Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council previews runway safety work, right‑of‑way vacation and conflict‑of‑interest guidance on nighttime airport construction
Summary
Council reviewed a public‑hearing ordinance to vacate a portion of right‑of‑way near the airport and considered a request by West Coast Contractors for permission to work outside normal construction hours for safety‑area work on runway 23; staff described likely noisy windows, outreach options and advised that Councilor Hamilton declare a potential conflict of interest because of his employment relationship with the contractor.
City staff previewed two airport‑related items for the council on Oct. 13: a forthcoming public hearing on an ordinance to vacate a portion of a dedication/right‑of‑way (described as Pony Point Road/dedication behind the airport gate) and a request from West Coast Contractors to perform work outside the city’s standard construction hours to complete safety‑area improvements at the northeast corner of runway 23.
The public works director explained that the proposed vacation would extinguish some city rights of public access for a triangular parcel near the airport and noted that adjacent private owners (including a property owner named Jeff Maranhao and an owner identified as Mary Ellen Lewis) had been contacted. Staff described the land as largely behind the airport gate following post‑9/11 access changes and said the city had historically invested in the area but that FAA security rules have closed public access.
On the nighttime‑work request, staff said the contractor plans pile work and cofferdam construction; most pile driving will use a relatively quieter vibratory hammer, but there may be short periods requiring an impact hammer. The work window discussed ranged from mid‑October into February 2026 (transcript contained a typographical year error staff corrected in discussion). Staff proposed notifying residents via the city website and said they could impose restrictions on hours if council deemed appropriate.
Councilors asked how often the loudest work would occur and whether a notification plan should be used; staff said the noisiest activity would likely be concentrated early in the project and that notification and time restrictions are available tools. The council also discussed whether Councilor Hamilton should participate in the discussion and vote because he is employed by the company seeking the night‑work permission. A city staff/legal advisor recommended that Hamilton declare a potential conflict of interest (a disclosure of his employment) to remain in the discussion while documenting the connection; staff said an actual conflict (direct financial benefit) would require recusal.
The work session served as a preview; the ordinance vacation and any authorization for work‑hour exceptions will proceed through the public‑hearing and meeting agenda process.
