Airport Advisory Committee minutes of 18 May 2001. 1. Meeting open at 0900 2. Attendance: a: Present: Dave Brewer, Trey Loy, Tim Scully, Willow Trent, Susan Winding, Tom Goncharoff b: Absent, excused: Dick Ahrens c: Guests: Bill Adams, Steve Schoolman, Naomi Jarvie 3. minutes of last meeting approved. 4. Correspondence: a) email Scully to Thorpe re frangible stakes b) email thread Boyer to Scully & Scully to Boyer re RTP data c) email thread RayHall to Scully re Master Plan d) email Scully to Boyer re FAA & GPS approach e) email Boyer to Scully - budget data for airport f) email Scully to Boyer re FAA and GPS approach g) MCOG letter to airports re planning h) Peter Klien letter to county boards re Brown Act i) letter from FAA to DOT re GPS approach j) email from Bruce Raabe to Scully re hangars k) quote from Mendocino Beacon re hangars l) Note re Bill Adams of the Woods Traffic Safety Committee 5. Dave Thorpe told Tim Scully that the loud aircraft which landed and took over early in the morning a few weeks ago was a fixed-wing Reach medivac flight which picked up 3 patients. 6. Discussion of the FAA's letter regarding the GPS approach. Susan Winding suggested that closing the airport at night would be one way to comply. Other alternatives discussed included: - cutting the trees which penetrate the FAR 77 surfaces - topping the trees which penetrate the FAR 77 surfaces (this is much more expensive) - adding a row of lights on each side to indicate the location of the trees located in the transition zones while removing the offending trees in the approach trapezoids (the FAA suggested this if cutting or topping all of the trees is not possible) - don't have an approach at all Willow Trent said that the trees are a wind and noise barrier. Trey Loy suggested finding a compromise solution. Susan Winding requested maps and a site walk pointing out the trees to be cut in the approach trapezoid. We agreed to agendize the GPS approach and tree cutting for next month's meeting. 7. Bill Adams of The Woods traffic safety committee reported on a Board of Supervisors meeting several weeks ago, at which The Woods Traffic Safety Committee and two other citizen's groups spoke about safety issues on several coastal roads. He also said that his committee is not asking for a traffic light at Airport Rd and Highway 1. A resolution was passed by the AAC supporting the Woods Traffic Safety Committee's efforts to improve safety on Little River Airport Road while preserving its rural residential nature. 5 aye 1 abstained. 8. Dog Park - Trey Loy said he'd like the dog park to be hidden from the road by trees and brush, in other words, he doesn't want a clearing to start at the edge of the road. Tim Scully passed on Dick Ahren's preference for only clearing brush and leaving any trees. Trey Loy expressed concern over the health of the trees if too much brush is cleared. 10. Master Plan - how to proceed? Tim Scully had provided all committee members with a complete copy of the existing master plan. Committee members contributed $47 toward the copying costs. Tom Goncharoff favors asking the county to reimburse for real expenses. Other committee members said that we were previously told by the supervisors that we have to pay our own expenses, perhaps with a bake sale. There is no master plan chapter on hangars, there are many scattered sections. Can we reorganize the document when we update it? Should a consultant be hired? Would we lose control in this case? Is this update to big a project to tackle on our own? Tim Scully pointed out that Dick Ahrens has already scanned the whole existing Master Plan into Word. 11. Meeting closed at 11am The next meeting will be at 9am on June 15. The agenda for this meeting is: Approve the minutes of the last meeting Communications (letters, FAXes, etc, sent/received since last meeting) The GPS approach and the FAA's requirement for tree trimming or cutting will be discussed and we will try to agree on a specific recommendaton. The status of additional hangars at the airport will be discussed. A possible Dog Park at the airport will be discussed further. We will work on a draft update of the Airport Master Plan. 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: Tim Scully Sent: April 22, 2001 9:36 AM To: 'Little River Airport' Cc: Tim Scully Subject: frangible stakes http://www.flightlight.com/41/41.html This place sells signs with frangible stakes. They are in Sacramento. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chuck Boyer Sent: April 23, 2001 1:36 PM To: tim.scully Subject: RE: Request for RTP data for LRAP Tim, 2001-2002 Requested Budgets are due this Friday and I am buried doing them, so I will try to get you and Larry the requested info next week. 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: Monday, April 23, 2001 12:16 PM To: boyerc@co.mendocino.ca.us Cc: tim.scully Subject: FW: Request for RTP data for LRAP Good afternoon, I hope all is going well for you. I'm following up on the appended email from Larry Wright. Is it possible to get a copy of the most recent available income and expense actuals for the airport and of this year's proposed budget for the airport? I think the most recent information I have is pretty far out of date. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Laurence N. Wright Sent: Monday, 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 xxx Thanking you in advance, Larry Wright, MCOG Staff ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ray Hall Sent: April 20, 2001 11:38 AM To: Gary Pedroni Cc: tim.scully Subject: Fw: Little River Airport master plan Senior Planner Gary Pedroni,, Can you follow up on this correspondence with Mr. Scully. I don't recall the level of involvement this office (PBS) had in the initial approval of the Airport Master Plan. Generally I advised Mr. Scully that airport operations fall under the Master Plan while surrounding land uses are addressed in the CLUP. I advised him that non- aviation uses at or near the airport are to be consistent with the CLUP. Can you review his email and provide him the direction and info he is requesting. At a minimum send him , at Co. expense, a copy of athe CLUP. Also please call him at xxx to sure you are clear on the needs of the Little River Airport Advisory Committee. Thanks Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: 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: Tim Scully Sent: April 23, 2001 12:16 PM To: 'Chuck Boyer' Cc: Tim Scully Subject: FW: Request for RTP data for LRAP Good afternoon, I hope all is going well for you. I'm following up on the appended email from Larry Wright. Is it possible to get a copy of the most recent available income and expense actuals for the airport and of this year's proposed budget for the airport? I think the most recent information I have is pretty far out of date. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Laurence N. Wright Sent: Monday, 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 xx Thanking you in advance, Larry Wright, MCOG Staff ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Scully Sent: April 23, 2001 12:26 PM To: 'Chuck Boyer' Cc: Tim Scully Subject: FAA and GPS approach I finally spoke with Dan Morse of the FAA about the Little River Airport GPS approach. It appears that my worst fears were justified - I got the impression that the FAA has been waiting for us to formally notify them that all of the penetrating trees in the approach trapezoids have been removed. Hopefully Mr. Morse will be writing a letter which makes the FAA position clear. I gather that the GPS approach will not move forward until this issue has been resolved to his satisfaction. I don't think we need the plus or minus 400 foot trapezoids, but I do think we will need to do something about the trees. Do you know if the Board took any action with respect to acquiring the property in the clear zones? Public Resources referred this issue to them. Thank you. Respectfully Yours, Tim Scully, Ph.D. Chair, LRAAC .................................................................................. Here are the notes from my conversation with him: 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: Chuck Boyer Sent: May 02, 2001 2:19 PM To: tim.scully Cc: lnwright Subject: RE: Request for RTP data for LRAP Tim, For Budget Unit No. 3060 (General Fund Budget)for fiscal year 2000-2001 the expenditures through 27 April 2001 are $49,410 out of a budget of $64,972. The revenues through 31 March 2001 are $32,984 out of an estimate of $53,580 and the Net County Cost is $11,392. For Budget Unit No. 3090 (Special Aviation i.e. CAAP Funds)the budget is $5,000 and it is anticipated that none of these funds will be spent. The estimated revenue is also $5,000 and if nothing is spent, then no CAAP Funds will be claimed. The Department Requested Budget for Budget Unit No. 3060 for fiscal 2001-2002 is $63,252 with estimated revenues of $51,860 and Net County Cost of $11,392. For Budget Unit No. 3090, the Department Requested Budget is $10,000 and the estimated revenue is $10,000. Chuck CHUCK BOYER, Deputy Director Administration & Business Services Department of Transportation 340 Lake Mendocino Drive Ukiah, CA 95482-9432 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Scully Sent: May 02, 2001 3:12 PM To: 'Chuck Boyer'; Tim Scully Cc: kageyamb Subject: RE: FAA and GPS approach On page 605 of the PRC minutes: "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"[sic] acquisition..." > -----Original Message----- > From: Chuck Boyer > Sent: May 02, 2001 2:55 PM > To: tim.scully > Cc: kageyamb > Subject: RE: FAA and GPS approach > > > Tim, > > I am not aware of the Board taking any action on acquiring > the land in the > clear zone. I honestly do not remember the PRC referring > this issue to > them. > > Ben Kageyama took Stan Townsend's place as Deputy Director of > Transportation > and has airports under his division. Please send future > E-Mails concerning > Little River Airport to both Ben & me. > > Thanks, > > Chuck > > CHUCK BOYER, Deputy Director > Administration & Business Services > Department of Transportation > 340 Lake Mendocino Drive > Ukiah, CA 95482-9432 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mendoclno Councl of Governments 367 North State Street-Suite 206 Ukiah, CA 95482 Phone (707) 463-1859 Fax (707) 463-2212 TO: All Mendocino County Airport Maqagers FROM: Laurence N. Wright, MCOG Staff SUBJECT: Airport Planning Grant Assistance DATE: April 23, 2001 The attached memorandum from the California Division of Aeronautics outlines a request for planning projects from individual airport managers. The Division proposes to aggregate similar local area projects into large State-sponsored projects for FAA funding. The idea has merit, as it allows the State to leverage State funds as a matching share for federal project funding. This memorandum identifies examples of planning projects, which could be aggregated into one large project. The memorandum also solicits suggestions and identification of planning issues where common concerns can be determined. From a planning standpoint there are some central themes that transportation planners can speak to regarding future facility needs. The major theme for the State, and the Nation, when addressing Air Transport, is the rapidly shrinking capacity for scheduled air service at hub terminals. The costs of expanding these hub terminals, particularly at the large metropolitan airports, is out of reach for most regional governments, even with the most generous support from the FAA. Add to this the growing opposition by environmental groups, local communities, and taxpayer associations to airport expansion and the problem of creating additional airport capacity becomes unsolvable. I am not suggesting that the capacity at rural airports can be immediately or easily applied to the air transportation demand currently focused on the major hub terminals. However, the planning climate is such that we can now articulate a position that rural airports must be seriously considered as a part of the solution to the airport capacity problem. One of the major issues associated with encouraging diversion of scheduled service to non-hub airports is that there has been almost no studies of airline passenger demand created by "leakage" from rural and fringe area air terminals. A parallel issue is the congestion and delay on ground access facilities which serve the major "hub" terminals. Let me relate some information from a recent conference on regional transportation. The manager of the Oakland International Airport reported that Federal Express Air Freight, in order to ensure that the trucks delivering packages to the Oakland Terminal could access the terminal in a timely fashion, assigned a passenger to each truck so that car pool lanes on the freeway could be used. Additionally, two separate trucks, only partially loaded, are used to ensure that all of the shipment arrives at the airport in time to make the flight out to the central distribution point in Charlotte, North Carolina. From the Silicon Valley, trucks are now diverted to the San Jose Airport, and packages are then flown from San Jose to Oakland for shipment to Charlotte. The capacity of fringe airports around the two regional airports in the Bay Area are under study for use in meeting the Bay Area air transportation demands. Again, rural and fringe area airports cannot make direct assertions concerning capacity viability because there have been no studies of air freight/package system user characteristics. If you have other ideas and issues, please make them known directly to Terry Barrie or Leslie Snow who are with the Aviation Planning Staff at the Division of Aeronautics. I would appreciate your sending a copy of your correspondence to our LC/CAPC offices at the address shown above. If you are in the early stages of locally funded planning studies, you may want to contact the Division of Aeronautics to determine if additional funding support can be made retroactive. I urge you to respond to this opportunity in a timely manner, and make your wishes known. STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS M.S. #40 1120 N STREET -ROOM 3300 P.O. BOX 942874 SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001 (916) 654-4959 FAX (916) 653-9531 April 17, 2001 To: TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCIES Airport Managers From: Division of Aeronautics subject: Request for Aviation Svstem Planning Projects California's Department of Transportation (Caltrans') Division of Aeronautics, along with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Regional Transportation Planning Agency Aviation System Planning Committee (RTPA Committee) seek your input in order to identify aviation system planning projects that may be funded with Federal Airport Improvement Program (AlP) funds for fiscal years 2002, 2003,2004. The objectives of this effort are: 1. Early identification of aviation system planning projects and their costs. 2. Multi-agency cooperation in establishing planning project priorities consistent with the needs of the state and regional aviation systems. 3. Efficient use of AlP Planning Grants. We would like you to inform us of any aviation system planning projects your agency or airport may have scheduled or would like to schedule within the next one to three years. The projects should preferably be part of a three-year comprehensive aviation system planning program for your region. Examples of projects include regional aviation system plans, air cargo studies, air passenger surveys, general aviation studies, and aviation economic impact studies. We welcome input from both large and small RTPAs/MPOs, and large and small airports. Typically the FAA does not fund studies sponsored by the smaller airports or RTPAs. However, if enough small airports/RTPAs express an interest in a similar topic, the Division of Aeronautics could propose a study that would include a number of airports resulting in more of a system-wide emphasis. For example, a number of airports do not have an Airport Layout Plan (ALP), or perhaps they need to update their ALP. One idea would be to apply for a grant to hire a consultant to help guide the airports that need ALPs through the process. Another idea would be to conduct an air service marketing study of certain small or medium size communities to determine if it would be feasible to bring air service to the community , or increase aIr servIce to a community that has only limited air service. The Division of Aeronautics would like to know what you think of our suggestions and would like to hear any suggestions that you have. Let us know what issues are important to you, if enough airports express a common concern, we could "package" these ideas into one grant that would have a greater chance of securing FAA's approval. In order to get our requests in on time to the FAA, we would like you to send us any proposals you plan to submit to the FAA, or any ideas you have for projects/studies by April 24,2001. Please include a brief description of your proposed projects along with timing and cost estimates. If you have any questions or would like to phone your response, please call me at 916-654-4151 or call Leslie Snow at 916-654-4380. If you prefer you may FAX your comments to 916-654-9531 or email Leslie-Snow(Q).dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, Leslie Snow for TERRY L. BARRIE Chief, Office of Aviation Planning ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ H. PETER KLEIN TELEPHONE: COUNTY COUNSEL (707)463-4446 FRANK ZOTTER,JR. FAX NUMBER: CHIEF DEPUTY (707) 463-4592 DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSELS SANDRA L. APPLEGATE IRVEN L. GRANT CYNTHIA T. MONTESONTI OFFICE MANAGER OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL ADMINISTRATION CENTER 501 LOW GAP ROAD. RM.1030 UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482 April 27, 2001 TO: Honorable Board of Supervisors James Andersen, County Administrator Kristi Furman, Clerk of the Board Mendocino Council of Governments Mendocino Transit Authority LAFCO Mendocino County Solid Waste Management Authority All Boards, Commissions, Special Districts and Joint Powers Authorities FROM: H. Peter Klein, County Counsel RE : Attached Attorney General' s Opinion Op. #01-276 Attached you will find Attorney General's Opinion No.00-906 relative to the interpretation of the Brown Act regarding e-mails which may be of interest to all of you. HPK/ctm attachment 30 ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS Volume 84 Opinion No. 00-906-February 20, 2001 Requested by: MEMBER OF THE STATE SENATEI Opinion by: BILL LOCKYER, Attorney General Clayton P. Roche, Deputy THE HONORABLE WESLEY CHESBRO, MEMBER OF THE STATE SENATE, has requested an opinion on the following question: May a majority of the board members of a local public agency e-mail each other to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken by the board without violating the Ralph M. Brown Act if the e-mails are also sent to the secretary and chairperson of the agency, the e-mails are posted on the agency's Internet website, and a printed version of each e-mail is reported at the next public meeting of the board? CONCLUSION A majority of the board members of a local public agency may not e-mail each other to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken by the board without violating the Ralph M. Brown Act even if the e-mails are also sent to the secretary and chairperson of the agency, the e-mails are posted on the agency's Internet website, and a printed version of each e-mail is reported at the next public meeting of the board. ANALYSIS The Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code, 54950-54962; "Brown Act") 1 generally requires the legislative body of a local public agency to hold its meetings open to the public. (54951, 54952, 54953, 54962.) Agendas of the meetings must be posted (54954.1, 54954.2), and members of the public must be given an opportunity to address the legislative body on any agenda item of interest to the public (54954.3). The purposes of the Brown Act are thus to allow the public to attend, observe, monitor, and participate in the decision-making process at the local level of government. Not only are the actions taken by the legislative body to be monitored by the public but also the deliberations leading to the actions taken. (See Roberts v. City of Palmdale (1993) 5 Cal.4th 363, 373, 375; Frazer v. Dixon Unified School Dist. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 781,795-797; Stockton Ne~vspaper. Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 95, 100; Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento County Ed. of Suprs. (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 41, 45.) "The term 'deliberation' bas been broadly construed to connote 'not only collective discussion, but the collective acquisition and exchange of facts preliminary to the ultimate decision.' [Citation,)" (Rowen v. Santa Clara Unified School Dist. (1981) 121 Cal.App,3d 231, 234; see Roberts v. City of Palmdale, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 376.) The question presented for resolution concerns e-mail messages between members of the board of a local public agency. May a majority of the members e-mail each other to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken by the board without violating the Brown Act if the e-mails are sent to the secretary and chairperson of the agency, the e-mails are posted on the agency's Internet website, and a printed version of each e-mail is reported at the next public meeting of the agency. We conclude that such conditions would not be sufficient to prevent a violation of the Brown Act. The statute governing our discussion is section 54952.2, subdivision (b), which provides: "Except as authorized pursuant to Section 51953, any use of direct communication, personal intennediaries, or technological devices that is employed by a majority of the members of the legislative body to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken on an Item by the members of the legislative body is prohibited." Section 54953 concerns the use of teleconferencing procedures and has no application to the situation presented herein. In analyzing the language of section 54952.2, we may apply well recognized principles of statutory construction. We are to "ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law ." (DuBois v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Ed. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 382, 387.) "The words of the statute are the starting point." (Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 977.) "Words used in a statute. ..should be given the meaning they bear in ordinary use. [Citations.) If the language is clear and unambiguous there is no need for construction, nor is it necessary to resort to indicia of the intent of the Legislature. ..." (Lungren v. Deukmejuan (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727, 735.) Applying these rules of construction to the terms of subdivision (b) of section 54952.2, we find that the sending of e-mails would be the "use of ...technological devices." The statutory prohibition applies to such use "by a majority of the members of the legislative body." Anything less than a majority is not covered by the statute. (See Roberts v. City of Palmdale, supra, 5 Cal.4th at pp, 375-377; Frazer v. Dixon Unified School Dist., supra, 18 Cal.App.4th at p. 797.) Here, we are given that a majority of the board members are sending e-mails to each other. As for the requirement that the e-mails be employed 'to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken on an item," we note that such activity would include any exchange of facts (see Roberts v. City of Palmdale, supra, 5 Cal.4th at pp. 375-376; Frazer v. Dixon Unified School Di!t., supra, 18 Cal.App.4th at p. 796) or, as we have previously explained in our pamphlet on the Brown Act, substantive discussions "which advance or clarify a member's understanding of an issue, or facilitate an agreement or compromise amongst members, or advance the ultimate resolution of an issue" Cal. Dept. of Justice, The Brown Act, Open Meetings For Local Legislative Bodies (1994), p. 12) regarding an agenda item. We find no distinction between e-mails and other forms of communica- tion such as leaving telephone messages or sending letters or memorandums. If e-mails are employed to develop a collective concurrence by a majority of board members on an agenda item, they are subject to the prohibition of section 54952.2, subdivision (b). Application of the statute in such circumstances furthers the "broad policy of the act to ensure that local governing bodies deliberate in public." (Roberts v. City of Palmdale, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 373; see Frazer v. Dixon Unified School Dist., supra, 18 Cal.App.4th at pp. 794-795; Stockton Newspapers, Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency, supra, 171 Cal.App.3d at p. 100; Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento County Board of Suprs., supra, 263 Cal.App.3d at p. 45). We recognize that the three conditions of (1) concurrently sending copies of the e-mails to the secretary and chairperson of the agency, (2) concur- rently posting the e-mails on the agency's Internet website, and (3) reporting the contents of the e-mails at the agency's next public meeting would allow the deliberations to be conducted "in public" to some extent. Nevertheless, the deliberations would not be conducted as contemplated by the Brown Act. Members of the public who do not have Internet access would be unable to monitor the deliberations as they occur. All debate concerning an agerida item could well be over before members of the public could be given an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. (See Frazer v. Di..(on Unified School Dist., supra, 18 Cal.App.4th at p. 794; Cal. Dept. of Justice, The Brown Act, Open Meetings For Local Legislative Bodies, supra, p. 12.) Subdivision (b) of section 54952.2 is straightforward and unambiguous. The proposed conditions satisfy neither the specific language nor all the critical purposes of the statute. We thus conclude that a majority of the board members of a local public agency may not e-mail each other to develop a collectivei concurrence as to action to be taken by the board without violating the Brown Act even if the e-mails are also sent to the secretary and chairperson of the agency, the e-mails are posted on the agency's Internet website, and a printed version of each e-mail is reported at the next public meeting of the board. 1 All references hereafter to the Government Code are by section number only. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region San Francisco ADO Airports Division 831 Mitten Road, Suite 210 Burllngame, CA 94010 April 20, 2001 Mr. Stanley Townsend Director of Transportation County of Mendocino 340 Lake Mendocino Drive Ukiah, California 95482-9482 Dear Mr. Townsend: Subject: Little River Airport; GPS Approaches I am writing in response to Mr. Tim Scully's letter of January 28, 2001, as a follow up to your letter of December 27, 1999. I had previously reviewed your rough draft letter of 12/27/99 and in discussion with the airport manager, it was agreed to clear the approaches. Mr. Scully has indicated that clearing has been completed on land owned by the county, that the threshold siting surface to runways 11 & 29 are clear except for where the county does not own the land. The threshold siting criteria must be met as indicated in AC 150/5300-13, Change 6, appendix 16, Table A16-1C. As indicated in appendix 16, paragraph 1.c., other pertinent requirements must be considered. The FAR Part 77 surfaces must be considered. For this case the priority for consideration of clearing Part 77 is first the approach surfaces and second the primary, transition and horizontal surfaces. For any Part 77 surface not clear, an airspace analysis would have to be performed. This would be to decide what has to be cleared, what penetrations would be acceptable and any obstruction lighting that would be required. You would have to request the airspace analysis, update the Maps to delete all trees that have been cleared and show the FAR Part 77 surfaces that are clear and penetrated. Also the threshold siting surfaces may be noted instead of shown, as clear to the distance out for the required day use only and/or night use (appendix 2, change 6, AC/5033-13). You have indicated that the OFZ is clear with the exception of various signs that lack frangible mounting. The signs in the OFZ and runway/taxiway safety areas would have to be mounted on frangible couplings. Please inform us when this is completed. The runway hold markings and signs are acceptable at this time. For your airport we recommend the hold lines be increased in width if feasible, per AC 150/5340-1H, change 1, the next time you remark. For the unlit signs we would prefer they be lit and would fund lighted signs under an AlP project. We would also remark the hold lines to the wider width in an AlP project. The ALP updated can run concurrent with the GPS implementation. If you have any questions please call me at 650876-2823. Sincerely. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY DAN MORSE Dan Morse Supervisor, Safety Standards Section cc: Mr. Tim Scully, Chair LRAA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notes from telephone conversation with Dick Ahrens - Dick will be unable to attend the 5/18/01 AAC meeting due to a medical appointment out of town. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Bruce Raabe Sent: May 15, 2001 6:25 AM To: Tim Scully Subject: Hangers Tim- Take a look at our website: CrosswindProperties.com This week we start our hanger project at Lincoln. We are building 16 hangers between 40X50 and 100X80. We have also purchased five parcels at the Marysville airport. We will be building twelve 40X50's and few larger (60X80) hangers there in the next 12 months. The hangers we build are sold to the public. In some cases they pay rent to the county. They all pay property tax. This private investment in these airports promotes a thriving atmoshpere increasing fuel sales as well. Best of luck with your project. Bruce -- Notice: All electronic correspondences are reviewed daily by the Collins & Company compliance officer as required by NYSE Rule 472. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From the May 10 Mendocino Beacon - The Board accepted the Public Resources Committee recommendation designating the Department of Transportation as the lead agent in obtaining financing through CalTrans for the construction of additional hangars at Little River Airport. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Adams of the Woods traffic Safety Committee provided a copy of a traffic study done on Little River Airport Road and correspondance regarding road safety. Due to the length of the documents I haven't reproduced them here.