LRAAC 10-29-99 minutes 1. Attendance: A. Members - Tim Scully, Dick Ahrens, Dave Brewer, Tom Goncharoff, Trey Loy, Susan Winding. B. Visitors - Naomi Jarvie. 2. Communications: A. Notes: Public Resources Committee meeting on 09/20 re L/R hangar issues. B. Minutes: Public Resources Committee meeting of 09/20. C. E-mail from Michael Vojtesak of 09/24 re weather. D. E-mail to Vojtesak of 09/26 re weather. E. E-mail to Vojtesak of 09/27 re weather. F. Letter from Bruce Raabe of 09/24 re hangar. G. Letter to Raabe of 10/04 re hangar. H. E-mail from Paul Townsend of 09/21 re building permit. I. E-mail to Townsend of 10/05 re building permit. J. E-mail from Gary Pedroni of 10/06 re building permit. K. E-mail to Patti Campbell of 10/08 re hangar seizure dates. Note: Trey Loy disagreed with this email. L. E-mail from Dave Brewer of 10/19 re airport operations. M. E-mail from Dave Thorpe of 10/22 re new fuel system. N. E-mail from Tim Scully of 10/28 re trees. O. Letter from DOT to Raabe of 10/25 re hangars. 3. Notices to Pilots Guides: A. Agreed wording to DOT. B. Discussion of signs. C. Agendized signs for next meeting. 4. Hangars: A. Discussion of types of hangars by Trey Loy. B. Discussion of locations of hangars by Trey Loy. C. Discussion of costs and ownership of hangars by Trey Loy. 5. Next meetings: A. 19 November 1999 B. 17 December 1999 6. Agenda: A. Agreed Approve the minutes of the last meeting Communications (letters, FAXes, etc, sent/received since last meeting) Report on the status of the GPS approach Non-aviation uses of the airport Additional hangars at the airport Noise Abatement policy signs Reports from subcommittees Public comment Report on finances (contributions received, expenses incurred) Agree on a date, time and place for the next meeting Agree on agenda for next meeting 7. Operations: A. Summary of operations per year by Dave Brewer: 6100-6200. Members of the Little River Airport Advisory Committee ------------------------------------------------------ Dick Ahrens pilot, airport neighbor Dave Brewer pilot, lives near airport Tom Goncharoff Trey Loy non-pilot, lives near airport Tim Scully pilot, computer programmer, lives near airport commutes by air to Oakland weekly Willow Trent airport neighbor, non-pilot Susan Winding airport neighbor, non-pilot, business owner -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Scully's notes from the 9/20/99 meeting with Public Resources -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Three members of the Little River Airport Advisory Committee, Dave Brewer, Trey Loy and Tim Scully, met with the Public Resources committee of the Board of Supervisors from 1:30 to 3PM on Monday 9/20/99. The acting head of the Department of transportation, Bob Parker and the Airport Manager, Chuck Boyer were also present. The Public Resources committee consists of Supervisors Patti Campbell and Tom Lucier. Trey Loy thanked the Supervisors and DOT for the recent work done at the airport, including the fog seal, striping and the new fuel system. Then he gave a presentation on hangar issues at Little River Airport, beginning with a history of hangars at the airport. The airport was built by the military during WW II. After the war it was deeded to the County. Initally there were the two wooden hangars built by the military. Then the County built one block of 4 metal hangars. When the waiting list for these hangars grew too long, permission was granted for 5 private hangars to be built. Later 13 more private hangar sites were designated. Over the years, private hangars have been built on all of the designated sites. At one time, Normal deVall proposed that the County should take over ownership of all private hangars. This was approved by minute order, and a notice went out to all private hangar owners in 1994 telling them that in 1999 the County would take over their hangars. No details were provided regarding the proposed transaction. The hangar owners were upset by this and when they were unable to get answers from the County, organized and hired a lawyer. DPW proposed to do a study on how to take over the hangars, but the $59,000 was never funded. Charles Peterson was elected 5th District supervisor and held a meeting at Little River Airport with representatives from DPW, County Administrator Mike Scannel, hangar owners, pilots and neighbors of the airport. Many issues were raised and Mr. Peterson suggested that an Ad Hoc Airport Advisory Committee be formed to look into the issues and report to the Supervisors. A committee was formed which reorted on many issues. Trey showed the group a copy of the Ad Hoc Committee's hangar report, which led to an amicable resolution of the private hangar issue. The Board eventually withdrew the minute order and agreed to allow continued private hangar ownership at the airport. Patti Campbell asked Tim Scully to send her details on the dates of the Board actions in this matter. Trey showed the group a copy of the Airport Master Plan. He passed out a map from the plan which shows the location of existing hangars and a possible location for additional hangars, across the drainage ditch. He pointed out that the Master Plan calls for two bridges across the ditch. These would be expensive. He explained that there is general agreement that more hangars are needed at Little River. There is a waiting list with 23 names of pilots waiting for a rental hangar. And several people have expressed interest in building more private hangars. The rental waiting list is "suspect", i.e., some people on the list probably are no longer interested in renting a hangar. Tim Scully said he believes that 10 or 12 hangars are needed immediately. Trey Loy said that the number might be as low as 5. Trey explained that he would prefer to see new hangars built by the County so that all of the income from them would go to the County. He said that the hangar subcommittee is looking into how additional hangars should be funded, who should own them and where they should be located. The location suggested by the Master Plan would be expensive to develop due to the cost of bridging the ditch and paving access taxiways. One alternative would be to move one or more of the existing hangars to allow access to the designated area without building bridges. And there are other possible alternate locations to be evaluated. Tim Scully said that hangar and tiedown fees currently account for over 1/3 of airport revenue, and that additional hangars would increase revenue. He said that CalTrans has a program of low interest State loans for building hangars, as one funding alternative. Also there are at least two private investors who have expressed interest in building a block of rental hangars. He said that the FAA had, at one time, said that they would consider funding the paving of an area for more hangars as part of a larger paving grant for the runway. Typically airport paving is funded 90% by a Federal grant, 5% by a State grant and 5% by a County match. However, in the past the County has been reluctant to ask for Federal funding due to concern over the strings that would be attached. Tom Lucier asked if the airport is an enterprise fund. No it isn't. Tom explained that an enterprise fund allows indebtedness. Patti Campbell asked if hangars could be sublet. This is not allowed under the current regulations. Tom Lucier said that in Willits they put up a block of 10 hangars and they filled up right away. He suggested relocating some of the private hangars to open up more desirable locations for County owned rental hangars. Tim Scully explained that most of the private hangars are on a very narrow strip of land between the ditch and taxiway and that there isn't room for a double-sided hangar in that space. Bob Parker said that he appreciate the good work that the Airport Advisory Committee has done. Tim Scully said that the Master Plan is due for an update (the FAA wants them updated every 10 years), and that the Advisory Committee has discussed the possibility of working on such an update with DOT. Patti Campbell said that having the AAC work on a Master Plan update is a good idea. She went on to say that County funding of more hangars will be difficult. There are so many other County projects that need funding. For example, a $300,000 GIS system is needed and there is not money in the budget for it. She said that perhaps a combination of private and public funding would be needed for airport improvements. The need for hangars seems to have been established. Now the committee needs to work on the location, funding and ownership issues. Patti Cambell said that the committee needs to develop a consensus plan, but it should also be careful to report on minority views. The Board can work out a compromise. Tom Lucier suggested a moritorium on hangar construction until the issue is settled. Tim Scully said that all of the currently allocated spots for private hangars have been used up, so there is already a de-facto moritorium. He suggested that the AAC can work to resolve the hangar issue early in the Master Plan update process. Patti Campbell suggested that the rental hangar waiting list should be updated. Tim Scully made a short presentatio on the trees around Little River Airport, explaining that the FAA has asked the County to report on the obstructions and on the County's plan for removing them. The LRAPA has surveyed a few hundred of the trees around the runway. The results, to date, were on large scale maps plotted from AutoCAD. The problem trees in the 20:1 approach trapezoids are mainly on two parcels of privately owned land near the SouthEast end of Runway 29. These parcels are currently for sale and are being advertised as suitable for home construction. Tim Scully recomended that the County should consider implementing the land swaps recommended in the existing Airport Master Plan, trading some surplus airport land for these two parcels. Patti Campbell said the County will investigate the possibilities of a land swap. Tim Scully suggested trading airport land to the NorthEast of Runway 29, as far as possible from the existing aircraft traffic pattern. Tim Scully went on to describe the hundreds of excessively tall trees in the 7:1 transition zones along the sides of the runway. These trees are on airport property and are in an area which appears to have been clearcut when the airport was built, but which have grown back since then. Tim Scully said that there are a number of questions that need to be answered. Will the off-airport trees be topped or cut? If they are, who pays the costs? Will the on-airport trees be cut? Neighbors have expressed concern over changes in noise and wind patterns that might result from tree cutting. Is a timber harvest plan needed? He said that the AAC feels it is important for the neighbors of the airport to have advance notice of any plans to top or cut large numbers of trees around the airport, so their concerns can be raised and heard. Tom Lucier asked that the regulatory requirements are. Bob Parker said he will check and find out. Tim Scully and Dave Brewer briefly explained about the work of the non-aviation uses subcommittee. Any non-aviation use of airport land needs to be low impact. Neighbors have raised concerns over the already overloaded Little River Airport Road and the dangerous intersection with Highway 1, and about the limited water a septic capacity of the airport land. The AAC has sent a letter to Mike Scannell to find out if the County wants to fund non-avaiation development on the airport, using a self-storage facility as an example. Patti Campbell suggested that the development of more hangars should have first priority. She would like to see a grid or matrix of possibilities with a discussion of each. Tom Lucier asked what the regulatory requirements are regarding tree cutting. Is a THP required? Bob Parker said that DOT will check this out. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The official County minutes from the 9/20 Public Resources meeting ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC RESOURCES COMMITTEE MINUTES September 20, 1999 The Public Resources Committee met on Monday, September 20, 1999 at 1:30 p.m. with the following members present: Supervisors Lucier and CampbeIl. Chair Campbell presiding. Deputy Clerk of the Board Janelle Rau. 1. LITTLE RIVER AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT REGARDING A PROGRESS REPORT PERTAINING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL HANGARS AT LITTLE RIVER AIRPORT Informational Report Regarding New Hangar Issues: Mr. Bob Parker and Mr. Chuck Boyer, of the Mendocino County Depariment of Transportation, Mr. Tim Scully of the Little River Airport Advisory Committee, Mr. Trey Loy, and Mr. Dave Brewer were present to address the item. Mr. Loy provided the Committee with various maps and drawings from the Mendocino County Airport Master Plan and provided a visual presentation regarding the issues of current 'private portable hangars', potential new hangars at the airport, and potential locations of the hangars. Mr. Loy relayed the previous history regarding the Board of Supervisors and the County's Department of Transportation conclusion in 1994 noting: Private portable hangars were not in the public's best interest; the owners of these hangars were sent correspondence from the Department of Transportation/Board of Supervisors relative to guidelines that were established by the Board, requiring the owners to move or sell the hangars to the County by 1999; various costs associated with a feasibility study pertaining to the hangars; the establishment of an ad-hoc committee by a prior Board to address various issues of the airport hangars. Discussion ensued relative to previous Board action regarding the airport hangars; official action of the County not to pursue assuming the airport hangars. and the current need for additional hangars at Little River Airport. Mr. Tim Scully provided additional information regarding funding aspects of the issue. Discussion ensued relative to enterprise funding; the County General Fund; aviation loans; responsibility of expenses regarding the relocation of hangars; lease agreements of current hangar owners; life expectancies of portable hangars vs. permanent hangars; maintenance of hangars; the goals of the Advisory Committee regarding average expenses for hangar renters; the location and accessibility of the hangars; the roadways and potential needs for bridges at the airport; potential funding sources for paving. Mr. Parker and Mr. Boyer provided information pertaining to the County owned hangar waiting list posted at the airport. Supervisor Campbell noted her support of the update of the Airporl Master Plan, working on the hangar issues, and concerns regarding funding aspects of the project. Supervisor Campbell suggested that the Advisory Committee address the following: A combination of public/private planning for the hangars for the suggested purposes, needs, locations, ownership, and funding; prepare to present the Board with a consensus from the Advisory Committee, the minority point of view of the Advisory Committee. CHANGE IN CLERK: HEIKE ARNOLD Mr. Scully questioned communicating directly with the Department of Transportation regarding the determination of the most current funding sources. Discussion ensued relative to a potential moratorium on new hangars until the issue is resolved and the Department of Transportation is able to develop or modify the Airport Master Plan; a self-imposed moratorium is in effect due to the lack of available plots for development; the current waiting list for airport hangars; and the priorities of each individual on the list (rental vs. ownership). Mr. Scully presented information pertaining to the Federal Aviation Association's[sic] response pertaining to the potential GPS project, trees that penetrate the runway's threshold, the County's consideration of exchanging and potentially obtaining land currently for sale near the airport. Discussion ensued relative to tree removal and safety isses: Traffic patterns; the potential need for a timber harvest plan; alternatives for the removal of trees; noticing issues to surrounding property owners. Mr. Parker noted his concerns regarding topping trees. Committee Recommendation: The Committee recommended Little River Airport Advisory Committee determine non-aviation land use items and that the Department of Transpoftation is to talk to County Counsel regarding a land exchange swap on the 5 acres. The Committee recommended the Little River Airport Advisory Committee consider first priority for the Master Plan to pertain to hangar issues, that different scenarios presented regarding hangar location be illustrated, and that each location then be addressed separately. The Committee directed the Department of Transportation to research the tree issue, to review the removal of trees, review the necessity of a Timber Harvest Plan, review the legal requirements pertaining to this Timber Harvest Plan, and work cooperatively in reporting back to the Board. 2. Review and Update of the Redevelopment Feasibility Study Supervisors Campbell and Lucier are scheduled to meet with the City of Willits on Thursday, September 23, 1999 at 9:00 am, at Willits City Hall. THERE BEING NOTHING FURTHER TO COME BEFORE THE PURLIC RESOURCES COMMITTEE, THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:15 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Janelle Rau, Deputy Clerk of the Board Heike Arnold, Deputy Clerk of the Board ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- An email thread with Michal Vojtesak (in reverse chronological order) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Vojtesak Sent: September 27, 1999 3:50 PM To: tim.scully Subject: Re[2]: Airport Advisory Committee Tim... to answer your questions. The TWEBs are available on the Eureka web page... www.wrh.noaa.gov/Eureka (and aviation products menu) or www.wrh.noaa.gov/Eureka/avn2.html The issue of getting a TAf written for O48 is one of politics I'm afraid. The FAA and NWS requires at least 16 hours worth of reliable observations. An ASOS in this time and "space" circa 2000, is required before the feds will even consider it. Acquiring that machinery is another "problem" altogether. Feel free to provide feedback to me, on a case by case basis, during the upcoming "millenium". Regards... Mike Vojtesak (MJV) ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: RE: Airport Advisory Committee Author: tim.scully Date: 09/26/1999 3:22 PM Thanks for your email and for the work you have been doing. I'll poll the membership of the Little River Pilots' Association to get you a broader sample of opinion. I can tell you that I use your TAFs. The TWEBs are a little harder for us to get, now that they are no longer broadcast on VORs. Can you tell me how they are distributed, apart from the recordings on 1-800-WXBRIEF? Of course, Little River pilots all wish there were a forcast for the coastal area near Little River, and we have long hoped to get an AWOS or ASOS to help make that happen. As I'm sure you know, the Little River weather is quite different from Ukiah or Arcata's, due to distance and terrain. What would it take to produce a TAF for Little River (O48)? We have a GPS instrument approach in the works with the FAA. Does that help? > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Vojtesak > Sent: September 24, 1999 4:15 PM > To: tim > Subject: Airport Advisory Committee > > > > Tim... I am the aviation focal point for the National Weather Service > Office in Eureka, CA. Our office "writes" the Terminal Area Forecasts > (TAFs) for Crescent City (CEC), Arcata (ACV) and Ukiah (UKI). We also > 'write' the Transcribed WEather Broadcasts (TWEBs) for three routes. > Specifically, PDXTWB375 KACV-KMFR, SFOTWB416 KRDD-KACV, and SFOTWB420 > KOAK-KACV. > > I understand that you and your area is actively involved with the > "Little River Airport Pilots Association". I basically wanted to find > out if you and/or other aviators in your area use these products I > mentioned above. If so, would you be so kind as to drop me a note in > the future and give me some feedback (positive or negative) on their > usefulness (timeliness, accuracy, etc). I have been here a year now, > and have made some efforts in trying to train, and quality-control our > products. I want to get a feel for how we as an office are doing? And > specifically, can we do things better? > > I would be happy to come down your way and give your group a short > presentation what we actually do aviation-wise for the four-county > area (Mendocino, del Norte, Humboldt, and Trinity) if you would like. > Hope to hear from you. > > Regards... Mike Vojtesak > > Aviation Focal Point, NWSO Eureka > 300 Startare Dr > Woodley Island, Eureka CA 95501 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce J. Raabe September 24, 1999 Tim Scully, Chairman Airport Advisory Conmiittee Dave Thorp, Airport Supervisor Little River, CA 95456 Chuck Boyer Uldah, CA 95482 Gentlemen: I had no response from my letter date May 28 asking for permission to build a hanger at the Little River Airport (copy attached). I currently have a 36' X 40' hanger at Gnoss Field in Novato that I would like to move to the Little River Airport. This hanger is similar to those along the taxiway to Rwy 11 and would easily fit at the end of this hanger row. I am willing to pay to the County any reasonable ground lease. There would be no cost to the county. There would be little impact to the airport. I will use this hanger for the storage of my own Cessna. Please call me at your convenience. Sincerely, Bruce Raabe CC: J. Iversen Mendocino County Board of Supervisors ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tim Scully 10/4/99 Bruce J. Raabe Dear Mr. Raabe: Thank you for your letter of September 24. The Airport Advisory Committee (AAC) met with the Mendocino County Public Resources committee on September 20 and presented a verbal interim report on the hangar issue to the Supervisors who make up this subcommittee of the Board of Supervisors. The direction we received from the Pubic Resources committee was for us to continue work on the issue of additional hangars as part of an Airport Master Plan revision, making this issue the first priority. The Supervisors asked the AAC to report on a matrix of scenarios for different hangar locations, type of ownership and means of funding. There is a de facto moratorium on the construction of additional hangars until an overall plan is adopted, because all of the existing approved plots have been used up. Several possible locations for additional hangars are currently being considered. The location issue is linked to the questions of ownership and funding (private vs public vs private-public partnership). As I tried to explain in our earlier telephone and email communications, the process is very slow. It takes a lot of time for everyone's concerns to to researched and discussed in depth. I'm afraid it will be sometime next year, at best, before this issue is resolved. That's the bad news. The good news is that there seems to be general agreement that more hangars should be built. So I think you can be hopeful that in the long run there will be hangar space avaiable, one way or another. Thank you again for your letter. Yours, Tim Scully, Ph.D. Chair, Airport Advisory Committee ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pamela Townsend Sent: September 21, 1999 12:30 PM To: Gary Pedroni Cc: tim.scully Subject: Little River Airport Committee Tim Scully and Trey Loy of the Little River Airport Advisory Committee were in and asked how would a building permit for a dwelling in the A or possibly B-1 zones adjacent to Little River Airport be handled- any use permit or ALUC review? Tim's email: Pam Townsend ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Scully Sent: October 05, 1999 1:35 PM To: 'Pamela Townsend'; Gary Pedroni Cc: Tim Scully Subject: RE: Little River Airport Committee I'm sorry to so very slow in getting back to you regarding this issue. The parcels in question are 121-360-10 and 121-360-9. One of these overlaps the Runway Protection Zone for Runway 29 and the other is immediately adjacent. Both are currently being advertised for sale by owner with the following ad: "For Sale By Owner: 7 wooded acres Located only half an hour away from the town of Mendocino, the property is 2 miles inland, out of the fog belt and 1/2 mile from the nearest other structure, out near the county airport. There is a primitive well, an extremely rustic cabin and barn are the only structures. The house site is well back from a paved road. An alternate house site on the other side of the road has passed building code requirements. Both have driveways to them. There is a half-acre pnd, a woodlot for firewood, pine, redwood, etc. trees, an apple tree, a rare Dawn redwood (looks like a ceder), a locust tree, high bush blueberries and a spectacular New Zealand Flax. Wild azaleas are beautiful in the spring. This is an excellant investment as the area is a very popular one, rising in value. Most of the inland property is owned by lumber companies or is in state and county parks and nature preserves, severely limiting the amount of land available for private use. The asking price is $200,000 or best offer. I am concerned that some unsupecting person might buy this land and build one or two houses. The land is too close to the airport for this to be a good idea. Is it possible to explore land swaps with the seller, so the County could secure this land? As you know, the Airport Master Plan recommends this. > -----Original Message----- > From: Pamela Townsend > Sent: September 21, 1999 12:30 PM > To: Gary Pedroni > Cc: tim.scully > Subject: Little River Airport Committee > > > Tim Scully and Trey Loy of the Little River Airport Advisory > Committee > were in and asked how would a building permit for a dwelling > in the A or > possibly B-1 zones adjacent to Little River Airport be > handled- any use > permit or ALUC review? Tim's email: tim.scully > Pam Townsend > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gary Pedroni Sent: October 06, 1999 7:31 AM To: tim.scully Subject: Re: Little River Airport Tim - you should refer to Table 2A (p.2-6) of the Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. A SFR is a "prohibited use" in an A Zone, and is "Normally Acceptable" in a B Zone. Should a property owner wish to develope an A Zone property, the project would be referred to the County's ALUC for review. You should contact the County's Department of Transportation regarding a possible land swap. Gary Pedroni, Planner II. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Tim Scully Sent: October 08, 1999 6:24 PM To: 'Supervisor Patti Campbell' Cc: Tim Scully Subject: private hangar history I apologize for being slow to get this to you. I am appending the text of a letter which was sent to all private hangar owners when the minute order was rescinded. The private hangar owners now assume that they will be allowed to continue to own their hangars. Trey Loy was expressing his personal opinion when he said that the County had "determined that private hangars on public land were not in the public interest." This is his strongly held personal belief, but has not to my knowledge been a finding of the Board. The original minute order was Norman deVall's idea and its implications weren't carefully considered. Please let me know if this isn't all the information you wanted. C.F. CAMPBELL, DIRECTOR COUNTY OF MENDOCINO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482 (707) 463-4363 FAX (707) 463-5474 January 14, 1997 Robert T. Scully RE: LITTLE RIVER AIRPORT PRIVATE PORTABLE HANGARS Dear Tim: The Board of Supervisors, at their regular meeting of 17 December 1996, formally adopted the Health, Welfare, Planning and Transportation Committee recommendations of 16 July 1996 to rescind the Board's direction of 3 May 1994 to convert all aircraft hangars at Little River Airport to County ownership after 1 July 1999. Unless otherwise directed by the Board of Supervisors, this department will address each private portable hangar agreement when it reaches it expiration date and will recommend ten (10) year extensions / renewals, as was the case prior to the Board action of 3 May 1994. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, C. F. CAMPBELL, Director of Public Works BY: CHARLES A. BOYER Business Services Manager CAB/vj cc: File 23-1 K ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Dave Brewer Sent: October 19, 1999 2:12 PM To: Tim Subject: Analysis of State DOT Estimate of Airport Operations I have completed a look at the estimate of operations given in the 6/23/99 letter from Jeffrey Slusarz to Chuck Boyer. I compared these numbers to the logs kept by the airport supervisor for the period 11/01/97 to 10/30/98. Following are my comments: 1. I have comparable numbers for the period 5/11/98 to 5/24/98 and for 10/20/98 to 10/31/98. I have no logs for 11/1/98 to 11/2/98 or for 4/7/99 to 4/21/99. 2. The period in October 1998 was not representative of winter operations at Little River. October was the most active month in the year I have logs for. Allowing for the inaccuracies of the logging system, November through February would have one third of the daily operations compared to the end of October. This would result in a reduction of 1600 operations in the state's estimate, making it 6141. 3. The detailed report for May 11 through May 24 has the am and pm hours reversed (unless we had most of our operations in the middle of the night). The only way I can get any correlation with the logs is to assume that the days are off by one. That is, what is labeled May 11 is really May 12, etc. See the attached spread sheet "Comparison With State Numbers Pass 2." 3. The detailed report for October 20 through October 31 correlates reasonably well with the logs. 4. In many cases the state numbers are higher than the logs. I believe that the loggers did not identify touch and go operations in many cases. On most days where the state numbers are significantly higher than the log, there is a cluster of takeoffs (in one hour) which were not logged. 5. Looking at off prime shift takeoffs, of the 456 total takeoffs counted over 43 days, 60 (13%) were before 8:00am or after 5:00pm. The tally is: 6-7am 4 takeoffs(0.9%); 7-8am 13(3%); 6-7pm 28(6%): 7-8pm 13(3%); and 8-9pm 2(0.4%). There were no recorded takeoffs after 9:00 pm and before 6:00am ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Little River Airport Sent: October 22, 1999 2:25 PM To: Tim Scully Cc: Richard Gallagher; Leonard Swithenbank; Keith Paulson; Joel; Dick Ahrens; Dave Brewer; Bill Mertle Subject: Fuel @ LRAP The card lock is up and working as of 1400 today Friday 10-22. The price is $2.05 still. Please let me know the first time that you use the system and I will help you out with it. Also let me know if you have any trouble with the card lock or any other part of the Fuel system. Also please remember to please help me by taking care with the use, so that we can keep this trouble free. So pump and enjoy but please use care with the pump. Thank you Dave Thorpe Airport Supervisor ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Tim Scully Sent: October 28, 1999 5:51 AM To: 'Chuck Boyer'; 'Stan Townsend'; 'Little River Airport' Cc: Tim Scully Subject: trees on and near the airport This is an updated report on the trees on and around Little River Airport. Over the last several months, we have surveyed the location and height of 695 trees on and around the airport. Although this is still only a small fraction of the total number of trees in the approach trapezoids and transitional surfaces, it is a large enough sample to allow the remainder to be estimated reasonably. The measurements were made with a transit and a laser rangefinder. To review the basics: the FAA wrote to Mike Scannell on May 7, 1999 asking for Threshold Siting Criteria, Obstacle Free Zones and confirmation of Hold lines and signs. With DOT authorization, I telephoned the FAA District office on 5/11/99 and spoke with Dan Morse, who explained that we need to indicate which obstacles have been removed, which are still present and what our plans are for removing the obstacles. I think the question of Threshold Siting has been de facto resolved by the striping. I assume we will stick with the existing runway threshold locations. Given the type of aircraft which use the airport, our approach trapezoids are 400 feet wide (200 feet on either side of the runway centerline) at the threshold, growing to 500 feet on either side of the centerline at a distance of 1500 feet from the threshold (from Figure A2-1 of AC 150/5300-13). The trapezoids slope upward one foot for every 20 feet from the threshold. There is a "primary surface" 500 feet wide at the runway surface (250 feet on either side of the runway centerline). The transitional surfaces start at ground level at the edges of the primary surface and slope up at a 7:1 rate. There is also a transitional surface at the sides of the trapezoids, sloping up at a 7:1 angle (defined in FAR 77.25). The term "transition zones" is used here to refer to the part of the transitional surfaces within 80 feet of the ground. Our runway is 150 feet wide. Approximately 20% of the length of the transition zones were surveyed, a total of 554 trees. Even in the 20% of the transition zones which were surveyed, only a fraction of the trees were measured, but this is hopefully a representative sample. We have surveyed 141 trees in the 20:1 approach trapezoids. 93 of these are below the height limits set by the FAA and hence are not a problem. This leaves 48 surveyed trees in the trapezoids which are too high by amounts varying from 5 feet to 25 feet. Tables are presented below which shows how these are distributed with respect to "excess height". The "bin" values are excess height in feet. Thus, for example, there are 10 trees in the 0-5 foot excess height bin in the table of 141 total trees surveyed in the trapezoids. In the tables below, "Runway 29" refers to the East end of the runway and "Runway 11" refers to the West end of the runway. Table #1 Table #2 Table #3 ----------------------- ------------------------ ------------------- 141 trees in trapezoids Runway 29 trapezoid Runway 29 trapezoid ---------------------- 80 trees, 41 off-airport 41 off-airport trees Bin Frequency ------------------------ -------------------- 0 93 Bin Frequency Bin Frequency 5 10 0 37 0 14 10 13 1 0 1 0 15 7 5 9 5 4 20 9 10 11 10 7 25 9 15 7 15 3 30 0 20 9 20 8 35 0 25 7 25 2 40 0 30 0 30 3 Tables #2 and #3 above show that 43 excessively high trees were surveyed in the Runway 29 trapezoid. Of these, 27 excessively high trees were not on airport land. This is a reflection of parcel 121-360-10, which is not owned by the County and which overlaps the Runway 29 trapezoid. The two tables below show that only five trees were surveyed in the Runway 11 trapezoid which were too high (none were off-airport). Table #4 Table #5 ----------------------- ------------------- Runway 11 trapezoid Runway 11 trapezoid 61 trees, 19 off-airport 19 off-airport trees ----------------------- ------------------- Bin Frequency Bin Frequency 0 56 0 19 5 1 1 0 10 2 5 0 15 0 10 0 20 0 15 0 25 2 20 0 30 0 25 0 35 0 30 0 35 0 35 0 total of all trees Runway 11 transition zones Runway 29 transition zones 695 trees 213 trees, one off-airport 340 trees, 35 off-airport ------------------ -------------------------- ------------------------- Bin Frequency Bin Frequency Bin Frequency 0 296 0 51 0 152 5 40 5 17 1 0 10 74 10 24 5 13 15 79 15 31 10 37 20 89 20 35 15 41 25 59 25 23 20 45 30 38 30 22 25 27 35 17 35 11 30 16 40 3 40 0 35 6 45 0 45 0 40 3 45 0 In the Runway 11 transition zones, 3/4 of the trees surveyed were too high, but only one of these was off airport property. The one off-airport tree surveyed as excessively high in the Runway 11 transition area is on parcel 121-33-7. In the Runway 29 transition zones, a little over 1/2 of the trees surveyed were too high and about 10% of the trees were off airport land. The trees around the airport seem to grow to a maximum height somehwere in the neighborhood of 60 to 80 feet. The transition zones along the side of the runway start at ground level at the edge of the "primary surface" which is 250 feet from the runway centerline and slopes upward 1 foot for every 7 feet of distance from the primary surface. There is already a cleared area for almost 200 feet to the South of the runway edge and nearly 400 feet to the North of the runway edge. To fully protect the transition zones at each side of the runway, the cleared areas should be at least 735 feet wide (7 x 80 feet + 250 feet - 75 feet). If a band of trees about 335 feet wide were removed along the North side of the runway and a strip about 535 feet wide were removed along the South side of the runway, then the transition zones along the sides of the runway would be protected. It appears from aerial photos that these strips may have once been cleared, when the airport was first built. Fully protecting the approach traezoids and their transition areas would involve significant additional clearing. The neighbors of the airport have expressed concern about the possibility of tree topping or cutting on or near the airport. The removal of trees will affect the wind and weather patterns in the neighborhood, and it will also affect the transmission of sound. The neighbors would like advance notice of any planned tree cutting. If the transition zones are cleared, it may be a good idea to plant some bushy low growing trees along the edge to help control sound and wind flow. The last time trees were cut (at the West end of the runway, near the pond), the CDF crews left firewood behind, which was appreciated by the neighbors, who have slowly hauled it away. The trees off-airport land present an even more delicate problem. At the Runway 29 (East) end of the runway, several parcels of non-airport land overlap the trapezoids and their transition zones. In the long run, these parcels should be acquired by executing the land swaps recommended in the airport master plan. At the Runway 11 (West) end of the runway, only a few of the surveyed trees with excessive height were off airport property. It may be practical to top or cut these without acquiring the land. To sum up, there are many trees on and near the airport which are higher than the limits established by the FAA, by amounts up to 40 feet. These limits have not been changeed by the proposed GPS approach, but the process of designing the approach is at a standstill until the County responds to the FAA's letter of May 7th. That response should include a statement regarding the County's intentions with respect to the trees. There is a range of options, from stating that there is no plan to remove the trees (which may be unacceptable to the FAA), to the extreme of clearcutting the trapezoids and transition zones. In the middle ground we could cut some trees, top some and leave the shorter trees until they grow too high. Neighbors of the airport have expressed a strong interest in being informed regarding plans to cut or top trees on or near the airport. They have asked if a timber harvest plan is required. if trees are to be cut or topped on non-airport land, concern has been expressed over who would pay for the cutting or topping and any subsequent cleanup. The neighbor who owns the two parcels with the largest number of offending trees has been advertising the land for sale. This may be a good time to execute a land swap to acquire these parcels. If you need any additional details on the trees that have been surveyed, please let me know. The Airport Advisory Committe, the pilots and I would all like to know what response will be sent to the FAA. Thank you again for all of the work which has been done at the airport. Respectfully Yours, Tim Scully ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ STANLEY TOWNSEND DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION Ex Offico Road Commissioner County Engineer County Surveyor COUNT OF MENDONICO, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 340 LAKE MENDOCINO DRIVE UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482-9432 (707)463-4363 FAX (707) 463-5474 25 October, 1999 Bruce J. Raabe Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: LITTLE RIVER AIRPORT HANGARS Dear Mr. Raabe: The Public Resources Committee, a standing committee of the Board of Supervisors, at its meeting of 20 September 1999 met with the Little River Airport Advisory Committee. One of the subjects that was discussed at the meeting was construction of additional hangars at the airport. Since the Little River Airport Master Plan needs to be updated, it was determined that the Airport Advisory Committee would do the update and one of the major areas would be new hangar construction. Since all the authorized sites for private portable hangars at the Airport have been leased, it was determined to wait until the Airport Master Plan is revised before more sites will be available; therefore, we do not have a site to lease to you nor can we address at this time your offer to build hangars at the airport. I have enclosed a Request for Private Portable Hangar Site form, which, if you will complete and return to me, I will put your name on the waiting list. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, CHARLES A. BOYER Business Services Manager CAB:ng cc: Tim Scully, Chairman, Airport Advisory Committee Dave Thorpe, Airport Supervisor File 24-2B File 24-23 \\DPW-NT\PUBDATA\SharedWP\NSG\Correspondence\Raabe 102599.doc