Airport Expansion - Voice your opinion

The Board of Supervisors is taking a straw vote tomorrow, Tuesday 1/10/12, on the expansion of Charles M. Schulz Sonoma County Airport. Their final Vote will be January 24th. I am concerned about this issue. If you are too, please contact your City Council and the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors (see e-mail addresses below). And Please pass on this request.


Although larger planes and more access to more cities around the country might be nice, I am concerned about the effects on our quality of life. Extending the runway to accommodate larger planes will likely mean lower flight levels on takeoffs and landings, dramatically more air pollution from larger and multiple jet engines per plane, and more and higher levels of noise. Since we probably won’t justify newer larger planes, I imagine we might be facing the use of older models, like 737’s.


No matter what planes they put into use on their longer runways, our quality of life will suffer.


The article in the Press Democrat. 1/9/12, said that Alaska Airlines operates 5 flights per day to west coast cities and that additional flights with Alaska and possibly Frontier are being pursued.


There is a big difference between 5 to 10 flights using small commuter jets compared to the 21 flights projected using larger aircraft, like 737’s.


Please vote to discourage the expansion of the airport. We might not become quite as big as San Jose, but everyone living up and down the 101 corridor and some living east and west of that will be affected by more frequent bigger planes.


Thank you,

Harvey Bell


Sonoma County Board of Supervisors:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

City Councils:

Santa Rosa:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Cotati:
[email protected]


Petaluma:
[email protected]


Rohnert Park:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]


Sonoma:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]


Sebastopol:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]


Windsor:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]


Healdsburg:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]


Penngrove, Forestville, Occidental, Bodega, Bodega Bay etc - no government officials

Just a few corrections:

737s can already land at our airport. They actually need less runway than the regional jets that Alaska and Frontier fly. Much though not all of the expansion has to do with coming into compliance with Federal safety issues. Our airport has been approved for 21 daily commercial flights since the late 80s. This part is not new.

Those of us who live in unincorporated areas of Sonoma County are represented by the Board of Supes so we do actually have government officials representing us just not city officials. Efren Carrillo represents those of us in Forestville and Mike Maguire's territory encompasses the airport.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by HarveyBell:

The Board of Supervisors is taking a straw vote tomorrow, Tuesday 1/10/12, on the expansion of Charles M. Schulz Sonoma County Airport. Their final Vote will be January 24th. I am concerned about this issue. If you are too, please contact your City Council and the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors (see e-mail addresses below). And Please pass on this request.


Although larger planes and more access to more cities around the country might be nice, I am concerned about the effects on our quality of life. Extending the runway to accommodate larger planes will likely mean lower flight levels on takeoffs and landings, dramatically more air pollution from larger and multiple jet engines per plane, and more and higher levels of noise. Since we probably won’t justify newer larger planes, I imagine we might be facing the use of older models, like 737’s.


No matter what planes they put into use on their longer runways, our quality of life will suffer.


The article in the Press Democrat. 1/9/12, said that Alaska Airlines operates 5 flights per day to west coast cities and that additional flights with Alaska and possibly Frontier are being pursued.


There is a big difference between 5 to 10 flights using small commuter jets compared to the 21 flights projected using larger aircraft, like 737’s.


Please vote to discourage the expansion of the airport. We might not become quite as big as San Jose, but everyone living up and down the 101 corridor and some living east and west of that will be affected by more frequent bigger planes.


Thank you,

Harvey Bell


Sonoma County Board of Supervisors:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

City Councils:

Santa Rosa:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Cotati:
[email protected]


Petaluma:
[email protected]


Rohnert Park:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]


Sonoma:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]


Sebastopol:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]


Windsor:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]


Healdsburg:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]


Penngrove, Forestville, Occidental, Bodega, Bodega Bay etc - no government officials

---

I certainly hope they vote to approve the lengthening of the runway. Having small regional jets going to more destinations would be a big win for Sonoma County.

Today from Santa Rosa if you are headed East, you generally have to fly to LA or Las Vegas first, or perhaps even Portland - then take a larger jet East. Having regional jets serving Santa Rosa will mean we can reach hubs like Denver which are much more efficient for Eastward travel. And, having more direct destinations from Santa Rosa will mean a lot less trips to San Francisco or Oakland by travelers, relieving some traffic on Hwy 101. And, don't get me started on the cost of parking at SFO and OAK!

I also prefer travelling on a jet rather than turboprop - while safety of the engine (they both use reliable jets, one just drives a prop) is similar, the really young new commercial pilots fly those turboprops. At least with a regional jet you get someone with a bit more experience.

-Dane

Thanks Harvey. when I go to the county airport website they do not show the actual sitge maps at all anywhere.
Such maps would alert people in the longer lower flight paths so that may be why...
The County's website sound map is not really avaible. when you click on the small image it gives you the Cloverdale airport map. So you cannot see really the new anticipated sound projection boundaries.
...perhaps due to clerical error (?) or perhaps not...

The PD is saying its all very little increase in airport use but honestly its like 101, the more lanes the more cars, the longer the landing strips the bigger and more passengers and freight.
why else would they spend all that money!! ...and the more papers and ads the PD'll sell

Interesting too to see that a developer is trying to buy th land adjoining the existging ariport that will have to be purchased or leased by teh County by federal aviation laws as sound buffer area. The developer wants to create "wetlands" so that they can destroy other local natural wetlands in lucrative future developments as "a trade" with the County! It may not fly because increased birds are a risk to aircraft and vice versa.. but it shows there are development people out there scrambling to make a buck in all kinds of ways around this scheme...

Bobcat
PS--
Heres the local Redwood Chapter's chairperson's letter of the Sierra Club on this Dec 2012:


SONOMA GROUP REPORT
–STEVE BIRDLEBOUGH, SONOMA GROUP CHAIR


County Airport Expansion: Sonoma County is pressing forward with a multi-million dollar proposal to extend the main runway to 6,000 feet and to lift weight limits at the County Airport. We think the plan will result in very annoying noise impacts, with as many as 21 daily commercial takeoffs and landings, along with noisier air-freight jet flights at night. Effects on quality of life and tourism in Sonoma County could be serious. Time is running out to let your Supervisor or City Council Member know you want full disclosure of the impacts.

We are suggesting a demonstration of commercial jet aircraft traffic that matches the maximum allowed flight frequencies. Actual flights would reveal much more about the noise effects of the project than hard-to-interpret data tables. To date, we have not heard whether the County is willing to risk such a demonstration of airport noise.

Airliner sounds will be most noticeable in the evenings and at night, but schools and residents under the flight path stretching from West Petaluma, Rohnert Park, and Windsor to Healdsburg will be affected at all hours. Federal law prevents local governments from placing time limits on aircraft operations, and airfreight operators often prefer to operate during night hours.

We are particularly concerned about the proposal to remove the current 95 thousand pound aircraft weight limit from the County General Plan. This change would allow much noisier Boeing 737-type aircraft to use the airport once the runway is strengthened. While airport management thinks it unlikely that there will be enough demand in the near future to attract large jet aircraft, we can expect significant long-range greenhouse gas and noise impacts.

The main objective of the project is to permit airline flights to cities that are beyond the range of the Q-400 turboprop aircraft now used by Horizon Airlines. Turboprop planes are less noisy and produce less air pollution per passenger mile than jet aircraft.

It is said that Frontier Airlines is considering a plan to provide service between Santa Rosa and Denver during the summer of 2012 on a trial basis. The 70-seat aircraft that Frontier would use normally requires a 5,400 foot runway for takeoff, but a restricted passenger load would permit it to safely use the current 5,100 foot main runway at our airport. If the vacation season flights prove popular and the runway is lengthened, regular service could begin in future years.

The draft environmental study for the project also predicts an 11,000 ton per year increase in greenhouse gas emissions and did not specify any mitigations to offset this impact. Officials indicate that conversion to a fleet of electric ground-support vehicles, and installation of photovoltaic panels to reduce use of electricity produced from fossil fuels are under consideration.

See the Charles M. Schulz Sonoma County Airport Neighborhood Guide for more information and maps showing flight paths and noise contours.

[QUOTE=HarveyBell;145945]
Although larger planes and more access to more cities around the country might be nice, I am concerned about the effects on our quality of life. Extending the runway to accommodate larger planes will likely mean lower flight levels on takeoffs and landings, dramatically more air pollution from larger and multiple jet engines per plane, and more and higher levels of noise. Since we probably won’t justify newer larger planes, I imagine we might be facing the use of older models, like 737’s.
No matter what planes they put into use on their longer runways, our quality of life will suffer. [/QUOTE]

:2cents: I really wish poster's would inform the rest what qualifications, background and sources are being used.

Please correct me if mistaken but I do not believe you are qualified to post on this topic. The bigger and faster an airplane, the HIGHER the glide scope, the more experienced the pilot (usually) and it's been a decade but during most of it the EPA was a joke so although my degree may be outdated that EPA was hated for strict noise and other costly regulations they enacted making Commercial Aviation unable to use the noisy smelly jets that you think of.

this brings up the local economy/growth issue.

Bigger Picture:
Is this airport expansion just outsider tentacles of influence: 11,000 tons of added pollution annually...

We need to come up with a Viable Workable Actual Plan for the Future in Sonoma County that matches our ideals of low environmental impact and high sustainability which has to include jobs.
It must have politicians aggressively behind it, advocating for it and tying their careers to it.
Maybe its already in place. if so who is advocating for this??

Otherwise we'll be railroaded (no, airported and highway'd) until we just become a landscape of even more big beige tilt-ups employing only a fraction of our kids in meaningless jobs...

But I also fear we could become ruled by enclaves of rich people preventing any local green industry economic opportunities out of fear of change or NIMBYism...


I wonder:
Environmentally
How do the greenhouse gas emisison numbers compare?
re the officially projected 11,000 tons additional greenhouse gas emisisons from the larger and more frequent more polluting jets
versus the amount of pollution caused by all the cars driving air passengers to SFO and OAK airports from Sonoma County annually...

The potential future
Can Sonoma County have a vibrant green locally based healthy-on-all-levels economy not dependent on bigger airports and more highways??
Would added airport capability help shipping locally made goods and help our local businesses?
Would it really help address our desperate need for decent jobs here?
If not why are letting this detrimental environmental thing happen?

Are we really willing to sacrifice our relative quietude for more instant travel?
Once its gone its gone.

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/images/logo2.gif
$84 million Sonoma County airport expansion OK'd

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/apps/p...W=445&border=0
The Charles M. Schulz Sonoma County Airport in 2011.
PD FILE, 2011

By BRETT WILKISON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Published: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 3:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 10:25 p.m.

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.

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.

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.

If you're not familiar with Virgin Airlines the owner is very into the enviroment- he actually owns 1 or more private jets that run on grease. I suggest that he be involved in the project. Yes, the major impact will be increased traffic and business around the extended airport. Now can we please have a decent mass transportation anyone