DOCSLIB.ORG

Community Relations Plan Update Number 4 Fort Ord, California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Community Relations Plan Update Number 4 Fort Ord, California FINAL COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN UPDATE NUMBER 4 FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA Department of the Army Fort Ord Base Realignment and Closure Office P. O. Box 5008 Monterey, California 93944-5008 November 2013 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 OVERVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN .................................................. 3 1.1 Introduction 3 1.2 Regulatory Overview 3 1.3 Community Relations Plan Organization 4 1.4 Purpose 4 1.5 Point of Contact 5 1.6 Information Sources 5 1.7 Key Community Interests and Concerns 5 1.8 Objective 6 1.9 Role of the Base Realignment and Closure Environmental Process 6 1.10 Role of the Base Realignment and Closure Cleanup Team 6 1.11 Role of the Army 6 1.12 Role of the Regulatory Agencies 6 1.13 Role of the Fort Ord Reuse Authority 7 1.14 Role of the Community 7 1.15 Base Realignment and Closure / Property Transfer 7 2.0 FORMER FORT ORD SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................... 9 2.1 Regional Setting 9 2.2 Climate 9 2.3 Biological Setting 9 3.0 FORT ORD HISTORY ............................................................................................................ 11 3.1 Military History 11 3.2 Environmental Cleanup History 11 i 4.0 FORT ORD LAND USE ......................................................................................................... 13 4.1 Developed Land 13 4.2 Undeveloped Land 14 4.3 Impacts of Future Development 14 5.0 SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION ........................................................ 15 5.1 Soil 15 5.2 Groundwater 15 5.3 Overview of the Soil and Groundwater Cleanup Process 17 6.0 CLEANUP OF MUNITIONS AND EXPLOSIVES OF CONCERN ............................ 20 6.1 Munitions Response Sites 20 6.2 Military Munitions Response Program 20 • 6.2.1 Military Munitions Response Program Goal .................................................................................... 20 • 6.2.2 Summary of the Military Munitions Response Program Process ................................................. 20 7.0 COMMUNITY BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 23 7.1 Community Profile 23 • 7.1.1 On-Base and Nearby Residents ....................................................................................................... 23 • 7.1.2 Elected Officials and Public Agencies .............................................................................................. 24 • 7.1.3 Natural Resource Trustees ................................................................................................................ 24 • 7.1.4 Environmental and Special Interest Groups ................................................................................... 25 7.1.4.1 Fort Ord Community Advisory Group .......................................................................................... 25 7.1.4.2 Fort Ord Environmental Justice Network .................................................................................... 25 7.1.4.3 Marina in Motion ............................................................................................................................. 25 • 7.1.5 Environmental Justice / Minority and Low Income Populations (Environmental Justice Communities) ..................................................................................................................................................... 26 7.2 Chronology of Community Involvement 26 7.3 Community Interests and Concerns 27 • 7.3.1 The Pace of the Cleanup ................................................................................................................... 27 • 7.3.2 Health Effects of Contamination, Public Safety .............................................................................. 27 • 7.3.3 Suitability of Property for Transfer / Reuse ..................................................................................... 28 • 7.3.4 Vegetation Burning / Air Quality ........................................................................................................ 28 • 7.3.5 Groundwater and Soil Contamination .............................................................................................. 28 • 7.3.6 Conservation of Habitat ...................................................................................................................... 29 • 7.3.7 Military Munitions / Public Safety ...................................................................................................... 29 • 7.3.8 Other Community Comments ............................................................................................................ 29 8.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF THE COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAM ............................. 31 ii 8.1 Methods of Communication 31 • 8.1.1 Public Access to Information ............................................................................................................. 31 • 8.1.2 Community Preferences for Receiving Information ....................................................................... 31 • 8.1.3 Information Repositories and Administrative Record .................................................................... 32 • 8.1.4 Areas of Interest in Cleanup Information ......................................................................................... 32 • 8.1.5 Translations.......................................................................................................................................... 32 8.2 Resources for the Community Relations Program 33 • 8.2.1 Surveys and Interviews ...................................................................................................................... 33 • 8.2.2 Mailing Lists, Door-to-Door Distribution, and Targeted Mailings.................................................. 33 • 8.2.3 Restoration Advisory Board ............................................................................................................... 34 • 8.2.4 Community Involvement Workshops ................................................................................................ 34 • 8.2.5 Technical Review Committee ............................................................................................................ 34 • 8.2.6 Media .................................................................................................................................................... 35 • 8.2.7 Environmental Groups, Activists, and Others ................................................................................. 35 9.0 COMMUNITY RELATIONS OBJECTIVES, METHODS, AND TIMING ................. 36 9.1 Community Relations Program Objectives 36 9.2 Types and Timing of Community Relations Activities 36 • 9.2.1 Community Involvement Workshops (Objectives A, B, D G, H, I, J) .............................................. 37 • 9.2.2 Tours (Objectives A, B, D, E, J) ........................................................................................................... 38 • 9.2.3 Orientations for Organizations, Agencies, and Groups (Objectives C, D, J) ................................ 38 • 9.2.4 Fact Sheets (Objectives B, D, I, J) ...................................................................................................... 38 • 9.2.5 Technical Review Committee (Objectives A, C, D, G, H, I, J) ......................................................... 39 • 9.2.6 Public Notices (Objectives A, B, E, J) ................................................................................................. 39 • 9.2.7 Public Comment Periods and Public Meetings (Objectives A, B, G, J) ......................................... 39 • 9.2.8 Administrative Record and Information Repositories (Objectives A, B, E, F, J) ........................... 40 • 9.2.9 Fort Ord Cleanup Web Site (Objectives B, D, F, G, H, J) ................................................................. 40 • 9.2.10 Media, Updates, and Advertisements (Objectives B, E, J) .............................................................. 41 • 9.2.11 Annual Report (Objectives B, E, G, I, J) ............................................................................................. 41 • 9.2.12 Munitions and Explosives of Concern Safety Education Program (Objectives B, D, J) .............. 42 • 9.2.13 Update for Local Officials (Objectives C, J) ....................................................................................... 42 • 9.2.14 Toll Free Number (Objectives B, D, I, J) ............................................................................................ 42 • 9.2.15 Response to Questions and Concerns (Objective D, J) .................................................................. 42 • 9.2.16 Guided Walks (Objective I, J) ............................................................................................................. 43 10. REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 43 iii LIST OF APPENDICES A BRAC Cleanup Team Points of Contact B List of Key Community Leaders and Interested Parties C Fort Ord Property Transfer Map D Fort Ord Settings (D-1) Jurisdictions of Fort Ord (D-2) E Map of Soil and Groundwater Cleanup Sites (E-1, Excerpt from BW-2632) Map of Groundwater Contamination and Groundwater Treatment Systems (E-2) Map of Munitions Response Sites (E-3, Excerpt
Load more

Recommended publications
  • * Fewer Than 11 Applicants Attorneys Admitted in Other Jurisdictions Less
    GENERAL STATISTICS REPORT JULY 2018 CALIFORNIA BAR EXAMINATION OVERALL STATISTICS FOR CATEGORIES WITH MORE THAN 11 APPLICANTS WHO COMPLETED THE EXAMINATION First-Timers Repeaters All Takers Applicant Group Took Pass %Pass Took Pass %Pass Took Pass %Pass General Bar Examination 5132 2816 54.9 2939 468 15.9 8071 3284 40.7 Attorneys’ Examination 297 121 40.7 225 48 21.3 522 169 32.4 Total 5429 2937 54.1 3164 516 16.3 8593 3453 40.2 DISCIPLINED ATTORNEYS EXAMINATION STATISTICS Took Pass %Pass CA Disciplined Attorneys 19 1 5.3 GENERAL BAR EXAMINATION STATISTICS First-Timers Repeaters All Takers Law School Type Took Pass %Pass Took Pass %Pass Took Pass %Pass CA ABA Approved 3099 1978 63.8 1049 235 22.4 4148 2213 53.4 Out-of-State ABA 924 538 58.2 417 52 12.5 1341 590 44.0 CA Accredited 233 38 16.3 544 51 9.4 777 89 11.5 CA Unaccredited 66 10 15.2 259 22 8.5 325 32 9.8 Law Office/Judges’ Chambers * * * Foreign Educated/JD Equivalent 149 28 18.8 171 24 14.0 320 52 16.3 + One Year US Education US Attorneys Taking the 295 172 58.3 130 44 33.8 425 216 50.8 General Bar Exam1 Foreign Attorneys Taking the 352 46 13.1 309 38 12.3 661 84 12.7 General Bar Exam2 3 4-Year Qualification * 30 0 0.0 36 1 2.8 Schools No Longer in Operation * 26 1 3.8 32 4 12.5 * Fewer than 11 Applicants 1 Attorneys admitted in other jurisdictions less than four years must take and those admitted four or more years may elect to take the General Bar Examination.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Oregon School of Law 2,315,690 Brigham Young
    Rank Law School Score 1 University of Oregon School of Law 2,315,690 2 Brigham Young University School of Law 1,779,018 3 University of Illinois College of Law 1,333,703 4 DePaul University College of Law 976,055 5 University of Utah College of Law 842,671 6 Suffolk University Law School 700,616 St. Mary's University of San Antonio School 564,703 7 of Law 8 Northern Illinois University College of Law 537,518 9 University of Michigan Law School 500,086 10 College of William & Mary 431,510 LexisNexis Think Like A Lawyer Case Law Game Exampionship Leaderboard NOTE: Rankings are based on the cumulative Think Like A Lawyer Game scores for each school, which is a combination of the top scores of all students from each school. Page 1 of 5 11 Charlotte School of Law 404,331 12 University of Nevada Las Vegas - William S. Boyd School of Law 356,763 13 Lewis and Clark Law School 342,146 14 Gonzaga University School of Law 300,753 15 University of Houston Law Center 297,125 16 South Texas College of Law 293,509 17 University of South Carolina Law Center 284,762 18 Howard University School of Law 278,628 19 Michigan State University School of Law 266,731 20 Washington University School of Law 243,097 21 Willamette University College of Law 239,586 22 Texas Southern University 223,523 23 Tulane University Law School 200,823 24 Barry University School of Law 200,428 25 St. Thomas University School of Law 193,744 26 University of Miami School of Law 191,251 27 University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law 187,862 28 Northeastern University School
    [Show full text]
  • September 11, 2017 VIA EMAIL and PERSONAL DELIVERY the Honorable Tani G. Canti
    September 11, 2017 VIA EMAIL AND PERSONAL DELIVERY The Honorable Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, Chief Justice and Associate Justices SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 350 McAllister Street Room 1295 San Francisco, California 94902-4797 RE: The California Bar Exam – Adjustment to the Minimum Passing Score Dear Chief Justice and Associate Justices: The undersigned Deans of the California Accredited Law Schools (CALS) request leave to file this Letter Brief to ask the Court to exercise its inherent power to admit persons to practice law in California and to adjust the minimum passing score (cut score) of the California bar exam.1 Following comprehensive study and analysis of minimum competence, the CALS join with many other stakeholders and experts, including the State Bar of California, in supporting a change in the minimum passing score of the California Bar Exam to 1390, as the one score that represents the intersection of research data, norms, current practice, and policy. The CALS previously petitioned the Court on March 2, 2017 to request an adjustment to the minimum passing score from 1440 to 1350.2 In response, the Court expressed its concern that it “lacks a fully developed analysis with supporting evidence from which to conclude that 1440 or another cut score would be most appropriate for admission to the bar in California.”3 The Court directed the State Bar of California (State Bar) to conduct “a thorough and expedited investigation” that includes “a meaningful analysis of the current pass rate and information sufficient to determine whether protection of potential clients and the public is served by maintaining the current cut score.”4 1 California Rules of Court, Rules 9.3(a) and 9.6(a), as amended and effective on January 1, 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Affiliated Colleges and Universities
    Affiliated Colleges and Universities Academy of Art University, San Francisco Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law Azusa Pacific University Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science Bakersfield College Citrus College Berkeley City College City College of San Francisco Brigham Young University, Idaho City University of Seattle Butte College Claremont Graduate University Cabrillo College Claremont McKenna College Cal Northern School of Law Clovis Community College California Baptist University College of San Mateo California Institute for Integral Studies College of the Canyons California Lutheran University College of the Redwoods California Northern School of Law The Colleges of Law – Santa Barbara and Ventura California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Concordia University California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Contra Costa College California State University Crafton Hills College Bakersfield Cuesta College California Maritime Academy Cuyamaca College Channel Islands Cypress College Chico De Anza College Dominguez Hills DeVry University East Bay Diablo Valley College Fresno Dominican University of California Fullerton Drexel University Humboldt Duke University Long Beach El Camino College Los Angeles Empire College Monterey Bay Feather River College Northridge Foothill College Sacramento Fresno City College San Bernardino Fresno Pacific University San Diego Fullerton College San Francisco Gavilan College San Jose George Fox University San Marcos George Mason University Sonoma Georgia Institute of Technology Stanislaus Glendale Community College California Western School of Law Glendale University College of Law Carnegie Mellon University Golden Gate University, San Francisco Cerritos College Golden Gate University School of Law Chabot College Grand Canyon University Chaffey College Grossmont College Chapman University Hartnell College Note: This list is updated frequently.
    [Show full text]
  • [Project Title]
    SCREENCHECK DRAFT INITIAL STUDY Joby Aviation Manufacturing Facility File No. DR 2019-27 January 2020 Prepared with Prepared By: the Assistance of: City of Marina Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 209 Cypress Avenue 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 Marina, California 93933 Monterey, California 93940 Contact: Christine Hopper Contact: Josh Harwayne This page was left intentionally blank. Table of Contents I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............................................................................................... 1 II. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................... 3 A. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 3 B. PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................................................... 3 C. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................. 6 D. OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT .............................................................................................. 8 E. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE, STAGING, AND EQUIPMENT ............................................................ 13 F. PROJECT APPROVALS AND PERMITS REQUIRED ............................................................................. 13 III. PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER APPLICABLE LOCAL AND STATE PLANS AND MANDATED LAWS .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Student Handbook 2020-2021
    Monterey College of Law San Luis Obispo College of Law Kern County College of Law Student Handbook 2020-2021 Table of Contents GENERAL INFORMATION .............................................................................................................................. 3 Course Times/Locations ............................................................................................................................ 3 Accreditation ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Bar Pass Statistics ...................................................................................................................................... 4 COMMITTEE OF BAR EXAMINERS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ................................................................ 4 Registration as a Law Student ................................................................................................................... 4 Equal Opportunity and Non-Discrimination ............................................................................................. 4 The First Year Law Students’ Examination (“FYLSX” or “Baby Bar”) ......................................................... 4 Admission to Practice Law in California .................................................................................................... 5 Practicing Law in Other States .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Airports Economics Impacts Study Final 2003
    Airports Economic Impacts Study for Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz Counties August 13, 2003 Prepared by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments and funded, in part, by the Federal Aviation Administration AMBAG Airports Economic Impact Study Executive Summary The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) received grant funding from the Federal Aviation Administration to complete an economic analysis of the regional importance of the six public airports serving the AMBAG region (Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz Counties). Of the region’s airports, the Monterey Peninsula Airport is the only scheduled air carrier airport in the region while all six airports serve general aviation purposes. These airports are: Hollister Municipal Airport: Located in the northern end of the city of Hollister and operated by the City for general aviation. Marina Municipal Airport: After the closure of Fort Ord, the City of Marina was conveyed Fritzsche Army Airfield in 1995. The City reopened the airport as a municipal general aviation airport. Mesa Del Rey (King City) Airport: Located in south Monterey County, this airport is operated by the City of King for general aviation. Monterey Peninsula Airport: The Monterey Peninsula Airport District operates this facility on the Monterey Peninsula. The District is composed of the Cities of Carmel-by- the-Sea, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Seaside, Sand City, Del Rey Oaks and portions of the Monterey County unincorporated area. This airport supports general aviation and commercial, air carrier traffic. Salinas Municipal Airport: The City of Salinas operates this general aviation airport located within their sphere of influence in Monterey County.
    [Show full text]
  • Feb 2018 Cal Bar Exam
    GENERAL STATISTICS REPORT FEBRUARY 2018 CALIFORNIA BAR EXAMINATION1 OVERALL STATISTICS FOR CATEGORIES WITH MORE THAN 11 APPLICANTS WHO COMPLETED THE EXAMINATION First-Timers Repeaters All Takers Applicant Group Took Pass %Pass Took Pass %Pass Took Pass %Pass General Bar Examination 1267 498 39.3 3434 784 22.8 4701 1282 27.3 Attorneys’ Examination 391 211 54.0 211 50 23.7 602 261 43.4 Total 1658 709 42.8 3645 834 22.9 5303 1543 29.1 DISCIPLINED ATTORNEYS EXAMINATION STATISTICS Took Pass % Pass CA Disciplined Attorneys 25 0 0 GENERAL BAR EXAMINATION STATISTICS First-Timers Repeaters All Takers Law School Type Took Pass %Pass Took Pass %Pass Took Pass %Pass CA ABA Approved 316 143 45.3 1423 445 31.3 1739 588 33.8 Out-of-State ABA 164 58 35.4 538 144 26.8 702 202 28.8 CA Accredited 122 28 23.0 570 52 9.1 692 80 11.6 CA Unaccredited 75 16 21.3 244 18 7.4 319 34 10.7 Law Office/Judges’ * * * Chambers Foreign Educated/JD 68 7 10.3 157 17 10.8 225 24 10.7 Equivalent + One Year US Education US Attorneys Taking the 310 204 65.8 140 64 45.7 450 268 59.6 General Bar Exam2 Foreign Attorneys 198 38 19.2 312 44 14.1 510 82 16.1 Taking the General Bar Exam3 4-Year Qualification4 * 19 0 0 26 0 0 Schools No Longer in * 29 0 0 33 1 3.0 Operation * Fewer than 11 Applicants 1 These statistics were compiled using data available as of the date results from the examination were released.
    [Show full text]
  • Marina Municipal Airport
    RESOLUTION NO. 2018-149 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA APPROVING CONDITIONAL AIRPORT USE PERMIT FOR SKYDIVE MONTEREY BAY, INC. TO USE AN INTERIM PARACHUTE DROP ZONE AT MARINA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT; AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONDITIONAL AIRPORT USE PERMIT ON BEHALF OF CITY, SUBJECT TO FINAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY ATTORNEY WHEREAS, Skydive Monterey Bay, Inc. (SMB) has operated at Marina Municipal Airport since June 1996 and has utilized the eastern portion of the Airport (near the north tarmac) for parachute landings under terms and conditions of Conditional Airport Use Permits (CAUP); and WHEREAS, having SMB at the Marina Municipal Airport is desirable and generates revenue for the airport; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting of December 20, 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2016-162, approving a CAUP for Skydive Monterey Bay, Inc. to use an interim parachute drop zone at the Marina Municipal Airport from April 1, 2016 through December 31, 2018; and WHEREAS, the 2016 permit provided for an alternate interim parachute drop zone in the requested area north of the north tarmac and east of Taxiway A. To date, this drop zone location has been working effectively to reduce conflicts with the non-aeronautical activities being conducted on the north and south tarmacs, while improving the turnaround times between jumps; and WHEREAS, the CAUP to utilize an interim parachute drop zone is presented for City Council consideration (“EXHIBIT A”); and WHEREAS, the alternate interim parachute drop zone located north of the north tarmac and east of taxiway A (see EXHIBIT A of the Permit) has been identified and designated in the Airport Master Plan as the long-term location for use as an interim parachute drop zone; and WHEREAS, the CAUP allows for SMB’s use of the alternate and/or interim parachute drop zones for the period of January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Revisions to Marina Municipal Airport Land Use Plan
    Draft Marina Municipal Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan April 2006 WADELL ENGINEERING CORPORATION AIRPORT PLANNING ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Draft Marina Municipal Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan Revisions Incorporating Safety Areas from the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (January 2002) With Updated AMBAG Forecasts And Updated Noise Modeling Using the FAA INM 6.1 April 2006 Prepared for the: City of Marina Prepared by: Wadell Engineering Corporation Airport Planning – Engineering – Management Consultants Burlingame, California TABLE OF CONTENTS (Revised Sections Shown in Italics) Chapter One - Introduction .......................................................................................................1 PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZATION ...................................................................................1 Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission..................................................................2 PLAN ORGANIZATION.......................................................................................................2 PLAN ADOPTION PROCESS ..............................................................................................2 Chapter Two - Marina Municipal Airport...............................................................................3 LOCATION AND SETTING.................................................................................................3 HISTORY ...............................................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • SUMMARY of the October 2020 WEATHER on the MONTEREY PENINSULA General: October Was Yet Another Warm and Dry Month with Light Winds and More Fog Than Normal
    Department of Meteorology Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, California 93943 SUMMARY of the October 2020 WEATHER ON THE MONTEREY PENINSULA General: October was yet another warm and dry month with light winds and more fog than normal. Marina recorded 10 days with fog (visibility less than a quarter mile), which is four more than the normal number of fog-days. Smoke, which had impacted the area during August and September was much reduced during October. Temperature: Temperatures during October can be quite warm to hot as the last vestiges of summer are possible with off-shore winds. Two of these episodes happened this past month (01-02 Oct and 15- 17 Oct) with temperatures into the 90s°F. Warmest reading at our Upper Monterey site was a toasty 98°F on 02 Oct. Carmel Valley reached 103°F and Big Sur 102°F on this day and the rest of our observers recorded 90°F or higher as well (below, see the table of Comparative Weather Data for Stations contributing to this summary). At our Upper Monterey site, one daily maximum record was set on 16 Oct with a reading of 93°F. This eclipsed the old record of 92°F set in 1967 and again in 1997. Daily warm minimum records were set or tied with 77°F on 01 Oct (old record was 66°F in 1980), 71°F on 15 Oct (tied old record set in 1961), and 70°F on 16 Oct bested the previous record of 64°F set back in 1967. For the month, average high was 76.5°F (6.0°F warmer than long-term average) and average low was 56.5°F (5.0°F above normal).
    [Show full text]
  • Aviation in California: Benefits to Our Economy and Way of Life
    Aviation in California: Benefits to Our Economy and Way of Life JUNE 2003 PUBLIC USE AIRPORTS BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Commercial/Primary (29) Metropolitan (20) Regional (66) Community (102) Limited Use (33) Joint Use — Military/Commercial (2) The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. This report was prepared with funds from a grant provided by the United States Government (80%) and funds from the State of California (20%). Aviation in California: Benefits to Our Economy and Way of Life FINAL REPORT Prepared for BUSINESS,TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS Submitted by Economics Research Associates JUNE 2003 ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Nancy Benjamin Alan R. Tubbs Study Project Manager District Field Services Manager California Department of Transportation Airborne Express, Mather Field Division of Aeronautics Chuck Oldham R. Austin Wiswell Robert Chung Chief California Transportation Commission California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics Carl Williams Senior Policy Director Michael Armstrong California Space Authority, Inc. (CSA) Senior Lead Planner Southern California Association of Governments Bonnie Cornwall (SCAG) Program Manager Division
    [Show full text]