16 Feb 2001 Airport Advisory Committee minutes 1. Meeting open at 0902. 2. Attendance 2a. Present: Tim Scully, Susan Winding, Dave Brewer, Dick Ahrens, Trey Loy 2b. Absent: Tom Goncharoff, Willow Trent 2c. Guests: Merrily Pence, Lucy Burr, Bob Rodriguez, Ken Clarke, Richard Williams, Laura Balows, Barbara Furey, Mary Porter-Chase, Naomi Jarvie. 3. Minutes of old meeting: approved. 4. Correspondence: 4a. Scully to Boyer: hangar cost/size 4b. Boyer to Scully: hangar size 4c. Scully to list: hangar size/cost 4d. Scully to FAA: GPS 4e. Loy to contractors: hangar build 4f. Hangar responses from pilot Dervin 4g. Scully to Boyer: hangars 4h. Boyer to Scully: 16 4i. Scully to Gibbons: hangars 4j. Wollmershauser to Scully: hangars 4k. Beaver to Scully: hangars 4l. Miller to Scully: hangars 4m. Scully to CalTrans: hangars 4n. CalTrans: hangars 4o. Scully to Arnold: PRCommittee meeting 4p NCPHS to Committee: road 5. Hangars: 5a. Wrote 9 contractors, received 9 different responses 5b. Summary is needed 6. Dog Park: 6a. Bob Rodriguez spoke re dog park. 6b. Is Committee pro? 6c. Location? Committee has problem wiht original choice 6d. New location, with chart. 6e. Present this to DOT for further study. 6f. Lease from County? Yes. 6g. TS move, DB second, to recommend to PR Committee. 7. Next meetings: 16 Mar, 20 Apr, 18 May. 8. Meeting closed at 1101am. The agenda for the next meeting is: Approve the minutes of the last meeting Communications (letters, FAXes, etc, sent/received since last meeting) Additional hangars at the airport will be the main focus of this and the next few meetings. Prepare to meet with the Public Resources Committe March 19 A possible Dog Park at the airport will be discussed further. Reports from subcommittees Public comment Agree on a date, time and place for the next meeting Agree on agenda for next meeting 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 inactive pilot (lost medical), computer programmer, lives near airport Willow Trent airport neighbor, non-pilot Susan Winding airport neighbor, non-pilot, business owner ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chuck Boyer Sent: January 24, 2001 11:18 AM To: tim.scully Cc: townsens; lrairpt Subject: RE: AAC and hangars Tim, I would think that it would be to the County's benefit to have all the hangars be of a size that would be big enough to be able to park a twin or a lear jet. It would make the hangars more attractive to future renters and give us more flexability. If renters wanted to share a hangar we could enter into separate agreements with them or we could have only one renter in the hangar. Of course cost and the related monthly rental rate could make this not possible. A survey of the depositers would give us an idea of how the potential first renters would think. I have attached a list of the 14 depositers, in the order in which they qualify for the hangars. As an aside, since we have 14 depositers maybe we should try to build the 16 hangars that will fit in the space along the taxiway that we have selected as first choice. The new DOT engineer works in the Land Improvements Division and is slowly being exposed to some airport issues; therefore, I think that it would be premature to have him attend an Airport Advisory Committee meeting at this time. If the Airport Advisory Committee is ready to discuss the hangar project further, I would think that March would be a good time to meet with the Public Resources Committee. Chuck CHUCK BOYER, Deputy Director Administration & Business Services Department of Transportation 340 Lake Mendocino Drive Ukiah, CA 95482-9432 -----Original Message----- From: tim.scully Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 11:05 AM To: boyerc Cc: townsens ; tim.scully Subject: AAC and hangars It was good to see you at the MCOG/CalTrans workshop last week. The Little River Airport Advisory Committee met on Friday. We reviewed progress on hangars. Dave Brewer has gotten rough cost estimates from several hangar vendors which roughly confirm our earlier estimate of $25,000 to $30,000 per hangar. He also got a very rough utiility estimate from PG&E. We estimate roughly $30,000 for power and phone lines up to the hangar line. One of the people who placed a deposit for a hangar attended the meeting. He said that he would like room to park a Lear jet in his hangar (implying a large hangar!). This stimulated the committee to suggest that perhaps we should poll the people who placed deposits, asking the size of their aircraft so we can plan for a mixture of hangars of the proper size. Many of the hangar vendors urged us to consider building large box hangars, big enough for more than one small aircraft. Some prospective renters are likely to be opposed to sharing while others might welcome the possibility of a lower rent in return for sharing. Is there any point to asking the 13 depositers if they are interested in sharing a hangar? I can write to ask them these questions, if you want to send me the list of names and addresses. The committee would like to extend an invitation to the new DOT engineer (who will be handling airport matters) to join us at our meeting on February 16. We are thinking in terms of asking to be agendized for Public Resources in March, in the hope that we will have completed collecting information by then. Does this sound good to you? Can you think of any other work we should be doing to move the hangar project forward? Respectfully Yours, Tim Scully, Ph.D. Chair, LRAAC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is the latest list (with 15 names) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ralph Ascencio Eric Miller John Dervin & Martha Stafford Greg Beaver Bruce Raabe Craig Wollmershauser Matthew Gelber Thomas Taylor Fred Gibbons Stephen Hurst J.L. Fersch, Jr. Mann & Sons AG-Aviation (Peter & Leslie Mann) Elizabeth Van Den Bosch Phillip Conwell, Jr. Gordon Uhlmann ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Scully 1/27/01 Dear Prospective Hangar Tenant: I am writing to you as chair of the Little River Airport Advisory Committee because the Department of Transportation tells me that you have placed a $600 deposit to be on the waiting list for a new hangar at Little River Airport, and because the committee is working on a recommendation to the County regarding the size and type of hangars to be built. We are interested in learning about the size and type of aircraft each prospective tenant plans to store in a new hangar. This will help us in selecting the right size hangars for construction. We are also interested in knowing if you would be interested in sharing a large hangar with one or more other tenants, if this would result in a lower monthly rental fee, or if you strongly prefer having a separate hangar. If you have any other comments you would like the committee to consider as it forms a recommendation regarding the type and size of hangars to be built, please let me know and I will pass on your comments. If you are willing to share your thoughts on these issues, please write to me and your input will be considered by the committee as we work on a recommendation. Thank you. Yours, Tim Scully, Ph.D. Chair, LRAAC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Scully Sent: January 28, 2001 4:44 PM To: 'Chuck Boyer' Cc: 'Stan Townsend'; Tim Scully Subject: letter sent to the FAA Here is a copy of the letter I'm mailing to the FAA to find out the status of the GPS approach. Tim Scully 1/28/01 Dan Morse Supervisor, Safety Standards Division FAA, San Francisco ADO 831 Mitten Road, Suite 215 Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Morse: I'm writing as chair of the Little River Airport Advisory Committee to follow up on a letter sent to you on December 27, 1999 by Mr. Stanley Townsend, Director of the Mendocino County Department of Transportation. The Airport Advisory Committee has been working with the Department of Transportation to facilitate obtaining GPS instrument approaches for Little River Airport. The last we heard, Little River's proposed GPS procedures were in your office on their way through the pipeline. The committee is concerned that you may be waiting for some action by Mendocino County, while the County is waiting to hear from the FAA. Can you tell me the status of our request for GPS instrument approach procedures and if there is anything further that needs to be done here before the procedures will be developed? Thank you for your help. Respectfully Yours, Tim Scully, Ph.D. Chair, LRAAC cc: Stanley Townsend, Chuck Boyer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trey Loy January 29, 2001 Dear Builders and Contractors of Metal Buildings I contacted last Friday, 1/26/01: I am the co-chairman of the Little River Airport Advisory Committee who contacted you to start the process of a 'Request for Proposal' to build at least ten hangars for small private aircraft at the Little River Airport. Our committee has been working with the Mendocino County Department of Transportation, which oversees and has complete control and responsibility for the airport, and a sub-committee of two of the Mendocino County Supervisors. To finance the hangars we are applying for a loan from the California Department of Transportation Aeronautics Program, whom our committee has been in touch with to begin the long loan process. I have been given permission by Chuck Boyer, accountant for the Mendocino Department of Transportation and manager of the Little RiverAirport, to do preliminary drawings and coordiante between the builders and the California Department of Transportation to come up with a Request for Proposal to build hangars at Little River Airport. Recently the Mendocino County Dept. of Transportation publicized a request for pilots interested in renting a newly constructed hangar to make a deposit of $600.00 with a certain time frame. Fourteen pilots applied. Our committee, actually the other co-chairman, Tim Sculley[sic] who is the acting chairman and usually handle s correspondence, is writing to those pilots who signed up, asking several questions including type of aircraft, and size and type of hangar facilities desired. Cal Trans Aeronautic loans are for approximately fifteen years at a rate tied to the Federal rate, which should be below 6 %. In our committee talks on rental rates there is much debate. and hope: for a single engine aircraft, $200.00 dollars a month hangar rental seemed average. There was some talk of $225.00 a month, and talk of $250.00 per month made all the pilots squirm. Though this project may come to be listed on the Builder's Exchange, I see by talking to you, the builders, there are several systems and styles from which each company has there own system and style. That is what I will coordinate, the system and style, and what Cal Trans will accept. So I need beginning proposals to take to the Department of Transportation at both the County and State levels. I have enclosed four location drawing of the hangar location area. As can be seen the topography of the hangar area greatly restricts the size and style of hangar grouping. The Hangar Apron area cannot be encroached upon by buildings. The hangar apron area is flat graded clay/sand soil. Each hangar will require a concrete driveway at least sixteen feet wide and fifty feet long. There is an asphalt drainage ditch, 4' wide and l',deep now dividing the apron area from the building area. This small ditch periodically empties into the main darinage ditch behind the building area. This ditch will have to be removed, and other drainages established between the han gar buildings. The building area itslef has recently had all the vegetation cut and burned or removed, leaving a low one foot high growth of scub manzinita and huckleberry bushes, and here and there are the stumps of cypress and Bishop pine trees, some of which are three feet or more in diameter, cut to ground level. The larger stumps are near the large drainage ditch where their roots could reach water, and will cause some compaction problems when removed. Almost half of the project will be the concrete work, which includes, an at least 16' wide by 50' long apron/driveway and a concrete slab for the hangar building with structural concrete footings 12" X 12" into the soil. Concrete building tear stem walls along the drainage ditch will be about 20' high at one end of the location, and 4' to 6' high at the lower end. Slabs are to have conduit entry for phone, water, and electricity. Bringing utilities to hangar location I will deal with at a later date. In the following months, especially after a meeting with the Supervisor sub-committee in March, I will forward information on actual number and sizes of hangar required. In the mean time we are considering types of protective coating on the metal framing and the metal skin of walls and roof. Type of door assembly; atvantages, disavantages, electrical, hand backup, maintenance. Are translucent panels available for roof or walls? The airport is one mile from the ocean and deals with rain and wind in the winter, and sometimes heavy persistant fog in the summer, keeping corrosion and ventilation, and drainage always on our minds. Each hangar requires good ventilation. Please send me what information you can, and I'll initiate the process to come up with what you will bid on for this project. Thanks for listening and for your input. Sincerely, Trey Loy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Dervin 1 Feb 01 Re: LR hangar waiting list Mr. Scully, I received your letter asking me for input regarding new hangar construction at Little River Airport. If you would, pleast: tell what the advisory committee is and how it came to be. Regarding your query about my thoughts about sharing. a hangar: I'm am not interested in sharing a hangar. What I would like to see constructed is a large, tight, dry, insulated and well ventilated hangar, that has skylights, or light penetrable panels (on the roof or the sides), with electricity, telephone, and running water. A well finished, smooth cement floor would be good too. Hopefully this hangar will be square or rectanguJar in shape. I hate "Port-A-Ports" and "T' hangars. Now all those specs I mentioned above may be a tall order but since you asked, I thought I might as well tell you what I would like to see built. In reality, I will probably accept whatever gets built but I think it would be a waste to build more leaky , drafty , sweaty (from condensation), "cheap-o" hangars. I'm not referring to existing hangars at LR here, I'm just speaking in general terms. I've never had a hangar at LR so I really don't know anything about them from first hand experience. Over a year ago I subletted a hangar at OAK and it was really bad. It leaked from the top, the sides, and the ground. The owner wouldn't permit tenants to install vents and although the hangar owner promised his many tenants to do this many times, he never got it done. When I first rented that hangar it had two inches of dried mud (it was still summertime) on the floor. The owner had it cleaned up but then the process of silty buildup began again next winter as surface water inundated the entire hangar area each winter. When I moved to the top of the waiting list at OAK and the Port Authority offered me a hangar of my own, I had to reject the tiny deathtrap rustbucket swamp they offered me, It was even worse than the one I was subletting. That piece of junk leaked iike crazy and dripped rust onto the aircraft unlucky enough to be parked there. The hangar door was, working more like a deadfall, a mantrap, or a guillotine than a door. As for the one I subletted? It's no fun going down to your tube and fabric plane two days after a rain when the sun is shining and all of the, outside pavement is dusty dry , and to open your hangar and find your bird squatting in a large (and deep) puddle of water with rusty "rain" (condensation) dripping from the ceiling. I hope whoever has influence in deciding what type of hangars get built at LR will consider building quality structures that will provide good shelter, and serviceability. The hangar should be a place where doing routine maintenance will be a pleasure rather than a "off road experience". Here is what I'm hoping for in a hangar: 1. Dry 2. Insulated 3. Well ventilated 4. Natural light 5. Electricity 6. Smooth floor finish 7. Large 8. Rectangular or square (not a "T') 9. Running water. 10. Built real soon. Now my wishes may be an unrealistic fantasy, I don't know. Please let me know what you think will actually happen and when. Best Regards, John Dervin P.O. Box 21152 Piedmont, 94620 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Scully 2/5/01 John Dervin Dear Mr. Dervin: Thanks for your letter dated 2/1/01. The Airport Advisory Committee was created by the Board of Supervisors in early 1997 as the official successor of an Ad Hoc Airport Advisory Committee which has been in existence since 1995. The Ad Hoc committee was formed because both pilots and neighbors of the airport had deeply felt concerns about various airport issues. The committee consists of a mixture of pilots and nonpilots. It is a forum where airport issues are discussed and researched from all points of view. The committee makes recommendations to the Board, usually via the Board's Public Resources subcommittee, which is responsible for County airports. If you have an email address and would like to be on the mailing list for the committee's minutes, please let me know. The committee has been the driving force behind the project to build a block of additional hangars at Little River. It look very hopeful that this project will actually produce hangars - DOT has collected 15 deposits so far, enough to demonstrate real interest. Now we need to agree on the type, size, etc. of hangars to be built. There are many competing forces in these decisions. Some pilots are very cost sensitive and want low hangar rents. The project will have to be self-supporting - i.e., the hangar rents will have to service the loan which funds building the hangars. Thus, larger hangars will cost more and will have higher rents. Some pilots have large aircraft (e.g. a Learjet or a Citation) and need a very large hangar. Others have smaller aircraft. Some pilots are willing to share a large hangar to save money while others are strongly opposed to sharing a hangar. I understand that you want a well ventilated box hangar and not a T hangar. Box hangars are somewhat more expensive due to the extra concrete needed to fill in the corners, and hence will rent for a somewhat higher monthly fee than a T hangar of similar size. Can you tell me what size aircraft you have or what size hangar you want? Thank you. Yours, Tim Scully, Ph.D. Chair, LRAAC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Scully Sent: February 02, 2001 3:54 PM To: 'Chuck Boyer'; Tim Scully Cc: Stanley Townsend (E-mail) Subject: RE: Amended Hangar Lease Program Deposits Received List Thanks, I'll send the survey letter to the new pilot. I have 2 responses so far, both from pilots with huge aircraft who want large hangars (e.g., 60x50). I think it is a fine idea to keep accepting deposits, at least up to 16. > -----Original Message----- > From: Chuck Boyer > Sent: February 02, 2001 3:52 PM > To: Tim Scully (E-mail) > Cc: Stanley Townsend (E-mail) > Subject: Amended Hangar Lease Program Deposits Received List > > > Tim, > > Attached is an amended list for deposits received for the Hangar lease > program. I have added one more person. One more and we will > be full up. I > have decided that even though we are past the deadline date, I would > continue to accept depoits until we reached sixteen. > > Chuck > > CHUCK BOYER, Deputy Director > Administration & Business Services > Department of Transportation > 340 Lake Mendocino Drive > Ukiah, CA 95482-9432 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Mr. Jim Scully [sic] FROM: Fred Gibbons Date: 01/30/01 Email fgibbons Correction to: Hangar Requirements at Little River Airport Mr. ScuIly, hello I just corrected the door and floor size description. Many thanks fur taking a leadership position in organizing the Little River hangar expansion and LRAAC. If I can help please do not hesitate to ask. Regarding hangar requirements, I recently sold my 58P Baron, which I've flown to LR. for the last 15 years and bought a Cessna Citation Jet. My interest is in a large hangar (50x60xl6) with minimutn door size (50x16). My ideal would be a 60x50X18 size hangat with minimum door size (60x18). This larger size could accommodate King Air B200s, Pilatus, and Cessna Caravans, etc. I can provide you with an extensive ]ist of AC that fit this size. My usual missions to LR. are for painting classes and general R&R in Mendocino. The hangar would be available for others on an unoccupied basis if this is of interest. It seems that pushing the instrumeent approach into LR is also consistent with any increased invesmtent in hangar capacity. Specifically to use the hangars we need to be able to get in on a more predictable basis than at present Any news on this or any way I can help? FRED GIBBONS 11800 MURIETTA LN LOS ALTOS HILLS. CA 94022 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Scully Sent: January 31, 2001 8:40 AM To: 'fgibbons Cc: Tim Scully Subject: Hangar Requirements at Little River Thank you for your two FAXes about hangars at Little River Airport. The dimensions will be very helpful to the committee. We are still actively working to get GPS approaches for Little River - I just wrote to the FAA a few days ago to request information on the status of this project. Are you interested in being added to the email list of folks who receive copies of the Airport Advisory Committee's minutes? This would help keep you informed of progress on both hangars and on the GPS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Scully Sent: January 31, 2001 4:04 PM To: 'Fred Gibbons'; Tim Scully Subject: RE: Hangar Requirements at Little River Thank you again for your comments. I've added you to the email list for AAC minutes. There are two constraints on hangar size at Little River. 1) COST - as the hangar gets bigger, the construction cost goes up significantly, which in turn increases the monthly rent. Some of our users are highly cost sensitive while others are less so. 2) Space - the area we have tentatively selected for the new hangars is along the existing parallel taxiway. There is a very deep drainage ditch immediately behind the area where the back of the hangars will sit. This limits the maximum practical depth of hangars unless we switch to another, more expensive to develop site. Then we run into problem #1. There is a third issue. Up until now the rule has been one hangar, one tenant. If we build large hangars and don't keep them full of large aircraft, then we'll be faced with renting one large hangar to two or more tenants with smaller aircraft. One of the reasons for the survey was to explore some of these issues. So far there seem to be more users with large aircraft than we'd originally expected. Yours, Tim Scully, Ph.D., Chair, LRAAC > -----Original Message----- > From: Fred Gibbons [mailto:fmgibbons > Sent: January 31, 2001 2:30 PM > To: tim.scully > Subject: Re: Hangar Requirements at Little River > > > Jim, hello again > > Attached is a spreadsheet with a variety of AC that could fit > in a 50x60 > hangar. It would seem that this flexibility would be a good > investment for > the airport. > > My best,.FG > Fred Gibbons > Aircraft Wingspan Length Tail height Square Ft Volume ---------------------------------------------------------------------- CJ 47 43 14 BeechJet 44 49 14 Lear 35 40 49 13 C-90 51 36 15 B-200 55 44 15 C-425 45 36 13 C-441 50 39 14 MU-2 40 31 13 Caravan 50 39 14 Pilatus 54 48 15 TBM 42 35 15 Meridian 43 29 12 Conclusion 60 50 17 3000 51000 Alternative 57 50 16 2850 45600 Minimum 50 45 15 2250 33750 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ONEJETFLR Sent: February 06, 2001 11:50 AM To: tim.scully Subject: hangers at little river Dear Tim, Thanks for your letter regarding the new hangers at Little River. To answer your questions: I certainly would NOT want to share a large hanger, I only want to rent a single hanger that is hopefully a box shaped interior, not the "T" style. I presently own a Cessna 150 that has a wingspan of 33' 6", length of 22', and height of 7' 10". I am planning on building a Compair 7 or 8 over the next few years and this will most likely be what I plan to hanger at Little River airport. The Compair 7 has a wingspan of 34' 6", length of 30', and height of 8'. The Compair 8 has a wingspan of 36', length of 30' 6", and height of 8' 1". Thanks for your help and interest in this matter. Feel free to call or e-mail if I can be of further assistance. Respectfully, Craig Wollmershauser P.S. If there is an e-mail list that notifies interested parties as to when airport meetings, or other items of significance concerning Little River airport, please add me to it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- G & W Storage Ukiah, CA 95482-3072 I have a Cessna 172 at this time - may get a 182 by the time hangars built. Sharaing a larger hangar has not worked for me in the past - dents show up and things get lost. G beaver Keep up the good work. We need the hangars. Thanks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Miller Sent: February 10, 2001 3:27 PM To: Tim Scully Subject: Hangar Eric J. Miller Fort Bragg, CA 95437 Airport Advisory Committee, In response to Tim Scully's letter of 1/27/01 my first concern is that the hangars be located and built in such a manner as to preserve the long-term safety and use of the airport by the community. I believe the most recent airport master plan provides some detail on this matter. If the information in the plan is insufficient to make decisions I believe funds could be obtained to develop a new plan. A hangar the size of the current county metal hangers would be sufficient for my use, however I would prefer that concrete covered the entire floor of the hangar. I am very pleased to hear some effort is being made to add to the value of this very important asset to the community. I will probably not locate an aircraft at this airport without access to a county hangar. Sincerely Eric J. Miller ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Scully Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 9:00 AM To: 'mike.farmer Cc: Tim Scully; 'Chuck Boyer' Subject: O48 hangar project questions I'm writing to you as chair of the Little River Airport Advisory Committee, which has been working with the Mendocino County Department of Transportation to try to pull together the construction of a block of additional hangars at Little River (O48) funded by a revenue producing loan. We have progressed to the point where DOT has solicited deposits from interested pilots. So far DOT has collected 15 deposits of $600 each, showing strong interest in the project. We are still debating and researching the type of hangars to be built and the committee would like the benefit of your broad experience with hangar construction projects. Considering Little River's location on the coast, do you think we should be planning wooden hangars, or do you think that the more common steel buildings are a good choice? Do you have any recommendations regarding type of hangar or how best to select a vendor? Thank you. Respectfully Yours, Tim Scully, Ph.D. Chair, LRAAC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike_Farmer Sent: February 13, 2001 8:30 AM To: tim.scully Cc: Gwyn_Reese Subject: Hangar Project Wood versus metal? I don't have a recommended option for you. I'm familiar with Ocean Ridge which does have wooden hangars and I'm fairly certain that the airport in Crescent City has wooden ones, too. I recommend that you contact managers at some of the airports (Ocean Ridge, Sea Ranch, and Murray Field in Eureka) along the coast and see what they're using and what their experience has been. Also, I would imagine that the County's public works folks would have a good handle on this issue because the County probably owns various structures and maintenance facilities along/near the coast. Besides construction cost and building longevity, you should also consider the differential maintenance cost between wood and metal. As a contractor, Trey Loy who is also working on this project for the LRAAC probably has some insights into this. Good luck. I'm glad to see that you have a solid waiting list. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Scully Sent: February 15, 2001 2:57 PM To: 'Heike G. Arnold'; Tim Scully Subject: Public Resources Committee Meeting - March 2001 Are you still handling the agenda for the Public Resources Committee? The Little River Airport Advisory Committee would like to be on the Public Resources agenda for its March 2001 meeting, or if that agenda is filled, for the April meeting. We would like to present a recommendation for the construction of a block of County-owned hangars at Little River Airport, funded by a CalTrans revenue generating loan. We hope that the outcome will be for this recommendation to be presented to the full Board and thus referred to the Department of Transportation for implementation. If you are able to put us on the agenda, please let me know the date and approximate time. We can send a written summary of our presentation in advance of the scheduled meeting time. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Northern California Presbyterian Homes and Services Memorandum DATE: February 16,2001 TO: BARBARA HOOD, CEO/NCPHS JUDY BROOKS, NCPHs BOARD MEMBER/MENDOCINO COUNTY OLIVER SEELER, ALBION LITTLE RIVER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT. AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE DAVE THORPE, ADMINISTRATOR/LITTLE RIVER AIRPORT FROM: FRAN TUCKER, RESIDENTIAL MANAGER/THE WOODS SUBJECT: DANGEROUS CONDITIONS EXISTING ON LITTLE RIVER AIRPORT ROAD For several years homeowners at The Woods have been concerned about the dangerous conditions that exist on Little River Airport Road (County Road 404). Sporadic overtures have been made in the past to the County in the hope of their addressing these condidtions, with no success. A year ago a group of Woods homeowners formed The Woods Traffic Safety Committe. The purpose of the Committee has been to identify safety hazards, bring them to the at ention of the County , and move the: County to action that would address the hazards. Letters that describe the concerns have been written by members of the Committee to David Colfax, 5th District Supervisor; Stanley Townsend, Dept. of Transportation; and James Anderson, County Administrative Officer. Personal calls have also been placed to Mr. Colfax. In addition to specifyin:g the safety issues, the letters suggested solutions an asked for meetings either at The Woods or in Ukiah. One response was received from Stan Townsend in July 2000 which offered hope that the Committee's concerns were being researched and expressed willingness to meet "when studies were complete". Since that letter, the Committee has had no further formal response from the County and none of the dangerous conditions have been addressed. In December a Complaint was filed with the Grand Jury and in January members of the Traffic Safety Committee met with the Jury in Fort Bragg. The Grand Jury made several suggestions including seeking letters of support from others in the community, which is the reason I am writing to you now. The Woods' Traffic Safety Commlittee has identified the following dangerous conditions that exist on Little River Airport Road (County Road 404): .Unmarked deep drainage ditches on both sides of the shoulderless, narrow road. .Primary speed limit of 55 mph is unsafe for conditions: increasing traffic, 'blind'driveways, drivers who 'hug the center' to avoid the ditches, weather-produced and sun-induced visibility reduction. .Pavement in poor condition in numerous locations: rough surface, cracks, pot holes. .No signage that provides awareness of specific conditions to drivers Suggestions that have been made to improve these conditions include: .County Road 404 has already been improved with adequate lanes and fog striping from its junction with Hwy. 1 fo 1/2 mile east. It could continued for the entire length of County Road 404. .Install flexible reflector poles at the ditch lines. This and the above suggestion would improve visibility at night and in fog. .Install raised reflectors alon center line to warn persons they have crossed it. .Eliminate the passing zone east The Woods because of the number of vehicles entering and exiting the community (109 homes and a residential care facility for the elderly). .Reduce the speed in additional sections through a Speed Zone Ordinance amendment. Critical areas include sharp curves, 'The Woods' frontage, the Fire House, the merge of Little River Airport Road an Albion Little River Road. Suggested speed reduction to 35 mph, which is consistent with other County roads including Little Lake Road and Road 409. .A Woods-installed caution light at The Lodge at The Woods, with electricity for it provided and paid for by The Woods. .The addition of signage including 'congested area', 'caution', 'slippery when wet', etc. at appropriate locations along the road from Hwy 1 to where it merges with Comptche-Ukiah Road. .A left-turn lane at The Woods' entrance. The road could easily be widened on the County-owned Airport property to enable this. If you agree with our contention that the dangerous conditions on this road are a threat to all who travel it-young, old, ets, guests, tourists, emergency equipment, CDF trucks, logging trucks, etc., please write a letter of support to David Clolfax at the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Colfax's address is: County of Mendocino Board of Supervisors ATTN: DAVID COLFAX 501 Low Gap Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Letters, or copies, could also be addressecJ to : County of Mendocino Mendocino County Grand Jury James M. Anderson Dept, of Transportation 110 W, Standley Street County Administrative Officer Attn: Stanley Townsend P.0. Box 629 501 Low Gap Road 340 Lake Mendocino Drive Ukiah, CA 95482 Ukiah, CA 95482 Ukiah, CA 95482 If you would be interested in participating in a Woods' Community Meeting regarding this subject at The Woods' Clubhouse (no date as yet), please call me at 937-0294. Additionally, if you have any questions or would like to attend a meeting of The Woods' Traffic Safety Committee, please call. I woul be happy to hear from you. cc: Woods' Homeowners