The ALUC Commission will meet on April 12.  The Agenda is
AGENDA
1. Call to order / Approval of Minutes
2. Public Comment
3. Status of Plan Update Preparation -- Staff Report
4. Appointment to the vacant General Public seat on the Commission
  4a. Commission interviews of Candidates: Carl S. Burns, J. Philip Day, Benjamin T. Lakes II, Troy Meyers
  4b. Commission Nomination and Appointment to vacant seat

5.  Proposed resolution to adopt Guidelines for Commission Administration of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
6.  Election of Commission Officers
7.  Staff Report on Proposed Legislation -- Senate Bill 1084
8.  Aviation Advisory Committee Report
9.  Commissioner Reports
10. Adjournment
To comment on any of theses items, fill out a green speaker's sheet with
your name, address, and agenda item.  The real estate disclosure item
would come under item #2. 

The ALUC Commission will meet on December 8-th
AGENDA for the December 8th meeting is as follows- 
  1. Call to Order/Approval of July 14, 1999 Minutes 
  2. 2. Public Comments 
  3. Study Session on Update of Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan 
    3a. Review of County October 13 and November 13 Workshops 
    3b. Review of Alternative to the Preliminary Recommendations from the Consultant (Ken Brody, Shutt-Moen) 
    3c. Input from Commission on Suggested Content on the Staff Proposal to be Formulated and subsequently scheduled for  Noticed Public Hearing. 
  4. Communications 
    4a. Correspondence from William Goodman (sic, should be Wayne Goodman) and staff response. 
  5. Aviation Advisory Committee Representative Report 
  6. Commissioner Reports 
  7. Adjournment 

_________________________________________________ 

Status of the Update Process as of 12/2/99.
It appears that the December 8-th meeting will be a watershed meeting (and a long meeting). Editor's post-meeting note: It was.   Ken Brody from Shutt-Moen Associates states that the Commission is near the end of its funding for this matter, and that he needs definite instructions now as to whether his preliminary proposed plan is to be modified, and if so to what degree, in order to keep within the remaining budget.  Long ago we had feared that the money would run out before all the issues were conveyed to the public and considered, and that the community would be forced to accept a half-considered plan.  This appears to be exactly what is going to happen.  At the Commission's July meeting, we urged the Commission to roll up its sleeves and immerse itself in the details of the proposed plan, and to then conduct several more meetings with the public (without the expensive consultant present) to come to a full hearing on this matter with the public.  We will again urge the commission to do this at the December 8-th meeting. Editor's post meeting note: Ken Brody took an informal pole of the commissioners on 9 areas of contraversy.  One of which was the real estate disclosure.  Two commissioners were for it, one was strongly against, one was ambivolent, one was silent, and two were absent.

This may be an important meeting, and worth attending if these matters concern you.  If you cannot attend, you may e-mail your comments to us at peopleplanes@yahoo.com and we will see if the Commission will allow us to read them into the record or submit them to them. 

The Packet for the December 8th ALUC meeting may be viewed at our Website 
at: Packet for the December 8rd ALUC meeting
Editor's post meeting note: this packet lays out the nine areas of contraversy.

In a letter to Mr. Goodwin contained in the Packet, ALUC staff planner Bob Drake states: 
"Much of the background work for the plan review has been completed.  However, only a preliminary set of recommendations from the plan consultant [Ken Brody of Shutt-Moen] had been developed (which were discussed at the recent public workshops).  There is no firm schedule for the Commission's hearing of a proposed update to the plan, and one will not be set until a staff-proposal has been formulated.  A public hearing on a plan update will not be scheduled until at least February 2000." 

We note that the the "public hearing" that Bob Drake refers to will probably more formal and structured than the November 3-rd workshop.  You will likely only get a single three-minute time slot to make your comments. 

In the handout for the November 3-rd workshop, Ken Brody provided several alternatives to various components of his proposed plan.  For those of you who did not receive this handout, it has been posted at our website at: 
November 3rd Workshop Handout

Mr. Goodman also asked Mr. Drake for background information on the Commissioners and who they represent.  Mr. Drake's answer is contained in his reply letter in the packet.  We think that it is important to point out that four of the seven ALUC commissioners either own or use aircraft base at Buchanan Field (Commissioners Manning, Schaefer, Jackson, and Robinson).  One of the three non-pilot Commissioners, Paul Cooper, has indicated to us that he has submitted his resignation from Commission now that he is retiring from the Pleasant Hill City Council.  Commissioner Cooper's appointment is provided by the City Select Committee, formally the Mayor's conference.  His alternate, Dennis Mesick, will take his place until the City Select Committee makes a new appointment. 

From the November 3-rd meeting, it become clear that many people were concerned about the real estate disclosure component of the proposed update plan.  There have been questions as to why the Consultant is proposing to institute a real-estate disclosure policy at this time.  The consultant stated that prospective homebuyers may realize that a property is near an airport, but may visit it on a day where the wind causes the planes to take-off in the opposite direction from the property.  The real estate disclosure would address this by advising the prospective buyer that the property is "subject to routine over flight by aircraft at or below pattern altitude." 

The following excerpt from "Airport noise pollution: Is there a solution in sight?",  by Kristin L. Falzone, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review ( PBCE ) , v26 n4 , pp. 769-807 at p. 787,  Summer 1999, suggests another potential reason for instituting real estate disclosures: 

"First, the noise exposure maps enable airport operators to limit potential liability for noise pollution by notifying potential purchasers of property near the airport of the possibly high noise levels.  Purchasers of property near an airport with a noise exposure map are limited in recovering damages because they are presumed to have had actual or constructive knowledge of the noise exposure map.  The only way a purchaser can overcome this presumption is to show that there has been a significant change in the type or frequency of aircraft operations at the airport, airport layout, flight patterns, or an increase in night operations, and that the damages resulted from this change or increase." 

While the proposed real estate disclosure is not the same as a noise exposure map, it might be that the proposed real estate disclosure would serve as a form of constructive notice that would make it more difficult to for residents to sue an airport over increased aircraft noise.  If this is true, it could be argued that any action which would make it more difficult for a property owner to seek redress for impacts to his/her property would tend to devalue the property. 
_________________________________________________ 

Status of the Update Process as of 8/12/99.
 The August 1999 ALUC meeting has been canceled. 

ALUC staff has tentatively scheduled the public workshops for September 22 in Byron at the Byron Airport, and for September 29 in Central County at the Pacheco Community Center (5800 Pacheco Blvd.)  Both days are Wednesdays.  These dates have now been pushed back to Wednesday October 13, 1999 for the Byron meeting, and Wednesday November 3, 1999 for the Buchanan meeting at the Pacheco Community center.

At the July Meeting, The Commission received a report from the consultant on the proposed plan and the issues involved.  The commission received comments from the cities of Concord and Pleasant Hill, and from People Over Planes.  The city 
of Concord questioned the need for the 3 story height limit on building in view of the existing FAR PART 77 height limits that are now in place.  The City of Pleasant Hill requested clarification as to the definitions of "non-conforming" and "incompatible" uses, and as to the meanings of "devoted to an existing land use".  POP questioned why the consultant was using lengths on the Safety Zones 2 which where for runways of more than 6,000 ft when Buchanan's longest runway is 5,010 ft. 

In comparison to the initial plan presented by the Consultant in December 1998, the latest version of the plan shortens the distance of the Safety Zone 2 which previously covered the Solano Drive In Theater, and shortens the distance of the 
Safety Zone 2 which previously covered the Bisso Property on Concord Ave.  The shortening was done in recognition that the approaches to the runways associated with these safety zones have displaced landing thresholds, and are therefore 
shorter than the full length of the runways.  The consultant also floated the suggestion that the ALUC commission undertake the responsibility of the real estate disclosure process rather than charging the cities and county with this responsibility.  The real estate disclosure process would entail periodic requests to local Realtors that they notify prospective home buyers that a property is subject to routine overflights from Buchanan Field if the property is within 2.6 miles of an airport runway. 

 We note that the real estate disclosure policy will probably be controversial. 

2.  Public Comments 

3. Staff reports 
  3A.  Manager of Airports Response to Commission Inquiry on the "Relocation" of the end of Runway 1L. 
  3B.  Review of Draft "Issues Paper" on Airport Plan Update. 
    1.  The plan consultant will be present to review the contents of the Draft paper. 
    2. 6/11/99 letter from the City of Concord on the draft "Issues" paper. 
  3C.  Review of Additional Workshops on Airport Plan Update. 

4. Communications. 

5. Aviation Advisory Committee Representative Report. 

6. Commissioner Reports. 

7. Adjournment.

There will be an ALUC meeting Wednesday, June 9. 1999, at 7:30pm,
Board of Supervisors, Room 107, 651 Pine Street Martinez. Ca.

There does not appear to be any substantive items on the agenda. Staff is currently waiting for funds authorization from CalTRANS before they can proceed with negotiating an amended contract with Shut-Moen Associates.  The funds authorization is expected "within a few days".  If the authorization comes through in time, the following schedule can be adopted: 
  *distribute the final Issues Paper to the Commission and the Public by June 25, 1999. 
  * allow the Commission to review the Issues Paper with the consultant at the July 7, 1999, meeting. 
  * hold additional public workshops later in July, at least 30 days after notice have been published. 

The agenda is provided below, along with highlights from the staff report. 

1. Call to order/ approval of May 1999 meeting minutes. 

2. Public comment. 

3.  Staff Reports 

  3A. Report on Compliance with Brown Act. 
  Staff recommends that the Commission follow either one of the following practices: 
    3A.1.  Following any initial staff report on an agenda item, and before any action is taken by the   Commission, invite members of the public to comment on the item 
    3A.2   At the start of the meeting, the chairman should announce that there are speaker cards for the public to fill out, and that the chairman will call on the cards as required. 

    B. Status of Airport Plan Review -- Letter of County Community Development Director responding to the Chairman's prior letter. 

 The community Development Director has adjusted Bob Drake's staffing responsibilities to give Bob Drake (ALUC Staff) more time to dedicate to the ALUC project. 

 Staff has received authorization from the Board of Supervisors to modify the contract with the consultant Shut-Moen Associates. 

 Staff has executed an amendment to the existing Grant Agreement with the CalTRANS Div. of Aeronautics to provide funding for the increased scope of work for the project.  The amendment is currently being processed by CalTRANS. 

 Staff has issued payments to the consultant for prior invoices. 

 Staff is currently waiting for funds authorization from CalTRANS before they can proceed with negotiating an amended contract with Shut-Moen Associates.  The funds authorization is expected "within a few days". 

4. Communications. 

5 Aviation Advisory Report 

6. Commissioner Reports 

7. Adjournment 
 

The Contra Costa Airport Land Use Commission met on May 12, 1999. 
Here is a summary of the issues raised and actions taken at the meeting. 

(1)  The consultant (Shut-Moen) remains unpaid, and refuses to continue work until he is paid and his contract is amended. 

(2)  It was discovered that a funding check from the State of California for this project has been lost.  This is the reason that the consultant has not been paid.  Staff is seeking a re-sending of the check.  This will require more paperwork. 

(3)  Staff does not know when these problems will be fixed and when the process will get back on track.  (Three months ago, we predicted that the process will be delayed by 3 months do to cost overruns; we predict another three month delay.) 

(4)  A draft "Issues Paper" has been prepared and sent to ALUC Staff last month.  However, staff has not had a chance to review it for accuracy, and therefore has not distributed it to the Commissioners.  Several Commissioners requested that the paper be distributed to them, but staff was reticent to distribute it because it would then have to be provided to members of the public.  Commissioner Cooper noted that the draft Issues Paper could probably be obtained by a member of the public under the California Public Records Act, and for that reason staff should not hesitate to distribute it to the Commissioners and the public.  The Commissioners asked staff to research Mr. Cooper's point and see if the draft could be obtained by the public under the Records Act, and whether it could be distributed to the Commissioners without distribution to the public. 

(5)  Concord City Manager Ed James addressed the Commissioners, amplifying the comments of his March 9th letter to the commission.  Mr. James urged that the process be opened up to enable  the cities and members of the public to provide input to the process.  While recognizing the economic importance of Buchanan Field, Mr. James urged to commission to seek a balance with other competing needs.  Mr. James also questioned the need for new real estate disclosure requirements for lage areas of Concord. 

(6)   Hal Yeager of People Over Planes followed up on Mr. James request to make the process more open by expressing concern that having the consultant appear at every public meeting would pose an economic barrier to having several public meetings to make the process more open.  Mr. Yeager urged that the Commission and its staff hold several meetings, on their own and without the consultant, to discuss and take input on the issues found in the Issues Paper, taking a few issues at each meeting.  This would require the Commission and staff to become more knowledge about the issues and airport land use planning.  There was no immediate response from the Commission from this proposal. 

The scheduling for the next meeting is in limbo.

In other ALUC news, the city manager of Concord (Ed James) wrote a letter to the Chairman of the 
ALUC (Bill Manning) expressing concerns over a number of issues.  Mr. James states that the city has had a "productive working relationship" with the ALUC and hopes to continue to have one with the ALUC one this issue as well as future issues.  Mr. James outlined Concord's goals for the airport as follows: 
 "Buchanan Field Airport is an asset to Concord and Contra Costa County.  Realization of the development potential of the Central Concord area and the maintenance of the viability of the airport is a goal of the City.  Any airport use expansion or modification should not be detrimental to land development in Concord nor pose noise or safety concerns to persons or land uses." 

On other issues, Mr. James states: 
  "[w]e have become very concerned about the ALUC plan for Buchanan Field Airport....  We have sent staff to attend workshops and Bob Drake of your staff came here to brief us on the preparation of the new plan.  However, we have been told very little about the proposed plan.  It appears that the ALUC is keeping this plan under wraps and will unveil it to the public at some unknown future date.  We have heard that the ALUC is considering height regulations which would make some existing buildings non-conforming uses.  Also, we understand that your consultant is recommending noise disclosure statements for thousands of properties in Concord.  We definitely want the opportunity to discuss these and other issues with your Commission and your consultant." 

Mr. James continues: 
 "We urge you to open the planning process to the public.  For your plan to be successful and represent the views and aspirations of the public, it must be developed with public input at workshops, community meetings, and similar gatherings.  The process must be public.  It must take into consideration established development patterns in our community.  The development of planning policies and standards should be done in coordination with affected jurisdictions, namely Concord, Pleasant Hill and Contra Costa County." 

We have posted this letter under our "Official Notices" section of the site. Click Here to see it.

An ALUC meeting will be held this 
Wednesday, February 10, 1999, 7:30pm, Room 107, 
Board of  Supervisors, 651 Pine Street, Martinez Ca. 

The major discussion will be on the funding short fall of 20K, and options for completing the project.  The project ran over because of additional work in assembling parcel maps, and extra effort in preparing graphics boards on the encouragement of county staff.  Staff has obtained 5K of funds from the County Community Development Department, and sent a letter on 2/5/99 to CalTRANS Division of Aeronautics requesting a supplement funding of 15K.  Staff hopes to hear from CalTRANS by the time of the Feb 10-th meeting.  Staff has outlined 5 possible options for proceeding 

A: Save costs by eliminating further public workshops, but maintain the last noticed public hearing. 

B: Obtain the additional funding and kept the further public workshops.  Some delay may be needed in order to secure the additional funding. 

C: Save money by proceeding with ONLY the Byron plan, and eliminate further public workshops.  The Buchanan Field plan would be deferred to a later, unknown date. 

D: Try to persuade the consultant to do the additional workshops at no cost. 

E: Seek a new consultant to complete the work with the remainder of the budget. 

Staff Recommends Option B. 
 

The Agenda is: 
1. Call to order/adoption of Jan. 13, 1999 minutes. 
2. Public comment. 
3. Review of Administrative Option for Completion of the Comprehensive Land Use Update Plan (public comment and Action Item) 
4. Staff reports. 
5. Aviation Advisory Representative Report 
6. Commissioner Reports. 
7. Adjournment.

Staff reported that the CalTRANS Division of Aeronautics has committed to funding the short fall for the update plans.  The commissioners voted to proceed with the plans for both airports (Option B). 

The project consultant, Ken Brody, made last-minute appearance at the meeting, and the Commission took advantage of his appearance and hashed out with him a schedule for advancing the projected forward.  The tentative schedule of events is as follows: 

    April 1 -- an "issues paper" will be completed and sent to the Commissioners, and made available to the public.  The issues paper will focus on current and proposed land-use incompatibilities, and the issues related thereto.  For example, the location of the runway ends, and perhaps how they were moved or not properly documented in the EIR for the 1989 master plan, may be an issue for Buchanan field. 

The Staff person for the ALUC, Bob Drake, should be willing to send you a copy of this issues paper when it is available.  He can be reached at 925-335-1214. 

  April 14 -- The ALUC commission will meet to review the issues paper.  It is possible that they would take public input on the matter. 

  In the last two weeks of April -- public workshops will be held at Buchanan and Byron to take input on the issues paper and the consultant's proposed plans for both airports. 

  July 1 -- from the proposed plans and the input at the public workshops, draft plans for the airports will be drafted so that they can be presented to the Commission during the July meeting. 

A formal public hearing will the follow in July or August.  The date of this public hearing will probably be set by the commission in their may meeting.  Formal adoption will then follow after the formal public hearing.  Once adopted, the local jurisdictions will have 6 months to either amend their general plans to conform to the ALUC plans, or override the plans with a 2/3rds vote. 

On another but related matter, ALUC staff reported that the commissions questions about how the runway lengths have been changed since the last ALUC plan have been referred to the Airport Manager for an answer.

1. Commission Staff summarized the issued raised at the Buchanan Field and Byron workshops held on December 3 and 1, respectively, 1998. 

2. Many commissioners expressed their displeasure that they have not yet been provided with copies of the Consultant's plan. 
    (Click here to see our best recollection of the consultant's proposal: 
      The Consultant's Proposal as presented at the Dec. 3rd Workshop ) 

3. Commission staff indicated that the consultant had exhausted his budget for this phase of the project, indicated that additional unanticipated tasks were identified, and that it would probably require and additional $20K to complete the project.  Commission staff indicated that they are exploring additional sources of funds, and were cautiously optimistic that additional funds could be procured.  Nonetheless, the need for additional money will probably delay the project. 

In POP's opinion, the need for additional funding could potentially put the project in limbo for the next three months.

4.  There was a brief discussion as to when and how the runway thresholds at Buchanan field were pushed out.  In the December 3-rd workshop, the consultant indicated that the runway thresholds at Buchanan Field had been shifted outward since the last ALUC plan was enacted.  These runway changes have the effect of pushing out the safety zone's in the consultant proposal, and directly affect the following four properties: The Pleasant Hill shopping Center (Target and Toys R Us), the Bisso property, Syufy's Solano Drive In Theater, and Tosco.  However, the consultant was not able to provide details about when and how the changes occurred. 

There are three major components to the consultant's proposal for Buchanan Field: 
   1.  Create a home buyer awareness program which would apply to all homes within 2.6 miles of the airport runways.  While the details of this program are sketchy at this time, it would likely entail new real estate disclosure requirements. 
   2.  Extend each of the four existing safety zones by 300 ft.  This affects the Bisso property in Concord, the Solano Drive In, and the Target and Toys-R-Us stores in Pleasant Hill. 
   3.  Create relatively large zones at the ends of the main runways which limits building heights to three (3) stories, or less.  This applies to a number of properties in Concord and Pleasant Hill.  However, as we understand, Pleasant Hill already has a 3-story height limit in the affect area. 

Since the consultant has not officially presented his proposal to the Airport Land Use Commission, he did not provide copies of the proposal for public distribution.  We have generated a web page which describes the consultant's proposal to the best of our recollection. 

Click here to view the consultant's proposal:  The Consultant's Proposal.

Since this plan is being done, in major part, to reduce the probability of injuries and fatalities due to aircraft accidents, POP pointed out to the consultant that fixed-wing operations at Buchanan Field have decreased by 55% over the the last 20 years, and that nationwide general-aviation (GA) accident rates and fatalities have decreased 40% over the last 20 years.  POP further pointed out that these two factors have lead to a four-fold reduction (73%) in accident risks at Buchanan field over the last 20 years. 
(Click here for a comparison of conditions in 1978 and 1998 at Buchanan Field: Then and Now)
 

When asked why new restrictions were needed in view of decreased activity at Buchanan field and decreased accident rates nationwide, the consultant indicated that a State study in 1992-1993 found that Americans were living with more accident risks around airports than was initially thought. 
Click here to read Dee Kilcoyne's short-hand notes of the meeting: Dee Kilcoyne's Notes.