Airport Highlights 2004 1104 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

• Committee Recommendations Present the Addendum to the 2000 Settlement Agreement to the full City Council following negotiations with the Port of Oakland on items 4, 7 and 10. 2. Airport Master Plan Stakeholder Committee Update — Discussion Regarding Proposed • Terminal Concepts Kathy Ornelas reported on the progress of the Airport Master Plan process. Stakeholder Committee members have been asked to review a series of terminal concepts and give recommendations as to which area of airport property and which possible terminal design should be studied further. San Leandro representatives to the Stakeholder Committee reviewed the twelve terminal concepts and came to consensus on the following points: • Area 1 (western wetlands) would not be suitable. The site would eliminate wetlands and would lead to increased surface street traffic in Alameda. • Area 2 (existing terminal and facility areas) appears to be most conducive to terminal expansion. Concept 2B appears to be the most logical of the concepts presented in that it is closest to the existing terminals and provides better ground circulation for travelers. • Area 3 (south east wetlands and bay in -fill) would not be suitable. The site would eliminate wetlands and would develop terminal uses directly facing San Leandro homes. • San Leandro Stakeholder Committee members will not support any terminal concept that would lead to diversion of air traffic from the South Field to the North Field. • San Leandro Stakeholder Committee members will not support any terminal development beyond what the airport's current runways can sustain. When the Oakland Airport reaches capacity of its current airfield, expansion should stop. Committee members approved staff to present these positions to the Port. Committee Recommendations None 3. Public Comments Dennis Rosucci asked for clarification that Neptune Drive would stay in item 7 of the agreement. He also asked if large and heavy cargo aircraft can be added to the San Leandro Runway Use Policy. Francois Gallo stated that he believes the City did not need to negotiate for the ILS. He feels the second ILS has been part of the Port's plan all along to put air carriers on the North Field. He asked if an earlier temninal concept design showing a possible passenger terminal at the North Field was being studied further. (Staff replied that the drawing he was referring to is over a year and a half old. It was used as a research tool for Port planners but has not been offered for consideration in the Master Plan process.) He also commented that cargo traffic was not discussed in the agreement at all. 2