An information group providing the community with information on the operation of Buchanan Field airport from the perspective of the community.

CLICK HERE
FOR IMPORTANT
MEETING NOTICES

1.  Implementation of State-Mandated Airport Noise Real Estate Discosure. The County Airport Land Use Commission is considering a real estate zone that extends 2.65 miles from each airport runway. More information on AB-2776 can be found at: www.defendmyhome.com   .
 

2.  New Airport Master Plan for Buchanan (proposed 8/2001, on hold to 9/2003).
An Airport Master Plan guides the development of vacant land parcels on the airport.  The last Master Plan was adopted in 1990, was geared to developing Buchanan as air-carrier airport, and was intended to last to 2010.  The County Board of Supervisors has the authority to determine the contents of a new Master Plan.  Airport Staff will likely push for developments that it believes will aid in attracting air carrier service and that will further increase the number of corporate jets stationed at Buchanan.  The County lost hundreds of thousands of dollars on the last air carrier, which left the airport in February 1992 (Click here to read the admission by the prior airport manager).  The Board of Supervisors has the option of changing the development direction of Buchanan.  As one option, it can formulate lease policies that encourage the establishment of aviation businesses  that bring money to the County's general fund through sales taxes.  As there are no local sales taxes on airline tickets, air carrier service would not be a significant source of income to the County general fund.

3.  New F.A.R. Part 150 Noise Study for Buchanan (proposed 8/2001, on hold to 9/2003).
As specified in Part 150 of the Federal Air Regulations (FAR), the FAA will fund and/or allow certain noise control programs if a significant portion of the land surrounding the airport is within the very noisy 65 dB CNEL contour line.  The last Part 150 noise study was conducted in 1990, and resulted in a few modest programs.  Since then, the number of properties within the 65 dB CNEL contour line has decreased, and the noise study of the recently completed ALUC study indicates no significant increase in the number of such properties is expected over the next 20 years, even if the number of current jet operations increases by 4 times and if the total number of operations doubles.  Accordingly, we do not see a benefit to the community for conducting the proposed Part 150 study at this time. 

4. Supervisor DeSaulnier's Board Order on noise issues.
Supervisor DeSaulnier is currently focusing his efforts on forming a Round Table to monitor and work on noise issues as they arise.  The Round Table will likely comprise three representative from the aviation community and three representatives from the communities surrounding the airport.  It is proposed that the Round Table meet on a regular basis and take input from the public. 
 

Completed issues.
1. Airport Land Use Plan. At the beginning of 2001, the Airport Land Use Commission completed its Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), which is began over 4 years ago.  The Commission decided to increase the level of building restrictions on new development in selected areas within a mile of the airport, but decided not to implement a proposed real estate disclosure policy that would have extend out 2.5 miles from the airport.

2. Air Carrier Service. (Start ups are defunct)
Since the Last air carrier left in 1991, none of the major airlines have expressed interest in conducting service at Buchanan Field.  Two start-up airlines founding in 1998 have expressed interest in starting service at Buchanan.  However, after nearly four years in existence, neither start-up has been certified by the FAA to fly.  The certification process normally takes 18 months.  In addition, neither airline has made a public presentation since February 2001.  Over the last decade, the County has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars annually maintaining the certificate which permits it to host air carrier service (the Part 139 certificate). 

POP MEETING ALERT December 6, 2003 (4/4)

This is an active week for airport-related meetings.  There are two meetings on Tuesday, and one meeting on  Wednesday.  Of the three, the third meeting (#3) on Wednesday has the highest importance, as that meeting will likely determined the area extent of airport-noise real estate disclosure in the county.

#1.  Tuesday, December 9, 2003, 1:30 PM, Board of
Supervisors Chamber, Room 107, County Admin. Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez
Driving Directions: http://www.oocities.org/peopleplanes/BOS.html

The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider a board order on "Exploring Alternative for Aviation in Contra Costa County." Essentially, the board order proposes to consider "whether increased  investment and use at Byron Airport, coupled with conversion of Buchanan Field to other urban uses, would benefit regional aviation as well as provide other economic, social, and environmental benefits."

A copy of the proposed board order can be obtained courtesy of the Mount Diablo Pilots Association web site: 
http://www.mdpa.org/pdfs/desaulnier.pdf

Importance for Attendance: Moderate to low.  In the end, we believe that the FAA will prevent the County from closing Buchanan (seizing it from the County if necessary), and that this is most likely a moot exercise. 
 

#2.  Tuesday, December 9, 2003, 6:00 PM (TIME CORRECTED), Pacheco Community 
Center, 5800 Pacheo Blvd., Pacheco.
Driving Directions: http://www.oocities.org/peopleplanes/ppc.html

Importance for Attendance: Moderate.

The new Airport Director, Keith Freitas, will hold a public meeting on the upcoming process for drafting an updated master plan for Buchanan.  The master plan process will determine what changes, improvements, and expansions to make to Buchanan.  Despite what decision the Board of Supervisors makes on exploring closure of Buchanan, we do not expect that the master plan will be about closing Buchanan.  The new Airport Director is a refreshing change from prior airport managers, and is willing to listen and work with the community. 
 

#3. Wednesday, December 10, 2003, 7:30 PM, Board of
Supervisors Chamber, Room 107, County Admin. Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez.
Driving Directions: http://www.oocities.org/peopleplanes/BOS.html

The AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION will take steps to set
the area in central county for the new airport-noise real estate disclosure statement mandated under state legislation AB2776.  ALUC staff is recommending to cover 35 square miles around Buchanan, going from Clyde in the north to downtown Pleasant Hill in the south, and from the south segment of Alhambra Ave in the west, to the Concord navel weapons station in the east.
( http://www.defendmyhome.com/bfias.gif )

Importance for Attendance: Highest.  This is your last chance to give your input.

We are not opposed to disclosure of airport impacts when it is done right, fairly, and where the language of the disclosure fairly matches the impacts.  AB 2776 defines properties affected by the noise disclosure as being within "an airport influence area", which the 
legislation defines as "the area in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety, or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses as determined by an airport land use commission."  Under the current land use plan for Buchanan, the only areas where land uses are significantly affected and have corresponding restrictions placed on them are within 1 to 1.5 miles from the ends of the runways 
( http://www.defendmyhome.com/bfsm.gif ).
ALUC Staff's proposal extends out 2.65 miles from all points of the major runways, and has a 4 mile extension to Clyde.

When property in the disclosure zone is sold or leased, the following statement is to be provided to the buyer (usually on the Hazard Disclosure Statement):

"NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY 
This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area.  For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors).  Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person.  You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you. " 
 

There is concern that developers will shy away from doing business developements around airports.  Developers seek to sell projects within a few years of completion to property management corporations and other real-estate savvy entities, not your ordinary home buyer. Such transactions involve a great deal of due diligence and attorney review, in which the definition and implications of "airport influence area" will not go unnoticed or glossed over.  The question is, will a real-estate savvy corporation be willing to pay millions of dollars for a development in an airport influence area when it may not be allowed to rebuild or improve the development in the future (i.e., because "current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety, or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses").  Because of this, one city has argued that the disclosure zone should only include areas which actually have airport-related land use restrictions.  On the other hand, county staff has argued that current aviation law requires the ALUC to use the 2.65 mile zone around the airport.  We believe that county staff is incorrect on this point, as page 15, of chapter 3 of the CalTrans Airport Land Use Handbook indicates that ALUCs have a great deal of latitude in defining airport influence areas. 

While the proponents of AB-2776 (San Carlos Pilots Association) sought the legislation to shut up airport opponents and noise complainers, they may have ended up hurting the future development of the types of businesses around airports that support general aviation airports, particularly for rural general aviation airports. 

More information on AB-2776 can be found at ww.defendmyhome.com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - 
If airport development issues are important to you, you should consider attending these meeting and/or sending a letter to Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier expressing your concerns, thoughts, and ideas on the matter.  His address is 2425 Bisso Lane, Suite 110, Concord, CA 94523.