Kenneth A. Brody, Senior Planner   
 Lead Consultant for Project   

David Dietz, AICP, Director of   
 Planning Projects

Walter Gillfillan, Principal & President   
 Workshop facilitator & SMA subcontractor

 John Jackson, Vice-Chairman  
 Virginia Shaeffer, member

 Robert (Bob) Drake, Planner  
 Brian Horne, Airport Administrative Aide 

Talin Aghazarian, Assistant Planner, City of Concord   
Dennis Pisila, Senior Planner, Contra Costa Water District

SMA stated that they had been asked a very good question prior to the meeting as to why there were no handouts available for the public.  SMA said, at this point, they were simply gathering information and felt the presentation boards could be relied upon for study.  Ken Brody did most of the talking for SMA, so when SMA is referred to it means Ken Brody speaking unless otherwise indicated.  

SMA:  We have passed the half way point of the project.  All the data gathering and analysis is complete.  The next step is to review the comments made at the workshop  
and pass a draft copy to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC).  A  few points were then made about ALUCs: 

 1. They have been required of each county by the state since 1970. 
 2. The purpose is to help airports from having conflicting land uses. 
 3. They have no authority over the operation of an airport. 
 4. They have no jurisdiction over existing land uses even if those existing uses 
     are in conflict. 
 5. They have no power to implement their own Master Plan. 

Compatibility Planning Concepts: 

Noise: 
1. CNEL is used to measure the noise level.  (Charted on Noise Contour Maps). 
2. Nature of compatibility:  Disruption of human activities by loud aircraft noise. 
3. Land Use compatibility. 

Safety Issues: 
1. Addressed in terms of risks to people and property on ground. 
2. Accident survivability 
3. Avoidance of structures and uses for which evacuation is difficult. 
4. Provide open (space) areas close (adjacent) to the airport.  

Airspace Protection: 
1. Standards are set by the Federal Aviation Administration regarding such things as: 
visual hazards (glare and smoke) and uses that attract birds. 

Overflights: 
1. This category is a catch-all type.  It reflects things such as human annoyance with frequent overflights. 

Land Use Measures: 

Land Use Measures are available for addressing the above referenced  concerns by establishing buyer awareness with measures such as: 

1.  Aviation Easement Dedication 
2.  Deed Notification  
3.  Real Estate Disclosure 

Currently there is nothing in the existing 1984 Airport Master Plan that addresses these land use measures.  In terms of compatibility at Buchanan Field, there is not much to address since the area is all built out.  There are limits to the height of structures such as in the City of Concord where the structures in the downtown area cannot exceed 106 ft. in height.  Therefore, any object (structure) up to 50 ft. would be acceptable.  Other structures are acceptable if they are overshadowed by taller structures.  It is a halo effect. 

Level of Risk Acceptable to the Community (Safety Zones): 

1. Safety Zone Area where there are no structures to be located (like runways). 
2. Safety Zone Area in existing plan which allows 30 people per acre, no shopping centers, and no residential uses.  In the last 15 years, there have been some changes at the airport.  This area is represented in a trapezoidal shape. 

Noise & Overflight: 

The Noise Contour Map has been updated and the contours are smaller than they were 15 years ago.  With new technology, private planes are now quieter.  Noise levels can be up to 55 decibels for new residences.  New residences in the 60 decibel range would have deed restrictions but it is not a problem with Buchanan Field since there is no land to develop around the airport. 

Overflight Analysis: 

The proximity to the airport will be disclosed.   The area of proximity  will extend out a couple of miles from the airport.  The county and the cities will be involved as part of the planning process.   They know where the overflights are since they do not always follow the noise contours maps.   Every real estate transaction will note the proximity to the airport. 

In closing, SMA emphasized the preliminary nature of their work.  They stated that they had met with the Pacheco MAC to obtain input.  Nothing has been presented to the ALUC to date.  County staff has just seen their report and recommendations.  It is not 
set in concrete. 

Dave Dietz of SMA:  There will be no handouts until the ALUC has given their blessing. 
They do not want to confuse the public.  Failure to distribute handouts was not an oversight.  We want everything to be as clean and clear as possible.  We do not want multiple drafts to have to be created for this report. 

SMA:   Can provide a straight answer.   Adjustments can be made. 

David Driscoll(?):   Involved in the property as we worked with a developer.  75-80% could have been developed and expanded out further.  Questioned the impact on the development.

Dale Adams:  There is flexibility?  Will the determination by made by the ALUC? 

SMA:  There is flexibility in the building design.  There can be an issue about the value of what the property is worth.  What use could you make of the site?  It has to be uses based on the real world. 

Dale Adams:  Does this allow the ALUC to determine this? 

(I have no answer to this question – too many people talking to hear). 

Unidentified Man:  As a casual and unsophisticated person, I have some questions: 
Have you expanded the safety zone around the airport?  If there are less flights today than in 1984, why has the safety zone been expanded?  Restates his question:  is there a greater impact? 

SMA: Simply, the risk hasn’t changed.  Only our knowledge about the risk has changed. Our knowledge has changed 

Hal Yeager, People Over Planes:  Makes statement that air traffic is down 50% and accidents in the county are down 40%.  There are less crashes per 100,000 hours of operation.  He questions the lack of handouts for the workshop since they are useful in understanding the master plan update.  There was no way to have any  advance knowledge of what was going to be proposed.  Refers to an airport plan done up north (Travis Areo Club ),  People Over Planes (POP) has set up a web site.  Since a handout wasn’t provided for the workshop, he would like to make available for people attending the workshop a handout developed by POP regarding the subject.  The website is listed on the handout. 

Question from Man in Audience:   There were 288 overflights (per day) in the west at 600 feet, a low-altitude, over Pacheco in the Mobile Home park.  Do the noise contours reflect these overflights? 

SMA:  Noise from the helicopter overflights wasn’t taken. 

Repeat of Question:  There is a constant noise problem there. 

SMA:  There is an individual footprint in helicopter activity on a chart.  Helicopter flights compared to fixed wing air flights. 

Man from Mobile Home Park:  Did you make a comparison between fixed wing and helicopter flights? 

SMA:  We did make a comparison.  The noise contour readings (map) were done to FAA standards.  Measurements were made in the field.  We were in a field with and had a meter.  

Question:  Over 300 flights done at low altitude – is that not a safety factor for people?

Question from the Hillcrest Neighborhood Association:  What would trigger a deed restriction?  Would that affect permits if a house burned down?  

SMA:  That would require discretionary approval.  Fixed wing airplanes have never been a noise problem.  Helicopters can be annoying. 

Man from Audience:  I am constantly complaining by phone and by sending letters out and you will continue to hear from me.  Fixed wing – helicopters:  both with overflights are a mistake to live with.  I will continue to speak out. 

Don Mount, Concord:  Can the ALUC adjust the two mile restriction placed around Buchanan Field?  Would it take 4/5 vote of the cities to override the recommendations? 
With a two mile legal notification process (via deed restriction, easements and disclosure at time of sale or transfer of property), will the County notify everyone within the two mile circle of Buchanan Field that this matter could affect their property values? 

SMA:  That would be the jurisdiction of the title companies, real estate mortgage firms and real estate agents.  The ALUC will not do that. 
Dee Kilcoyne:  As a resident of Clyde I wish to inform you that our town has been subject to overflights during the past 3-4 years.  Yet when our residents complain we are informed that nothing has changed in the past 15 years and just obtain the aircraft’s numbers and telephone them in to your complaint line.  Your complaint line with it's numerous menus is designed to frustrate anyone and no one can read an aircraft number in the middle of the night. 

Hal Yeager:  I suggest that the residents of Clyde work with the Noise Monitor (Brian Horne) from the airport.  He can solve the problem. 

Marcus O’Connell, Concord Neighborhood Alliance:  If deed restrictions are forced on properties within a two mile radius of the airport, could there not be a 10-15% devaluation in  real properties affected by this proposal? 

Answer could not be heard or understood. 

Hal Yeager:  Diablo Valley College was built after the airport.  But it raises a question:  If a school would be subject to an earthquake or other hazard, could a new school be rebuilt on the same site if it is subject to the new regulations proposed under your safety zones? 

SMA:  We haven’t yet defined  those policies, yet it will be considered. 

Unidentified Man in Audience:  Since there is declining airport activity during recent years, have you tied your recommendations to any certain activity level of the airport?

Dale Adams:  I have a two-part question instead of a long one.  If the SE runway is open in only good weather conditions, are those using  the NE runway depending on instrument landings? 

SMA:  All aircraft can circle. 

Dale Adams:  Something about CAL Trans & all #2 being of equal size (?).  Instrument landings result in a higher level of accidents. 

Dave Dietz of SMA:  Our analysis data is based in terms of absolute risk.  It probably could be developed mathematically. 

Man from Audience:  That is gobbly-gook. 

Another Man from Audience:  You could have put out a handout – you are talking about a 2 mile circle around the airport , not a blue colored contour as shown on your display chart. 

Hal Yeager:  If we built an airport and no one used it…yet the issue is relative risk versus absolute risk.   The original area has been maintained. You have just moved the runways out?  Is this a cookie-cutter: using only relative risk?  Exactly what levels of risk do we have to look at? 

Answer:  none that I could understand. 

Unidentified Man from Audience:  Will your report discuss the airport’s proximity to Mt. Diablo and the possible risk associated with it ?  

Dee Kilcoyne:  I would like to know what environmental certification will be required by this report?  Will it subject to not only CEQA but also NEPA since the airports receive Federal funding?  Who will act as the lead agency? 

Answer:  Only subject to CEQA and the ALUC will act as lead agency for certification. 

Dee K:  I have a request to make of the consulting firms:  that they address the issue of possible water contamination for Contra Costa County and Alameda County  if an aircraft accident would occur on either the CCWD or EBMUD main conduits.  The environmental document for the master plan should also discuss the possible impacts on the wetlands and Suisun Bay located to the north of Buchanan Field.  Overflights over the Clyde area if one should result in aircraft failure could mean that Clyde residents are cut off from any means of evacuation or communication since there is only one means of ingress or egress from the town.  The former Concord Naval Weapon Station is now a detachment of  Seal Beach and communication from a long distance can be difficult especially since the base is converting to army use instead of navy. 

Man from audience:  Get rid of the helicopters, 

Hal Yeager:  Does this plan put on new restrictions?  Is this the target?  While it may occur up the road, is it still applicable to the area?

Question about a non-conforming property.  Are you saying this is not an issue over existing properties?  Only new construction? 

Hal Yeager:  This effects the property.  Today, you can rebuild this property at will.  The next day, you cannot rebuild at will.  In the future, however it will affect your property. 

Man in Audience:  This will affect property values? 

Don  Mount:  Let us be clear that safety has improved at the airport.  The ALUC will be deciding on these recommendations.  After they make their recommendation,  where does it go?  What is the process?  Perhaps 5,000 people will be affected. 

Hal Yeager:  We both have process questions:  1.  There was a newspaper article in today's paper.  2.  There was a Letter to the Editor.  But would that really make the public aware of this workshop.  How much would a 4 x 6 inch ad in the CC Times or Chronicle cost? 

Discussion held about adequate public notification to all parties that may be affected by the ALUC decision.  County staff states that they are not required to notify everyone within 300 ft. of the airport, since the publication in a public newspaper is sufficient. 

Marcus O’Connell:  I requested to be on the mailing list for any public meetings regarding this matter but only found out about this meeting by reading an article in today's  newspaper. How does one get on the county's notification list? 

Bob Drake, Contra Costa County:  Send a written request to me and you will be placed 
on the mailing list. 

Don Mount:  Why is there no sign in sheet that would serve as the basis for a future mailing list for upcoming meetings? 

Marcus O’Connell:  As a sign of your good grace, why can’t a sign in sheet be used for people who wish to receive written notification of future meetings regarding this matter? 

Bob Drake, CCC:  If you send me a written request to my address, you will be placed on the list to receive notices of future meetings. 

Mike, Lafayette:  I’m a pilot.  I see a coming problem with property rights if  you encumber property with restrictions.  10 to 20 years ago there were not as many lawyers.   I can’t believe this problem is unique to Concord – how is it being received in other communities? 

SMA:    It varies quite widely. Varies from severe restrictions to none.  ALUCs were established by the State of California in 1967.  In some cases, ALUC were established deliberately and some with a lack of knowledge regarding the law.

Hal Yeager:  Asks a question regarding the structure of new buildings: (cost to prevent loss of lives if a small plane crashes into one).  

Man in Audience in red coat:  Have you done a plot analysis of airplane crashes since 1950? 

SMA:  The Federal government is not interested unless the land use regarding the crash contributes to the accident. 

Man in red coat:  I’m not interested in nationwide, I want to see local accident statistics. 

SMA:  Most of the statistics contain insufficient information.  If you look at all fatalities, you need to know if they were on board or on ground.  People based fatalities  are usually related to the airport and not the land use around the airport. 

Workshop facilitator, WGA:  We look at overall safety.  Is there a cluster or a group?  What is the probability of an accident?  Probably it is at the 3rd level, not zero.  If one person should be hospitalized – then that’s the risk level.  Each community has to judge and decide what they  will accept.  Each community has to look into what it will tolerate.  You had a terrible accident here in the past (referring to the December 23, 1985 air crash at Sun Valley Mall).  The community must be willing to accept the risk. 

Hal Yeager:  Would radar have prevented that accident? 

WGA:   The issue is acceptance of the risk level not only at Buchanan Field but at Byron and airports such as Sacramento. 

(End of Meeting)