Airport Advisory Committee minutes of 20 April 2001. 1. Meeting open at 0904 2. Attendance: a: Present: Dave Brewer, Trey Loy, Tim Scully, Willow Trent b: Absent, excused: Susan Winding, Tom Goncharoff, Dick Ahrens c: Guests: Bill Adams, Steve Schoolman, Bob Rodriguez, Naomi Jarvie 3. minutes of last meeting approved. 4. Correspondence: a) 3/18 LRAAC hangar construction recommendation to Public Resources b) March 19 Public Resources committee minutes c) 4/16 telephone conversation with FAA Airports District Office d) 4/19 Scully to Ray Hall re Master Plan e) 4/17 Goncharoff to AAC re 4/20 meeting f) 4/16 Wright to Scully re Request for RTP data g) 3/19 letter from Loy to contractors 5. S.Winding sent a message to the committe with the following concers: a) Do the new hangars need to be moved west to make room for a run-up area? b) She reports recent increase in large aircraft runups near her house c) Will the big hangars be at the west end - if so a noise barrier might be needed 6. Bill Adams of The Woods traffic safety committee explained the safety concerns that have been raised about Airport Road and asked for support in pressing DOT to take action. AAC action deferred until next meeting since we did not have a quorum with Trey Loy abstaining. 7. Dog Park - discussion of Public Resources meeting followed by these issues: a: Exactly where will the proposed park be located? Bob Rodriguez will return with a more specific proposal b: The Fire Department says "no" to sharing some of their space c: The dog park committee will obtain liability insurance d: Is an EIR needed? Are there limits on clearing brush and trees? e: Who will do the clearing? Will the County want Parlin Fork to do it, or shall the dog park committee do it? f: a 6' fence was discussed 8. GPS approach - discussion of FAA's requirement that trees be cut a: Willow wants a comprehensive plan before any trees are cut b: cutting vs topping c: who cuts trees on parcels 9 and 10? 9. Hangars - discussion of Public Resources meeting followed by a: run-up area for RWY 11 - perhaps it is not necessary to widen the taxiway for this - just install sign. 10. Master Plan - how to proceed? Update hangar chapter first. Tim to send hangar chapter to all committee members but Trey (who already has it). 11. Meeting closed at 10am The next meeting will be at 9am on May 18. The agenda for this meeting is: The agenda for this 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 discussed further. A possible Dog Park at the airport will be discussed further. The Woods' suggestions for improving traffic safety on Airport Road will be discussed and a recommendation may be made regarding a left turn lane at the Woods and possibly a stoplight at Highway 1. We will work on a draft update of sections of the Airport Master Plan, starting with those referring to hangars. 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Little River Airport Advisory Committee Hangar Construction Recommendation 3/18/2001 The Little River Airport Advisory committee has been working for over a year to develop a recommendation for the construction of additional hangars at Little River Airport. We analyzed 4 possible sites for hangars and recommended a specific site as being the least expensive to develop for a group of about 16 hangars. We researched demand and funding, and recommended obtaining a CalTrans low interest revenue generating loan, to be repaid by hangar rents. Last year, the Public Resources Committee and Board of Supervisors acted on our "Hangar Report Number 3" and authorized the Department of Transportation to solicit $600 deposits from up to 16 pilots as a demonstration of serious intent to rent a hangar. Sixteen pilots have sent deposits to DOT. We have surveyed these pilots to find out what size aircraft they have, if they are willing to share a large hangar and what hangar type they prefer. We have contacted many hangar manufacturers and many local contractors with experience building hangars. And we have made some measurements of the site selected for the new hangars. Survey of depositors Nine of the 16 depositors have responded so far. Two depositors indicated a need for very large hangars, at least 45x50x15 feet. The overwhelming majority of pilots expressed a preference for rectangular "box" hangars in contrast to "T" hangars. One pilot, who flies floatplanes, said he needs a tall hangar door (15 feet high). There seems to be general agreement on the following desirable characteristics: - Rectangular, smooth concrete floor - Well ventilated to minimize condensation - Natural light from translucent side panels - Rust-resistant and leak-proof - A second man-door is needed for larger hangars, not necessary for smaller hangars - Electricity, phone and water - A pitched roof (3:1 or more) is better than a flat roof - Metal parts should have a minimum 25 year anti-corrosion coating - Should be able to withstand a wind load of at least 80mph - Most users could be satisfied by a 30x40 foot hangar - Level, paved apron from taxiway to hangar - Users who responded to the survey emphasized a desire for good quality hangars even if this implies a somewhat higher monthly rent. - Provision needs to be made for drainage between hangars to the main drainage ditch - About 5 feet of space is recommended between the rear of the hangars and the ditch, for utility conduits and access for maintenance. This will constrain the depth of hangars. Next Steps The proposed site has already been cleared of trees, but there are some stumps remaining, mainly at the rear of the area, near the drainage ditch. These stumps should be removed before the concrete foundations for the hangars can be engineered and their costs accurately estimated. It is possible that concrete and paving costs could account for nearly half of the construction cost, and this cost will vary depending on what is revealed once the stumps have been removed. The site slopes downward somewhat at the rear and extra concrete will be required in this area. The County needs to decide if it will ask for one bid for both design and construction, or if these will be two separate RFP/bid processes. What if anything more does the Advisory Committee need to do? We believe that the project may be ready for referral to the full Board and DOT for implementation. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC RESOURCES COMMITTEE MINUTES March 19, 2001 The Public Resources Committee met on Tuesday, March 19, 2001, at 9:01 a.m., with the following members present: Supervisors Delbar and Shoemaker. Chair Delbar presiding. Also present Deputy County Administrative Officer, Sue Goodrick; and Deputy Clerk of the Board, Heike Arnold. Transportation -------------- 1. Little River Airport Advisory Committee * Update Regarding Additional Hangars Those present included Little River Airport Advisory Committee members, Mr. Tim Scully, Mr. Richard Ahrens, Mr. David Brewer, Mr. Trey Loy, and Mr. Tom Goncharoff; Mr. Bob Rodriguez, Little River Dog Park; Mr. Chuck Boyer, Transportation Department; and Mr. Joe Wildman, SEIU Senior Field Representative. Mr. Scully provided a brief history relative to the construction of additional hangars at Little River Airport; noted that the Public Resources Committee and the Board previewed Hangar Report Number 3 and gave authorization to the Department of Transportation to solicit deposits from up to sixteen pilots as a demonstration of serious intent to rent a hangar. Mr. Scully also reported that the Hangar Advisory Committee recommends taking the concept of a low interest Caltrans loan proposal to the Board in order to obtain their authorization, and that the Department of Transportation be designated as the authorized County agency to proceed with the loan proposal as well as Request for Proposals (RFPs) for construction and engineering. Mr. Scully noted that sixteen pilots have submitted deposits and these sixteen depositors have been surveyed as to their hangar needs and that the depositors are willing to pay for a quality hangar at a higher rate ($250 -$275 per hangar), and as a result of a survey, it would be prudent to approve the construction of two or three larger hangars. Mr. Scully provided Committee members copies to of the completed surveys. Mr. Loy reiterated that a cost per hangar needs to be determined, and that in order to proceed with the RFP process the design process first needs approval. Committee members addressed the construction of individual hangars versus a solid row of hangars, and construction statistics pertaining to quality construction versus higher hangar fees. Mr. Boyer added that: Three additional pilots are on a waiting list; staff recommends first applying for the Caltrans low interest revenue generating loan, followed by the RFP process once the loan had been approved; and noted that historically individual hangars have less of a maintenance problem than a solid row of hangars. Recommendation: The Committee recommends that the Board designate the Department of Transportation as the lead agent in obtaining financing through Caltrans, and directs the Department of Transportation to analyze and commence the Request for Proposal process once the loan has been approved. * Update Regarding Mendocino Coast Dog Park Mr. Rodriguez, member of the Little River Dog Park Committee, reported that a survey has been taken to gauge community interest and support for a dog park in the Mendocino area. Their proposal initially included setting aside two to three acres in an area known as the fire department old picnic area. The Dog Park Committee has requested authorization to proceed with a community built and run dog park. Mr. Rodriguez also clarified that his committee had presented a proposal to the Airport Advisory Board, who indicated that the area of choice was already designated for new hangar construction. The committee was able to locate a new area at the "Y" intersection, which has shade, a separate park entrance with adequate off-street parking, and has minimal impact on airport activities. Mr. Rodriguez reported that: 250 signatures in support of the project have been garnered; the proposed project is self-sustaining and could operate at no expense to the County; indicated that the local Humane Society, and local businesses are willing to sponsor and support the program. Mr. Rodriguez noted that the program promotes responsible dog ownership, and that they have the support of the Airport Advisory Committee. Mr. Scully noted that the Dog Park Committee wishes direction from the Little River Airport Advisory Committee regarding the need for additional research, noting that initially the Airport Advisory Committee's concerns focused on the location and traffic issues. Mr. Loy added that access issues need to be addressed. Committee discussion ensued relative to: The revision of the Airport Master Plan prior to addressing other land use issues such as the proposed dog park; presenting the revised Master Plan to the Planning Department for review of land use compatibility first; the feasibility of postponing all other requests until such time that the revised Airport Master Plan has been approved. Committee members also noted the need for: A full referral from the Board requesting additional discussion regarding the Master Plan, land use, and addressing the issue of clear cut acquisition; an organized master plan with designated land uses through joint efforts of the Airport Advisory Committee and the Planning Department; reagendizing the land use issue as a separate Committee referral to the Public Resources Committee; a review of the option of temporarily allowing use of the facility for the dog park, however, noted that other groups could potentially come forward and submit like requests. CONSENSUS OF THE COMMITTEE that the Airport Master Plan and update must be completed prior to approval of the Mendocino Coast Dog Park; that Planning and Building Services could report back to the Public Resources Committee relative to land use issues, and that Board direction is needed in order to study the Master Plan. Recommendation: The Committee recommended that the Little River Ajrport Advisory Committee and the Dog Park Committee continue with their planning efforts with the intent of the Master Plan being addressed for clarification of land use issues; recommended that they discuss short term land uses with the Planning and Building Department; and directed that a follow-up presentation be made to the Public Resources Committee on alternative uses for that property. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes from a 4/16/01 telephone conversation with Dan Morse, Safety Supervisor at the FAA Airports District Office in Burlingame. This call was a follow-up to my letter of 1/28/2001 inquiring about the status of the Little River Airport GPS approach procedure as a follow-up to the Department of Transportation's letter of December 27, 1999. Mr. Morse said that the FAA is waiting for Mendocino County to formally notify him that all trees penetrating the approach trapezoids have been removed and proposing a rational plan for the trees penetrating the transitional surfaces. He suggested downloading version 6 of AC 5300-13 and said that it looks to him as though the approach trapezoid will need tostart at 400 feet on either side of the centerline if night circling approaches are to be approved. I said that we were requesting straight-in approaches. He said that, in any case, obstruction lights would probably be required along the transitional surfaces, to indicate the penetrating trees, if night approaches are to be approved. He said that perhaps 3 flashing red lights on trees on each side of the runway would be required. I explained that the County seems to think that no further action is required, in the absence of a letter from the FAA stating what needs to be done. He was initially reluctant to write such a letter, but by the end of our conversation I think he had agreed to do so. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Scully Sent: April 19, 2001 8:24 AM To: 'Ray Hall, Planning and Building' Cc: Tim Scully Subject: Little River Airport master plan Thank you for taking the time to speak with me yesterday about the Little River Airport Master Plan. This is the summary you requested. The existing Airport Master Plan is dated February 1990. The FAA wants master plans to be updated every 10 years. The Little River Airport Advisory Committee suggested to the Public Resources Committee last year that it work on a draft update of the plan, and this concept was approved. At the time, Public Resources asked the committee to focus on hangars initially. On March 19 we made the most recent in a series of reports to Public Resources on the hangar project, recommending that DOT take over implementation. At the same time a report was presented by a citizen's group which is working agressively on a proposal to develop a dog park on airport non-aviation land. This is the latest in a series of proposals for nonaviation uses made by various individuals and groups. We asked if we should do a general study of nonaviation uses before any specific project is approved. The dog park group asked if a temporary dog park could be approved while a long term plan is developed. We suggested to Public Resources that the airport advisory committee should turn back to working on a master plan update and asked if there is any direction regarding the sequence we should follow. Specifically, we asked if we should next work on the chapter on non-avaiation uses of airport land. The Supervisors suggested that the airport advisory committe talk to you about the master plan process and specifically "recommended that they discuss short term land uses with the Planning and Building Department." In our telephone conversation yesterday, you said that the Airport Land Use Commission focuses on the land surrounding the airport and ordinarily defers to the Department of Transportation for on-airport land use issues. You suggested that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) was the main consideration that occurs to you when considering non-avaiation uses, and you suggested that such uses must either be limited to those compatible with the CLUP or else a CLUP revision would be required. This process is not easy since it may affect all airports in the county. I plan to recommend to the Airport Advisory Committee that we keep all non-aviation uses in compliance with the existing CLUP. Do you have any other thoughts regarding short-term or long-term non-aviation uses of airport land, or about the master plan update process? Thank you. Respectfully Yours, Tim Scully, Ph.D. Chair, LRAAC ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: tom goncharoff Sent: April 17, 2001 4:00 PM To: tim scully Cc: susan winding; dick ahrens; dave brewer Subject: April 20 Airport advisory committee meeting Tim, I sorry to report that there have been some complications with the eyelid surgery that I recently had performed. I have an appointment with the surgeon on this Friday in Santa Rosa, that, hopefully will correct the problem. Therefore, I am unable to attend the subject meeting this month. Please keep me informed via e-mail minutes regarding our activities. Hopefully, this will be the last meeting I will have to miss. Also, please inform Trey why I'm not present. Tom ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laurence N. Wright Sent: April 16, 2001 1:36 PM To: tim.scully Subject: Request for RTP data for LRAP Dear Mr. Scully, I am in the process of converting the ICASP data for Mendocino County to the format for the Mendo Regional Transportation Plan. One of the additional pieces of information that I will need is the current and projected operational budget for Little River Airport. I will be calling Chuck Boyer concerning this information as well as you. He typically has a lot of other county responsibilities, os it does not hurt of have more then one person checking on the data that Iwill need. Basically, what I would like is the total budget number that is needed to keep the Airport operating, and the sources of funding that is applied to the budget cost. If you have a projection of the future budget needs that would be very helpful in identifying the non-capital need for airport funding. I believe that the existing sources of funds is the annual $10,000 grant from the State, any funds budgeted by the County, and earnings from airport fees, lease revenues, etc. If you have any questions please give me a call at 707-463-1806. Thanking you in advance, Larry Wright, MCOG Staff ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trey Loy March 19, 2001 Member, Little River Airport Advisory Committee To Builders and Engineers I contacted by letter written January 29, 2001 concerning construction of hangars at LittleRiver Airport: Today, March 19, 2001, The Little River Airport Advisory Committee met in Ukiah, CA with two county Supervisors, who are the subcommittee on Planning and Transportation, to discuss progress on the Hangar issue The two County Supervisors agreed to take the matter of constructing sixteen small aircraft hangars to the full Board for a vote to proceed by directing the Department ofTransprtation to formallyapply for the loan from Cal Trans, and to write a Request For Proposal. There was some discussion comparing the Design-Bid- Build process to a Design and Build process, resulting in the Supervisors and Department of Transportation Representitives present wanting to use the Design-Bid-BuUd process for Hangar construction. The location chosen for the hangars would allow 16 hangar plots. The County has received 16 deposits of $600.00 each to be on the hangar waiting list, with several pilots waiting in the wings to replace any dropouts. A majority of depositors so far contacted expressed a desire for a quality hangar, even if this meant higher than the $200.00 a month rent suggested for a smal130' by 40' hangar. With the Advisory Committee's presentation,a list of your names, the builders and engineers I have contacted, was included as experienced and interested parties. I had hoped the Airport Advisory Committee would have wanted to keep an active role in the design and quality control of proposed hangars, but committee member infighting has led to a hand off of decisions to the Dept. of Transportation at this junction. Thank you for for your time talking with me. I will keep you informed of any pertinent developments. Sincerely, Trey Loy