HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.a.2) Update on proposals for use of the Kiewit property6.a.2 )
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
February 15, 2013
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VIA: CURT SWANSON, PROVISIONAL GENERAL MANAGER &itqo
FROM: DANEA GEMMELL, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER DS§
SUBJECT: CORRESPONDENCE FROM FAA REGARDING PROPOSED FARM
AND SOCCER FIELD ON KIEWIT PROPERTY
Per the direction from the Board on January 24, 2013, staff has been developing three
mixed use alternatives for the Kiewit property including a Sustainable Farm, Youth
Soccer Fields and a commercial use to submit a Land Use Permit application to the
County. Staff met with Beth Lee, Assistant Director of the Airport on February 5, 2013 to
discuss any concerns for the proposed projects and learned of a Contra Costa County
Aviation Advisory Committee meeting scheduled for February 14, 2013 which had
placed the farm proposal on their agenda.
Two members of the Environmental Services Division attended the meeting at which Dr.
Caroline Phinney made a short presentation to the ten person committee. Later that
day, Ms. Lee forwarded a letter from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA). Following is the letter from the FAA in response to a
request from the Airport Director. Staff is reviewing the letter and will provide a report at
the February 21, 2013 Board Meeting.
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Adminlsi►ation
February 13, 2013
Keith Freitas, Director of Airports
Contra Costa County
Buchanan Field and Byron Airports
550 Sally Ride Drive
Concord, CA 94520
Dear Mr. Freitas,
Subject: Proposed Farm and Soccer Field
Western- Pacific Region Airports Division
San Francisco Airports District Oflice
1000 Marina Boulevard, SuNe 220
Brisbane, CaOfornia 94005 -1835
We have reviewed your email in which you requested Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) guidance regarding proposals for an agricultural lease and the establishment of
soccer fields in an area located North of Runway 14L and Runway 14R of the Buchanan
Field Airport (CCR). We wish to begin by reminding the Contra Costa County, the airport
sponsor, that any change to current zoning regulations to allow an incompatible use near the
airport would be a violation of the grant assurances.
It appears from our review that the proposed uses will penetrate the Runways 14L and 14R
Runway Protection Zones (RPZs). The RPZ has a safety related purpose. The RPZs
represent airport design standards that encompass a defined land area underneath aircraft
approach and departure paths. Their purpose is to prevent the introduction of above ground
objects that could be hazardous to aircraft, its occupants, and to people on the ground.
Control of these areas by the airport operator is essential to prevent the creation of safety
risks. Since the proposed encroachment into the RPZs by the farming and soccer fields does
not fully comply with airport design standards, it is likely the proposed use will create an
airport hazard and an incompatible land use that should be avoided.
Historical accident data reveals that the majority of aircraft accidents occur in the approach
and departure areas of an airport. FAA's policy and airport design standard are intended to
keep the RPZ free of structures and sources of public assembly. The proposed soccer field
would fall in the category of recreational land use to include a congregation of people.
Agricultural activities would.likely become a hazardous wildlife attractant, jeopardizing
aircraft taking off and landing at CCR. In addition, the presence of wildlife at and near the
airport could trigger the need for an updated wildlife hazard assessment.
In addition to the wildlife and design issues, the proposed farm and the soccer field would
conflict with requirements, contained in the following Grant Assurances.
• Grant Assurance 5, Rights and Powers, obligates the airport sponsor to refrain from
any action that will deprive it of rights and powers to perform in accordance with the
requirements of the Grant Assurances. Additionally, the airport sponsor will take
action to extinguish any outstanding right or claim that would interfere or prevent the
2
sponsor from complying with the Grant Assurances. The sponsor may not
subordinate the Grant Assurances to a local agreement such as a tenant lease
agreement.
• Grant Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance, requires the sponsor to protect the
public using the airport by adopting and enforcing rules, regulations, and ordinances
as necessary to ensure safe and efficient flight operations.
• Grant Assurance 20, Hazard Removal and Mitigation, requires the sponsor to take
appropriate action to assure that such terminal airspace as is required to protect
instrument and visual operations to the airport ... otherwise mitigating existing airport
hazards and by preventing the establishment or creation of future airport hazards.
• Grant Assurance 21, Compatible Land Use, requires the sponsor to take
appropriate action, to the extent reasonable, including the adoption of
zoning laws, to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the immediate
vicinity of the airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal
airport operations, including landing and takeoff of aircraft.
The FAA would view the establishment of non - essential and non - aeronautical construction
within the RPZ as an action that would derogate the airport's ability to provide for a safe and
efficient airport environment. This may be interpreted as a violation of the sponsor Grant
Assurances. Moreover, a zone change by the County from industrial use to allow for
incompatible use of land near the airport could also violate the Grant Assurances.
As an air - carrier airport, CCR is certificated under 14 CFR Part 139 (FAR 139), and must
comply with all requirements of the regulation. The introduction of an agricultural field in
close proximity to the approach/departure of Runway 14 -32 would very likely create a
violation of Part 139.337, Wildlife Hazard Management, paragraph (a), which states: ..each
certificate holder must take immediate action to alleviate wildlife hazards whenever they are
detected. As such, the proposed incompatible land use could result in corrective action
being identified in a "Letter of Correction" during a future periodic airport inspection at
CCR. In conclusion, the FAA advises against the proposed land uses because they will
create an incompatible land use which will conflict with airport design standards, establish a
wildlife attractant close to the airport, and may be a violation of FAR 139. The proposed
uses will result in a potential hazard to aviation and an incompatible land use. In short, the
potential to increase safety risks for aviation should be avoided.
Sincerely,
Robin K. Hunt
Manager, San Francisco Airports District Office
cc: George Aiken, AWP -620