Polls

Forum Login






Lost Password?
No account yet? Register

RSS Feed: Local News

feed image

RSS Feed: Sports

feed image

RSS Feed: Voice

feed image
Ground rules E-mail
Written by Eric Firpo   
Saturday, 02 August 2008

 

Tracy Municipal Airport advocates are worried that the proposed Ellis development, which would lie squarely under the main runway's flight pattern, could clip the wings of future growth and lead to numerous resident complaints.


Flying in
A Cessna lines up over Tracy Boulevard for a landing at Tracy Municipal Airport on Friday. The same runway, when used for takeoffs in prevailing winds, launches planes over what would be the Ellis subdivision off Linne and Corral Hollow roads. Glenn Moore/Tracy Press
A flight advocate fears new homes and a water park slated for the corner of Linne and Corral Hollow roads could be the beginning of the end of the Tracy Municipal Airport.

It’s yet another sign that some airport proponents feel city officials neglect what they see as an underused jewel of an airport in south Tracy.

But that attitude puzzles people such as Rod Buchanan, the interim head of the parks department who oversees the airport. He pointed out that Tracy has hired a full-time employee to manage the airport and pumped more than $1 million into it in the past few years — with the federal government paying more than $924,000 of that.

"We want to bring more activity at the airport," Buchanan said.

Still, for pilot, mechanic and airport association board member Denny Presley and some others who use the airport, the proposed subdivision and water park are no ordinary threats to what goes on at the airport — or to what might take place there in the future.

The biggest problem that Presley sees is that homes and the water park will be built in restricted air space under the flight path of their airport’s main runway.

Homes are the enemy of little airports such as Tracy Municipal.

The city is trying to negotiate a deal with builder Les Serpa of The Surland Cos. that will give him the rights to build 2,250 homes northwest of the airport — and another 1,600 somewhere else in the city — in exchange for 21 acres of land and a $20 million Surland donation to the city so it can build a water park.

But more people near the airport are the last thing pilots want to see — because the last thing homeowners want to see and hear are low-flying airplanes buzzing over their rooftops.

"We don’t like it," said Eric Rode Olsen of Skyview Aviation, a concessionaire that runs a flight school at the airport.

Skyview wrote a letter to the city asking officials to keep in mind that the business hopes to one day open a restaurant there and has contracts starting in 2009 to bring in 30 new students annually who will likely live in Tracy while they learn to fly, an economic boost to the city.

On the ground
Airplanes sit in neat rows on the airport's tarmac as another takes off from the main runway. Glenn Moore/Tracy Press
A lengthening debate

Also, like many pilots at the airport, Skyview officials hope that the city will one day lengthen its main runway another 450 feet so about half the corporate jets and turbo-propeller planes in existence can land there, instead of the roughly 10 percent to 20 percent of those aircraft that the airport can handle now.

Corporate jets would mean big business for the airport, Presley says.

But there are physical obstacles at the 300-acre airport that would make paving another 450 feet of runway a very expensive job.

The airport has two runways, a main strip that runs northwest-southeast, and another that runs east-west.

Any runway extension west of the airport would run into the Delta Mendota Canal, and east of the property is Tracy Boulevard, and farther east, a gravel pit that would have to be filled in before more the city paves more runway.

And the city would have to buy out businesses if the city juts the main runway northward.

In any case, Buchanan sees it unlikely that Tracy could out-compete other airports for federal grant money to build longer landing and take-off strips, given the expense.

Planning problems

At a workshop on the proposed homes and aquatics center on Tuesday, Presley told the City Council and Planning Commission that the city should abide by the contract it signed with the federal government in 1946.

That agreement says the city shall prevent any use of land that would be a hazard to landings and take-offs.

Separately, in comments made in response to an environmental report meant to outline the effects of Surland’s proposed subdivision, Presley tried to poke holes in the study.

He claimed a consultant hired by the city failed to properly study how much noise residents of those future homes would have to deal with when the consultant concluded that excessive noise is unavoidable and that there’s nothing anyone needs do about it.

He also disagrees with a city claim that the plan for the water park and homes is compatible with "airport uses" and "safety requirements," and Presley calls a statement that the subdivision will properly restrict what can be built under the runway’s approach for incoming planes "blatantly inaccurate."

Presley says part of the swimming center, commercial buildings and homes will be built under an approach zone that a 1993 airport land use plan says is supposed to be limited to 10 people per acre.

That same plan bars under the runway approach more than two homes per acre, most commerce, and recreation such as playgrounds and athletic fields, he argues, though swimming pools are not mentioned.

What the city will have to say about Presley’s criticism, and others who took shots at the environmental study, remains to be seen.

The city is still preparing its response to comments on the report. Serpa said he’ll wait to see what the city says before he talks about criticism of the subdivision.

The Federal Aviation Administration could put its foot down and nix a subdivision if it felt it would harm the airport, but the agency has a poor record of keeping encroachment at bay near small airports, according to a 1999 report by the Government Accountability Office.

"Unauthorized use has resulted in the loss or diversion of millions of dollars in airport revenues from general aviation airports, typically owned by a local government," the reports states.

Trackback(0)
Comments (31)add
...
written by fortheunderdog , August 01, 2008

If Serpa builds homes in the flight path of the airport he's a lot dumber than most think. The airport is established and Serpa is going to build a development that will jeopardize the airport's future with this city.

Hey Serpa, the airport was here first. You're a Danville resident who's trying to make a buck out of a city government that's more down home country boys who can't see a maverick coming into town to screw them over. What you're offering to the city is a bribe. If you're that set on wanting to "give" $20 million for that water park, why don't you just build it for the city from your heart and bid for building permits like everyone else. No? I didn't think so.
...
written by Malcolm , August 02, 2008
Surland motto:

SHOW ME THE MONEY!
...
written by amy , August 02, 2008
SURLAND, the airport is there, was there, has been there FIRST!
Move your business somewhere else! Where there is not already an established plans in place!!! First you take away the Water Park then to turn it around into a bargaining tool, you are not going to do that with the airport!!!! CITY, YOU BETTER HOLD ON TO IT!

-amy
...
written by amy , August 02, 2008
"The city is trying to negotiate a deal with builder Les Serpa of The Surland Cos. that will give him the rights to build 2,250 homes northwest of the airport — and another 1,600 somewhere else in the city — in exchange for 21 acres of land and a $20 million Surland donation to the city so it can build a water park."


NO!

-amy

...
written by UCoty , August 02, 2008
First of all, I am glad that this issue is being discussed before any action is taking place.
I would like to think that the city would ask the developer to build the water park on city owned land next to the Sports Comples at the Holly Sugar site. Solves many porblems at once by doing it that way. first would be the availability of water. Since the treatment plant discharges treated water and cleaner water back into the river/delta system, why not run it through a aquatics park first? No one is going to question why the City of Tracy is building an aquatics park in the middle of a drought.
Building homes near a airport is bad in my opinion. At first people think it is cool but then they grow weary of the noise. I know of one homeowner who bought a home near the airport, enjoyed the noise at first but then got tired of it and started complaining about low flying sircraft. Full disclosures to potential home-owners surely must be a mandatory thing. If not, it should be.
I can already see what will happen when a student performing his or her first solo, mis judges a approach and smacks into a crowded home. It will not be pretty and the airports future would be in jeapordy.
I grew up in San Jose, not far from Reid Hillview, and I recall all the drama that was stirred up when a Cessna smacked the side of Macys.
Having flown out of there myself during lessons, I often wondered why people built so close to airports.
It only takes one error, or one really windy day to blow someone off course, to ruin a potentially profitable airport business.
I encourage SkyView Aviation to pursue restaurants and even a museum one day to be built at OUR airport.
The opportunities are endless and will only benefit Tracy, but not if the airport is surrounded by homes and children swimming in pools.
Safety first. Ask for it to built at the Holly Site.
...
written by UCoty , August 02, 2008
One last point, why build homes when there are foreclosed homes everywhere? Who would buy these homes? Lets focus on filling what we have first and attracting jobs to Tracy. Increasing business at the Tracy airport is good for Tracy's economy. Go down that route and things will get better.
...
written by Dave Hardesty , August 02, 2008
Ubbo

You and I are friends but I disagree with your comment, "I grew up in San Jose, not far from Reid Hill view, and I recall all the drama that was stirred up when a Cessna smacked the side of Macys."

As it so happens I was installing a computer system for the new Sears at the other end of the building and was there when this incident occurred many years ago, and long before the residential housing density around that airport was even close to what it is today.

The aircraft lost power on takeoff, landed in the parking lot and before it came to a complete stop had its nose sitting in the Macy's door. It didn't "smack" into the building and was flight worthy after inspections by FAA had been done.

I am not saying the incident didn't occur but the usage of the word "smacked" is blowing the incident way out of proportion to what actually happened.

Also, knowing the specific location of the incident and the specific location of the runway and its approach and departure zone, the incident did not occur "in line" with the runway but was to the right of the runway line when the aircraft came to a stop.

The decision of the final location of an aquatics facility matters little to me other than the longer it is on hold for development the longer it will be before kids like yours can use it.

At the rate the city is progressing on this, because of all the problems of finding a suitable location, and there have been many that have been chosen and had to be dropped because someone didn't like the plan, kids the age of your children will be wondering why their children don't have a place to swim.

...
written by Dave Hardesty , August 02, 2008
Besides, haven't all of us non-pilots been hearing from civil and commercial aviation enthusiasts that flying is safer than driving a car?

It seems to me you guys are sort of shooting yourselves in the foot now that someone is attempting to place an aquatics facility near the airport.

The idea of extending the runway 450 feet to handle larger aircraft just isn't going to happen and one reason it won't happen is because if it's not safe now, it surely won't be safe with the end of that runway is some 450 feet closer to the housing already in the area.

Sorry my friend but it doesn't make logical sense and as someone who is a proponent of both aviation and Aquatics facilities I feel your arguments against one certainly isn't doing anything to help the other and it is my recommendation that you rethink what you are actually saying here.

...
written by Dave Hardesty , August 02, 2008
The time for expanding the Tracy Airport to accommodate larger aircraft, as envisioned by the article, has come and gone. That should have occurred over 15 years ago before the encroachment of the housing to the airport occurred. I don’t like that, but I will have to live with that. Sorry to burst anyone’s bubble on this but that’s just the way it is and there is no rolling back the clock to correct it.

Now perhaps if VTOL aircraft come into greater usage we can see more of that type of activity at the airport but larger jet aircraft, I just don’t think that will happen in my or your lifetime and you are a lot younger than I am. smilies/wink.gif


Dave Hardesty

...
written by Malcolm , August 02, 2008
Can we wager on how long it takes Ubbo to waffle?

Amazing that to Hardesty there is never any unacceptable risk or danger, everything is justifiable, blah, blah, blah ....
...
written by fortheunderdog , August 02, 2008
Dave,

You and I have been at different ends before and I will have to say we are again on this topic. There is time for the airport to build another 450' of runway if the city decides to not agree with Surland on the water park deal. Locating the water park so far south of the city doesn't make sense. It should be located more towards other sports park giving the area a sort of sports arena feeling. If a sports park is going to be built at Holly then it is reasonable for the water park to be built nearby or incorporated within the sports park. This will allow expansion of the airport to suit Tracy's need.

VTOL aircraft is still considered experimental although the Marine's are are testing one now. VTOL's do not have a good safety record to boot. Now if you're considering Harrier's to use Tracy airport that's another matter but I don't think our airport wants to accept those except during an air show.

Developing housing at the end of a runway is poor judgement also. Anyone who even considers building homes in the flight path or even anywhere close is inviting residents to complain about noise, when in fact they should have known they were moving close to an airport.


...
written by UCoty , August 02, 2008
Malcolm, I don't know who are you are, but Dave and I have discussed this before and we both have our opinions, but you should know that I don't "waffle". Dave knows my position on this topic and it just so happens that we disagree, however; just because we have different views doesn't mean he or I is right. (bad English huh?) Dave does have valuable input, and his views could be better than mine. All I am suggesting is that the aquatics park go next to the sports complex. To me, that makes more sense. I am not fond of placing any facility near an airport and I understand it happens all of the time and there is never an issue. LSA's (Light Sport Aircraft) are getting real popular, and I think we're going to see increased traffic at our airport.
The plane incident I was referring to occured in the '70's.
...
written by Malcolm , August 02, 2008
Yeah me too I agree, put it by the sports park smilies/smiley.gif
...
written by maybenotdumBcommenT , August 02, 2008
Good idea Malcolm.
...
written by Ian Stewart , August 02, 2008
Ubbo makes a very important point. Housing is overbuilt in the US thanks to the credit bubble, especially in far-out exurban places like Tracy. As an example, right now, Tampa, Florida is looking at something like a 42-year supply of houses due to a large number of foreclosures and a relative dearth of qualified buyers to pick them up. Obviously, numbers like that will fluctuate as the availability of credit changes... but will large-scale investors like the central bank of China really be willing to support the regrowth of the dollar after they get burned on their depreciating holdings of dollars and US mortgage-backed securities?

If development does start to come back in the early part of the next decade, it won't occur at nearly so rapid a pace as it did earlier in this decade. Developers like Serpa and his competitors are essentially trying to write themselves a nice juicy futures contract, locking in the Tracy market with very little downside. So what if he pays for a water park? His carrying costs on bare land are very low, and he stands to make huge gains if qualified homebuyers start to look towards Tracy for new houses again (or so he thinks).

Bottom-line, the airport will have a higher return as a community asset than more houses that won't even be built in the short term. And it's rather grotesque that the city council still spends most of its time operating as a rather inefficient clearing house for building rights, to the point of trading established community interests against the possibility of slightly expanding the tax base.
...
written by amy , August 03, 2008
Well said Ian Stewart!!!

I could not visualize it ever as becoming a large airport or have large aircraft land at the airport. Always thought it would be small craft airport with many events taking place there. Was looking forward to the previous plans of seeing the restaurant, (old timey?) and the air museum!

I could see radio controlled airplane flying day like I have seen over at Livermore happen. That would be family fun day. It is time for the city to think for the families of Tracyites.

-amy

...
written by UCoty , August 03, 2008
Tracy does have a R/C flying community. Its called TracySkyLiners. they fly at a special air field set aside for them at the New Jerusalem Airport.
Tracy's airport will most likely never become as popular as San Jose's or Stockton's but that doesn't mean it cannot host small commuter traffic one day or host Fly-In's or airshows. Tracy's aerobatic box is reknown nation-wide. If a real nice restaurant/museum were built there, it might do very well and provide jobs too. A hotel would be nice too for weary travellers.
Remember, if you build it they will come.
...
written by amy , August 03, 2008
That is right, Ubbo!!! You did mention it to me and I was hoping that is still on! Great!!!!

Was thinking of RV site around the airport since some might want to attend the air shows, and so on? Remembered reading an article about there is no RV in Tracy, thought it would be nice to see it there?

-amy
...
written by UCoty , August 03, 2008
To me, an airport is a vital part of any community. If a city has an airport, then it usually says something about that city. And size does matter in this case. The lack of a tower and limited control also play a role, but in todays world with LSA's getting more popular and alternative methods of transportation get explored, it is wise to perserve any airport that has a use. Our airport could be the source for many types of city revenue. I just don't like the idea of building near it that is all. The Ellis project might be far enough away for some people, but close enough to endanger future airport activity.
...
written by amy , August 03, 2008
I agree with you Ubbo, also it should be available to those businesses men who may want to fly to the airport to oversee the operation of their new businesses?

Also, I have seen kite day, box kite day, being windy in Tracy it would be a field day for the family to attend?

Thanks.
-amy
...
written by Jensen , August 03, 2008
It's incredible to see all the support the Tracy airport has! I'm glad our citizens value it. smilies/grin.gif
...
written by what? , August 04, 2008
I am a HUGE Skyview fan! They have done a wonderful job with the airport! The city hall has let the airport sink and decay. This company is trying hard to make the airport fully functional and I commend them!

It makes me angry that Brent Ives, city hall and the Amigos are choosing more houses over the airport. Because of the ignorance of our city leaders that Tracy will be void of new and progressive planning.

The airport should be allowed to expand and create a place for aviators from all over California.
...
written by fortheunderdog , August 04, 2008
I'm a fan of the airport too! I attended the Warbird Invasion Air Show in '93. Still have a poster (I talked a local business to give it to me from their front window) and a brochure of the events. I'm waiting for another re-run of that show to appear.
...
written by Dave Hardesty , August 04, 2008
All

First of all I am not against the airport. Quite the contrary, I mentioned this years ago when development first encroached on the property and my thoughts were apparently were not considered, which is, in my opinion what has led us to where we are today.

Also, I am not in support of Ellis or Serpa or any other development one way or another. But I am in favor of an Aquatics park.

It doesn't have to be there. But it would be nice for the city to develop something on that side of town as all such amenities have been developed over on the north side of town and the south side residents also deserve something in their neighborhoods.

I never said there were no risks involved. What I am trying to get everyone to distinguish is the difference between unacceptable risk and acceptable risk.

We make such decisions in our every day lives and act accordingly. Just because someone says this or that risk is acceptable or unacceptable doesn't mean that it.

We decide communal and social risks at a communal and social level. We decide what is unacceptable and acceptable for our personal lives and act on that at a personal level.

From what I have determined, it is my opinion there isn’t much risk to placing an Aquatics facility on the Ellis site. Physically, in line and at its closest point, the Ellis property is 3,000 feet off the end of the runway.

...
written by Dave Hardesty , August 04, 2008
With respect to extending the runway 450 feet to accommodate heavier corporate jet traffic, it would be possible to extend the runway towards the north but you would still have to mitigate the businesses already there, with respect to low flying aircraft on approach or departure from that runway and I fail to see how that would make any of the residents to the north and east of that flight path any happier with respect to safety and the invariable noise that will increase as this type of traffic increases.

Even assuming you could expand the runway by 450 feet. What do you intend to do with the businesses that will then be less than 400 feet away from that end of the runway? Are you going condemn their property and move them out? Are you going to force them to sell their property and what the city determines to be a fair market value? And assuming they are willing to sell for a legitimate price, where are you going to get the monies to actually purchase their land?

Back in 1993, over ten years ago, the residential and commercial density on the south side of town was not nearly the same as it is today. The idea of runway extension should have been decided then and was not. Unfortunately, as much as I don’t like it, there isn’t much of anything anyone can do about that and now we are pretty much locked into what we have today.

I too enjoyed the War Bird show that occurred at the airport property back then and wish something like that would happen there again. But I honestly don’t see any real chance of making the runway longer particularly if it means bringing in more aircraft and traffic towards town where people are already complaining about the airport in the first place.

...
written by Dave Hardesty , August 04, 2008
I much would have preferred enlarging the airport years ago to service International and Commercial flights and have bay area freight traffic consigned to the bay area and relieving air traffic congestion already a problem for those airports. That would be a terrific economic boon for Tracy and really stimulate public transportation to the Bay Area, which is what historically got Tracy on the map in the first place with the railroads. It would also have been a very busy freight terminal as goods would have been distributed with Tracy as a central terminus. How many jobs would that have generated for our community?

Unfortunately, what is done is done and I fear any real improvement like extending the runway to accommodate more and heavier aircraft is just a dream that won’t ever happen. Not unless you gobble up all the new residential homes there, reroute the canals and fill in the gravel pits. I just don’t see that happening as much as it may sound appealing.

Now back to the aquatics park and then I’ll stop for now.

Yes, it could possibly go over to the Holly facility. The problems with a pool installation could be mitigated and there are some benefits for placing it there as well. But there are negatives. On big one is the $20,000,000.00 the developer is wishing to pony up to place the Aquatics Facility in his development. I doubt he would be willing to donate that money towards an Aquatics Facility over at the Holly site and I don’t see any other developers making a similar offer either.

But supposing he did offer the $20,000,000.00 and still wanted to develop the Ellis property? Would that silence the opposition of folks that support airport expansion? Would that silence the negative comments surrounding the issuance of RGAs and issues of growth constrained by Measure A? Would it silence the complaints from the community about airport noise, safety and the aerobatic box?

...
written by Dave Hardesty , August 04, 2008
I believe we can all see that it wouldn’t solve any of these problems either. So then perhaps we need to decide what is acceptable risk and not acceptable risk in order to get things done and get on with it. In otherwords, to quote a comedian, "Let's get er done."

Dave Hardesty

...
written by k.l.vosburg , August 04, 2008
In all fairness to Mr Coty;
I believe a similar occurence did happen at Macy's ( The Sun Valley Mall), in Pleasant Hill CA, next to where I grew-up in Walnut Creek CA; in route to Buchanan Airport in Concord. It was, and still is, centered around a densely residential area, plus I680, and mass transits infrastructures like Concord Blvd. and Willow Pass Rd. exits.
Even (then) in the 70's the blow back had a tendency of "freaking people out."
No; Not known, and YES, almost always disagree. smilies/wink.gif
...
written by Jensen , August 04, 2008
Please call immediately your State Assembly member Cathleen Galgiani, and urge them to Vote Yes on Senate Bill 1118. This legislation provides needed protections for California’s general aviation airports and is scheduled to be on the floor of the Full Assembly this week.

Please call and politely urge your Assembly member to vote YES on S.B. 1118 to protect California airports.

As a pilot, tell your Assembly member that:

* It is crucial to have compatible land use around airports for the safety of pilots and the surrounding communities.
* California’s community airports are vital to the state’s economy and transportation system, and must be protected.
* Proper land use planning will protect the quality of life of airport neighbors.

Background:

California’s Airport Land Use Commissions were originally created “to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.”

S.B. 1118 would strengthen this law to provide for consistent zoning processes for general aviation airports across California. AOPA has been working with legislators for over three years toward the introduction and passage of this bill. For more information on this bill, click here.

Please contact Assembly member Cathleen Galgiani at (916) 319-2017 and encourage them to vote YES on S.B. 1118 to protect California airports.

Thank you for your support,

Phil Boyer
AOPA President


P.S. If you are able to contact your legislator, please let us know by e-mailing us at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .

...
written by Jensen , August 04, 2008
Please everyone! This was brought to my attention in an email today, it's as if it were a god send for our little airport. But our airport is not the only one being threatened! We can save ours, and others state wide by devoting a little time just to support S.B. 1118. For me, passion is my flying. When I read about airport closures I die a little inside, it pains me to read/hear about them. So for anyone who does devote a little bit of time out of their day to urge our State Assembly member to support S.B. 1118, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Please consider! And thanks again!

~Jensen
...
written by amy , August 05, 2008
Thank you so much for putting the information out! My brother who lives in Tracy with his wife and three kids went to the last air show and loved it!!! Will call him to make sure he reads this one! I know he will support it!

Thanks again!
-amy
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
You must be logged in to a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy