LRAAC Meeting Minutes - 17 August 2001 1. Open meeting at 0902am. 2. Present: T.Scully, D.Brewer, T.Loy, S.Winding, W.Trent, R.Ahrens. Excused: T.Goncharoff. Visitors: R.Rodriguez, N.Jarvie. 3. Minutes of previous meeting: approved. 4. Correspondence: A. Scully to BOS clerk to TS to BOS clerk: agendizing. B. Townsend to Scully to Townsend to Scully: County planning. C. Goncharoff to Scully: absence. D. Scully/Morse of FAA telcon: trapezoid. E. Brewer handouts: airport traffic. F. Scully to BOS clerk: 17 Sept agendizing. 5. GPS approach: discussion of tree cutting and lighting. 6. Airport Operations: discussion of number of airport operations. 7. Next meetings: Sept 21, Oct 19, Nov 16, Dec 21. 8. Adjourned: 1002am. The agenda for the next meeting is: Approve the minutes of the last meeting Communications (letters, FAXes, etc, sent/received since last meeting) Tree trimming, cutting and/or lighting of tall trees near the airport may be discussed further. 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. We will discuss our upcoming report to the Public Resources Committee on the dog park, tree cutting, hangars and the 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 We have asked to be adgendized for the 9/17/01 Public Resources Committee meeting per the following letter: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Scully 7/29/2001 Heike Arnold Clerk, Board of Supervisors 501 Low Gap Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Ms. Arnold: I am writing to you as the chair of the Little River Airport Advisory Committee, to ask that we be agendized for the next available meeting of the Public Resources Committee. We have four topics to discuss: 1) we have agreed on a detailed and specific recommendation for an interim dog park on airport land which is already designated for non-aviation use (details are in the enclosed documents) 2) we have agreed on a specific recommendation for handing the trees which are penetrating the airport height limits. This is a three part recommendation which includes: - either start the abatement process described in 20.112.050 of the Inland Zoning Code with respect to certain trees which are on land not owned by the airport, or move quickly to execute the land swap recommended in the existing Master Plan and then remove the trees at the approach end of Runway 29 - simply remove the problem trees to the South and the East of the runway - install obstruction lights to mark the trees at the northwest corner of the runway, near the pond. 3) we have obtained and studied copies of the FAA advistory circulars relating to airport master plans and have agreed on a process for producing a draft update of the airport master plan. Although we believe that we will be able to do most of the work, there are a few parts of the master plan which are so technical that it may be necessary to get help from a consultant. We expect to hold a number of public meetings to discuss various aspects of the master plan. 4) The committee is still available to help move the hangar project forward, if there is anything we can do to help. We have had queries from several of the pilots who have put down deposits, they are all anxious to see signs of progress. The outcome we hope for is: 1) approval of a Dog Park in the recommended location, with the understanding that it might have to be moved or removed when the master plan is completed. Hopefully it will be able to remain in the recommended location. 2) prompt action to deal with the trees which penetrate the FAR 77 surfaces around Little River Airport 3) approval for our proposal to move forward with a draft update of the airport master plan. 4) progress on the hangar project. Please let me know if and when we are placed on the committee's agenda. Thank you. Thank you. Respectfully Yours, Tim Scully, Ph.D. Chair, LRAAC P.S. I have enclosed 4 copies of the Dog Park Committee's proposal. I am sending a copy to DOT along with a copy of this letter. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pamela Townsend Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 8:13 AM To: tim.scully Subject: Re: Little River Airport Planning Tim, Got your message and I will get back to you with all answers in the next few weeks, if that's okay. Yes the Dog Parks looks okay from a planning/zoning perspective. Pam Townsend tim.scully wrote: > Thank you for getting back to me. It sounds as though you are saying > that the proposed Dog Park location is ok from a planning and zoning > point of view. Please let me know if I have misunderstood. > > I have recently discovered that the FAA has changed the "threshold siting > requirements" for airport with a nonprecision instrument approach procedure, > and that they have increased the size of the 20:1 approach trapezoid to an > initial width of +-400 feet from the runway centerline, starting 200 feet > from the runway threshold. The earlier version of their Airport Design > advisory circular specified +-200 feet as an initial width, starting at the > runway threshold. Just to make life more interesting, Zoning Map Height > Regulation, Map No. 3 shows the 20:1 surface as +-250 feet, starting 200 > feet from the runway threshold, which is the size specified in FAR 77. > > One question is, how difficult would it be to amend the AH zone to conform > to the new FAA requirement? > > With respect to the possible land swap and zoning maps, yes, I'm interested > in obtaining current zoning maps for the airport. At the moment I have > parcel maps (as of a few yrears ago) but not the zoning maps. Ideally I'd > like to get them as Group 4 TIFF files or a CALS files, which would make it > easy to add them to the AutoCAD drawing I have of the airport, which > currently has many layers with various scanned maps overlayed. > > I've heard from one gentleman who is considering buying the two parcels > (9 and 10) at the East end of the runway if he could swap them for land > on which he could build hangars. I don't know how warmly that proposal will > be received, but it adds another alternative to additional residential > developoment. He also told me that someone is now living in the house which > exists on the parcels in question. If I remember correctly, the house is in > bad shape, I think it was unoccupied for quite a long time. I suspect that > it falls inside the larger approach trapezoid. Would there be any > restriction on the granting of building permits for renovation of a house > in such a high risk area? > > I am of the opinion the acquiring the parcels so they become part of the > airport would be the best resolution of a situation which seems to be > getting more complicated all the time. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pamela Townsend > > Sent: August 09, 2001 9:04 AM > > To: tim.scully > > Subject: Re: Little River Airport Planning > > > > > > Tim, > > I read the Dog Park proposal. The area appears to be > > classified Public Lands in the General Plan, zoned Public > > Facilities. Community recreation is the closest use type when > > owned or operated by a public entity; the Mendocino Coast > > Dog Parks operation appears to be nonprofit and essentially public. > > > > The Committee should explore land use on the area proposed > > for expanded residential development at least six months > > before any anticipated swap as a General Plan amendment may > > be needed. Some of the northern airport is classified > > RR-5, but zoned PF. Keep in touch. Do you need land use > > maps and ordinances. By the way, the text is online, > > although the maps are not--yet. Pam Townsend > > > > tim.scully wrote: > > > > > I apologize for being slow in getting back to you, I've > > been buried by work in my day job. > > > > > > The Airport Advisory Committee is getting organized to do > > an update of the airport master plan. Our tentative plan is > > to handle the "Non-Aviation uses" issues fairly late in the > > process, so it'll probably be a while before we do a > > comprehensive review of all of the propoised non-aviation > > uses (on all of the airport). > > > > > > But there are two issues affecting non-aviation uses which > > should be addressed sooner. > > > > > > A citizens committee has approached us about establishing a > > Dog Park on the airport. We've worked with them to help them > > identify an area already designated as non-aviation along > > Albion-Airport Road. I'm attaching a Microsoft Word document > > from the citizen's committee which includes a diagram showing > > the specific 4 acre area they are proposing to use. The > > Airport Advisory Committee is recommending to the Public > > Resources committee that the Dog Park be approved on a > > "temporary" basis now, with long term approval remaining > > pending until we've completed an update of the non-aviation > > section of the Airport Master Plan (which may be a year or > > more in the future). We think it is likely that the > > "temporary" Dog Park location could be approved as a long > > term location. If not, the Dog Page group is willing to move the park. > > > > > > And there is the "land swap" issue. There are two parcels > > at the approach end of Runway 29 which the County doesn't own > > which the existing Master Plan suggests should be acquired by > > a land swap. The AAC believes that a swap for some of the 72 > > acres on the North side of the airport would probably be best > > if the owner's intent would be residential development. We'd > > like to discourage residential development ont he airport > > land to the South of the runway since this is under the > > traffic pattern. This problem is coming to a head now because > > we have learned that the trees in the approach area have to > > be cut before the GPS approach will proceed. We think it is > > likely to be easier for everyoen if the County were to simply > > acquire this land (by a swap) rather than using the height > > zoming ordinance to institute abatement proceedings. > > > > > > Is this the kind of information you wanted? If not, please > > let me know. > > > > > > Respectfully Yours, > > > > > > Tim Scully, Ph.D. > > > Chair, LRAAC > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Pamela Townsend > > > > Sent: July 31, 2001 2:10 PM > > > > To: tim.scully > > > > Subject: Little River Airport Planning > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim, > > > > I have been reading the Advisory Committee Minutes for years > > > > with an eye > > > > to compatibility between future nonaviation uses and land use > > > > classifications on the airport property. In 1992, the County > > > > initiated > > > > a process to reclassify the property, identifying 72 acres for > > > > nonaviation uses with 10 acres to be targeted for commercial > > > > development, and various land use options were developed. > > > > However, the > > > > impetus to proceed faded and the process stalled. I am > > sure you are > > > > aware that the land along Little River-Airport Road is > > > > classified Rural > > > > Residential-5 acre minimum, with the remaining property classified > > > > Public Land, and Public Facilities (Coastal Zone). Comprehensive > > > > airport planning will provide a basis for discussing > > > > potential land use > > > > changes, keeping in mind that a General Plan amendment > > takes about a > > > > year. My question is what areas of the property will > > your planning > > > > effort encompass? > > > > Pam Townsend, Senior Planner > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---------- > > > Name: MCDP Plan 2001.doc > > > MCDP Plan 2001.doc Type: Winword File (application/msword) > > > Encoding: base64 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: tom goncharoff Sent: August 06, 2001 5:41 PM To: susan winding; willow trent; tim scully; dave brewer; dick ahrens Subject: LRAAC MEETING 8/17/01 To All The Committee Members; I will not be able to attend the meeting of our committee on 8/17/01. We are taking our three grand daughters, ages 8, 9 & 11 to the Ringling Brothers Circus in Oakland on that date. We have ringside seats! I guess you could consider that a better offer than going to the meeting. Please convey my regrets to Trey. Tom ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8/15/01 9am called Dan Morse at the FAA Airports District Office, Burlingame He confirmed that for night straight-in approaches, the threshold siting trapezoid is +-400 ft initial width. he FAXed me the latest version of AC 150/5300-13 Appendix 2. The night circling trapezoid is smaller, +-250 feet. He confirmed that the primary surface width is still +-250 if our airport is classified for aircraft of less than 12,500lb gross weight. He said that a type of aircraft needs to have more than a critical number of operations per year to be considered controlling in detemining the airport classification. AC 150/5325-4a states that this threshold is 250 operations per year. I said, AC 70/7460-1K doesn't talk about how to mount light for trees. Are towers required? He said that towers are required for maintainability - it is necessary to be able to quickly and safely climb to change bulbs. He suggested considering L864 flashing (slow pulse) red lights because they allow much larger spacing 3000ft vs 150ft. The lights should be photocell controlled so they are on from dusk to dawn and on very dim overcast days. I told him of the Master Plan's suggested land sawp. He pointed out that we will need FAA release for any land swap and suggested that a County represenative should meet with the folks from his office to go over this. I told him about one person's proposal to buy the land in question and then trade it for airport land so he can build hangars. He said flatly that the FAA would not approve such a swap. On the other hand, it sounded as though a trade of some of the nonaviation land to the North would probably be approved. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 2 of AC 150/5300-13 revision 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 2. THRESHOLD SITING REQUIREMENTS 1. PURPOSE. This appendix contains guidance on locating thresholds to meet approach obstacle clearance requirements. 2. APPLICATION. a. The threshold should be located at the beginning of the full-strength runway pavement or runway surface. However, displacement of the threshold may be required when an object that obstructs the airspace required for landing airplanes is beyond the airport owner's power to remove, relocate, or lower. Thresholds may also be displaced for environmental considerations, such as noise abatement, or to provide the standard RSA and ROFA lengths. b. When a hazard to air navigation exists, the amount of displacement of the threshold should be based on the operational requirements of the most demanding airplanes. The standards in this appendix minimize the loss of operational use of the established runway. These standards reflect FAA policy of maximum utilization and retention of existing paved areas on airports. c. Displacement of a threshold reduces the length of runway available for landings. Depending on the reason for displacement of the threshold, the portion of the runway behind a displaced threshold may be available for takeoffs in either direction and landings from the opposite direction. Refer to appendix 14 for additional information. 3. LIMITATIONS. a. These standards should not be interpreted as an FAA blanket endorsement of the alternative to displace or relocate a runway threshold. Threshold displacement or relocation should be undertaken only after a full evaluation reveals that displacement or relocation is the only practical alternative. b. The standards in this appendix are not applicable for identifying objects affecting navigable airspace (14 CFR Part 77) or zoning to limit the height of objects around airports (AC 150/5190-4). 4. EVALUATION CONSIDERATIONS. a. When a penetration to a surface defined in paragraph 5 (threshold siting surfaces) exists, one or more of the following actions is required: (1) The object is removed or lowered to preclude penetration of applicable threshold siting surfaces; (2) The threshold is displaced to preclude object penetration of applicable threshold siting surfaces, with a resulting shorter landing distance; or (3) Visibility minimums are raised. (4) Prohibit night operations. b. Relevant factors for evaluation include: (1) Types of airplanes which will use the runway and their performance characteristics. (2) Operational disadvantages associated with accepting higher landing minimums. (3) Cost of removing, relocating, or lowering the object. (4) Effect of the reduced available landing length when the runway is wet or icy. (5) Cost of extending the runway if insufficient runway length would remain as a result of displacing the threshold. The environmental and public acceptance aspects of a runway extension need also be evaluated under this consideration. (6) Cost and feasibility of relocating visual and electronic approach aids, such as threshold lights, visual approach slope indicator, runway end identification lights, localizer, glide slope (to provide a threshold crossing height of not more then 60 feet (18 m)), approach lighting system, and runway markings. (7) Effect of the threshold change on noise abatement. 5. LOCATING, DISPLACING, OR RELOCATING THE THRESHOLD. The standard shape, dimensions, and slope of the surface used for locating a threshold is dependent upon the type of aircraft operations currently conducted or forecasted, the landing visibility minimums desired, and the types of instrumentation available or planned for that runway end. Subparagraphs e, f, and g describe the minimum area required for instrument approach procedures aligned with the runway centerline. For nonprecision approach procedures not aligned with the runway centerline, the area is expanded on the side on which the procedure course lies. This expansion may splay up to 35ø from runway. Both the length of these areas and the expansion for offset alignment are determined through instrument approach procedure development. a. For Approach End of Runways Expected to Serve Small Airplanes With Approach Speeds Less Than 50 Knots (Visual Runways Only). (1) No object should penetrate a surface that starts at the threshold and at the elevation of the runway centerline at the threshold and slopes upward from the threshold at a slope 15 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical). (2) In the plan view, the centerline of this surface extends 3,000 feet (900 m) along the extended runway centerline. This surface extends laterally 60 feet (18 m) on each side of the centerline at the threshold and increases in width to 150 feet (45 m) at a point 500 feet (150 m) from the threshold; thereafter, it extends laterally 150 feet (45 m) on each side of the centerline. (See figures A2-1 and A2-2.) b. For Approach End of Runways Expected to Serve Small Airplanes with Approach Speeds of 50 Knots or More (Visual Runways Only). (1) No object should penetrate a surface that starts at the threshold and at the elevation of the runway centerline at the threshold and slopes upward from the threshold at a slope 20 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical). (2) In the plan view, the centerline of this surface extends 5,000 feet (1 530 m) along the extended runway centerline. This surface extends laterally 125 feet (38 m) on each side of the centerline at the threshold and increases in width to 350 feet (110 m) at a point 2,250 feet (690 m) from the threshold; thereafter, it extends laterally 350 feet (110 m) on each side of the centerline. (See figures A2-1 and A2-2.) c. For Approach End of Runways Expected to Serve Large Airplanes (Day and Night), or Instrument Minimums >= 1 Statute Mile (Day Only). (1) No object should penetrate a surface that starts at the threshold and at the elevation of the runway centerline at the threshold and slope upward from the threshold at a slope 20 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical). (2) In the plan view, the centerline of this surface extends 10,000 feet (3 000 m) along the extended runway centerline. This surface extends laterally 200 feet (60 m) on each side of the centerline at the threshold and increases in width to 500 feet (150 m) at a point 1,500 feet (450 m) from the threshold; thereafter, it extends laterally 500 feet (150 m) on each side of the centerline. (See figures A2-1 and A2-2.) d. For Approach End of Runways Expected to Support Instrument Night Circling. (1) No object should penetrate a surface that starts 200 feet (60 m) out from the threshold and at the elevation of the runway centerline at the threshold and slopes upward from the starting point at a slope of 20 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical). (2) In the plan view, the centerline of this surface extends 10,000 feet (3 000 m) along the extended runway centerline. This surface extends laterally 500 feet (150 m) on each side of the centerline at the starting point and increases in width to 2,000 feet (600 m) at the far end of this surface. (See figures A2-1 and A2-2.) (3) If the instrument approach procedure utilizes an offset localizer with an offset angle of 3 degrees or less, the above surface is centered upon the final approach course rather than the extended runway centerline. (See figure A2-3.) e. For Approach End of Runways Expected to Support Instrument Straight-In Night Operations. (1) No object should penetrate a surface that starts 200 feet (60 m) out from the threshold and at the elevation of the runway centerline at the threshold and slopes upward from the starting point at a slope of 20 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical). (2) In the plan view, the centerline of this surface extends 10,000 feet (3 000 m) along the extended runway centerline. This surface extends laterally 400 feet (120 m) on each side of the centerline at the starting point and increases in width to 1,900 feet (570 m) at the far end of this surface. (See figures A2-1 and A2-2.) (3) If the instrument approach procedure utilizes an offset localizer with an offset angle of 3 degrees or less, the above surface is centered upon the final approach course rather than the extended runway centerline. (See figure A2-3.) (4) To obtain night minimum, penetrations to this surface can be lighted to avoid displacing the threshold. f. For Approach End of Runways Expected to Accommodate Instument Approaches Having Visibility Minimums 3/4 Mile but Less Than 1 Mile (Day or Night). (1) No object should penetrate a surface that starts 200 feet (60 in) out from the threshold and at the elevation of the runway centerline at the threshold and slopes upward from the starting point at a slope of 20 (horizontal) to I (vertical). (2) In the plan view, the centerline of this surface extends 10,000 feet (3 000 m) along the extended runway centerline. This surface extends laterally 400 feet (120 in) on each side of the centerline at the starting point and increases in width to 1900 feet (570m) at the far end of this surface. (See figures A2-1 and A2-2.) (3) If the instrument approach procedure utilizes an offset localizer with an offset angle of 3 degrees or less, the above surface is centered upon the final approach course rather than the extended runway centerline. (See figure A2-3.) g. For Approach End of Runways Expected to Accommodate Instrument Approaches Having Visibility Minimums Less Than Mile, or a Precision Approach (Day or Night). (1) No object should penetrate a surface that starts 200 feet (60 in) out from the threshold and at the elevation of the runway centerline at the threshold and slopes upward from the starting point at a slope of 34 (horizontal) to I (vertical). (2) In the plan view, the centerline of this surface extends 10,000 feet (3 000 m) along the extended runway centerline. This surface extends laterally 400 feet (120 m) on each side of the centerline at the starting point and increases in width to 1900 feet (570m) at the far end of this surface. (See figures A2-1 and A2-2.) (3) If the instrument approach procedure utilizes an offset localizer with an offset angle of 3 degrees or less, the above surface is centered upon the final approach course rather than the extended runway centerline. (See figure A2-3.) h. For Approach End of Runways Expected to Accommodate Category II Approach Minimums. Criteria are set forth in TERPS Order 8260.3B. RUNWAY TYPE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FEET (METERS) A B C D E SLOPE a. Approach end of runways expected to serve small airplanes with approach speeds less than 50 knots. 0 60 150 500 2500 15:1 (18) (45) (150) (750) b. Approach end of runways, including STOL runways, expected to serve small airplanes with approach speeds of 50 knots or more. 0 125 350 2,250 2,750 20:1 (38) (110) (690) (840) c. Approach end of runways, including STOL runways, expected to serve large airplanes, or instrument minimums >= 1 statue mile, day only. 0 200 500 1,500 8,500 20:1 (60) (150) (450) (2,250) d. Approach end of runways expected to support instrument night circling 200 200 1700 10,000 0 20:1 (60) (60) (520) (3,000) e. Approach end of runways expected to support instrument straight in night operations. 200 400 1900 10,000 0 20:1 (60) (120) (550) (3,000) f. Approach end of runways having visibility minimums >= 3/4 but < 1 statute mile, day or night 200 400 1900 10,000 0 20:1 (60) (120) (550) (3,000) g. Approach end of runways having visibility minimums < 3/4 statute mile or a precision approach, day or night. 200 400 1900 10,000 0 34:1 (60) (120) (550) (3,000) h. Approach runway ends having Category II approach minimums. The criteria are set forth in TERPS Order 8260.3B The letters are keyed to those shown on figures A2-2 and A2-3. A. is the distance from the runway end to the trapezoid beginning B. is the distance from the runway centerline to the edge of the beginning of the trapezoid - in other words the trapezoid has a starting width of 2 * B. C is the ending width of the trapezoid D is the length of the tapered part of the trapezoid E is the length of the rectangular part of the trapezoid (if any) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comparison Nov 99, spreadsheet from Dave Brewer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Period Days State StateOps Log Log Ops State Diff Diff Ops dayLog Ops /day avg in aves in ops 5/12-5/25/98 14 302 21.6 212 15.1 July-Oct/98 123 2774 22.6 22/day 11 +1353 10/20-11/2/98 14 274 19.6 10/20-10/31/98 12 230 19.2 254 21.2 Nov/97-Feb/98 120 747 6.2 20/day -15 -1800 4/7-4/21/99 15 336 22.4 Mar-June/99 22/day 4/7-4/21/98 15 260 17.3 Mar-June/98 122 1747 14.3 -4 -488 ----- -935 State Estimate 7741 Corrected state estimate 6806 NOTES 5/12-5/25/98 State nos much higher. Under logging of touch and gos? July-Oct/98 State ave should be 22X(22.6/15.1)=33 10/20-11/2/98 10/20-10/31/98 Fairly good agreement between state and logs Nov/97-Feb/98 As above state ave should be 20X(6.2/21.2)=6 4/7-4/21/99 No logs for this period Mar-June/99 4/7-4/21/98 Corresponding period one year earlier Mar-June/98 As above state ave should be 22X(14.3/17.1)=18 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comparison August 01, pass 2, spreadsheet from Dave Brewer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Period Days State StateOps Log Log Ops State Diff Diff Ops dayLog Ops /day avg in aves in ops 5/12-5/25/98 14 302 21.6 212 15.1 July-Oct/98 123 2774 22.6 21.6/day 10.7 1316 10/20-11/2/98 14 274 19.6 10/20-10/31/98 12 230 19.2 254 21.2 Nov/97-Feb/98 120 747 6.2 19.6/day -13.9 -1668 4/7-4/21/99 15 336 22.4 4/8-12,15-19/99 10 171 17.1 Mar-June/99 86 1438 16.7 22.4/day -0.5 -61 ----- -413 State Estimate 7741 Corrected state estimate 7328 NOTES 5/12-5/25/98 State nos much higher. Under logging of touch and gos? July-Oct/98 State ave should be 21.6X(22.6/15.1)=32.3 10/20-11/2/98 10/20-10/31/98 Fairly good agreement between state and logs Nov/97-Feb/98 As above state ave should be 19.6X(6.2/21.2)=5.7 4/7-4/21/99 4/8-12,15-19/99 Used logs just for times airport was open Mar-June/99 As above state ave should be 22.4X(16.7/17.1)=21.9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Airport Open Monthly Ops and Airport Ops Estimates - from Dave Brewer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Month A/P Sampling May-Apr Yr %Increase Jul-Jun Yr % Increase Source Open Ops Period Nov-97 132 DMB Dec-97 146 DMB Jan-98 62 DMB Feb-98 73 DMB Mar-98 216 DMB Apr-98 237 DMB May-98 247 5/12-25/98 DMB Jun-98 261 I DMB Jul-98 308 I DMB Aug-98 349 I DMB Sep-98 351 I DMB Oct-98 430 10/20-11/2/98 DMB Nov-98 146 I DOT/DMB Dec-98 192 I DOT/DMB Jan-99 226 I DOT/DMB Feb-99 108 I DOT/DMB Mar-99 331 I DOT/DMB Apr-99 337 4/7-21/99 3286 DOT/DMB May-99 341 DT Tapes Jun-99 429 3548 DOT/DMB Jul-99 391 DT Tapes Aug-99 359 DT Tapes Sep-99 281 DT Tapes Oct-99 472 DT Tapes Nov-99 188 DT Tapes Dec-99 346 DT Tapes Jan-00 123 DT Tapes Feb-00 133 DOT/DMB Mar-00 395 DT Tapes Apr-00 240 3698 12.54 DT Tapes May-00 388 DT Tapes Jun-00 333 3649 2.8 DT Tapes Jul-00 326 DT Tapes Aug-00 469 DT Tapes Sep-00 413 DOT/DMB Oct-00 183 DT Tapes Nov-00 391 DT Tapes Dec-00 219 DT Tapes Jan-01 368 DT Tapes Feb-01 113 DT Tapes Mar-01 376 DT Tapes Apr-01 357 3936 6.44 DT Tapes May-01 535 DT Tapes Jun-01 544 4294 17.7 DT Tapes Jul-01 404 DT Tapes Average Annual Increase 9.49 10.25 1999 Total Operations 7300 7300 2000 Total Operations 8215 7508 2001 Total Operations 9840 9086 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- LRP Airport Activity Progress Report State Estimate I spent quite a bit of time on Statistical Sampling of Airport Operations at Non-Towered Airports, the publication the state referred to in the cover letter of their estimate. It appears that they did a couple of things which are not in accordance with the publication. First they used a sampling period, May-98, which was outside of the period to be estimated, July-98 to Oct-98. Second, the publication specifies that the first sampling period be randomly chosen and that the others be equally spaced through out the year. This would have resulted in sampling periods of May, September, and January, not May, October, and April. Notwithstanding these problems I applied the spread sheets in the publication to calculate the sampling error. The result was +/-19.3% and the operations estimate was 7734. Hence annual operations are estimated to be between 6241 and 9227. Comparison of State and Log Estimates ( Table 3) I made an arithmetic mistake in my previous comparison of the State and Log estimates. It turns out that 20 minus 6 is 14 not 15. In the revised Table 3 which is attached, I also used log data for the airport open hours to correct the Mar-June 99 estimate. The resulting corrected estimate for the year is 7328. A summary of the revised comparison is that the first two sampling periods resulted in compensating errors: the first period (5/98) was too low and the second period (10/98) was too high. Airport Ops Projection The attached spread sheet, Airport Open Monthly Operations and Airport Ops Estimates, contains of operations logged by the airport supervisor. Touch and go operations are counted as one landing and one take-off. I went back and adjusted the Nov-98 to Nov-99 period to comply with this method of counting. The rest of the months came either from adding machine tapes prepared by Dave Thorpe each month or from counts I made from the DOT files in Ukiah. I then calculated percent annual increases for two "years" Jul-Jun which is the year the state said they were estimating and May-Apr which seems to be the year they actually estimated. The results average about 10% per year! Applying these increases to 7300 operations gives the numbers of operations shown at the bottom of the sheet It is pretty clear that 1999 and 2000 have been boom years. Activity at Little River has reflected a resurgence in general aviation, which, by the way, seems to be easing a bit. To get a more representative long term growth projection we need to find something which is proportional to airport activity over a longer period of time in the past. I plan to investigate fuel sales, Mendo Stage sales, and transient tiedown fees. Any other ideas? For what it's worth, the 1990 LRP used 3-4% per year with no documented justification ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Heike Arnold Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 2:07 PM To: tim.scully Cc: Janelle Rau (E-mail) Subject: RE: Public Resources Committee Meeting and Airport Advisory Committee Hi Tim - We have not had Committee meetings this month - as a result your issue will most likely not be agendized until the September 17, 2001 Public Resources Committee Meeting. We will keep you posted. Thanks so much - Heike -----Original Message----- From: tim.scully Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 9:55 AM To: arnoldh ; tim.scully Subject: RE: Public Resources Committee Meeting and Airport Advisory Committee I wrote to you on July 27 asking if the Little River Airport Advisory Committee could be agendized for the Public Resources Committee. Can you tell me for which meeting are we likely to be agendized? Thank you! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Scully Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 2:52 PM To: Tim Scully; 'landb Subject: RE: Dog Park It looks like September 17 (but we won't know for sure until later). > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Scully > Sent: August 14, 2001 6:16 PM > To: 'landb '; Tim Scully > Subject: RE: Dog Park > > > I haven't heard a reply from the clerk of the board yet. I'll > send her an email and ask if we have been agendized. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bob Rodriguez > > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 5:11 PM > > To: tim.scully > > Subject: Dog Park > > > > > > Tim, > > I have been trying to find out the schedule for the next > county Public > > Resources Committee meeting. > > Do you know when the next meeting is? How can I find out if or when > > we(the dog park) are on the agenda? > > thanks > > >