— from Russ Borgnin —
Dear Port of Orcas and Airport Commission,
Yesterday I learned of the airport Master Plan and that public comment was ending today, October 5.
I’m a pilot that has been an aviation user of Orcas Island Airport for 20 years. Starting in 1998 I was the initial organizer of the annual Cascade Flyers Fly-In every July.
I’d like to offer input and comments to the Master Plan proposal since I eventually hope to become a resident of the Island and perhaps a tie-down or hanger tenant.
1. Firstly, the public comment period was grossly under advertised. I understand there were a few hand written signs, some postcards, a notice and that was about it, for a very short and non-inclusive comment period.
The notices certainly did not include extended airport users or the local aviation community. I implore that the comment period be significantly extended and much more thoroughly advertised.
Were notices sent to all the area flying clubs, aviation organizations such as EAA and local AOPA chapters, and general aviation airplane owners in the area? Such notices could have easily and readily been sent using such organizations, the public aviation database, and social media.
It’s actions such as this – the apparent ram-rodding through of huge proposals – that destroy the credibility of public facility managers and public commissions such as yours.
2. I’m sure the Master Plan did take a lot of work and time –but this does not mean it is any good. In fact the full plan appears to be completely overdeveloped and soulless without any consideration or enhancement to the Orcas airport as a geographic place or a community.
3. A question is if any stage of the plan will reduce the airport’s instrument approach minimums? Reduced minimums will certainly have a significant effect on the type and quantity of airplane traffic.
4. I’m all for the purchase of the north end private land between the runway and the beach, especially if this becomes open space.
5. I’m extremely troubled by the 240’ taxiway expansion on the east side. It appears a new taxiway would go through the existing terminal and destroy the large grass tie down area between the fuel pump and the AWOS/beacon.
6. The grass tied down area is where we hold our annual fly-in and camp-under-the-wing event. It’s also where the EAA holds their annual aviation event. Where would these functions occur if the Master Plan is implemented?
7. The grass tied down area actually is one of the very few such places that exist in the state, country and indeed the world – for such low key fly in camping under the wing. I would vote to improve this area rather than destroy it – it’s a rare jewel in the aviation community .
8. I’m also very troubled by the large new hanger and terminal area in the SE corner of the airport. The widening of the airport to such an extent and the creation of such a new commercial area goes completely against the idea of keeping Orcas a rural area full of open space. The design of the paving, hangers and terminal by the plan – do nothing to enhance Orcas Island in anyway but degrade the airport, landscape and island into a nasty commercial operation.
9. Orcas Island is a rural island. The fact that it’s hard to get to is keeping Orcas Orcas. This is becoming ever so difficult because it’s sandwiched between the Seattle and Vancouver megapolises. The rural, environmental, small town, country feel of Orcas should be preserved in every way. It does not appear this was a consideration in the Master plan.
10. Also, there are rumors of Oprah coming in and “buying up the town.” Is this influence somehow effecting the development of the airport? This should be thoroughly investigated and realized to the public.
11. The large new hangers proposed in the master plan seem to be targeted toward large turbine and jet powered aircraft. Jet aircraft in particular would vastly change the nature and the environment of Orcas Island, the Airport and the San Juan Islands. The Very Light Jet (VLJ) trend is continuing and perhaps accelerating. The VLJ’s are under 12,500 pounds criteria that would be allowed at Orcas and include such models as:
Cessna Citation Mustang
Eclipse 500
Embraer Phenom 100
Cessna
Honda HA-420 Honda Jet
Cirrus Vision SF50
The new SE corner and terminal area it appears is all designed to be commercial and a turbine & jet operating area. This is not keeping with what Orcas currently represents.
12. I’m totally against the 240’ taxi expansion on the east side. I would support tearing down the existing terminal and building a very small, simple well-designed terminal in its place. This would greatly facilitate the addition of more commercial single engine planes, turbine powered Caravans and passenger traffic.
13. If the cargo tenant needs a bigger facility the port should support a new facility for them at or near their existing location as well.
14. I would support some enhancement to the grass tie down area that can be better used for fly in camping and transient aircraft .
15. And of course any enhancement to the airport perimeter to enhance the environmental quality of the area is definitely supported.
There is much more to say and to consider with this Master Plan. I hope the airport will extend the time for input and vastly expand and explain the plan to the aviation community, residents of Orcas and the San Juan Islands, and to the citizens of the Northwest at large.
Kind Regards,
Russ Borgnin
Portland, Oregon
Cessna 172
Boeing 737-BBJ
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
Comments appear and disappear. Apologize for abbreviating and reposting as it has appeared my reply had been deleted for length.
Tony Simpson, your comment was deleted because of an ad hominem statement.
Lots of good comments but I’m struck by nos. 7 and 14 as they go to the very heart of the “human” scale that is a consistent theme among residents:
We’re rural and we want to stay that way.
The idea that remaining rural, folksy, relaxed, relying on island grown food, that we push back against fast food franchises, prefer family and local owned businesses, like camp, like to sit around fire pits with someone stringing a guitar while another chimes in …that this isn’t its own unique sophistication….that we have to give this pace of life up…that it’s not possible any longer because we have to “keep up with the times”…are such a misnomers and represent attempts at classic misdirection.
The above “human” scale and quality of life on Orcas Island is our very conscious choice;
we need to fight to maintain it when and wherever it’s under attack.
We need an airport that remains true to the rural character of the island..both in size and scale. As it comes available. technology can even allow us to do “smaller” better, safer, cleaner and less intrusive all while remaining highly functional.
Let’s not sale the farm just yet.
The airport is here to serve us, not redefine us.
So refreshing to have a pilot who knows what he is talking about! Re the grass open area, this year at the Fly In breakfast we had the opportunity to chat with several of the couples who were “camped out” for the event to tell us they often come over on weekends, love to walk To town and shop, love the Village feel and stores. One couple said two days here took away all weeks work stress.
I have not missed a Fly in in 20 years, am a plane junkie who raised a family in the North boonies and relied on our pilots and planes, part of what appealed to me with Orcas
Russ Borgnin wrote,
“3. A question is if any stage of the plan will reduce the airport’s instrument approach minimums?”
The answer is yes. The plan does include improving the instrument approach by lowering the weather minimums required to land at Orcas. This will increase the number of aircraft using this facility. Lower minimums will certainly have a significant effect on the type and quantity of airplane traffic and landing with restricted visibility will increase the chance for accident. Keep in mind that many pilots flying into and out of small fields like Orcas do not have the total hours and instrument experience that is found with pilots that frequent the large commercial airports. Additionally Orcas will then be used by instruments rated pilots to obtain their quarterly instruments practice approaches. When I used to fly it was common practice to find a smaller airport that wasn’t as busy as the larger commercial fields so we could make the multiple approaches necessary to retain our currency.
Dick Bronson
Well said, Russ – I hope you submitted this to:
orcasmasterplan@dowl.com
as your comment – due by midnight tonight.
Is a posting that is inaccurate and full of falsehoods better than a supposed ad hominem attack? Is this better or is the entire content ad hominem.
Take strong exception to your characterization of what we have done here and it starts with your characterization of our advertising. We sent mail to every address on this island and invited participation. That mailing noted information on our website which has been there and updated for a year. We submitted and were printed in our local paper numerous times. We’ve held public meetings and then held additional Special Meetings of the commission to take comment and answer questions. I volunteered to meet with, discuss over the phone or answer by email questions and comments about specific elements.
If anyone would understand Balanced Field Length, I would expect it to be someone with “Boeing 737-BBJ” in their signature block. Your comments suggest you don’t understand.
This process has been conducted comparably to every master plan in the country. We far exceeded our allocated budget for public engagement in excess of any other airport in the region or Alaska. We will not extend the comment period.
I think you don’t understand the process or what an Airport Layout Plan represents. Just because hangars are shown on the drawings does not mean they ever get built. It is the way the FAA permits us to build anything… from 1 to 100. very limited demand for new hangars and I expect that in the next 40 years, we might build 10…and they’d probably be T-hangars sized for GA aircraft.
Resigning this winter, I look forward to not cleaning up after your group next year.
Thank you for your comments from Portland. Will be included for commissioners review.
Most of Mr Borgnin’s statements are mischaracterizations or outright incorrect.
1-No, it wasn’t. Our public engagement has exceeded the standard and exceeds anything done in the Northwest Mountain Region or Alaska in the history of AIP for airports this sized. Your statement is false. My credibility is unblemished when assessed objectively and not subjectively.
2-It is good. Your assessment is flawed.
3-LP minimums are already 340′. If you look and research TERPS criteria, you would find there is no way to get LP or LPV minimums much below current 340′. Adoption of RNAV16 with LP minimums have done nothing to increase “undesirable” traffic and LPV minimums (if developed) would have a “Runway Point of Intercept” (RPI) approximately 1,000 feet down the runway, which is completely unacceptable for VLJs landing in (typically) wet runway conditions… However, it has improved access for Medevac helicopters and airplanes.
4-Cascade flyers regularly trespass across North Beach property not belonging to Port, damaging our fence in the process. If acquired it would not be open space for recreation right off the end of the runway.
5-narrow and lengthen. We likely retain 21 spots net.
7-We retain the current area, expanding into helipad location and build new on the west side. Look closer.
8-Required by design standard of current users
9-The impacts to rural character are more influenced by Ferry, VRBO, Air BnB, Film Festival, Doe Bay Fest, Destination Weddings, etc. than the airport ever will.
10-No, absolutely no influence or contact whatsoever. False Flag statement.
11-ORS is classified as a “Commercial Services Airport” and hangar depictions are simply the process by which the FAA approves any potential development. You should research Airport Layout Plan. Box hangars were depicted in SE parcel because of taxiway layout requirements…they will likely never be built due to lack of demand/cost.
12-Can’t go in current location
13-Can’t go in current location
Bronson- False statement about approaches. They are as low as they will ever be. See my point by point response above this one.
Russ, Thank you for input as well as Dick Bronson’s. I couldn’t agree more.
I disagree with some of the Port Manager’s points of exception to Mr. Borgnin’s letter, and with the alleged accusations of our “characterization” of a public process that remains flawed.
1) Hundreds of people never got the postcards; that’s a fact. So in essence, that’s calling all of us liars to insist that all addresses on Orcas Island got one.
I’ve seen the postcard on the DOWL powerpoint document from January; but since most of us didn’t know about the master plan until July or later, how could we look? Besides, it doesn’t reveal that the Master Plan (MP) proposes major buildout; but I guess that’s advertising! – no need to tell the Public about potential flaws in a product if it’s not legally mandated.
2) Some key landowners in or near the land acquisition zones never got notified that parts of their properties were slated for potential acquisition. Some are still just finding out what’s proposed in their own backyards and neighborhoods.
3) Except for a few entries not related to the MP, until early July at our insistence, nothing about this Plan was up there “for a year.” Nor are blog entries dated, including the MP blog entries – this on a Public Taxing District website. Only the January and June document links are posted on the MP part, and we had to keep working with DOWL to get the drawings to be readable and printable. (Treasurers reports show the Port’s web hosting as free-of-charge since Jan. 2016 – and not shown on the reports at all before that.)
4) Did Tony, DOWL, and the Port even try to approach the FAA with our constraints and apply for a M.O.S. (modification of standards) – knowing Public sentiment and our feeling that this whole planning process needs more time and thought and FAA eyes on our legitimate concerns? That question has still never been answered.
~CON’T. next comment~.
PART 2 of comment ~
5) Until we complained to the FAA in writing and publicly called out the lack of transparency when many of us found out for the first time in early July, the Port did only the minimum legal requirement toward the Public. Now we’re blamed for the Port going over-budget.
6) The names of the Manager’s hand-picked Advisory Committee (AC) were not released to the Public from January when it formed, until August when it was too late to effect correction. The AC was heavily weighted toward industry. The Port still has to follow State Law under the Public Records and Open Meetings Act, including fair balance of representation within an AC. There were other conflicts- of-interest, not detailed here.
7) My questions have still not been answered about moving the helipad south near Mt. Baker Road as part of the 240′ runway separation:
a) have the Brands and other directly-impacted residents to the South been notified that this is on the Preferred Plan?
b) Will the helipad itself be enlarged to access the larger B-2 airport helicopters? What is the maximum length and weight supposedly allowed? We’ve witnessed an upsurge of private and military helicopters in the last two years. Flight logs, if we have them, would clearly show the increase.
8) Still no answers to my questions about jets; others have asked about ultra-light jets. Prove to us that they WON’T come.
Again the reminder: The FAA’s “Non-Discrimination” AIP Grant Assurances bind us to this: Once an airport takes the grant monies, it CANNOT REFUSE ACCESS to any aircraft that can land and take off from that airport. This leaves us vulnerable to larger and noisier aircraft since we can’t stop them from coming here. What impacts would that have on all the people on the ground who, so far, continue to have no real voice in outcome – unless the Commissioners will listen?
OI Community. Sadie raises salient points begging for response.
For the sake of a good faith Community to Port and Port to Community relationship, shouldn’t these matters be addressed squarely? (I’m assuming they haven’t)
A suggestion:
Why not pick one representative from the Community (selected by the Community) to interpose questions to the Commissioners with an audience in attendance that promises decorum, respect and no interruptions?
It might very well be go a long way to dispel unwarranted fears and/or disabuse any and all of possible misunderstandings. The questions will need to be prepared in advance and forwarded to the Commissioners with enough notice so that they can respond meaningfully.
This might be something that can be cleared up in one 2-3 hour evening meeting. Doing this face to face allows for a cordial interaction for follow up clarifications. Since only the designated person will interact with the Commissioners it will avoid getting off point and end being quite enlightening.
Send the bill for the coffee and donuts to me.
(p.s. It would be especially nice if Tony could join the Commissioners up at the table)