McCLURE AND THE AIRPORT UPGRADE/EXPANSION

Comments

2 responses to “McCLURE AND THE AIRPORT UPGRADE/EXPANSION”

1. 

   Ron Plechaty

   August 15, 2013

   I am glad you covered this important issue in the CC Times as the local opinion rag, aka “The
   Triplicate” would simply ignore it or cover up this issue. Simply put I believe Dave Finigan did his best to keep the grants in place and save the airport improvements.
   McClure could have put it on the August agenda and got the Coastal Development permit approved subject to receipt of the missing documents. McClure’s excuses are nonsense. McClure continues to play the cloak and dagger games that all elected environmentalists play, thus McClure can avoid taking responsibility for the loss of over $3 million in grants.
   Just watch the Board of Supervisors meeting this week ,for an insight who supports McClure … hint they associate with the Friends of Del Norte, s group that wants no growth. no jobs and no economy. They want this place to stay a park. No one can prosper if these type of people continue destroying the engines of growth such as a functional airport.

   Reply
2. 

   Dohn Henion

   March 10, 2014

   Below is a letter I researched and drafted to urge the Coastal Commission not to side rail the building of the passenger terminal:

   March 29, 2010

   California Coastal Commission
   Attn: James Baskin,
   Coastal Planner
   710 E Street, Suite 200
   Eureka, CA 95501

   Re Appeal No: A-1-DNC-09-48
   Filed: November 9, 2009
   Hearing Date: April 14, 2010
   Appellants: Coastal Comm. Mary Shallenberger and Sara Wan, Friends of Del Norte
   Applicant(s): Border Coast Regional Airport Authority
   Project: Jack McNamara Airfield Passenger Terminal Replacement Project Location: 150 Dale Rupert Road, Crescent City, Del Norte County
   Local Decision: Approval with Conditions
   Local Permit #: UP0736C / B308031C

   Dear Mr. Baskin,

   The intent of this submission is to object to the assertion of jurisdiction by the Coastal Commission to find Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area where that designation is not extant in the present Del Norte County Local Coastal Plan.

   Del Norte County is the owner of the land and improvements located at the Fred M. McNamara Airfield, as such; it is an interested party in this appeal even though the airport’s operation has been delegated to the Border Coast Regional Airport Authority.

   The Jack McNamara Field serves the transportation needs of Del Norte and Curry Counties. The members of the Joint Powers Authority that operates and manages the airfield are Del Norte County, Crescent City, Curry County, Oregon, the City of Brookings, Oregon and the Elk Valley Rancheria, a federally recognized tribe.

   Seventy-eight percent of Del Norte County land area is owned by state and federal agencies. The concomitant reduction in timber harvest volume has circumvented the county’s formerly timber-based economy. Even though government employees earn over fifty percent of the area’s income, Del Norte has the highest poverty rate in the State of California.

   A primary strategy for survival is to develop a visitor-serving economy that is complimentary to recreational access to the coast as well as the area’s parkland. Both government personnel and visitors depend on commercial aviation. The provisions of the California Coastal Act of 1976 demonstrate the Legislature’s recognition of the need to balance competing interests of development for social and economic purposes with the effort to preserve the coastal zone. The Legislature stated that the policy of the act is to “Assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of the state.”

   The Legislature also recognized the realities of economic development in California, stating at section 30001.2: “The Legislature further finds and declares that, notwithstanding the fact … coastal-dependent developments…may have significant adverse effects on coastal resources or coastal access, it may be necessary to locate such developments in the coastal zone in order to ensure that inland as well as coastal resources are preserved and that orderly economic development proceeds within the state.”

   Maximization of public access (e.g. an airport) is one of several goals articulated in the act. Public Resources Code § 30210 makes specific reference to the public trust doctrine and emphasizes the need to consider public safety. The safety and efficiency of McNamara Field’s passenger handling facilities are severely limited and compromised by an outdated and substandard facility that was not designed for access for the disabled or for today’s increased federal Transportation Security Administration’s security requirements.

   In the long run, commercial air carriers may not choose to serve Jack McNamara Field if it is not modernized and upgraded. Travel to the closest airfield with commercial service is an hour and twenty minutes away in Medford and Arcata, accessible only by narrow winding roadways that many travelers find daunting. The region’s inclement weather dictates that the terminal be positioned as near in proximity to parking and enplanements as permitted under federal aviation regulations.

   Following Coastal Commission certification, the Local Coastal Plan was delegated to Del Norte for implementation.

   The Planning Commission analyzed, in-depth the effect that the existence of Sitka Spruce Series and Beach Pine Series had upon the project. The classification of “forested palustrine wetlands” was appropriately applied. Mitigation measures were applied consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 230.

   There is, of course, a major difference between a wetland delineation, which is subject to mitigation, and an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) designation, which habitat is entitled to the highest level of protection and is not subject to mitigation, disturbance or relocation regardless of its health. However, the basis of the pending appeal is the application of ESHA that is being made in the first instance by Coastal staff during this appeal process.

   The Coastal Act limits the grounds for a CDP appeal “to an allegation that the development does not conform to the standards set forth in the certified local coastal program ….”. Whether the appeal raises a “substantial issue” is jurisdictionally dependant on whether the Commission can designate ESHA where the Commission-certified Local Coastal Plan declares that none exists. Del Norte’s LCP has been amended 71 times since its adoption. Not one of those amendments designates any portion of the project site as ESHA. Any attempt to do so now is beyond the authority and jurisdiction of the Commission.

   Lastly, the appeal misconstrues the concept of “habitat” as it is applied to Sitka Spruce and Shore Pine because the analysis gauges the species prevalence within the State of California rather than its actual habitat. The State of California is a political jurisdiction of the United States. Spruce and Pines care nothing of how the United States is divided. They grow in a habitat that begins at Cape Mendocino and continues up to the most northern reaches of Washington. Although they are not as common in California, they are quite common along the coast of northern California, Oregon and Washington. In the park lands immediately north of the airport boundary are hundreds of protected acres of this exact same habitat.

   Thank you for the curtesy that you are extending by reviewing and considering the issues that are being raised in this submission.

   Very truly yours,

   DOHN R. HENION
   DEL NORTE COUNTY COUNSEL

   Reply