 |
 |
By BRETT WILKISON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Sonoma County’s Board of Supervisors on Tuesday unanimously endorsed an $84 million project to expand Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport to enable more daily commercial flights.
The Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport
Supervisors sided with supporters of the project, who touted the economic benefits of the expansion, saying they outweighed impacts on surrounding residents and the environment.
“We need a healthy economy to thrive as a community. And transportation infrastructure is absolutely a part of this,” said Supervisor Shirlee Zane, chairwoman of the board.
The decision, which is set to be finalized Jan. 24, came after a four-hour meeting that included more than 40 speakers voicing either support for the project or their concerns about its effects.
Business and construction interests hailed the plan’s approval, saying an expanded airport would be a selling point for local industry and tourism.
“In this economy, this is as close to an economic home run as we’re going to get,” said Jonathan Coe, president and chief executive of the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce.
Some speakers opposed the project outright, saying it would bring big-city air traffic to Sonoma County.
Others, such as a group of Windsor residents that included Mayor Debora Fudge, said they agreed with proposed safety upgrades but urged supervisors to lessen impacts on airport neighbors by requiring noise limits, air traffic changes and road upgrades.
“Whatever we can do to minimize flights going over populated areas is going to make everybody happy,” said Bob Finn of Windsor.
Supervisors tentatively backed some measures to account for noise, air traffic and environmental impacts, but said their hands were tied on stronger limits by federal rules.
“If we can take a balanced approach, I think this makes it a stronger project,” said Supervisor Mike McGuire, who pushed for many of the conditions.
In the short term, the plan calls for a $42.7 million overhaul of the two runways, which currently meet at the north end of the airport in a V-shaped design that does not meet federal safety standards. The county would fix that by extending the main runway north by 885 feet to 6,000 feet and adding 200 feet to the second runway.
Over a 20-year period, the expansion also would include a new passenger terminal, air cargo facility, control tower and other upgrades. The timing of those improvements depends on attracting more airlines to the county-owned airport.
Most of the improvements, including the short and long-term upgrades, would be financed with federal aviation grants.
The expansion would allow more commercial flights beyond the five that Alaska Airlines — the lone carrier — currently offers per day. The upper limit would remain at 21 flights per day, a threshold already authorized by the county’s general plan but not possible with the current infrastructure.
The project also would help the airport cater to a wider range of mid-size regional jets, said Jon Stout, the airport manager.
The county is in talks with Alaska and Frontier Airlines about additional flights, but neither company has made commitments, Stout said.
County officials have said each additional regularly scheduled daily flight would add $23 million to the local economy and create 70 new jobs. Project skeptics cast doubt on those and other figures, citing a 26-year-old county study that projected passenger loads at more than twice current demand, and pegged the number of daily flights at nearly six times current numbers.
“Anticipated increase is not actual increase,” said Jean McMullen, a Windsor resident opposed to the expansion.
But business interests said a ‘no’ vote would send the wrong message to companies eyeing an investment in the area and force local travelers to keep seeking larger Bay Area flight hubs.
“Every decade, a few decisions shape a community. I think you’re sitting in front of one of them right now,” said Doug Hilberman, an expansion advocate speaking for the Construction Coalition, an advocacy arm of the North Coast Builders Exchange and Home Builders Association of Northern California.
Supervisors gave no indication that the project, approved last month by the Planning Commission and in the works for years, was ever in doubt. They gave strong backing to the runway safety upgrades.
“On that issue alone … It would be irresponsible to not move ahead with this project,” said Supervisor David Rabbitt.
The board had a longer debate over extra conditions to be added to the project’s approval. Federal sway over airport operations prevented many of the conditions requested by speakers.
Supervisors backed a recommendation by planning commissioners to seek voluntary curfew agreements on commercial flights to limit late-night and early-morning noise.
They also agreed to continue talks with federal aviation officials about adjusting the flight path to avoid neighborhoods and schools in Windsor.
A parallel local effort will study noise impacts from flight traffic and either compensate or provide noise protection for those residents found to be most affected. State standards indicate that seven homes could qualify through the year 2030, Stout said.
Other moves included:
– Allocation of $1 million toward habitat improvements to nearby Mark West Creek, Windsor Creek and Riverfront Regional Park, part of the project’s $9 million in environmental mitigation spending.
– Board support for county-paid upgrades to Shiloh Road and Airway Drive in Windsor to help with an expected increase in airport traffic.
– Delay of final decision on another proposal raised by McGuire — an assessment of public health impacts he wanted done after the completion of work on the runways, which could begin in July and finish by late 2013. Supervisors agreed to endorse the health study dependent on a cost analysis due back Jan. 24, when the board is set to finalize its vote.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
Most of the improvements, including the short and long-term upgrades, would be financed with federal aviation grants.
That is the key statement from the article and is fair warning to residents…and it will put the area under FAA control, most likely for 20 years, permitting no local control to impose curfews, or limit the type and number of flights. Yes, big city traffic coming your way soon and increasing exponentially every year—for 20 years.
goodluck, goodbye peaceful valley
@ JB and others with common sense.
You’re missing the truly important facts. The supes are concerned about their jobs and careers not the welfare of the general public. You silly guys.
Rabbit wants more density so architects can design and contractos can build. McGuire and developer friends love the airport expansion and pretend to believe it a benefical project for the environment. Something very important about emissions.McGuire is young enough and is waiting for Thompson to bail out and does what he is told.
I am not for or against but I am sick of the deception by the sups, Stout and PD. In editorial PD claims airport has stepped up to help current homeowners with sound proofing. Sounds great but it was a total of 7! Big deal. Stout claims $123 million per plane in “direct & indirect” economic gain. Hello…at 75% capacity out of 76 seats, avg. $225 per RT ticket at 7 days a week it is $4.6 million in airplane revenue for a year. No way an economic model of any reasonable measure can make that math work. They say the Feds are paying mostly for it. Well then if not all how much are we paying? Not only that Fed money ain’t free! We already paid somehow for it. Stout first says 30 jobs will be added, then 40 and now 70. Which is it? Didn’t we subsidize Horizon? Will we have to do the same? No body has mentioned anticipate plane type, I sure hope we aren’t talking 737′s, man they’re big! Stout runs a great little airport but he has too much to gain to be subjective. McGuire, Rabbitt and others had to vote for it because Sonoma County Alliance really pushed for it and they all got nice campaign contributions from them. They were just fulfilling promises made. What about the average resident that was against it, nobody was listening to them, this was a slam dunk.
The point is the county is broke!! Let’s pay for SMART and then see where were at. Maybe spend a little money to fix our roads and schools, things we use all of the time. I think you can get most places with the service that already exists.
MORE noise for Windsor !
The biggest cost is the separation of the runways, a stupid regulation due to one incident due to pilot error at a southern small airport. I kinda like living near the flight paths, though if right above me I can understand.
Best views of the air show !
Aircraft engines produce emissions that are similar to other emissions resulting from fossil fuel combustion. However, aircraft emissions are unusual in that a significant proportion is emitted directly into the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere where they have an impact on atmospheric composition. 2This makes airplane emissions particularly potent compared to other emissions.
(Climate Lab)
Rate consumption per passenger based on 80% ridership:
Boeing 747-200 17.5 liters/km
Public Bus 1.9 km/liter
Private auto 10.6 km/liter
(Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan)
@David, while I think it is good to set facts straight, Steve’s comment regarding the greenhouse gas from “an airplane trip” is really impossible to know. You mention 737s, but I believe most commercial flights at STS use the Bombardier Q400. Maybe his figure comes from a two-passenger private plane. And how long a flight are you talking about? But I agree that when posters make a statement like this, they should say where they are getting their facts from. Beyond just the fuel consumed, we should also be looking at manufacturing and infrastructure factors. Here is an interesting article.
.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17260-train-can-be-worse-for-climate-than-plane.html
I have no comment on this subject but I did a little fact checking. Steve Klausner says: “An airplane trip creates the same amount of green house gas, mile for mile, as solo driving an SUV.” Using Wikipedia’s specs for the Boeing 737 vs. my Suburban, it turns out the 737 is 4 times more fuel efficient per passenger mile than the SUV. Readers shouldn’t be responsible for checking the facts; the posters should do that before they post.
Fix the roads!
Thank goodness they finally made a good decision. Just imagine how good the project actually is for our community when even the Board of Supervisors doesn’t do everything possible to impede progress. This must REALLY be good for this to have occurred.
I use STS for everything and always connect through there. Just no reason to hassle SFO when this resource is here.
“another proposal raised by McGuire — an assessment of public health impacts”
We ain’t so green. An airplane trip creates the same amount of green house gas, mile for mile, as solo driving an SUV.
What an easy vote seeing how the Feds are paying for it. Here’s some back story.
Last Sept. House Republicans attempted to end federal subsidies to keep airports open in rural communities. FAA almost got shut down and the Repubs blinked.