)
a Acrosrrtith Aviation
F/Y 2003-04 Budget. S35,000
pow Leasing space from,Buchanan Field Properties(Concord,let)
Term- Effective 911195 Month to month(aircraft chartcr�)
> American Air-Liter
,F/Y 2003-04 Budget., $360
Spacer Leasing space fTorn Matina Lekas
Term- Effwtive 3/12191 Month to month(aerial advertising)
> Apex Aviation
WY 2003-04 Budget, $109.544
site#I
Space, 38011517 square feet
"Perris: Effective 9/27/83 5 years with five 5 year automatic renewal options. Expiration oats: 5/31/13
S
Space- 72,917 square Feet
Terms., Effective 8/1190 5 years with five 5 year automaric renewal options. Expiration date; 7/31/213
Avis R-ent A Cas
FIY/2003-04 Budget: ,24,000
Space. Stab-leasing space from Pacific States Aviation
Terms: 'Effective 11/11€32-month to month(rental car)
Buchanan Airport Hangar Owners Assoc.
F/Y 2003-04 Budgets $61,905
Space: 143,850 square feet
Term; Effective 911/03 10 yLars-Expiration date: 8/31/13
> Buchanan Airport Hance Co.
F/Y 2003-04;gadget,: $9,69€7
Space- 124,725 squaro feet
Term.- Effective 2116/77 Bldg,6 317 y.ars-Irxpirtadlon fiats: 2/16/07
'Budgetlrtevanues DWZict IV R&POrt I
Buchanan FieldAlrpori Revenues
(April 23, 2004)
> Buchanan Aviation Services, Inc,
F1Y 2003-04 Budget; S2g2€80
Space: Leming space from HG Limited
Term., Effective 811/98 Month to month
> Buchanan East Hangar Co.
fY`4,'2003-04 Budget: $7,056
Space: 17,250 square fest
Term., Effective'1/11'84 30 years--Expiration date: 6/30/14
Buchanan Fields Golf Coarse;Inc.
FfY 20€33-04 Budget: $187,865
Space- 41 acres
Terms-, Rffective 10/1/9120 years,with 2 ten year options—Expiration date: 9130/11
> Budget Car Reattal(JR Leasing)
8'iT 2003-04 Budget, $166,352
,Site#1
Space: Office space&parking--26,465 square tect
Car washing site—5,310 square i`cct
40 auto parking spaces
Terms: Effective$011/92 5 years,with ! five year extension period--Expiration date: 9130/02
Space; 85,084 square feed
Terms; Effective 4/1/92 20 years,with 2 ton year options—Expirations date" 3131/12
CALSTAR
)`fY 2003-04 Budget: $9,000
Space; office space: 450 square feet
Ramp spare: 900 square feet
Terms: _Effective;2/33/93 Mon,h to month
> Concord Jet Services,Inc.
F/Y 2003-04 Budgets $91,360
Space. 216,701 square fe i
`Perms: Effective 5/25/92 50 years—Expiration dati: 5/31/32
BudgWRe-mues District TV P_-,Port 2
Buchanan, geld Afrp rt Revellues
(April 23t 2004)
> Concord MltsubWai
F/Y 24033-€1413udgat. $15,408
Spaces 107, Nato parkin spaces at the end of Jahn Glenn Drive
Terms., E&ctive 311/97(amended 2/1199)Month to mond,,
> CCC Sheriff s Beparnent
F/Y 2003-04 Budgets $9,220
Space„ 1.58,557 square feet
Term, Effective 9/1102—Expiration date., 8/31/0
> Data Matrix
11 N 2003-04 HudgsU $9,000
Space: Loasing kpace from 1-110 Ltd.
Terms: Effective 8115100 Month to Month
)i- RXS,Inc..(Caffino)
F/Y 2003-04 budget; $41,827
Space,, 10,243 square feet
Terms: Effective 511194 5 years with 3 one year options, Expiration date: 211102
> HG Limited(Grover)
/Y 2€303-04 Budget: $30,904
Space: Master lease: 77,000 square feet
Ramp Mese: 78,750 square feet(30 dedown spaces)
Term- Effective 1016164 Master lease: 54 years w Expiration date: 10/5114
Effective 1011181 R&,np lew= 33 years—Expiration date: ?0/5/14
> Milani Haven
F/Y 2003-04 Budget. $300
Space, Leasing a hangar from the County
Term; Effective 91:1196 Month to month(alroraft tce,)
Sudget/Ravarues Dimrjet TV Report 3
Helicopter Adventures
F/Y 2003-04 Budget: $5,500
Space, Leasing space fro;n Grover
Tor m; Effective 11/1/89 Month to month, (flight instmctior<&charter)
Rentz Corporation
F"/V 2003-04 Budget, $25,000
Spacer Leasing space from Navajo aviation
Tem: Effective i 111/4th.Month to month(rental car)
L.C.A, Inc.
F 2003-04 Budget-, $98,303
Spaces 265,688 square;feet
Term: Effective 911193 40 years—Expiration date- 7/311/33
Matinka L,.ekas
/V 2003-04 Budget- $25,9904
Space: 60,813 square feet
Term; Effective 7/7164 55 years—Expiration date: 71;119
> Lithia Automotive gaup
F/Y 2003-04 Budget: $238,542
Space: 6.t acres
Term: Effeetive 8%21185 35 years--Expiration date: 9/21/20
> Medip€ante,Inc,
Eli'"2003-04 Budget-, S70,500
Space: 4,700 square feet(during construction--leasing space trom Concord.let)
Term,. Effective 5/1.198 5 years—Expiration date: 4/30/03
> Mt,Diablo Pilots association
F/Y 2€103.04 Budgets 57,593
Space. 24,564 square feet
Term.- Eff'ec'tive 31:1195 5 years--Expiration date; 2/29/00
dud eu'ttewe uc District IV Report 4
Buchanan FieldAirport Revenues
44 prif 23, 2004)
> Pacific States Aviation
F/Y 2003-04 Budgef. $100,228
Space: Master Lease: 125,233 square feet
Ramp Lease-, 132,308 square feet(40 tledown spaces)
'Perm., Effective 311163 Master Lease; 53 years n-Expiration date. 2/28/13
Effective 7/1181 damp Lease: 33 years—Expiration date: 2/28/13
> R.A.H. Corporation
F1Y 2£103-€14.Budget: $5,409
Space: Leasing,space from Grover
Terms- Effective 11111/9# My onth to month
> Reynolds&Brown
Fria'2003-€14 Budget: 5550,000
Space: 575,225 square irect
Tem Effective 1/7/97 50 years—Expiration date; 1/7/47
> Sai Francisco,Welding(Roger Picchi)
F/Y 2003-04 Bridget, $28,535
Space- 37,500 square feet
Term- Effective 1/1192 5 years vA,-h five 5 year automatic roniewal periods, Expiration date: 12/31/21
> Sheraton Hotel
F/Y 2003-44 Budget: S320,104
Space: 333,325 sg9aare feet
Term: Effective 7/1,115 55 years—Expiration date. 5/31/37
Sterling Aviation
1''N 2003-04 Budget- $51.,468
spoee: :aster Lease, 55,000 square feet
R.atnp Lease= 93,150 square toet(32 tiedown.spaces)
Term: Effective 12/19/61 Master Leasee 30 years with two 10 year options(options exercised in 1991)
Expixation data: 12/10111
f'feefive 711/81. lamp Lease: 10 ye; W hh tea 10 year OptiorA(options exercised in 199 1)—
Expiration date-, 12/111!1
nradgctt&oven+ues District IV Report 5
BuclgaKan Field Airport Revenues
(AprI12 3, 004)
b Stefling Avionics&Maintenance
FTS'2003-04 Budget, $12,000
Space, Leasing space from Grovcr
Term: Effective 3/1/96 Month to moTitb(avionics repair)
> George Valente
d.b,aE.Lithla.Sim Valley Ford
F/Y 2003-04 €dget'. $50,016
Space 96,703 square feet
Term, Effective 3116165 5' years—expiration date: 3116116
> Wells Fargo Bank
WY 2€03-04 Budget- 513,200
Space: 76 auto parltlag spat:s at tl e end of John Glenn Drive
Term: Effective 5/1196 5 years with optional 5 year txtensir.,r:per od—Expiration dzte„ 4/30/06
> FAA Control Tower
F/V 2443-44 Budget: S20.000
Spew 2,821.67 square feet
`era Year to year
Tiedo s
F/Y 2003-04 Budget- $130,000
County Owned Hangars
F/Y 2003-04 Budget, $372,660
BuegcJR:'.nuc&Diatrict IV Repe*t
`;GTA' P,09
Please fax your opinion right away to our County Supervisors.
Mark DeSaulnier -Fax: 646-5767 w Phone: 646-5732 w E-mail:dist4 bos.cccounty.us
Federal Glover- Fax: 427-8142 w Phone: 427-8138 w E-mail: dist5@bos.cccounty,us
Millie Greenberg- Fax: 820-6627 w Voice: 646-6065 w E-mail: dist3@bos.cccounty.us
Gayle Uilke a - Fax: 335-1.076 w Voice: 335-1046 w E-mail: dist2@bos.cccounty..us
John Gioia - Fax: 510-374-3429 w Voice: 374-3231 w E-mail: distl@bos.cccounty.us
bos.cccounty.us
1. What is the #1 local issue affecting your business today? (Please check box.)
Crime Ll Traffic U Quality of Education. J Taxes Low-Cost Housing
[3 Other/Comment
2. Leo you support closing Concord Airport and replacing it with high-density housing? U Yes D No
Comment
3. At the Tuesday, December 9 meeting of the County Board. of Supervisors there is a proposal
to spend $50,000 to study closing the Concord Buchanan Airport and replace it with high-density
housing. Do you feel that this is a wise expenditure of the taxpayers' money? �a Yes U No
Comment
4. Please beep the informed on how the Board of Supervisors'voted on this issue. ZI Yes Z1 No
Optional Information
Name Name of Business
Address City/State/Zip
E-mail Address Phone # Fax #
Please Fax Supervisor Mark DeSaulniler 'Foday!
F"",/%.Vr # 646
170 Carriage Lane
Pacheco, California 94553-5581
925-691-1604
April 26,2004 FREC
IV
• ..�
b
Mark DeSaulnier APR 2
Supervisor, District I £}
2425 Bisso Lane }OLEPIK
d q�
RO
Concord.California 94520-4817 NT RA (3 Y�r� 1tsor"
Dear Sir-
I received your letter regarding the possible relocation of Buchanan Field to another
location away from hones.
I wholeheartedly disagree with that possible proposal for the following,reasons:
1. Buchanan Field has been there for 57 years...long before many of the homes which
were built to house the residents who have complained about the noise. They were aware
of the airport when they purchased their homes. That was their decision!
2. You cite"the most incidents in the United Mates of two planes operating on the same
runway at the same time-"g yet,you do not give the numbers,merely a blanket statement
which is very misleading.And you.compare Buchanan.to Chicago's O'hare which is like
comparing Concord Avenue to the Indianapolis Speedway.
3. Of the 47 accidents since 1983, 21 years ago,there were 20 fatalities. That is less than
1 per year. How many fatal accidents have occurred on Highway 4, Blood Alley as it is called,
in the same time frame. And do you reel the Yuba City school bus accident in either 1977 or
1978 in which a large number of teen age students were killed at the off ramp from Highway
680 at the Martinez exit?
4. If the airport acreage is to be converted to residential use,the result would be an overloading
of already densely traveled roads such as Highway 680,Highway 4, Solano Way and Concord
Avenue which are nearly impossible during the morning and evening rush hours now.
5. To convert the airport to other uses would be to disrupt a going concern for a very small
return. Libraries, community centers and high school sports do not have the money to operate
now. Where would the money come from?Is there a surplus of funds somewhere or do we
go for another tax?
6. 1 live under the traffic pattern for Buchanan Field and.do.not find the sound of the aircraft
annoying or bothersome. In fact it is rather soothing knowing that citizens are enjoying
themselves in a pleasurable activity.
You asked the question"Would it make more sense to relocate the airport to a safer location
away from home and family residences?"
My answer is"NO".
Sincerely,
Dula�. arcier
cc: Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors
THIS PACKET CONTAINS
THE FOLLOWING:
New Requirements for Airport RFS'
Statement by County Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier
Buchanan :Meld Airport Letters
From Landfills to Airports
Airport Budget
Chamber of Commerce Local Business Survey
NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT RFP:
I. TOTAL FEASIBILITY STUDY OF NEW AIRPORT:
To include engineering, siting, land acquisition,financing, outreach to
stakeholders including neighbors, community leadership airport users and
operators.
II. COMPLETE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS.
• To include cost basis,tenant occupancy, leases,sales tax and assessed
valuation,new revenue for local government, public safety, education,
infrastructure and environmental issues and ad valorem property tax.
• Determination of final footprint of project.
• Guarantee that the County's lease income from the airport property will
remain at or higher than present levels to assure that funds will be available
for operation of new airport.
• Fully facilitated charrette process for widest possible community
participation.
• Design process which invites innovative architectural standards.
• Report on the effect of property values in the surrounding area.
• Project to include environmentally sensitive programs such as on site
recycling and maximum energy conservation.
• Objective third party study on impact of airport safety and security.
III. POTENTIAL PROJECT BENEFITS:
• New state of the art airport with up-to-date safety and security.
• Significant funding for county traffic mitigation including light rail to
BART,Vasco Road widening and improved traffic flow in surrounding
area.
• Capital investment for education, libraries, convention/conference center
and open space.
• Substantial new revenue for local government from increased land values,
hotel occupancy tax, leases and sales tax.
• Creation of new jobs and economic benefits to business and government
from additional employment in the area.
• Increased housing stock and housing affordability.
• Compliance with Contra Costa's Shaping Our Future program.
Statement by County Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier
April 27,2004
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
I believe the time has come for bold ideas to help alleviate Contra Costa County's revenue,
housing and traffic problems while, at the same time,providing hundreds of new jobs and
creating a state-of-the-art aviation facility for this area. To that end, I have today introduced
revisions to the Beard Order that Supervisors unanimously adopted last December calling for a
request for proposals to redevelop the County's Buchanan Field property and, as part of the
overall project, build a new general aviation airport to serve the central county area as well as the
broader aviation needs of the region.
At a time when local government is so starved for funding that our libraries,health services and
care for the neediest of our citizens is threatened,we must seek new whys to meet these needs
without further adding to the burden of local taxpayers. Our preliminary analysis indicates
redeveloping Buchanan and building a new airport may add significantly to our property tax
base,generate significant new sales tax revenue while, at the same time, creating a ripple effect
that would add jobs and significant economic benefit for business in the area.
I believe I would not be serving my constituents or the greater needs of the entire County if I did
not seek to determine the feasibility of linking these projects and carefully examine what benefits
could reasonably be expected to result for the people of Contra Costa County. Currently the
400 acres at Buchanan Field produce very little revenue that goes to helping us balance the
County budget. Redevelopment could generate millions of dollars for local government, create
hundreds of jobs and provide an important pool of new housing that fits the Shaping Our Future
plan. In addition, airport users would be provided with a new airport that would meet the highest
safety and security standards. I believe we have an obligation to look at the facts, study the
options and not be afraid of proposing bold new ideas that may provide a brighter future for our
people.
242.5 Bisso Lane, Suite 110 ,..= Contra Costa County
Concord, California 94520-4817 Board of Supervisors
(925) 546--5763
(925) 646-5767 (FAX)
dist4@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us Mark DeSaulnier
Supervisor, District IV
Clayton,Clyde, Concord,Pacheco, Pleasant dill
April 15, 2004
Dear Friend:
There has been a lot of publicity lately about a proposal to possibly relocate Buchanan Meld
Airport to another location away from homes.
To date, I have heard from over 800 residents who have registered complaints of excessive
noise, fuel emissions, and safety concerns. Since you reside in a neighborhood near the
airport,your opinion is important to me. I hope you will take a moment to read this and let
me know your thoughts.
Buchanan Field Airport, built to 1947 when Concord was a small rural town, is owned and
operated by Contra Costa County. It currently houses 591 single and multi-engine planes,
jets and helicopters- and registers 480 operations a day. It has the most incidents in the
United States of two planes operating on the same runway at the same time --higher than.
even Chicago's O Flare Airport.
From 1388 to date, over 47 accidents have been reported, resulting in 20 fatalities --many
due to poor weather conditions, pilot error (many are student pilots) and mechanical failure.
The most serious of these accidents was the December 1985 tragedy when an airplane
missed the approach and crashed into Sun Valley Mall killing 7 people and injuring more
than '75.
While much has been done to increase safety, prevent accidents and limit engine noise over
hoaxes, it does lead me to ask one important question: Would it make more sense to
relocate the airport to a sgfer location away•from homes casrxd family residences?
I think this is an issue worth exploring. But, to do this effectively, I need your input.
Miould you take a moment to fill out and return the enclosed card to me as soon as
pggsible? Please be sure to include your e-mail address if you have one. This will enable
me to keep you updated regularly as we begin to explore our options.
Thank you, in advance, for your input. Your opinion is important to me.
Sincerely,
NA
Y
Mark DeSaulnier
Supervisor
Not printed at public expense. 00
2425 13isso Lane, &lite 110 : � '� Contra Costa County
Coracot'Cl, Calisorniaa 94520-4817 � Es Board of Supervisors
(925) 646-5763
(925) 646-5767 (FAX)
cl:st4.@bos.co.co.,stra-cosLa.c,-,.us Mark DeSaulnier
Supervisor, District IV
Clayton,Clvcie, Coizcord.Pacheco.Pleasant Hill
Letter to Opinion headers (2408)
Name
e April 15, 2004
Title
Address
City, State Zip
Dear (First Name),
Change is often difficult to digest. But, in this era of tight budgets, we must look for new,
smarter and better ways to provide prognims and services for our residents-without relying
on. tax increases.
We must also have the courage to Look at new solutions-new options--that we have not
considered platting on the table before.
I .asn referring to my recent proposal to explore the possibility of relocating Buchanan Field
Airport in Concord to another location-and, instead, use this valuable land for what could be
a-variety of purposes which could benefit our communities.
Some say this idea is a shot in the dark. I say it is time we get out of the dark and shied some
light on new options in the 21st Century. I think we should consider.
Buchanan Field Airport was built in 1947, when Concord was a small, rural town. It .now
houses 591 planes and registers 430 operations a clay. It is located in a highly populated
residential and commercial section of Concord. To date, 47 accidents have neer. reported--- 20
fatalities, including the 1985 tragic crash of a plane into Sun.Valley Mall killing `ia' and injuring
more than 75. (question, Would it make sense to explore relocating the airport to a
more appropriate, safer ►ocation away from homes and businesses?
The lax-id. which currently houses Buchanan Field. Fairport is a highly desirable location of
North Concord, zoned residential and commercial, and with access to 680, 242 and near
Highway 4. Would it make sense to explore the varied options for this land which may
better serve our residents and neighbor n_4 communities?
If we didn't explore these new options, we wouldn't be doing our jobs.
As F. zespected leader in our community, I ask only this of you. Keep an opera mind to new
solutions to some of our age-calci problems. Thank you for listening.
Sin cereiy,
Cvmrre�rcricnr
2425 B-sso .,ane, Suite 110 ^ e ° Contra Cosh CCti}qty
Concord,California,94520--4817 ;� Board of Supervisors
(925) 645-5763
(925') 646-5767 (FAX)
dist4@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us Mare DeSaul .ier
Supervisor, District IV
Clayton,Clyde, Concord, Pacheco,Pleasant Hill
Letter to Mobile Home Park Residents`(563)
Name April. 15; 2004
Address
City, State ,Zip
Dear (Smith Family, Mr. Smith or.Ms. Snaith):
As a mobilehome park.resident, I know you have concerns. I am. listening.
When park owners threatened to raise rents, I spearheaded a rent control ordinance to step
them„ When you opposed the Diamond Blvd. extension, I fought against it. And when you said
you.wanted Pacheco Town Center, I pushed for its completion..
Now, we have a similar issue with Buchanan Field.Airport. I have heard from over 800
residents who reside near the airport and have registered complaints of excessive noise, feel
emissions, and safety concerns.
B chanan Field. Airport, built an 1947 when Concord was a.small, rural town, is owned and
operated by Contra Costa.County. It currently houses 591 airplanes and registers 430
operations a,day-and has the most incidents in the United States of two planes operating on
the same runway at the same time. This is higher than even Chicago's O Hare.
From 1933 to date, over 47 accidents have been reported, resulting in 20 fatalities --sandy due
to poor weather conditions, pilot error (many are student pilots) and mechanical failure.
The most serious of these accidents was the December 1985 tragedy when. an airplane.missed
the approach and crashed into Sun galley Mall killing 7 people and injuring over 75.
While much has been done to increase safety, prevent accidents and limit engine noise over
homes, it does lead me to ask one important question: Would it ynalce more sem to relocate
the airport to a more appropriate, safer location away fsain ,homes and mobiteizorrte
ark residences?
I thisak this is an issue worth.exploring. B,-,t,. to do this effectively, I need your input. Would
you take a moment to fUl out: andreturn the encloses card tomeas -soon as nossible?
Prease be sure to include.your e-mail address if you have one.. This will: enable roe to keep youupdated regularly as;sae begh- to'explore this issue.
Tlazzmk you, Lo. advauice, for your input. Your opinion is im.portamt to me.
Sincerely,
Mark
'rte -C:
�Ytr"�i.rk DeS auhiier
Supervisor
P.S. I will be holding a town hall meeting on April 27,h at 7:00 p.m. to discuss issues directly
—4!r--. 4, — .e..j_I .....__ .w__1.« .•o<.�A +c 'rl, '_;11 �.a ~sari .r rS � Ce.1 �islIisrr�Pyi3�.vs Clyrylti
" I would like to see the County study the possibility of relocating
Buchanan Meld Airport to a safer location away from homes.
�`` ❑ I would like the County to explore options for the land now housing
Buchanan Field Airport(a new library,community center,new
1 playfields,etc.).
Please continue to keep me informed.
Comments: 2
PLEASE PRINT. w
PENIS
Name
A
Address
A GOOD
City Zipcode
THINGHome Phone
E-Mail
Not printed or mailed at taxpayer expense. Paid for by Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Office Holder ID#940352.
—
From Landfills to Airports
EPA Policies for Acceptable Uses of Closed Landfills
For over eighteen years the Environmental Protection Agency has characterized and
remediated municipal landfills under its Superfund program. The Agency's ultimate goal is to
provide protection of human health and the environment for both current and future users of the site.
The Superfund Redevelopment Initiative reflects the Agency's belief that the EPA's
responsibility to local communities to clean up contaminated properties in a manner that protects
human health and the environment, generally should be carried out in such a manner that cleanups
are protective of anticipated future land use.
The EPA recommends that Superf€znd sites be recycled in a variety of forms, including
redevelopment of the site (e.g., construction of an airport, sports field, or golf course), reuse of
existing resources on the site(e.g., a new business in pre-existing buildings),or enhancing the
ecosystem on and around the site.
EPA is working with community leaders to determine remedial action objectives for
cleanups that will allow for reasonably anticipated future land uses where possible.
EPA believes that reuse should help to ensure proper maintenance of the remedy while
providing tangible benefits to key stakeholders, especially the surrounding community. The possible
benefits of reuse include;
+ positive economic impacts for communities living around the site including new employment
opportunities, increased property values, and catalysts for additional redevelopment activities.
♦ Stakeholder acceptance of the municipal landfill presumptive remedy because of potential time
and cost savings, and increased involvement in the restoration and redevelopment process.
♦ Enhanced day-to-day attention, potentially resulting in improved maintenance of remedy
integrity and institutional controls.
r Improved aesthetic quality of the area through discouragement of illegal waste disposal or
trespassing on restricted portions of the site, as well as increased upkeep of the site by future site
occupants.
Re-developing Closed Landfill Sites is Not a New Idea
Utilizing closed solid waste landfills and old hazardous waste landfill sites for the
redevelopment and placement of new airports is not a new concept. In fact, it has been successfully
done in dozens of states in the U.S., for many decades, and includes large international airports such
as LaGuardia International Airport and JFK International Airport, both in New York City. Listed
below is a sampling of landfills in the United States that have been successfully converted to
functioning airports, which benefit each of the local communities.
l
Westchester Department of Public Works Landfill- Westchester County
Airport Expansion
Westchester, NY
Environmental studies showed that a former county Department of Public Works landfill has
contaminated surrounding soil. The property had been used to dump trees, leaves and other organic
matter, but also contained chunks of garbage and asphalt. A plan to remove the contaminated soil is
currently underway. After the cleanup, the Westchester County Airport plans to utilize the former
landfill area for aircraft support.
Today,the airport is noted as having one of the largest based corporate fleets in the United
States. The 700 acre facility has two intersecting runways,the longest 6,550 ft. The airport serves
several commercial service operators and over 400 based aircraft, including helicopters.
Recently, Westchester County Airport enplaned and deplaned over 1 million passengers annually.
Beecher Landfill- South Suburban International Airport
Will County, Illinois
The proposed South Suburban Airport is best known as "Peotone" after one of the five semi-
rural towns that encircle the site. The South Suburban Airport is planned to be the largest airport in
the Chicago region. Blueprints call for the eventual acquisition of 24,000 acres of eastern Will
County—an area nearly three times the size of O'Hare.
The intended site encompasses Beecher Landfill, a 6000 x 3000 foot municipal landfill
serving the citizens of Will County. Before construction can begin in or around the area,the landfill
must be cleaned and capped. Supporters of the South Suburban Airport envision the airport
becoming Chicago's primary airport, which would accommodate over 1.6 million flights a year.
Norton Air Force Base- San Bernardino International Airport Expansion
San Bernardino, California
The 2,165-acre Dorton Air Force Base site began operations in 1942 and served as a major
overhaul center for jet engines and the general repair of aircraft. The site had the responsibility of
providing maintenance and logistics for liquid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Past hazardous waste management practices contributed to existing contamination problems
throughout the base. These practices included burial of drums and other unspecified materials;
disposal of waste oils, solvents, and paint residues into landfills, and storage of contaminants in
leaking underground tanks. A major area of contamination on the base was Area II Landfill.
After cleanup, Area II Landfill and the surrounding area(1065 acres)were transferred for
reuse. The landfill has been integrated into the San Bernardino International Airport. The airport
accommodates approximately 60,000 customers a year.
Ultimately the master reuse plan is to redevelop the former base area into an intramodal
transportation hub for foreign freight, with 8.7 million passengers a year.
2
Enterprise Avenue Landfill- Philadelphia International Airport Expansion
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
The Enterprise Avenue Landfill was located on City of Philadelphia property in an industrial
area near the eastern end of the Philadelphia International Airport. The landfill encompassed a total
of 57 acres. Until 1976, the Philadelphia Streets Department used the site for the disposal of
incineration residue, fly ash, and bulky debris. in addition, drums containing various industrial and
chemical wastes were buried illegally at the site by several waste handling firms. In response to the
situation, the Philadelphia`mater Department conducted exploratory excavations during 1979 to
confirm the waste dumping.
EPA.recommended that the landfill be capped and that a groundwater monitoring system be
installed around the perimeter of the landfill. The cap was completed in October 1997 and the
groundwater is monitored twice a year.
In December 1999,the City of Philadelphia Department of Aviation completed the
construction of a new 5,000-foot runway(one of four at the airport) located northeast of the
Philadelphia International Airport. A section of this runway crosses atop a portion of the.Enterprise
Avenue Landfill.
The Philadelphia International Airport ranks 17th in Passenger Traffic, 13th in Aircraft
Operations, and 15th in Cargo Tonnage among U.S. Airports. It accommodated 24.7 million
passengers and handled 524,771 tons of cargo and air mail in 2003.
George Air Force Base- Southern California Logistics Airport
Victorville, California
George Air Force Base occupies 5,347 acres. The base, which was closed in December
1992, supported tactical fighter operations and provided training for air crew and maintenance
personnel. The former base landfill site,Northeast Disposal, is contaminated with jet fuel.,
chlorinated solvents including trichloroethylene, volatile organic compounds, and medical wastes.
Northeast Disposal clean-up commenced in 1998,but other areas of the former base are still being
overhauled.
Site plans for George AFB include an international air cargo center and business hub. When
the entire Base is ready for reuse, plans are to convert the base into the Southern California
Logistics Airport. SCLA will be a dedicated air cargo facility with a 5,000-acre business complex
integrating manufacturing, industrial and office facilities with nine core business units that included
Aviation Maintenance, Rail Complex, Real Estate Development, Military Defense Programs, Flight
Testing, Advanced Flight Training, Charter Passenger Service, and a Business &Executive Jet
Travel Center. Ultimately the airport will support 4 million passengers a year.
3
Pease Air Force Base, Landfill 5- Pease International Airport
Portsmouth/Newington, New Hampshire
The Pease.Air Force Base site maintained aircraft from the 1950's until 1991 when the base
was closed. In support of its missions, Pease AFB generated various quantities of fuels, oils,
lubricants, solvents and protective coatings. Some of these materials contaminated site soils,
groundwater, surface water, and sediments. When closed in 1988, ensuing environmental studies
showed that an area of the base, Landfill 5, was severely contaminated. LF-5 encompasses
approximately 23 acres in the northern section of Pease AFB.
Records indicate that LF-5 was used continuously from 1964 to 1975 as the primary base
landfill, although some disposal occurred as late as 1979. Domestic and industrial refuse reportedly
disposed of in the landfill includes waste oils and solvents, paints,paint strippers and thinners,
pesticide containers and empty cans and drums. In addition, the landfill received sludge from the
base industrial wastewater treatment plant.
After excavation, consolidation, and construction of a cap over Landfill 5 (completed in
1996)the airfield was converted into a fully operational commercial airport. The 1702 acre Pease
International Airport currently services civilian and military aircraft and sees yearly traffic of
approximately 40,000 customers. Pan American Airlines and Boston-Maine Airlines fly in and out
of the airport daily.
The airport is located in the towns of Portsmouth and Newington, Rockingham County,New
Hampshire.
North Coastal/Palomar Airport Landfill- McClellan-Palomar Airport
Expansion
Carlsbad, California
The North Coastal/Palomar Airport Landfill was owned and operated from 1962-1975 by
the County of San Diego. The site covered approximately 70 acres of the 241 acre airport property.
Three canyons were carved into the south side of the mesa forming units I,II,IIL The estimated
time of operation of each unit is as follows;Unit I operated from 1962-1968;Unit II operated from
1968-1972. and Unit III operated form 1972-1975. The estimated disposal area for Unit I consists of
9 acres with 214,000 cubic yards of waste. Unit II consists of acres with 195,000 cubic yards of
waste, while Unit III is comprised of 19 acres with 697,000 cubic yards of waste.
The majority of the waste accepted was residential waste. however,the landfill also
received commercial, industrial, agricultural and pathogenic waste, including treated sludge. The
amount of residential waste received daily ranged from 30 tons to a maximum of 200 tons. In 13
years of operation, the landfill accommodated approximately 830,000-1,100,000 tons of solid
municipal waste.
Unit I now houses hangers for the storage of private aircrafts. The remaining area of Unit 1
was paved for automobile access. Unit II now includes maneuvering room for aircraffs, aircraft tie-
down areas, and paved access to additional hangers outside the landfill boundaries. Unit III remains
undeveloped open space and serves as an approach to the airport.
4
The McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan has outlined future improvements for the
airport property within the next 15 plus years. The airport currently accommodates approximately
200,000 passengers a year and handles general aviation as well as corporate and commercial flights.
Old Hollywood Landfill Captain Walter F. Duke regional Airport
Expansion
St. Mary's, Maryland
The Old Hollywood Landfill was a four acre area used by the residents of the Std Mary's
County for the burial and disposal of solid waste.
The property has recently been dedicated for airport use as a part of the Captain Walter F.
Duke Regional Airport in St. Mary's County. The airport is currently rehabilitating the landfill in
order to continue their run-way extension. The Captain Walter F. Luke Regional Airport serves an
average of 55,000 operations a year.
Bergstrom Air Force Base Landfill- Austin-Bergstrom International
.Airport
Austin, Texas
The Bergstrom AFB closed in October 1993. Upon its closure, contamination and hazardous
waste problems were found in the Bergstrom six-acre-landfill. The waste at the landfill was moved
and the site was capped. 2380 acres of Bergstrom was then turned over to the Federal Aviation
Association for the construction of the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (4000 acres).
The completion of the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport was the first U.S. conversion
of an Air Force Base to commercial airport since the end of the Cold War. A multi-use facility,the
airport serves general aviation, commercial aviation,the State Aircraft Pooling Beard, and the
Texas Army National Guard. The airport saw more than 7 million passengers in 2001 and an
average of 240 commercial passenger flights per day(arrivals and departures).
Nelson Landfill- Nelson Municipal Airport
British Columbia
Back in the 1930's,Nelson's citizens and City Council began construction of a landfill from
garbage, dirt, and rock. In August 1947 an aircraft made an emergency landing on a 600 ft. roadway
leading to the landfill. This prompted local air-minded enthusiasts to press for an airfield at the site
of the landfill. Eventually, the landfill was closed and capped.
In September 1971, plans to build a 2,340 ft.x 75 ft. paved runway at the former landfill site
commenced. Years later, a 500 ft.run-way extension was added.Nelson Municipal Airport supports
light aircraft as well as the Nelson Mountain.Air flying school, medical emergencies, and helicopter
flights.
5
Graryton Road Landfill- Cleveland Hopkins International Airport
Cleveland, Ohio
Cleveland Hopkins International Airport recently completed a$1.5 billion expansion and
renovation program Included was a new runway, built to accommodate growing travel demand. In
order for the runway to be built,the airport had to close, fill, grate, excavate, and cap the Grayton
Road.Landfall. The project included removing over 6540 cubic meters of solid waste.
The new runway at Cleveland-Hopkins is 1.3 miles long and allows up to ten more takeoffs
and landings per hour. The airport is a hub for Continental Airlines and passenger numbers in 2002
reached close to I I million.
LaGuardia International Airport
New York, New York
On December 2, 1939,New York City's first major commercial airport opened for business
as,New York City Municipal Airport-LaGuardia Field. It was built jointly by the City of New York
and the Federal Works Progress Administration on the former site of the Gala Amusement Park and
on the landfall between Flushing Bay and Bowery Bay. wilding on the site required moving the
landfill from.Rikers Island,then a garbage dump, onto a metal reinforcing framework.
In 1947,the airport's name was officially shortened to "LaGuardia Airport." Today,the 680-
acre facility employs more than 9,000 people and serves more than 20 million passengers each year.
John F Kennedy International Airport
New York, New York
Construction of the John F. Kennedy International Airport began in April 1942; when the
City of New York contracted for the placing of garbage fill over the marshy tidelands of Jamaica
Bay. The garbage fall, very similar to the fill used in the construction for LaGuardia Airport,was
transported from a municipal waste disposal facility in l ew York.
Planned at first for 1,000 acres,the airport grew to five times that size. Today, JFK Airport
consists of 4,930 acres and Handles more than 300,000 operations a year.
6