10/22/95 report on events since 10/15 meeting Tim Scully report on 10/16/95 Planning, Transportation, Health and Welfare Committee ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I attended the 10/16 meeting of the Planning, Transportation, Health and Welfare Committee meeting and made a verbal report to the Supervisors. I told them that we didn't believe we'd be able to reach closure on all airport issues before January. They said this was all right as long as we make as much progress as practical. They said it was all right for citizens to talk to the press about incidents such as the vandalism of the runway lights. They asked what could be done to limit access to the airport and I told them about John's suggestion of large rocks and about the possibility of a grant for fencing. Charles said that he was most intensely interested in the possibility of a grant to pay for the fuel tank removal as a side effect of ramp paving. This would solve some short-term budget problems, giving us more time for a long term solution. They said it makes sense to continue to look into the idea of a campground on the airport, but Charles expressed serious concern about the increase in traffic at the intersection of airport road and highway 1. He said he needs to talk to CalTrans about lowering Highway 1 6 feet to the right of the intersection to improve visibility. He suggested that we write to Rick Knapp, District 1, CalTrans and make a similar suggestion. I told the committee about Susan Winding's report of the envrionmental damage done to properties immediately northwest of the runway, when trees were cut and grading was done some years ago. There is a pond between her house and the runup area for Runway 11 - trees have been falling into this pond as a result of the earlier cutting and silt has been washing into the pond as a result of grading. Her well water is no longer drinkable or even usable for washing laundry. The noise from aircraft running up and departing from 11 has also become much louder due to the loss of the trees which once absorbed sound. I said that the Ad Hoc Committee wants to research the matter, and may end up recommending that some steps be taken to mitigate this situation. These might include asking Public Works if they could have the Conservation Camp crew clean out the pond (removing downed trees) and cut down and remove the trees that are in danger of falling now, when this crew is next on the airport anyway. After suitable research, we may recommend the planting (by a volunteer group) of suitable bushy but short trees to block noise around the runup areas, and possibly planting some suitable ground cover to stabalize the earth. We talked about offshore oil and how the airport could help. Charles suggested that we might want to amend the Airport Master Plan to either specifically say what the airport is intended for and what it is not intended for. I said that something along these lines sounds like a good idea but that we'd have to work our way around FARs which have language about equal access. Charles suggested we might use langauge like "in accordance with public goals established in local coastal plans". I reported on progress on the instrument approach. We agreed that resolving community concerns about this is the major remaining task. I reported briefly on Charles Meinershagen's hangar survey. We agreed that I'd put the data into a spreadsheet and submit that to them soon. The thrust of Charlie's report was that Little River's fees for private hangars are substantially higher than the average for the 30 airports he surveyed, and 6 times higher than Covelo's fees. Frank McMichael said that he thinks of the parking spaces rented to motorhomes on the fairgrounds, were the spaces are rented on a per-foot basis for different size motorhomes. He still thinks that airport users are getting a good deal. I explained that although the users of Little River are sensitive to the current budget crisis, they also are very concerned about seeing a mechanism put in place for controlling expenses on the airport before there are further fee increases - otherwise they fear that any new revenue may be expended, leaving the airport still in the red. The Supervisors asked me to present a written report at their next meeting on November 20th, instead of just reporting verbally. report on conversation with FAA District Office 10/17/95 -------------------------------------------------------- I talked to Mr. Joe Rodriguiz at the FAA District Office in Burlingame. He had received my letter on the proposed noise abatement procedure and the Supervisor's letter of introduction. He said that FAR 150 sets standards for how much noise must exist before a noise ordinance can be passed, and that he was certain that Little River doesn't meet those standards. Thus he urged us not to enact a noise ordinance. But he agreed that a voluntary noise abatement program was appropriate and legal. He said that the FAA would not increase the VASI angle. This is done only to handle obstructions that can't be removed, or in rare FAR 150 noise situations. He concurred that raising pattern altitude and moving the runway 11 runup area are good ideas. He thought that our other noise abatement suggestions were reasonable as long as they remain suggestions. He liked our plans for publishing the suggestions in pilot guides, a brochure and on signs, though he expressed concern that the signs not obstruct taxiing or landing aircraft. We talked briefly about the community's concerns about offshore oil. He reminded me of the "equal access" regulations and covenants. But he also agreed that the Supervisors could amend the Airport Master Plan. I told him we are researching a possible campground for air camping. He expressed concern that the location of the campground be appropriate and that there should be adequate fencing to keep any children on the campground away from the ramp and runway areas were they might get hurt. This led naturally to a discussion of the recent valdalism and the question of a grant for fencing the airport. He said that we could probably get a grant for a 3 strand barbed wire fence (which costs about $4-5 per foot) and a small number of manually operated gates. We'd have to have Part 139 certification to quality for the more expensive Cyclone fencing ($10-15 per foot). He also informed me that Little River is not a Federal airport and that only vandelism of Federal equipment (e.g., the VASI) would be a federal offense. We scheduled a meeting for 10:30 on 10/23 in his office to go over the process of preparing a capital improvement plan. report on correspondence from Public Works ------------------------------------------ Chuck Boyer responded to my two earlier letters. He explained that Public Works is understaffed and will not be able to respond to all of our issues. He did grant authorization fo a volunteer crew to paint the bathroom doors. He supplied figures on fuel costs (the gross margin is $.40 per gallon). And he supplied a list of the items proposed for the State Improvement Plan for the airport. These are his items as stated in the letter. Priority description year cost ------------------------------------------------------------ 1 develop private hangar site 1996 $300,000 2 AC overlay, all paved areas 1996 $912,000 3 Construct tie-down area 1997 $436,000 4 Install airport lighting system 1997 $356,000 5 New operations building 1997 $115,000 6 Land acquisition for clear zones 1998 $480,000 7 Install AWOS system 1998 $60,000 ------------------- total $2,659,000 Chuck did not respond directly to my request for the Ad Hoc Committee to be kept informed about planned expenditures at Little River (so we could suggest less expensive alternatives or offer volunteer labor), but he did send me a copy of the Planning, Transportation, Health and Welfare Committee minutes and stated that he is obliged to go by the official minutes and not by my impressions of what was said. report on conversation with General Services -------------------------------------------- I telephoned Pete Halstad of the County General Services department. The supervisors had suggested that I contact him about the underground fuel tanks. He said that there is no money in the general fund to deal with any of the County's many underground tanks at this time. He welcomes any research we can do on this subject. He'd like us to look into replacement tank options too (e.g., leasing a tank system from a fuel vendor who would assume liability for it). He'd like us to further research options for closing or lining the existing tanks. If a paving grant would pay for tank removal, what if any remediation were needed (due to hidden leakage)? Will a paving grant extend to that? He also asked if we could find out whether the California State cleanup fund (which help remediate in cases that cost over $10,000) would apply to avgas tanks. He said that all three tanks are being tested annually for leaks. I got his mailing address and will report to him via letter after I talk to the FAA next week.