Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09181990 - H.7 7 Zp: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS :�. / k. C<)ntra Costa FXM: . Phil Batchelor - County Administrator Cou I]A'iZr: September 13, 1990 SOBJE T: Buchanan Field General Plan, Master Plan and Related Projects SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. APPROVE the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update, as discussed in the January 12, 1990 report of the Public Works Director. Approval of the Master Plan includes the revised airport layout plan, airport access plan, and airport approach and clear zone plan. 2 . DIRECT STAFF to modify the Master Plan to include any changes made by the Board and to reprint a final consolidated Master Plan document for distribution to affected agencies and individuals within two months after plan adoption. 3 . APPROVE the Circulation Improvements as discussed in the DEIR as necessary to the improvements of the airport area, including the Diamond Boulevard Extension and DIRECT the Public Works Director to implement those approvals in a timely fashion. 4 . ADOPT the staff recommended CEQA findings ' consistent with these actions. 5. DIRECT the Community Development Department to file Notice of Determination(s) on these matters. FISCAL IMPACT The costs associated with the development of these plans and programs were paid for out of the airport enterprise fund. The lease agreements allowed under these actions will provide added revenues to both the County General Fund and the Airport Enterprise funds. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS In 1987, the Board of Supervisors authorized the Public Works Director to develop a new Master Plan for the Buchanan Field Airport and to prepare a full environmental impact report on that and related projects. The Master Plan effort proceeded under the direction of the Aviation Advisory Committee. On December 6, 1988, the Board of Supervisors accepted the Master Plan for the basis of preparing a Draft EIR. On April 10, 1990 the Board of Supervisors certified the Final EIR as adequate and complete and approved the Buchanan Field General Plan Amendment. Since that Board action of April 10, 1990, County staff (CAO, Community Development, Public Works, County Counsel) has continued negotiations concerning outstanding issues with the City of Pleasant Hill staff and People Over Planes. These negotiations were very productive and led to staff understandings on numerous issues of concern to all parties. County staff may move to implement many of the items discussed. County staff viewed the purpose of the negotiations to be formation of a complete settlement agreement. Since that was not possible, we are not recommending any additional modifications to the Master Plan and related approvals at this time. Each of the proposed recommendations listed above is further discussed below. 1. A report dated January 12, 1990, from the Public Works Director discussed the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan approval process. He recommends adoption of the Master Plan including it's component parts. Please refer to Attachment A for details of this recommendation. 2 . Upon final adoption of this plan, staff should prepare and publish a final version of the Master Plan for distribution to affected and adjacent cities, public agencies, the FAA, and interested citizens. It should include any modifications made to the Plan by the Board and should integrate the Airport Access Plan into the report. It may take up to two months after final adoption to complete this effort. 3. The Draft EIR describes the circulation improvements which will be necessary to accommodate the General Plan and Master Plan proposals, including construction of the Diamond Boulevard Extension from Concord Avenue to Center Avenue. The Board should approve the general level of circulation improvements identified in the Draft EIR and provide for the Public Works Director to implement these improvements in a timely fashion. 4 . Attached are CEQA findings developed by staff, consistent with, and in support of, the recommendedapprovals being considered by this action . (Attachment B) . It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors adopt these findings. 5. Consistent with County CEQA practice, the Community Development Department is directed to file the appropriate Notice of Determination(s) . CONTINUED ON ATTACEXKNT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARDITTE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON fa APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _X OTHER �[ This being the time for further consideration of a proposed amendment to the the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan, including the revised Airport Layout Plan, Airport Access Plan, Airport Approach and Clear Zone Plan and related projects. Scott Tandy, Assistant County Administrator, reviewed the above recommendations before the Board and added Recommendation #6 to the above as follows: "REFER the items raised by the Airport Land Use Commission in its January 16, 1990 letter to the Manager of Airports to Public Works, General Services and Community Development Departments for action." The Chair invited interested persons in the audience to speak, and the following persons appeared to speak: John Mulhall, Mayor of the City of Pleasant Hill, requested that the Board defer decision today because there are still concerns that have not been worked out, including the location of the terminal (and a possible change in the preferred runway to better accommodate the new terminal location which he feared would put more flights over the City of Pleasant Hill) , the adequacy of the EIR, noise, and number of flights over the City. He suggested moving the commercial flight operation to East County to the Byron Airport. Terri Williamson, Council Member of the City of Pleasant Hill, advised that at the April 10, 1990 meeting, it was agreed that if the staffs of the City and the County could not come to agreement in negotiations, the Board would form a subcommittee of two Board and two Council members. She stated that she .would still like to do that. She expressed concern that once the terminal is enlarged, the control would not be with the County, but rather the FAA. ' She requested that the County not spend money at Buchanan Field, but rather develop a terminal at the Byron Airport. She requested the proposed meeting between the Board and Council members take place before the Board makes its decision on the Master Plan. Kim Brandt, Council Member of the City of Pleasant Hill, also urged that the Board not make a decision before meeting with City representatives. Andrea Wise, representing People over Planes, `. Inc. , submitted a photocopy of a November, 1989 report to Congress entitled: "Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Planning." She also submitted a September 18, 1990 letter from People. over Planes, Inc. urging the Board to continue this decision until the matter of the location of the terminal is resolved. Harry York, representing the Concord Chamber of Commerce, commented that there is nothing new, that some people don' t want the airport there, that they want it to go away. He suggested it is time to vote and take action. He urged the Board to adopt the Master Plan today and to incorporate the Access Plan into it, including 216 seats a day. He urged the Board to move forward. He also noted that when the Manager of Airports spoke before the Concord City Council last week, the message was clear that if there is goingito be any more discussion, the City of Concord wants to be a part of it. Jim Hess, 2152 Shasta Drive, Martinez, advised that the Board had received a letter from the City of Martinez. He noted that conditions had changed considerably since the original EIR was done, and that there are more and more flights over the Martinez area where he lives. James High, 3682 Hillbourgh Drive, Concord, inquired as to the source of funds to develop the master plan and the; extension of Diamond Boulevard, urging that local tax money not. be used. Supervisor McPeak; Hal Wight, Manager of Airports; and J. Michael Walford, Public Works Director; responded with the;; funding sources for the Airport Master Plan and the extension of Diamond Boulevard. The Chair read a card from Joseph L. Campbell, 1717 #33 Solano Way, Concord, indicating that he did not wish to speak, but that he supports the Airport Master Plan as is. There being no further speakers, the Chair invited comments from members of the Board. Supervisor McPeak commented that the six recommendations before the Board are appropriate. Supervisor McPeak again offered to have two members of the Board meet with two members of the Pleasant Hill City Council. Supervisor McPeak advised that she wished to move the six recommendations before the Board, and to clarify on Item No. 1, that the existing airline access plan, as it now stands, is being incorporated, that she does want the Airport Master Plan to reflect up to the 216 seats a day for the commuter scheduled airlines. Supervisor McPeak advised that the Board, on November 14, 1989, agreed to incorporate into the Master Plan, the following two proposals: 1. That the noise contours that were projected in the Part 150 Study are to be incorporated into the Master Plan, and are to be the controlling parameter on aviation growth. 2. That there is an interim ceiling placed on the number of planes that can be based at Buchanan Field at 730 until a noise monitoring system has been installed and operative for six months. As recommended by Supervisor McPeak, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the above six recommendations are approved, said approval to include incorporation in the Master Plan of the two proposals agreed upon by the Board on November 14, 1989 relating to Part 150 Study noise contours and the ceiling of 730 planes, as set forth above. The Board informally agreed that the Internal Operations Committee members (Supervisors Powers and McPeak) are designated as the two Board members to meet with representatives of the Pleasant Hill City Council, and that there be a joint meeting of representatives of the Board of Supervisors, the cities of Concord, Pleasant Hill and Martinez, together with the Aviation Advisory Committee and the Airport Land Use Commission. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that there be a neighborhood meeting in Martinez around the Hess residence on Shasta Drive with the Aviation Advisory Committee and the airport staff to do noise monitoring and to hear complaints. Scott Tandy, Assistant County Administrator, suggested that the Mt. Diablo School District be included in the informational meetings. Supervisor Fanden requested that the Blum Road residents, the Mt. View Improvement Association and the Vine Hill Improvement Association also be invited to attend these meetings. J. Michael Walford, Public Works Director, advised that he wished to change his previous recommendation that the Master Plan not include the emergency services building on the north end of the airport because of its proximity to the Concord Fault. He noted that operationally, it is an ideal place for an emergency services building, and that he had consulted a well-known geologist as to whether a building and a foundation can be designed for a facility in that location, and it appears that he feels that economically it can be done. Mr. Walford therefor recommended that the site for the emergency services building on the north end of the airport be included in the Master Plan. Jim Cutler, Community Development Department, advised that since there is a change being considered, that the motion also include instructions to bring back to the Board next week modifications to the CEQA findings to conform with the changes, including the 216 seats per day for the commuter scheduled airlines. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above recommendations of Mr. Walford and Mr. Cutler are APPROVED. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS ABSENT —� ��- ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc: CAO ATTESTED9 -VII Community Development Department PHIL TCHEL6R, CLERK OF Public Works THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR General Services Airport Manager BY , DEPUTY Concord Pleasant Hill cjc10/jb/bfldmpin.bos ATTACHMENT q PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: January 12, 1990 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: J. Michael Walford, Public Works DirectoV- f ' SUBJECT: Report on Buchanan Field Airport Master On January 20, 1987 , the Board of Supervisors submitted an application to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for a grant to prepare a new Master Plan for Buchanan Field Airport. The last plan that was approved by the Board for Buchanan Field Airport was in 1968 . The consulting firm of McClintock, Becker and Associates, in association with Hodges and Shutt, have prepared a new Master Plan for the Airport. During the preparation period, January 20, 1987 through March 15, 1988, the Aviation Advisory Committee discussed the Master Plan in detail at fourteen of its public meetings . In addition to the public meetings held by the AAC during the planning period, the Airport staff made several public presentations of the Plana in the later stages of its progress . This included presentations to the Pacheco Town Council, pilots, groups, and the Concord Chamber of Commerce Aviation Committee. The Board of Supervisors held a hearing on November 8, 1988, on the proposed Master Plan. Presentations were made by Public Works, staff and the Airport consultants . In addition, the Board took extensive testimony from citizens . The hearing was continued to November 29, 1988 . A special evening workshop to present details on the Master Plan to interested citizens was held on November 14 . On November 29, the Master Plan hearing was continued to December 6 . On December 6, the Board of Supervisors accepted the Master Plan as the project for the purpose of preparing an EIR. The Board directed the Community Development Department to have the EIR completed and authorized Community Development to make appropriate amendments to the General Plan consistent with the Master Plan upon its final approval . The Board also referred the Master Plan to the ALUC for their consideration and review. On July 24 , 25, and 26, 1989, public evening meetings were held in Concord, Pleasant Hill, and Pacheco specifically presenting and reviewing the Master Plan. Approximately 100 to 120 persons attended each of these sessions. On August 7, 1989 , the Master Plan was presented to the Pleasant Fill City Council at its regularly scheduled meeting. On August 8, it was presented to the Concord City Council at its regularly scheduled meeting. On October 11, Airport staff once again reviewed details of the Master Plan with the Pacheco Town Council. On October .20, the Airport staff presented the Master Plan to the Mt. Diablo Pilots, Association. All of the public meetings were widely notified with mass direct mailouts, mailouts to all noise complaint callers, and with newspaper advertising. Audience participation was encouraged at all meetings. At the December 13, 1988 Board of Supervisors , meeting, the Board indicated that the Airline Access Plan would be the governing factor limiting the number of scheduled flights in and out of Buchanan Field Airport. This incorporation of the Access Plan limitations into the Master Plan was reaffirmed by the Board on October 31, 1989 . On November 7, 1989, the Board of Supervisors took action to limit the number of based aircraft to 730 until such time as the Airport has had noise monitoring equipment in place for a minimum of six months . On the same date, the Board adopted a policy for aviation development which limits activities on the Airport to that which will not cause an increase in the year 2010 noise contours as shown in the FAR Part 150 Study approved by the Board on May 3, 1988 . It is recommended by the Public Works Director that upon final approval of the EIR, the Board also approve the proposed Airport Master Plan excepting that the emergency services building be shown on the northwest part of the Airport near Taxiway J. All other items to remain as shown. JMW:dg mprpt.tl cc: H. Wight, BFA ATTACHMENT B STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE, AIRPORT ACCESS PLAN AMENDMENT, GOLF COURSE LEASE, CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS, AND RELATED IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE .BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT. I. INTRODUCTION A. These findings are made by this Board of Supervisors ("Board") of Contra Costa County ("'County"') , pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (NCEQA") and the County regulations promulgated thereunder. On May 8, 1990, the Board certified the Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment ("FEIR/EA") prepared for the Airport Master Plan Update, Airport Access Plan Amendment, Golf Course Lease, General Plan Amendment, Circulation Improvements, and. Related Implementation for Buchanan Field Airport. On that same day, the Board adopted the General Plan Amendment and the CEQA findings thereto. These CEQA findings include the Board's determination relating to the impacts, mitigation measures, alternatives and overriding considerations for the Airport Master Plan Update, Airport Access Plan Amendment, Golf Course Lease and Circulation Improvements. B. Due to the related nature of the Airport Access Plan and the Airport Master Plan, upon approval of these two Plans, the Airport Access Plan shall be incorporated into the Airport Master Plan. II. THE PROJECTS The proposed project is an updated Master Plan for the Buchanan Field Airport ("airport") . This project contains several components, (1) an amendment to the Extended Interim Commercial Airline Access Plan and Regulation ("Access Plan") , (2) a new lease for the Buchanan Fields Golf Course, (3) an amendment to the County General Plan and (4) access and circulation improvements. A. AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE ("AMPU") The AMPU is a policy document that provides direction for the growth and development of the airport through the year 2010. Key elements of the AMPU include forecasts of future aviation activity, airfield design, and building area and facilities requirements, and alternative air passenger terminal sites. -1- B. AIRPORT ACCESS PLAN AMENDMENT ("AAPA") The existing Access Plan serves as the County's policy document regulating the number of air carrier and commuter air flights at the Buchanan Field Airport. The existing Access Plan allows up to seven average daily departures by commercial air carriers and up to 108 daily seats by commuter airlines. The AAPA would allow up to 16 daily average carrier departures and 216 daily seats by commuter airlines. C. GOLF COURSE LEASE The Buchanan Field Golf Course is owned by the County and is leased to a private operator. The current lease will expire soon. The proposed lease will allow the County to enter into an agreement wherein the tenant would be responsible for reconstructing portions of the golfcourse once the extension of Diamond Boulevard is complete (a portion of the existing golf course would be required for the extension of Diamond Boulevard) . D. . GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ("GPA") The proposed project requires an amendment to the Contra Costa County General Plan. On May 8, 1990 the Board approved and adopted the GPA. Pursuant to the GPA, the land use designation for the land east of John Glenn Drive ("Parcel Ay) and the land east of Marsh Drive ("Parcel B") changed from Office to Commercial. Parcel A may now develop a low profile one-to-two story commercial center totalling approximately 220,000 square feet. Parcel B may develop up to 180,000 square feet of commercial use. The GPA also modified the land use designation of the Buchanan Field's Golf Course to better reflect the Parks and Recreation Designation after Diamond Boulevard is extended. Other minor changes were made to the land use, circulation, recreation, and noise elements of the County ` General Plan. E. ACCESS AND CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS ("CIRCULATION .IMPROVEMENTS") Circulation improvements shall be made on the airport and in the airport vicinity to mitigate environmental impacts from the implementation of the AMPU, development of Parcels A and B, and existing conditions. The major improvements include the widening of Marsh Drive north of Center Avenue and John Glen Drive north of Concord Avenue, the realignment of Sally Ride Drive, and the extension of Diamond Boulevard. The extension of Diamond Boulevard was previously approved pursuant to an earlier General Plan Amendment and analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Buchanan Field Airport General Plan Amendment which was certified in 1984. -2- III. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The following statements summarize the potential significant environmental impacts and mitigation measures identified in the FEIR/EA for the AMPU, AAPA, Golf Course Lease, and Circulation Improvements, along with other facts and considerations affecting approval of the AMPU, AAPA, Golf Course Lease and Circulation Improvements. A. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1. AMPU a. Impacts: The overall quality of airport surface water runoff may be reduced by the introduction of additional airport facilities and related improvements. The proposed on-airport fuel farm represents a potential source of ground and surface water contamination. Construction activities may have a short-term impact on water quality. Portions of the northwest quadrant of the airport may be subject to inundation as a result of a 100-year flood in Grayson Creek. b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page III-5 recommends the following summarized measures to reduce to a level of insignificance the potential impacts on water quality resulting from the addition of airport facilities and related improvements: • 1 Prior to construction, conduct a hydrologic design analysis to assess the adequacy of drainage facilities. • . 2 After construction, remove pollutants from local catch basins. • 3 Follow airport adopted and FAA approved emergency fuel spill response procedures. The FEIR/EA at pages III-6 and III-7 recommends the following summarized .measures to reduce the potential significant effects of the proposed fuel farm to a level of insignificance: • 1 The proposed fuel farm shall incorporate standard engineering and monitoring techniques and measures for fuel storage, spill containment, and cleanup as required by law. • 2 Construct the fuel storage facility with state of the art safety and spill diversion and containment systems. -3- • 3 Clean fill and hard stands regularly to minimize the potential discharge of pollutants into surface runoff. • 4 Adopt a spill prevention control and countermeasure (SPCC) plan. • 5 Underground fuel storage tanks shall be subject to County permit requirements and contain double-wall construction with leak detectors. • 6 Construct above ground tanks in accordance with American Petroleum Institute (API) standards for Zone 4 earthquake potential (API 650) . • 7 Control spills or leaks from above-ground tanks in the fuel storage area with an earthen berm impervious concrete liner and a manual drain valve. • 8 Utilize impervious diversion pads to contain spills in truck fill stands and truck unloading areas. The FEIR/EA at page III-7 sets forth the following summarized measures to mitigate to a level of insignificance potential significant construction impacts on water quality: 1 Potential pollutants shall not be discharged into drainage facilities, nor stored or dumped where they might enter the ground water. • 2 Monitor and quickly clean up construction related fuel spills and surface contamination. • 3 Limit grading activities to periods of dry weather. • 4 Grade land in increments as part of construction phasing. • 5 Prepare a comprehensive construction erosion control plan. • 6 Treat water from aggregate washing or other operations containing sediments. -4- • 7 Construction impact mitigation require- ments shall be made a . part of all construction contracts and enforced by inspectors. The FEIR/EA at page III-7 sets forth the following measures to mitigate potential significant flooding impacts to a level of insignificance: • 1 Engineer the site to minimize potential impacts from the 100-year flood. • 2 If necessary, relocate aircraft based in flood prone areas to higher ground. C. Facts: The above mitigation measures shall be implemented as part of the proposed project. d. Findings: The Board finds that the implementation of the above measures will mitigate the potential significant impacts to a level of insignificance. 2 . AAPA a. Impacts: Increased air carrier and commuter airline operations would result in increased accumulations of fuel, oil, and grease on airport pavement which may enter into ground and surface waters. b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page III-11 states that the water quality- mitigation measures set forth above for the AMPU are ` sufficient to reduce these potential impacts to a level of insignificance. C. Facts: The water quality mitigation measures for the AMPU shall be imposed as part of this project component. d. Findings: The Board finds that this impact is mitigated to an insignificant level. 3 . Golf Course Lease a. Impacts: Construction activities for the golf course, pro-shop and restaurant have the potential of creating short term impacts on water quality. -5- b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at pages III-10 and III-11 sets, forth the following summarized measures to reduce potential construction impacts on water quality to a level of insignificance: • 1 Construction impact mitigation require- ments shall be made a part of the. lease and construction contracts, and enforced . by County inspectors. • 2 Construction contracts shall forbid potential pollutants from being discharged into drainage facilities, and stored or dumped where they might enter the groundwater or drainage system. • 3, Same as measures 2 and 3 recommended to 4 mitigate construction impacts on- water quality for the AMPU set forth above. • 5 Require a comprehensive construction erosion control plan, including the use of silt fences or baled hay to prevent the intrusion of silt into local drainage. • 6 Install golf course landscaping as quickly as practical. c. Facts: The mitigation measures suggested above shall be implemented as part of this project component. d'. Findings: The Board finds that this impact is mitigated to an insignificant level. 4. Circulation Improvements a. Impacts: The proposed improvements will result in additional impervious surfaces which could cause localized increases in surface water runoff and have the potential to contribute to the cumulative degradation of local' surface water quality. Construction activities represent a short-term potential for water quality impacts. Erosion and siltation as a result of grading activities also represents a potential source of :short- term surface water contamination. b. Mitigation: To reduce the . water quality impacts to an insignificant level, the FEIR/EA at page III-9 sets forth the same measures as 1 and 2 recommended to mitigate water -6- Y quality impacts resulting from the addition of airport facilities from the AMPU as set forth above. To reduce the construction impacts to an insigni- ficant level, the FEIR/EA at pages III-9 and III-10 sets forth the same measures as 1-5 and 7 recommended to mitigate construction impacts on water quality resulting from.. the AMPU as set forth above. C. Facts: The measures recommended to mitigate these impacts shall be implemented as part of this project component. d. Findings: The Board finds that the implementation of the recommended measures will mitigate the potential significant impacts to a level of insignificance. B. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 1. AMPU a. Impacts: A short-term potential for the erosion of soils by either wind or water may occur as a result of project construction. The moderate expansion potential of the surface soils and the slightly compressible nature of subsurface soils may result in damage to proposed structures and pavement. A short-term potential for soil contamination would result from fueling and maintenance activities associated with project construction. A longer-term potential for soil contamination could result from the implementation of the proposed fuel farm. In addition, implementation of the AMPU will expose more people and property to earthquake hazards. b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page III-15 sets forth the following summarized measures to reduce potential wind erosion and sedimentation to a level of insignificance: • 1 Limit land clearing operations during windy periods. • 2 Use sprinkler irrigation or water trucks to moisten soils during construction. • 3 Maintain vegetation cover on undeveloped land. • 4 Mulch bare soils to stabilize against wind erosion. -7- 1 1 • 5 Include a wind erosion control element in the comprehensive construction erosion control plan required to mitigate water quality impacts. • 6 Limit grading operations to dry weather. • 7 During construction, direct storm water into settlement areas before discharging into drainage systems. The FEIR/EA at pages III-15 and III-16 sets forth the following summarized measures to reduce the potential impacts on soils to a level of insignificance: • 1 If necessary, support airport buildings on deepened footings, slabs on grade and airfield pavement areas on non-expansive fill. • 2 Design site grades to avoid placement of additional fill. • 3 Compact structural fill or wall backfill less than five feet thick to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction and structural fill deeper than five feet to a minimum 95 percent. • 4 Consider special design features for structures sensitive to differential settlement. • 5 Conduct a detailed foundation investi- gation for all new facilities to further evaluate subsurface soils. The FEIR/EA at page III-16 sets forth the following summarized measures to reduce the potential for soil contamination as a result of spills or upset from the proposed fuel farm and construction activities to a level of insignificance: • 1 Incorporate standard engineering designs and clean-up techniques into the fuel farm project. • 2 Design and construct underground tanks in conformance with the law and include double wall construction with . leak detectors between the walls. -8- • 3 Design and construct fuel storage facilities in conformance with seismic safety standards. • 4 Monitor and quickly cleanup all fuel spills and the like. The FEIR/EA at pages III-16 and III-17 sets forth the following summarized measures to reduce the exposure of people and property to an earthquake hazard to a level of insignificance: • 1 Relocate the proposed Red Cross and Civil Air Patrol (CAP) facility outside the Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone. • 2 Design and construct all structures and facilities in conformance with applicable seismic safety standards. C. Facts: The County hired a Registered Engineering Geologist to examine the safety aspects involved in relocating the Red Cross and CAP facility. As a result of this examination, the Engineering Geologist determined that the location of the facility as shown in the AMPU will not expose the public to serious safety risks, if appropriate engineering techniques are followed. The design and construction of the proposed facility will incorporate the necessary and recommended engineering standards. d. Findings: The Board finds that this impact is partially mitigated. 2. AAPA a. Impacts: The proposed AAPA would not result in any significant adverse geological or soils impacts. (FEIR/EA, P. III-19) . b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: The FEIR/EA identifies this impact as insignificant. d. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. 3. Golf Course Lease a. Impacts: Reconstruction of the golf course would result in the overcovering of existing soils and grasses, and result in minor modifications to ground surface relief -9- features. During reconstruction, a short-term potential for soils contamination would occur as a result of fuel spills or leaks, wind and water erosion, and sedimentation. b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page III-19 sets forth the following summarized measure to reduce to a level of insignificance the impacts of overcovering existing soils: • 1 As soon as possible after reconstruction, the developer shall restore the site to a functioning golf course. The FEIR/EA at page III-19 sets forth the following summarized measures to reduce the potential for soils contamination to a level of insignificance: • 1 Pollutants shall not be stored or dumped where they might contaminate soils. • 2 Monitor and quickly clean up construction fuel spills and related surface contamination. To adequately reduce wind erosion and sedimentation impacts, the FEIR/EA at page III-19 sets forth the same measures as 1-7 recommended to mitigate wind erosion and sedimentation impacts for the AMPU as set forth under this section. C. Facts: The above-recommended measures shall be implemented with this project component. d. Findings: The Board finds that the above impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. 4. Circulation Improvements a. Impacts: The moderate expansion potential of surface soils and the slightly compressible nature of local sub- soils may result in damage to new street improvements. Construction activities can create the potential for both wind andwater erosion, and sedimentation in local drainage channels and streams. A short-term potential for local soils contamination would result from possible fuel spills or leaks from construction vehicles. b. Mitigation: To reduce the potential impact on soils to a level of insignificance, the FEIR/EA at pages III-17 and III-18 sets forth the following summarized measures: • 1 Consider supporting pavement areas on non expansive fill. -10- • 2 Design street grades to avoid placement of additional fill. If fill is required, consider surcharging the roadbed to obtain anticipated settlements prior to paving. • 3 Same as measure 3 recommended to reduce soils impacts for the AMPU set forth in this section. • 4 Conduct a soils investigation for each circulation improvement . to further evaluate subsurface soils. To reduce the potential impacts on wind erosion and sedimentation to a level of insignificance, the FEIR/EA at page III-18 sets forth the same measures as 1-7 recommended to reduce wind erosion and sedimentation impacts for the AMPU set forth in this section. • To reduce soils contamination during construction to a level of insignificance, the FEIR/EA at page III-18 sets forth the same two measures recommended to reduce soil contamination for the proposed lease set forth in this section. C. Facts: The above recommended measures shall be implemented with this project component. d. Findings: The Board finds that the above impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. C. PLANTS AND ANIMALS 1. AMPU a. Impacts: Construction activities will result in the destruction of bird and animal habitat and displacement and reduction of resident birds and animals. Aquatic plants and fish may be adversely impacted by project-related pollutants carried by storm water runoff. b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page III-25 recognizes that no reasonable or feasible measures exist to mitigate the impact on plant and animal habitat. The FEIR/EA at page III-25 recommends the following summarized measure to partially reduce the potential impacts of proposed construction activities on resident birds and animals: • 1 Phase construction to provide animals an opportunity to move away from residential areas and into undeveloped areas. -11- The FEIR/EA at pages III-25 and III-26 suggests the following summarized measures to mitigate to a level of insignificance the impact on aquatic plants and fish: • 1. Conduct a hydraulic design analysis to evaluate the need for waste treatment of surface runoff and provide for special drainage system features. • 2 After construction, remove pollutants from local catch basins. • 3 Periodically sweep airport streets, parking lots and apron areas. • 4 Follow airport adopted and FAA approved emergency fuel spill response procedures. C. Facts: The above measures shall be imposed on specific development projects as warranted. d. Findings: The Board finds that there are no reasonable or feasible means available to completely avoid the impact on plant and animal habitat that would occur as a result of construction. The Board further finds that the above measures will partially mitigate the impacts on resident birds and animals, and adequately mitigate the impacts on aquatic plants and fish. 2. AAPA a. Impacts. The proposed AAPA will not significantly impact plants and animals. (FEIR/EA,' p. III-28) . b. Mitigation: None required. c. Facts: The FEIR/EA states that no significant impact will result. d. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. 3 . Golf Course Lease a. Impacts: The proposed lease would result in the elimination of some existing trees and vegetation. b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page III-27 acknowledges that no reasonable or feasible measures are available for the reduction of plant and animal habitat. -12- To partially mitigate the impact on small resident animals, the FEIR/EA at page III-28 suggests implementation of the same measure recommended to partially mitigate the same impact for the AMPU as set forth in this section. The FEIR/EA at pages III-27 and III-28 suggests the following summarized measure to mitigate the impact of the removal of trees and vegetation: • 1 Landscape the golf course with materials associated with a high quality golf course environment. C. Facts: The above measures shall be incorporated into this project component. d. Findings: The Board finds that there are no reasonable or feasible measures to completely avoid the impact on plant and animal habitat. The Board further finds that the above measures will partially mitigate the impact on small resident animals, and adequately mitigate the impact resulting from the removal of trees and vegetation. 4. Circulation Improvements a. Impacts: The proposed improvements will result in the removal and destruction of vegetation, including plant and animal habitat and associated wildlife. Aquatic plants and animals residing in drainage ditches and creeks may be impacted from pollutants carried by storm water runoff. b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page III-26 recognizes that no reasonable or feasible measures exist to mitigate the impact on plant and animal habitat that may result from construction activities. To mitigate the construction impacts on resident animals, the FEIR/EA at pages III-26 and III-27 suggests implementation of the same measure recommended, to partially mitigate the same impact for the AMPU as set forth in this section. To mitigate the impact on aquatic plants and fish to a level of insignificance, the FEIR/EA at page III-27 suggests implementation of measures 1-3 recommended to mitigate the same impact for the AMPU as set forth in this section. . . The FEIR/EA at page III-27 states that the following summarized measure can partially mitigate the impact from removing vegetation for the Diamond Boulevard extension: -13- • 1 Landscape the median between the moving lanes with materials compatible with the proximity of the roadway to the clear zone for Runway IL. C. Facts: The above measures shall be incorpo- rated into this project component. d. Findinct: The Board finds that there are no reasonable or feasible means available to completely avoid the impacts on plant and animal habitat. The Board further finds that the above measures will partially mitigate _the impacts on resident birds and animals, and adequately mitigate the impacts on aquatic plants and fish. D. LIGHT AND GLARE 1. AMPU a. Impacts: New lighting for airfield apron areas, parking lots, and building areas could have a significant impact on aviation safety and may result ,in glare and annoyance to nearby residents. b. Mitigation: To reduce impacts on aviation safety, the FEIR/EA at pages III-29 and III-30 recommends the following summarized measure: • 1 New airport lighting shall be of a high pressure sodium vapor type and shall be designed and installed so as not to create glare or interference with aircraft operations. To mitigate the lighting impact on nearby residents, the FEIR/EA at page III-30 suggests the following summarized measure: • 1 New lighting for parking lots, . and ramp and building areas shall be of a high pressure sodium vapor type and designed and installed so as not to create unnecessary glare. C. Facts: The above measures shall be implemented with the proposed project. d. Findings: The Board finds that the implementation of the above measures will mitigate potential significant impacts to a level of insignificance. -14- 2. AAPA a. Impacts: The proposed AAPA would not result in the creation of new light or glare. (FEIR/EA, p. III-31) . b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: The FEIR/EA states that no significant impact will be created. d. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. 3 . Golf Course Lease a. Impacts: New golf course lighting could have significant impacts on aviation safety and could result in glare and annoyance to nearby residents. b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at pages III-30 and III-31 recommends similar measures to mitigate lighting impacts for the AMPU as set forth in this section (they are modified to address golf course lighting as opposed to airport lighting) . C. Facts: The above measures shall be implemented with this project component. d. Findings: The Board finds, that the implementation of the above measures will mitigate potential, significant impacts to a level of insignificance. 4. Circulation Improvements -- a. Impacts: Lighting of the proposed Diamond Boulevard extension and Marsh Drive widening could have a significant effect on air safety. Glare from improperly designed or installed street lights could temporarily blind pilots or cause confusion and disorientation during adverse weather conditions. b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page III-30 recommends a similar measure to mitigate lighting impacts on aircraft operations as recommended for the AMPU as set forth in this section (the measure is modified to address roadway lighting as opposed to airport lighting) . C. Facts: The above measure shall be implemented with this project component. d. Findings: The Board finds this impact to be adequately mitigated. -15- E. LAND USE 1. AMPU a. Impacts: The proposed AMPU would result in the development of currently vacant or underdeveloped airport properties. This would result in an increase in the overall density of airport development and a shift of business and commercial aviation activities from the airport's east side to the west side (potential impacts of this land use action with respect to traffic and other related impacts are discussed under the individual impact categories) . b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: The FEIR/EA identifies this impact as positive. The shifting of business and aviation activities is a positive impact in that it helps to obtain the County's objective of accommodating projected aviation needs. This shift will also improve the airport's operational efficiency. d. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. 2. AAPA a. Impacts: The proposed AAPA would not result in a significant impact on land use. b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: Increased airline activity ., would require the construction of a new air passenger terminal and. associated aircraft and vehicular parking areas. This does not create a significant impact. The proposed and current airport master plan designates the airports west side as the appropriate area for a new terminal building. Terminal building requirements generated by the proposed AMPU are consistent with this land use designation. d. Findings: The Board finds that, no mitigation is required. 3. Golf Course Lease a. Impacts: The proposed lease would not create a significant impact on land use. (FEIR/EA, pps. III-32 and III-33) . b. Mitigation: None required. -16- C. Facts: The FEIR/EA states that no significant impacts will be created. d. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. 4. Circulation Improvements a. Impacts: Construction of the Diamond Boulevard extension across. the golf course would result in a substantial alteration to this recreational use. The widening of Marsh Drive would result in the elimination of a section of existing open space and the overcovering of an existing drainage ditch. b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page III-32 recommends the following summarized measure to mitigate the impact which will result from of the Diamond Boulevard extension: • 1 Reconstruct the golf course in accordance with the proposed golf course lease. The FEIR/EA at page III-32 states that no feasible mitigation measures are available for the reduction of open space that would occur as a result of the widening of Marsh Drive. C. Facts: The proposed golf course lease requires the tenant to reconstruct the affected areas of the golf course once the extension of Diamond Boulevard is complete. At this time, the existing open space areas along Marsh Drive are basically unusable. The proposed Marsh Drive widening would provide for some usable replacement open space in the form of bike lanes, and riding and hiking trails in the road right-of-way. d. Findings: The Board finds that the implementa- tion of the above-mentioned measures will adequately mitigate the impacts resulting from the Diamond Boulevard extension. The Board further finds that no feasible measure exists to mitigate the impact on open space created in the widening of Marsh Drive and identifies this impact as unavoidable. F. NATURAL RESOURCES 1. AMPU a. Impacts: No significant impacts are anticipated with respect to natural resources. (FEIR/EA, p. III-34) . -17- b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: Approval and implementation of the proposed AMPU will result in an indirect increase in the consumption of natural resources. This impact is insignificant due to the limitations placed on airport growth as a result of existing County policies. Moreover, the project has the potential to further reduce the consumption of natural resources as a result of fewer vehicle miles travelled by County and other nearby residents who elect to use Buchanan Field as an alternative to Oakland or San Francisco International Airports. (Also see discussion on Energy) . d. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. 2. AAPA a. Impacts: No significant impacts are anticipated with respect to natural resources. (FEIR/EA, p. III-35) . b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: Increased scheduled air carrier and commuter airline service may result in an overall decrease in the consumption of automobile fuel as a result of decreased automobile miles driven by Los Angeles bound air passengers utilizing Buchanan Field. Absent sufficient air service from Buchanan Field, some of these passengers would be forced to drive the additional distance to Oakland and San Francisco International Airports. As a result, the proposed AAPA could have a positive impact on the rate of consumption of petroleum resources. (See also discussion on Energy) . d. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. 3. Golf Course Lease a. Impacts: No significant impacts are anticipated with respect to natural resources. (FEIR/EA, p. III-34) . -18- b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: The FEIR/EA states that no significant impacts will be created. d. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required.. 4. Circulation Improvements a. Impacts: No significant impacts are anticipated with respect to natural resources or resource consumption. (FEIR/EA, p. III-34) . b. Mitigation: None required. c. Facts: The proposed circulation improvements will result in the consumption of an insignificant amount of natural resources as a result of construction activities. . d. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. G. RISK OF UPSET AND SAFETY 1. AMPU a. Impacts: The proposed AMPU has the potential to increase the risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances as a result of an accident, upset or spill. b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at pages III-37 and III-38 recommends implementation of the following summarized operational and safety measures to mitigate the risk of explosion ` and fire: • 1 Operate and control the fuel farm with a microprocessor-based control system. • 2 Build an emergency foam fire suppression system into above-ground tanks. • 3 Above-ground tanks shall incorporate both ultraviolet and infrared detection system linked to the microprocessor control system. • 4 All electrical devices shall be explosion proof in conformance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards. -19- • 5 Loading and unloading procedures for tank trucks and tenders will require grounding. • 6 Require explosion proof quick drainage systems for the oil/water separators at the truck fill stands and . fuel storage area. . • 7 The fuel farm shall include an emergency fuel shut-off system. The FEIR/EA at pages III-38 and III-39 sets forth the following summarized ignition source control and safety procedures to mitigate the risk of fire or explosion associated with the proposed fuel farm: • 1 Smoking shall only be permitted in designated safe locations. • 2 Employees shall be informed not to carry "strike-anywhere" matches and lighters around fuel. • 3 Permit open lights or fires on the fuel farm premises when authorized for maintenance purposes and when supervised. • 4 Power equipment shall not be operated in areas where flammable vapors may be present. • 5 Provide covered metal containers for combustible rubbish and empty daily. Do not store barrels or drums within ten feet of any storage tank. . • 6 Regularly maintain the facility and perform grounds-keeping. The FEIR/EA at page III-39 sets forth the following summarized measures to reduce the potential for fire or explosion . as a consequence of spill or upset resulting from a major earthquake involving the proposed fuel farm: • 1 Design the above-ground fuel storage facilities with standard earthquake engineering, leak monitoring and detection techniques. -20- • 2 Design and construct underground tanks to conform to earthquake safety regulations and include double walls with leak detectors. • 3 Incorporate seismic safety standards into the design of the fuel farm and allow review by a qualified structural engineer. C. Facts: The proposed fuel farm is designed to consolidate existing fuel storage facilities. The existing facilities consist of both old and new underground tanks. The older tanks represent a potential for the release of hazardous substances through leakage. Consolidation of fuel storage will decrease this potential. In order to minimize the impacts that may occur with respect to the fuel farm, the project has located the fuel farm in an area that is primarily industrial. This location is over 700 feet away from the closest residential area and• shall be separated by existing industrial uses. In addition, the proposed fuel farm shall be located well outside the clear zone for Runway 1L and storage facilities shall be located beyond the setback requirement of 750 feet from the runway centerline. The above measures shall be implemented with the project. d. Findings: The Board finds that the proposed project, along with the above measures, shall mitigate the potential impacts to a level of insignificance. 2. AAPA a. Impacts: The AAPA would not significantly increase the risk of explosion, fire, or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions. b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page III-42 states that the County currently maintains fire fighting equipment and trained personnel for fire fighting and rescue operations consistent with FAA safety criteria and maintains emergency response plans in conjunction , with the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District. C. Facts: The potential for aircraft accidents at the airport was reviewed thoroughly in 1986. This study concluded that air carrier operations conducted at the airport do not adversely affect safety. Moreover, the overall safety record of scheduled domestic airline operations is superior when compared to alternative modes of transportation. Due to the strict federal rules and regulations governing the transportation of hazardous materials (these rules generally exclude the air transport of materials that would cause a serious threat to the public safety) the potential for increasing the risk of releasing hazardous -21- substances as a result of an aircraft accident is insignificant. Nevertheless, to minimize the above impact, the airport shall continue to maintain its firefighting and rescue capabilities which are in excess of those required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (the regulatory safety agency for airports) and shall continue utilizing the emergency response plans. d. Findings: The Board finds that the .above impact on the release of hazardous substances is mitigated to an insignificant level. The Board further finds that the operation of the airport in and of itself implies the potential risk of air crash and thus, fire and explosion. The Board recognizes that such an event is unlikely to occur but is nonetheless an unavoidable impact. 3. Golf Course Lease a. Impacts: The proposed lease would represent a potential .short-term risk of upset as a result of construction activities. b. Mitigation: The emergency fuel spill and hazardous substances release response measures of the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Department (Fire Department) are sufficient to reduce this potential impact to a level of insignificance. (FEIR/EA, p. III-40) . C. Facts: Construction activities shall comply with the above measures. d. Findings: The Board finds that the implementation of the above measures will mitigate the potential short term construction impacts to a level of insignificance. 4. Circulation Improvements a. Impacts: The proposed improvements would represent a potential short-term risk of upset as a result of construction activities. b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page III-40 recommends the following summarized measure to mitigate the. above impact: • 1 Comply with the Fire Department's emergency fuel spill and hazardous substances release response procedures. If the spill or hazardous substance enters the local drainage system or is otherwise beyond the ability of the emergency response team call in the IT Corporation. -22- C. Facts: Construction of the improvements shall comply with the above measure. d. Findings: The Board finds that the. implementation of the above measure will mitigate the potential significant impact to a . level of insignificance. H. POPULATION 1. AMPU a. Impacts: The proposed AMPU will not create significant population impacts. b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: The FEIR/EA at page III-43 identifies this impact as insignificant. d. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. 2. AAPA a. Impacts: The proposed AAPA will not create significant population impacts. b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: The FEIR/EA at page III-44 identifies this impact as insignificant. d. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. 3 . Golf Course Lease a. Impacts: The proposed lease will not create significant population impacts (FEIR/EA, p. III-43) . b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: The FEIR/EA at page III-43 identifies this impact as insignificant. d. Findings: The Board finds that. no mitigation is required. -23- 4. Circulation Improvements a. Impacts: The proposed improvements will not create significant population impacts. b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: The FEIR/EA at page III-43 identifies this impact as insignificant. d. Findings: The Board finds that ,no mitigation is required. I. HOUSING 1. AMPU a. Impacts: The proposed AMPU will not create significant housing impacts. b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: The FEIR/EA at page 111 44 identifies this impact as insignificant. d. Findings: The Board finds that no additional mitigation is required. 2 . AAPA a. Impacts: The proposed AAPA will not create significant housing impacts. b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: The FEIR/EA at page III-45 identifies this impact as insignificant. d. Findings: The Board finds that. no mitigation is required. 3 . Golf Course Lease a. Impacts: The proposed lease will not. create significant housing impacts. b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: The FEIR at page' 111.-44 identifies this impact as insignificant. -24- d. Findings: The Board finds that , no mitigation is required. 4. Circulation Improvements a. Impacts: The proposed improvements will not create significant housing impacts. b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: The FEIR/EA at page III-44 identifies this impact as insignificant. d. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. J. PUBLIC SERVICES 1. AMPU a. Impacts: The AMPU will not result in a significant impact on public services. b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: The FEIR/EA at page III-45 identifies this impact as insignificant. The proposed AMPU will require maintenance to be performed on newly created public facilities on the airport. The responsibility for such maintenance is that of the Public Works Department, and the costs of such additional requirements would be offset by anticipated revenues from the public use of certain of these facilities. d. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. 2 . AAPA a. Impacts: The proposed AAPA will not create significant public service impacts. b. Mitigation: None required. c. Facts: The FEIR/EA at page III-46 identifies this impact as insignificant. d. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. -25- 3 . Golf Course Lease a. Impacts: The proposed lease will not create significant public service impacts (FEIR/EA, p. III-46) . b. Mitigation: Not required. C. Facts: The FEIR/EA at page III746 identifies. this impact as insignificant. d. Findings: The Board finds that - no mitigation is required. 4. Circulation Improvements a. Impacts: The proposed improvements would not result in a need for new, and would not create a significant demand on existing, public services. (FEIR/EA, pps. III-45 and III-46) . b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: Although a requirement for police traffic enforcement on the proposed Diamond Boulevard extension would be created, such is within the scope :ofthe .County .Sheriff Is existing responsibilities in the area. All other proposed circulation improvements would be in areas already subject to police patrol. Maintenance of proposed street improvements in the County is the responsibility of the Public Works Department. The extent of these improvements in relationship to the overall County- wide maintenance responsibilities of the Department make the maintenance requirements of the proposed improvements insignificant. K.- -- ENERGY 1. AMPU a. Impacts: Additional consumption of fuel and energy resources as a result of increase aviation activity and airport development would occur. (FEIR, p. 'III-44)`. b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page III-47 states that no feasible measures are available to completely avoid energy consumption. The following summarized measures are::recommended to partially mitigate this impact: • 1 Design the airfield to minimize taxiing distances. . • 2 Utilize radio-controlled lighting for the runway. -26- • 3 Design and construct airport buildings with energy-saving features. • 4 Utilize passive solar _panels where practical. C. Facts: The magnitude of the above impact shall be reduced by incorporating the above measures into the AMPU. d. Findings: The Board finds that the above measures will partially mitigate this impact. 2. AAPA a. Impacts: Increased air carrier and commuter airline service would result in an incremental increase in the consumption of petroleum products. b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at' page III-48 acknowledges that no feasible or reasonable measures exist to completely avoid this impact. C. Facts: If the proposed AAPA was not approved, it is likely that fuel consumption would increase because more individuals would be forced to utilize their automobiles.; The magnitude of this impact will be offset through a- corresponding decrease in vehicle miles travelled and resultant fuel savings. d. Findings: The Board finds that no feasible measure exists to reduce this impact to an insignificant level and identifies this impact as unavoidable. 3 . Golf Course Lease a. Impacts: The reconstruction of the golf course would result in the short-term consumption of petroleum products and the long-term utilization of electrical energy to light the driving range. (FEIR/EA, p. III-48) . b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page III-48 states that no reasonable or feasible measures exist to completely avoid this impact. The following summarized measure is recommended to partially mitigate the impact: • 1 Golf course lighting shall be of an 'energy efficient high-pressure sodium vapor type and will be used only when needed:. -27- C. Facts: The FEIR/EA at ;page III-48 acknowledges that no feasible or reasonable measures exist to completely avoid this impact. The magnitude of this impact will be lessened through the implementation of the above, measures. d. Findings: The Board finds that no feasible measures exist to reduce this impact to an insignificant level and identifies this impact as unavoidable. 4. Circulation Improvements a. Impacts: New street lighting would result in an incremental increase in the use of electrical energy. b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page III-48 recognizes that no reasonable or feasible measure exists to completely avoid this impact and suggests the following summarized measure to partially reduce this impact: • 1 New street lights shall be energy efficient. c. Facts: The above measure shall be incorporated into this project component. d. Findings: The Board finds that implementation of the above measure will partially mitigate this impact. L. UTILITIES 1. AMPU a. Impact: Implementation of the proposed AMPU will not result in a significant impact on existing utility systems. (FEIR/EA, p. III-50) . b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: The existing on-airport utility systems will be upgraded. These modifications and improvements are ';within the normal scope of development activities as would' be required by the implementation of the AMPU. Although no mitigation is required, conservation techniques and measures `such as water conserving plumbing fixtures, drought resistant landscaping materials, insulation in buildings, and low energy lighting will be made a part of project design and construction. . d.. Findings: The Board finds that. this impact is insignificant. -28 2. AAPA a. Impact: The proposed AAPA will not create significant adverse impacts on existing utility systems. b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: The FEIR/EA at page III-50 identifies this impact as insignificant. d. Findings: The. Board finds that no mitigation is required. 3. Golf Course Lease a. Impact: Golf course reconstruction and operation would have no significant adverse impact on existing utility systems. (FEIR/EA, p. III-50) . b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: The FEIR/EA at page III-50 identifies this impact as insignificant. d. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. 4. Circulation Improvements a. Impacts: The proposed improvements will not create significant impacts on existing utility services. b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: The extension of Diamond Boulevard and the widening of Marsh Drive will result in the modification- of an existing open drainage ditch. The Diamond Boulevard/Marsh Drive projects will also require new electrical service for street lighting. However, the FEIR/EA at page III-50 identifies these impacts as insignificant. d. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. M. HUMAN HEALTH 1. AMPU a. Impact: Implementation of the proposed AMPU will . not result in significant impacts on human health. -29- b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: The FEIR/EA at page III=51 identifies this impact as insignificant. d. Findings: The Board finds that, no mitigation is required. 2. AAPA a. Impact: The proposed AAPA will not create significant impacts on human health. b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: The FEIR/EA at page III-52 identifies this impact as insignificant. d. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. 3. Golf Course Lease a. Impact: The proposed lease will not create significant adverse impacts on human health (FEIR, p. III-52) . b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: The FEIR/EA at page III-52 identifies this impact as insignificant. d. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. 4. Circulation Improvements a. Impact: The proposed improvements will not create significant impacts on human health. b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: The FEIR/EA at page III-52 identifies this impact as insignificant. d. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. -30- N. AESTHETICS 1. AMPU a. Impact: The proposed project will not create a significant impact on aesthetics. (FEIR/EA, pps. III-52 and III-53) . b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA does, not recommend any additional mitigation than what is already incorporated into the proposed project. c. Facts: The proposed development would not significantly obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public, nor result in an aesthetically offensive site. Development of the airport's west side, the area most readily accessible. to public view as a result of its proximity to the mobile home parks, will be accompanied by landscaping of public rights-of-way and terminal area parking lots. Construction of the proposed passenger terminal and related access and parking improvements may represent a short- term impact on aesthetics, but this would be fully mitigated upon completion of construction and upon installation of appropriate landscaping. The proposed terminal building itself would be at most two-stories in height, and screened from .nearby residents. d. Findings: The Board finds that the proposed AMPU adequately mitigates this impact. 2 . AAPA a. Impact: The proposed AAPA would not create significant impacts on aesthetics. b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: The FEIR/EA at page III-53 identifies this impact as insignificant. d. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. 3 . Golf Course Lease a. Impacts: The proposed lease would not create significant impacts on aesthetics (FEIR/EA, p. III-53) . b. Mitigation: None required. -31- ' C. Facts: The FEIR/EA at page III-53 identifies this impact as insignificant. d. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. 4. Circulation Improvements a. Impacts: The proposed improvements would not create significant impacts on aesthetics (FEIR/EA, p. III-53) . b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA does not recommend additional mitigation than what is already incorporated into this proposed project component. C. Facts: The proposed roadway improvements shall be landscaped as part of the project. d. Findincr: The. Board finds that. this proposed project component adequately mitigates this impact., O. RECREATION 1. AMPU a. Impact: The proposed AMPU will not create significant impacts on recreation (FEIR/EA, p. III-54) . b. Mitigation: None required. C. Fact: The proposed project will have a positive impact upon the quantity and quality of existing recreational opportunities by . providing an extension of the County's existing system of bike lanes, and hiking and riding trails around the airport and its vicinity. d. Finding: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. 2. AAPA a. Impact: The proposed AAPA will not create significant impacts on recreation. b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: The FEIR/EA at page III-55 states that no significant impact will occur. d. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. -32- 3'. Golf Course Lease a. Impact: The proposed lease shall not create significant impacts on recreation (FEIR/EA, p. III-55) . b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: The FEIR/EA at page III-55 states that no significant impact will occur. To the contrary, this project component will create a positive impact on recreation. d. Findings: The. Board finds that, no mitigation is required. 4. Circulation Improvements a. Impact: The proposed extension of Diamond Boulevard will temporarily disrupt activities at the golf course and will utilize a portion of the golf course. b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at: page III-54 identifies the above impact as insignificant since the proposed project requires the tenant to reconstruct -the golf .course via the proposed Golf Course Lease and recommends that the final design of the proposed Diamond Boulevard extension and Marsh Drive include a riding and hiking trail in the excess right-of-way. It is recommended that this trail connect with the Walnut Creek and Grayson Creek trails and include paved surfaces for bicyclists, and unpaved surfaces for hikers and horses. C. Facts: The proposed lease requires the reconstruction of the golf course as soon as the extension is completed. If the proposed lease is not finalized at the time the extension is complete, the County shall be responsible for reconstructing the affected areas of the golf course. Hiking and riding trails are planned for the airport and the airport vicinity. A horseback riding trail is proposed for areas along the Grayson Creek levee, and bicycle paths are proposed along portions of the Walnut Creek channel and Concord Avenue which will connect with the Grayson and Walnut Creek bicycle paths. d. Findings: The Board finds that this impact is adequately mitigated. P. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. AMPU a. Impact: Construction activities may impact archeological resources from unknown sites. -33- b. Mitigation: In order to reduce the above impact to an insignificant level, the FEIR/EA at page III-55 suggests that if construction activities uncover archeological resources, such activities should stop and -. a qualified archaeologist consulted. C. Facts: The above mitigation measure shall be implemented during project construction. d. Findings: The Board finds that implementation of the above measure will adequately mitigate this impact. 2. AAPA a. Impact: The proposed AAPA will not have significant impacts on cultural or archaeological resources. b. Mitigation: . None required. C. Fact: The FEIR/EA at page III-56 states that no significant impact will occur. d. Findings: The Board finds that„ no mitigation is required. 3 . Golf Course Lease a.. Impacts: Construction activities may uncover artifacts or other. evidence of archaeological significance from unknown sites. (FEIR/EA, p. III-56) . b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page III-56 recommends the same measure to mitigate potential impacts from construction activities under the AMPU as set forth above. C. Facts: The above measures shall, be implemented during project construction. d. . Findings: The Board finds that "implementation of the above measures will adequately mitigate this impact. 4. Circulation Improvements a. Impacts: Construction activities could uncover artifacts or other evidence of archaeological significance from unknown sites. b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page III-56 recommends -the same measure to mitigate potential impacts from construction activities under the AMPU as set forth above. -34- C. Facts: The above mitigation measure shall be implemented during construction. d. Findings: The Board finds that this impact is adequately mitigated. Q. NOISE 1. AMPU a. Impacts: The proposed project will increase noise exposure in noise-sensitive areas but will not. result in any significant cumulative noise impacts as defined by state- and federal noise and land use compatibility planning guidelines. Nighttime and early morning aircraft operations; along with helicopter operations, may continue to result -in community complaints. Noise from airport construction activities will represent a short-term impact. b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page III-75 states that complaints associated with helicopter operations can be mitigated by implementing the following summarized helicopter noise abatement measures: • 1 Educate helicopter pilots of noise- sensitive areas and avoid them by flying as high as practicable. • 2 Adopt and implement FAA-approved helicopter noise abatement techniques, as more specifically set forth .in the FEIR/EA at pages III-75 and III-76. -- The FEIR/EA at page III-77 states that no reasonable ` or feasible measures exist to mitigate noise impacts resulting from construction activities. C. Facts: Noise generated from, the proposed project will consistently remain below levels of CNEL 60dB (noise levels of CNEL 65dB and above are considered to be significant impacts and noise levels below CNEL 65dB are considered insignificant) . The County's comprehensive noise compatibility program and the noise abatement measures contained therein will protect noise-sensitive areas from cumulative noise levels of CNEL 65dB and above. Noise exposure between CNEL 55 and 65dB will be mitigated by means of a performance-based noise ordinance supplemented by a permanent full-time airport noise monitoring system. The County shall acquire and install that system. -35- t d. Finding: The Board finds that implementation of the above measures will mitigate helicopter noise to an insignificant level. The Board further f inds that no feasible measure exists to mitigate construction noise ; impacts and determines this impact to be unavoidable. 2.. AAPA a. Impact: Noise-sensitive land uses within the CNEL 55-65dB noise contours would increase as a direct result of air carrier and commuter airline operations. b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page III-78 recommends enforcement of the County's comprehensive noise compatibility program. C. Facts: The noise compatibility program shall continue to be enforced. d. Findings: The Board finds that this impact is adequately mitigated. 3. Golf Course Lease a. Impacts: The proposed lease would create short-term construction noise impacts (FEIR/EA, p. 1II-77) . b. Mitigation: None suggested. C. Facts: The FEIR/EA at page III-77 states that no reasonable or feasible means exist to mitigate this potential impact. d. Findings: The Board finds that there are no feasible measures to mitigate the above impact to a level of insignificance. 4. Circulation Improvements a. Impacts: The proposed project will not create significant impacts other than those associated with short-term construction activities. b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page: 111-77 states that there are no reasonable or feasible means exist to mitigate this potential impact. c. Facts: No reasonable or feasible measures exist to mitigate the above impact. -36- d. Finding: The Board finds thati there are no feasible measures to mitigate the above impact and identifies this impact as unavoidable. R. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 1. AMPU a. Impacts: The proposed AMPU will not create short-term significant impacts on local circulation. Cumulative traffic impacts from the proposed project, project components, and other projects in the area could result in unacceptable levels of service in several intersections by the year 2000. b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page III-81 states that no further mitigation is required other than that already contained in the project to allow acceptable operating conditions until the year 2000. C. Facts: Mitigation for potential adverse traffic impacts is built into the project, including the widening of Marsh Drive, the realignment of Sally Ride Drive, and the extension of Diamond Boulevard. d: Findings: The Board finds that the proposed project adequately mitigates the short-term impacts`on traffic and further finds that cumulative long-term traffic impacts are unavoidable. 2. AAPA a. Impact: The AAPA would not create any significant short-term traffic impacts. Cumulative traffic impacts from the proposed project and other projects in the area could ` result in unacceptable levels of service at several intersections by the year 2000. b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: Project-related access and circula- tion improvements, including the widening of Marsh Drive, the realignment of Sally Ride Drive, and the extension of Diamond Boulevard are more than adequate to accommodate anticipated traffic levels for the next ten years. d. Finding: The Board finds thati'the short-term impact on traffic is mitigated through the implementation of the project-related circulation improvements. The Board further finds that the cumulative long-term impact on traffic is' unavoidable. -37- 3. Golf Course Lease a. Impacts: The proposed lease will not create significant adverse traffic impacts. b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: The FEIR/EA at page III=81 states that no significant adverse traffic impacts will be associated with the proposed golf course lease for either the a.m. or p.m. peak hours. d. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation measures are necessary. 4. Circulation Improvements a. Impacts: The proposed improvements will not create significant traffic impacts (FEIR/EA, p. III-8.1) . b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: The proposed improvements mitigate the potential traffic impacts from the development of Parcels A and B and the development of the airport's west side. d. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. S. AIR QUALITY 1. AMPU a. Impact: Construction of the proposed project would create short-term air quality impacts. The project, together with cumulative development in the area, would generate additional new pollutants that would contribute to regional . ozone levels. Increased jet aircraft operations would increase the frequency of detectable jet exhaust. b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at pages III-91 and III-92 recommends the following summarized measures to reduce air quality impacts: • 1 Construction contracts shall require the utilization of dust control measures as specifically listed at page III-91 of the FEIR/EA. -38- • 2 Extend and provide design- standards for bus service to the new terminal via the Diamond Boulevard extension and Marsh Drive. • 3 Encourage local hotels to provide van services to the new terminal. C. Facts: The emissions resulting from construction will not exceed air quality standards. 'Emission rates from aircraft are regulated by federal and international agencies and thus, the County has limited control over minimizing the impacts resulting from emissions. The County shall however design, layout, and operate the airport to minimize aircraft taxiing and idling in queues. The above measures shall be implemented with the proposed project. d. Finding: The Board finds that the above impacts are mitigated to the extent feasible and further, that it lacks the ability to effectively control emission ,impacts on air quality. The Board further finds that the increase, in jet exhaust and the cumulative impact on air quality are unavoidable impacts of project implementation. 2. AAPA a. Impacts: The project, together with cumulative development in the area, would generate additional new pollutants that would contribute to regional ozone levels. The jet aircraft operations would increase the frequency of detectable jet exhaust in areas adjacent to the airfield. (FEIR/EA p. III-93) b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA does-not suggest any `. additional measures that are not already contained in the proposed project. C. Facts: Similar to the AMPU, the design, layout and operation of the airport minimizes aircraft taxiing and idling in queues so as to reduce emissions. d. Findings: The Board finds that it lacks authority to effectively control emission rates and further, that the AAPA has mitigated this impact to the extent 'feasible. The Board further finds that the increase in jet exhaust and the cumulative impacts on air quality are unavoidable. ' 3 . Golf Course Lease a. Impacts: Reconstruction of the golf course would create short-term air quality impacts during construction. -39- b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at . page III-92 recommends that construction contracts require utilization of dust control measures as required for the AMPU as set forth above in this section. C. Facts: This project component. would emit a relatively low level of pollutant emissions for a short duration and would not exceed air quality standards. d. Findings: The Board finds that utilization of the above-referenced dust control measures will mitigate this impact to a level of insignificance. 4. Circulation Improvements a. Impacts: Construction of the proposed improvements would result in pollutant emissions. b. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page III-92 recommends that construction contracts contain dust control requirements as recommended for the AMPU as set forth above in this section. C. Facts: . The above measure shall be incorporated into the project. d. Findinjs: The Board finds that utilization of the above referenced dust control measures will partially mitigate the impact on air quality. T. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS 1. AMPU a. Impacts: The proposed AMPU would result in an increase in the number of aircraft based at the airport, and increase annual aircraft operations. It would also result in the construction of new on-airport facilities, including a new passenger terminal and related development (e.g'. , rental car concessions, a restaurant, and other :passenger services) . b. Mitigation: No specific mitigation is identified in the FEIR/EA. C. Facts: The AMPU will not significantly foster population growth in the area. The area around the airport is near build out (full build out is expected by the year 2000 with or without the project) and thus, lacks an amount of developable land necessary to create such an impact. The AMPU may enhance economic -40- growth which is considered a positive, insignificant environmental impact. d. Findings: The Board finds that- no mitigation is required. 2. AAPA a. Impacts: Adoption and implementation of the AAPA would result in increased air carrier and commuter airline operations. This increase would have the indirect economic growth- producing potential of making the central northern portion of the County more attractive to business. b. Mitigation: No specific mitigation is identified in the FEIR/EA. C. Facts: The AAPA will not significantly foster population growth in the area since the area lacks a sufficient amount of developable land necessary to create such growth. d. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. 3. Golf Course Lease a. Impact: Adoption and implementation of the proposed golf course lease would ensure the economic growth and viability of an existing recreational resource on the site. b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: The FEIR/EA at page .III-95 states that this project component will result in a positive growth inducing impact. d. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. 4. Circulation Improvements a. Impact: Proposed circulation improvements would allow for improved access to the airports ,west side, and support the economic development of the area. b. Mitigation: None required. C. Facts: The above impact is considered a positive insignificant, environmental impact. -41- r d. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. U. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS. a. Impacts: The FEIR/EA at pages .III-9.5 ..through III- 100 discusses the cumulative impacts of the proposed project and project components, and are summarized below: 1. Plants and Animals: The project and project components, when coupled with other development proposals in the airport environs, will reduce the amount of habitat available to small animals. Light and Glare: Implementation of the proposed project and project components will introduce additional light sources into the area. These additional light sources, when coupled with other proposed developments, will result in a cumulative . increase in light emissions in the airport environs. Land Use: Project implementation will result in a reduction of airport open areas and would add significantly to conversions of open space areas to urban uses. Energy: Project implementation in conjunction with regional development will result in the increased consumption of energy. Traffic: Development of the proposed project and project components will contribute to "the cumulative regional traffic impacts in the year 2000. Air Quality: Implementation -of...the _proposed project and project components together with cumulative development in the area would result in new pollutants that would contribute to regional pollution levels. b. Mitigation: Except as specifically provided under each identified impact, no specific mitigation, measures for cumulative impacts are identified in the FEIR/EA. C. Facts: The cumulative impacts which would be expected upon the adoption of the projects would be `lessened by the mitigation measures identified and adopted throughout these findings for each potential impact. d. Findings: The Board finds that the adoption of the specific mitigation measures identified in these findings will have the cumulative effect of lessening adverse cumulative environmental impacts that would arise from the implementation of the proposed project and project components. -42- V. SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY a. Impacts: The proposed project and project components will result in short-term impacts on noise and traffic due to construction activities. The long-.term effects of the proposed project, and project components include the loss of biotic habitat, loss of vacant land, increased urbanization and related considerations, and future traffic congestion beyond currently acceptable levels. b. Mitigation: Except as specifically provided for in each of the applicable identified impacts, no specific mitigation measures for this impact are identified in the FEIR/EA. C. Facts: Long-term benefits realized by direct. and indirect economic growth, in addition to setting forth a means to obtain the County goals concerning economic realization and safe and efficient air transportation opportunities, offset the above potential impacts. d. Findings: The Board finds that this impact is partially mitigated through the implementation of ' the proposed project and project components and the mitigation measures adopted in these findings. W. IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES a. Impacts: Implementation of the proposed project and project components will result in the commitment of land, natural and energy sources, and cause alterations to the rproject site. More specifically, the projects will require the use of both renewable and nonrenewable natural resources. .The consumption of nonrenewable resources involves the use of fossil fuels, sand and gravel for building construction, other building materials, and electricity for lighting, heating and air conditioners. The renewable resources consumed would include lumber, paper and water. In addition, the commitment of land for project development would preclude the use of such areas for other activities and would cause the loss of some existing wildlife habitat. b. Mitigation: Except as specifically provided for in each of the applicable identified impacts, no specific mitigation measures for this impact are identified in the FEIR/EA. C. Facts: The irreversible changes that would be expected upon the adoption of the projects would be lessened by implementation of the mitigation measures identified for each potential impact. -43- d. Findings: The Board finds that this impact is partially mitigated through the implementation of the proposed project and project components and the mitigation measures adopted in these findings. IV. FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT. ALTERNATIVES The FEIR/EA evaluated two alternatives to the proposed project as a whole, and a range of alternatives to each of the projects components. A. ALTERNATIVES FOR THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE 1. "No-Project" Alternative The '*No-Project" alternative implies that the County would not adopt or implement the proposed project and project components. a. Facts: This alternative would fail to attain the primary objectives of the proposed project which are to provide upgraded aviation facilities at the airport in order to reasonably accommodate anticipated increases in aviation . demand, improve the airport's operational efficiency and enhance safety. This alternative would result initially in the overtaxing of existing airport facilities, and ultimately serve to limit the airport's operational efficiency and safety. This could cause excessive demands on existing facilities, thereby increasing the risk of accidents. Moreover, by not building the proposed fuel farm, the risk of leakage from older underground tanks increases. Further, this alternative would fail to address the inevitable growth in aviation. In addition, the improvements in the proposed project are needed to accommodate this inevitable growth. b. Findings: The Board finds ,. that the "No- Project" alternative is not feasible since it fails to attain the basic . objectives of the project and because it is not environmentally superior. 2. Close the Airport Alternative Under this alternative, the airport would be closed and the airport property would be converted to residential, commercial or industrial uses. a. Facts: This alternative is contrary to agreements by and between the federal government - and the County with respect to the use of Buchanan Field as an aviation facility. In addition, its closure would dislocate airport: businesses and require based aircraft to be dispersed to other airports which have neither the capacity nor the facilities to accommodate them. -44- Further, converting this land to other uses would create greater environmental impacts such as degradation in traffic flow and air quality, and increased demands on the public services infrastructure and police and fire services. b. Findings: For the reasons stated above, the Board finds that this alternative is not feasible, nor environmentally superior. B. ALTERNATIVES FOR EACH PROJECT 1. AMPU Alternatives a. "No-Proiect" Alternative Under this alternative, the proposed AMPU would not be adopted. Facts: As with the above overall "No-Project" alternative, the County objectives to provide safe and efficient airport facilities would be compromised. Findings: The Board rejects this alternative for the same reasons it rejected the overall "No-Project" alternative. b. Use Another Airport -Alternative: Under this alternative, the Buchanan. Field airport would be closed and its operations shifted to the Byron Airport. Facts: The Byron Airport is not suitable for the range of aviation uses currently provided by Buchanan Field. Moreover; the Byron Airport is located in an area far removed from the majority of potential air passengers -who would benefit by such service. The expenditure of public funds would be required to upgrade the Byron Airport to air carrier status and improve its access roads. Findings: For the reasons set! forth herein, the. Board finds this alternative unacceptable. c.. Transport to Another Airport As an alternative to the proposed , west-side air passenger terminal facility, the public transportation system would be utilized to transport passengers to the Oakland and San Francisco International Airports. -45- Facts: These services currently. exist, but are not utilized by the majority of County air passengers. This is unlikely to change unless public airport transportation services become more efficient. Findings: The Board finds that this alternative does not represent a realistic or feasible alternative to the construction of the proposed air passenger terminal facilities at Buchanan Field. d. Alternative Terminal Location Under this alternative, a new passenger terminal would be constructed on the airport's east side in the area of the existing passenger terminal facility operated by USAir. Facts: This alternative would require the need for additional parking and displacement of some existing general aviation facilities. In addition, this alternative would severely limit terminal facility layout options and all automobile traffic would have to be directed through the single intersection of John Glenn Drive/Concord Avenue. When presented with a comparison of the factors involved in terminal development training, the Contra Costa County Aviation Advisory Committee recommended the west side terminal alternative to the Board. Moreover, the AMPU, as one of its stated purposes,. evaluated alternative terminal sites and found them to be infeasible. Findings: For the above reasons, the Board finds this alternative unacceptable. e. Alternative Terminal Size This alternative analyzed the need for a new terminal building if air carrier passenger activities were transferred to the airport's west side. Facts: At such time as there :is an increase in air carrier service requested by either existing or future air carriers, a new terminal as ' shown on the proposed AMPU will be appropriate. Terminal sizing is done in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) planning guidelines for anticipated level of air carrier service. Findings: For the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the terminal size as. shown in the AMPU is adequate to serve the present needs in air carrier service. . -46- f. Alternative Runway Configuration Under this alternative, Runway 14L/R-32L/R complex would be reconfigured as opposed to utilizing the existing approach to Runway 32L. Facts: In analyzing this alternative, it was determined that the disadvantages outweigh any advantages and thus, discussions of this alternative were terminated. Findings: For the above reasons, the Board finds this alternative unacceptable. g. Alternative Fuel Farm Location This alternative considered alternative locations for the proposed fuel farm. Facts: After considering various alternative locations, it was determined that the west side of the airport was the safest location for the fuel farm. The proposed location would not require fuel tank trucks to enter onto active airfield surfaces as is currently the case, or would be the case with alternative sites. One alternative site having better access ' is the north- side building area, but this area has been determined to be in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone for the Concord Fault and does not represent a reasonable alternative. Findings: For the reasons stated above, the Board rejects alternative sites for the fuel farm. h. North-side Building Area Alternative Under this alternative, the proposed Red Cross and ` Civil Air Patrol (CAP) facility would be. relocated to the airport's west side. Facts: Under the proposed AMPU, the Red Cross and CAP facility is partially located within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Area for the Concord Fault. Pursuant to a study conducted by a Registered Engineering Geologist, the location of the Red Cross and CAP facility as proposed is acceptable as long as proper engineering techniques are followed. Proper engineering techniques shall be incorporated in the design and construction of the facility. Findings: For the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the location of the Red Cross and CAP Facility is adequate as shown in the AMPU. . -47- 2. AAPA a. "No-Project" Alternative Under this alternative, the proposed 'AAPA would not be adopted. Facts: This alternative fails 'to address the anticipated future demands of air passengers. Such demand does not presently exceed the limitations in the Access Plan. As a result, implementation of the AAPA shall await until the demand arises. Finding: For the reason stated, the Board finds that the AAPA shall be approved but not implemented until the demand in aviation activity arises. b. Modified Amendment Under this alternative, air carrier and commuter airline operations would increase to somewhere between what is now authorized and the levels in the proposed project. Facts: The AMPU has concluded that future demands of air passengers shall rise to the level: allowed under the AAPA. This alternative fails to address that demand. If this alternative were adopted, an additional amendment . to the Access Plan would need to occur in the near future. Ths would create additional burdens on the County and result in additional costs. Findings: For the reasons stated above, the Board finds the above alternative unacceptable. 3. Golf Course Lease The only reasonable alternative to the 'proposed lease would be the "No-Project" alternative. Alternatives involving the redesign of the golf course or a different lessee are not germane to the proposed project. a. "No-Project" Alternative Under this alternative, the proposed ':lease would not be approved. Facts: If the proposed lease is not approved, the County would be required to mitigate the effects of the Diamond Boulevard extension and reconstruct the golf course at its own expense. If Diamond Boulevard were not to be extended, the County would find itself with a golf course on its hands, but with the requirement to either operate it, convert it to open space, or some other low-intensity recreational use. The "No-Project" alternative -48- l i A is not an environmentally superior alternative, nor would it achieve the County's goal of getting an economic return from currently unneeded airport property. Findings: For the reasons stated above, the Board finds this alternative unacceptable. 4. Circulation Improvements Alternatives a. No Diamond Boulevard Extension. .- Under xtension.Under this alternative, the proposed Diamond Boulevard extension would not be constructed. Facts: If this alternative wasJollowed, the traffic congestion at the Contra Costa Boulevard/Concord Avenue intersection would not be mitigated. Findings: For the reason stated above, the Board finds this alternative unacceptable. b. No Marsh Drive widening. Under this alternative, Marsh Drive would not be widened. Facts: This alternative would not further the County's objectives - of accommodating future aviation demand and the economic development of Parcel B without creating adverse traffic conditions on the existing Marsh Drive. Findings: For the reason stated above, the Board finds this alternative unacceptable. c. No Sally Ride Drive .realignment. Under this alternative, Sally Ride Drive would not be realigned. Facts: If this alternative was implemented, the development of the proposed west side terminal, area, parking areas, and access roadways would be severely, constrained. Moreover, this alternative conflicts with the County's objective of providing efficient airport facilities to accommodate air transportation demand. Findings: For the reasons stated above, the Board finds this alternative unacceptable. -49- In light of the above, the Board of Supervisorsi,finds that the proposed AMPU, AAPA, Golf Course Lease and Circulation Improvements possess qualities superior to those suggested by the above- alternatives, and therefore, the Board approves the projects stated above along with the accepted summarized mitigation measures as set forth herein. C. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION CEQA requires the benefits of a proposed! project to be balanced against its unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the project. The Board has determined that the benefits of this project ;; outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts. In making this determination, the following factors and public benefits were considered and comprise the Statement of Overriding Considerations for each and every impact that has not been substantially (adequately) mitigated as hereinabove set forth: 1. The proposed project and project components will result in the economic development of under-utilized;:airport lands. The development of these airport lands will allow '; the County to further its goal of achieving an-.economic return on "Under-utilized airport lands. 2. The proposed project and project components provide for the upgrading of the aviation facilities at the airport. The upgrading of these - facilities will allow the County to provide safer and more efficient . air transportation opportunities and facilities. - 3. The proposed project and project components are necessary to plan for the anticipated future demands of air passengers. 4 . The circulation improvements contained 'in the project are necessary to mitigate existing traffic conditions and to accommodate projected traffic conditions. 5. The proposed project and project components will provide additional employment opportunities in the aviation field. In addition, short-term employment in the construction industry will be provided as a result of the development of the projects. 6. The proposed project and project components provide various social benefits to the residents in the airport vicinity as well as the residents of the entire County including, but not limited to, an extension of the existing bicycle path, and hiking and riding trails.. -50- . 7. The adoption and implementation of the proposed golf course lease is necessary to ensure the economic growth and viability of an existing recreational resource on the site. D. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code ': requires this Board to adopt a monitoring or reporting program regarding CEQA mitigation measures in connection with these findings. This Board adopts the following program in fulfillment of this': requirement: 1. The County Public Works Department shall prepare an overall plan to implement the mitigation measures adopted in these findings by incorporating them as policies within the projects, or by preparing implementing regulations, ordinances, standards, programs and plans, and in concert with the Community Development Department incorporate them into future development approvals as appropriate to the particular mitigation measure, and shall take such action as necessary to effectuate the plan. i. 2. The County Public Works Department in consultation with the County Community Development Department ` shall file a written report with the Planning Commission within three months from the approval date of specific developments ..allowed under the GPA on the implementation plan. Thereafter, the County Community Development Department shall report annually to '. the Planning Commission on the implementation status of the mitigation measures until the project is built out. Where appropriate and feasible the report shall also provide a projected timetable for the implementation of each mitigation measure. 3. The Planning Commission shall review the written report and determine whether there is .any .unusual and substantial delay in, or obstacle to, the implementation of the adopted mitigation measures which requires further action. if a developer or interested party requests it, the result of this .review will be provided in writing. 4. If the Planning Commission determines that such further action is required,. it shall consult with staff in order to determine the additional actions to be taken to ensure the implementation of such mitigation measures. :The Planning Commission shall take those reasonable actions as permitted by law which will ensure the implementation of the mitigation measures. -51-