The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 10282008 - D.2 OCL TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS .... L" Contra FROM: KEITH FREITAS, DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS 1I- - a: CoSta CATHERINE KUTSURIS, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT °°SrA Dov `�v,4 Cournty DATE: October 28, 2008 SUBJECT: HEARING ON BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE,GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, AND RELATED ACTIONS, CONCORD AREA — COUNTY INITIATED (COUNTY FILE: GP#07-0001) (District IV) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)& BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. RECOMMENDATION After accepting any public testimony and closing the public hearing: A. FIND on the basis of the whole record before it, including the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH#2008072031) prepared for this project and all comments received, that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment that cannot be mitigated, 'and that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and it reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis. Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE,. T APPROVE OTHER. SIGNATURE (S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RE MENDED_CKHER Speakers: Keith McMahon,Ellen Williams &Bruce,Hall, Concord Chamber of Commerce; David Freet, City of Pleasant Hill. VO E OF SUPERVISORS I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action UNANIMOUS(ABSENT taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors AYES: NOES: on the date shown. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTED: DAVID TWA, Clerk of the T36a d of Supervisors and County Orig. Div: Department of Conservation and Development Administrato Contact: P.Roche,DCD-AP;Phone(925)335-1242 cc: County Administrator County Counsel B . Deputy Auditor-Controller Director,Public Works Department . Director,County Airports Federal Aviation Administration Chair,Contra Costa Airport Land Use Commission City of Concord - City of Martinez ' City of Pleasant Hill October 28,2008 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update,General Plan Amendment,and Related Actions Page 2 i I. RECOMMENDATION - continued B. ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH#2008072031) and the accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Program in compliance with CEQA, which are presented under Exhibit "A" to the September 23, 2008 staff report and recommendation to the County Planning Commission (see Exhibit#1). C. APPROVE the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update, Airport Layout Plan, and related elements as prepared by Barnard Dunkelberg & Company and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports or his designee to begin implementation of the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan (see Exhibit#2). D. ACCEPT the recommendation of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on proposed General Plan Amendment, as contained in County Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-2008 (see Exhibit#3). E. ADOPT the General Plan Amendment in support of the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update (County File: GP#07-0001), as recommended under County Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-2008 and more fully described in Exhibit #B to the September 23, 2008 staff report and recommendation to the County Planning Commission, and adopt this General Plan Amendment as the third consolidated General Plan Amendment for calendar year 2008 to the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020),.as permitted under state law. F. ADOPT Resolution No. 2008/688 as the basis for the Board's decision on this matter (see Exhibit#4). G. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. H. AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports to arrange for payment of a$25 fee to the County ° Clerk, and a $1,250 to the Department of Fish and Game for filing the Notice of Determination. II. FISCAL IMPACT There is no impact on the General Fund. The cost for preparing the Airport Master Plan update and.related studies has been underwritten from sources other than the General Fund, including 5%from the Airport Enterprise Fund, 5%from CALTRANS and 90%funded by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grant. III. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION / BACKGROUND A. Airport Master Plan An Airport Master Plan is a study required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)which is used to determine the long term development requirements of an airport. The plan also includes a review and update to the Airport Layout Plan (ALP)in accordance with FAA operating and design standards. An Airport Layout Plan is another FAA requirement which is a scaled drawing, October 28,2008 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update,General Plan Amendment,and Related Actions Page 3 111: REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION / BACKGROUND - continued depicting the existing and future facilities and property necessary for the operation and development of the airport. An Airport Master Plan typically covers a twenty(20)year time period and the FAA encourages updating�the plan every ten years. The last update to the Airport Master Plan for Buchanan Field Airport was considered and approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 8, 1990 On January 4, -2005, the Board authorized the County to execute a contract with Barnard Dunkelberg and Company to undertake an update to the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan and FAR Part 150 Noise Study(the Master Plan). The update to the Airport Master Plan was needed to reflect changes over time in aviation issues on the local, regional and national level. The Airport Master Plan update has been conducted under the direction of the County Airports Division. The master plan will guide future development of existing airport property and aviation related growth and development to year 2020 and beyond. The Airport Master Plan update consists of several elements including ways the airport can accommodate future aviation needs, the type of aircraft and businesses the airport can support, a noise mitigation study and a business plan. Public participation has been a primary.component of the master planning program. To maximize public participation, the process included a three-tiered approach, a County staff working committee, a Master Plan Steering Committee and larger, general public meetings throughout the process. County staff ensured that County policies, plans, and standards were incorporated in the process. The Steering Committee provided external policy direction and included representatives from neighboring jurisdictions, businesses, pilots, economic development/environmental/community serving organizations, Municipal Advisory Committees, elected officials, and the like. The broader public meetings provided an on-going opportunity to make sure that plans and policy direction were consistent with residents of the greater Buchanan Field Airport area. Over the past three.years, the County and its consultants have had more than 18 meetings with stakeholders and the regional public. These meetings were crucial as the input provided direction for the use of remaining Airport land and other related activities.The major elements orthemes of the updated Master Plan include: • The Airport will remain a complex general aviation airport • The existing four-runway configuration will remain • Commercial airline service, such as. passenger flights, are not forecasted during the planning period, however, the plan provides for such activity should commercial service occur • Airport operations are forecasted to increase about 1.75 % annually over the next 20 years Based aircraft at the Airport are forecasted to grow from 497 in 2004 to approximately 660 in 2024 • Four areas are slated for development during the next 20 years to provide needed facilities for the users of Airport October 28,2008 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update,General Plan Amendment,and Related Actions Page 4 III. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION / BACKGROUND — continued The last community meeting was in.June 2007 with expectation of'completing the master plan by the end of 2007. The FAA has already reviewed and approved the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) proposed in the in the Airport Master Plan update. B. General Plan Amendment Subsequent to the initiation of the Airport Master Plan update and the completion of a draft proposal, the Board of Supervisors on January 23, 2007 authorized a General Plan Amendment study at the request of the Director of Airports to consider changes to the Land Use and Transportation/Circulation elements-in support of the Airport Master Plan update. Based on the proposed Airport Master Plan update, the General. Plan Amendment proposes to amend the Land Use Element Map by re-designating a vacant 19-acre airport-owned parcel at Sally Ride Drive and Marsh Drive from the Commercial (CO) designation to Public/Semi Public (PS) and Business Park(BP). The PS designation would be extended over an approximately 16- acre area of airport property at Sally Ride Drive in order to match the proposed Airport Master Plan's recommendation that this land area be reconfigured and absorbed directly into the operational area of the airport. Within this 16-acre area the proposed Airport Master Plan recommends an expansion of the taxiway system and the development of a new mixed-use aviation area to accommodate several types of aircraft hangars. Re-designating this 16-acre area to PS would be more reflective of how the updated Airport Master Plan envisions exclusive aviation development within this area of the airport property. The remnant portion of the vacant 19-acre parcel, totaling approximately 3 acres, is recommended for re-designation as Business Park (BP). The updated Airport Master Plan does not identify a need to retain this remnant area exclusively for airport operations. By designating this now vacant 3-acre remnant area.to BP, the airport would retain the capacity for up to 18,500 square feet of commercial uses to support and complement the aviation functions of the airport. In addition to the change on the Land Use Element Map for the 19-acre airport parcel at Sally Ride Drive and Marsh Drive,this General Plan Amendment also recommends revisions to the text for policies in the Land Use Element under the heading "Policies for Buchanan Field Area"at page 3-47. The purpose of the.text changes is to update and clarify the range of aviation, aviation- related, and non-aviation uses and activities intended for the airport property. New text is proposed as policy clarification to explain that a broad range of commercial aviation uses and support services on the airport are deemed consistent with the PS designation under the General Plan. The proposed-new text would establish a definition for a fixed base operation(FBO),the text lists the range of services.that fall within this definition, and the text cites a policy document that had been adopted by the Board in 1979 but not previously mentioned in the General Plan, referred to as the "Buchanan Field Airport Policy and Standards for Development". This earlier Board approved document was prepared primarily to guide decision-making on lease agreements' affecting the airport property and it has relevance to and should be cited within the General Plan policies for Buchanan Field. The proposed new text would also clarify that in addition to FBO's the airport property designated PS may also be leased for auxiliary and executive aviation uses and services, and it lists the range of services that fall within this classification. C October 28,2008 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update,General Plan Amendment,and Related Actions Page 5 III. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION / BACKGROUND — continued For the Transportation/Circulation Element,the General Plan Amendment proposes to remove the Diamond Boulevard extension currently depicted on the Roadway Network Map in the Transportation/Circulation Element. This future roadway is currently shown to extend through the airport property from Concord Avenue to Marsh Drive through the golf course. The Diamond Boulevard extension through the golf course was conceived under the 1990.Airport Master Plan. However the Airport Master Plan update significantly reduces the scale and intensity of potential development on the airport's west side which reduces the need for the Diamond Boulevard. Given the reduced level and intensity of development on the airport's west side under the updated Airport Master Plan, and the City of Concord stated opposition to the Diamond Boulevard extension, the recommendation is to remove the roadway extension from the Roadway Network Map. In its place, the former roadway alignment would be reserved as a corridor for a future regional trail and/or transitway. In conjunction with the removal of the Diamond Boulevard extension .from the Roadway Network` Map, "Policies Regarding Buchanan Field" in the Transportation/Circulation Element, specifically Policies 5-49 and 5-50, would be revised. These revisions would delete the requirement that the construction of the Diamond Boulevard extension be a prerequisite for approving development on the western side of the airport property and would clarify the County's intention to reserve space or right-of-way for a future regional trail and/or transitway. The County Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing on the General Plan Amendment proposal on September 23, 2008, and they have unanimously recommended to the Board of Supervisors approval of the General Plan Amendment as presented in the September .23, 2008 staff report and recommendation. Attached for the Board's consideration is County Planning Commission.Resolution No. 17-2008 (see Exhibit#3). C. Ad Hoc Airport Subcommittee Review The Board of Supervisors Ad'Hoc Airport Subcommittee convened on October 15, 2008 to review , this project, and they have recommended this matter be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. D. CEQA Review and Determination In accordance with the requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update and the supporting General Plan Amendment. A notice for a.proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued on July 10, 2008 for a thirty (30) day public comment period, which concluded on August 11, 2008, The County received a total of nine (9)comment letters during the public review period. The Notice to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, and copies of the nine comment letters are provided in Exhibit"A"to the 9/23/2008 Staff Report and Recommendation to the County Planning Commission (see-Exhibit#1). The Board of Supervisors is asked to consider the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project, which is in into the September 23, 2008 report to the County Planning Commission, to'find that the environmental review (Initial Study/Mitigated Negative.Declaration) for the project was prepared in accordance with State and County CEQA Guidelines, and to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Program. October 25,2008 Board of Supervisors Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update,General Plan Amendment,and Related Actions Page 6 IV. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION If the updated Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan and associated environmental review and General Plan Amendment are not approved, the project will not be completed and the County will risk violation of FAA regulations and future funding for airport improvements. FAGeneral Plan Amendments\GP07-0001 Buchanan Field MP Update\10-28-08 Board Order.doc LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit#1: September 23, 2008 Staff Report and Recommendation to the County Planning Commission Exhibit#2: Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Exhibit#3: County.Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-2008 Exhibit#4: draft Board Resolution No. 2008/688 EXHIBIT #1 September 23, 2008 Staff Report and Recommendation to the County Planning Commission rt Agenda Item# Conservation and Development Contra Costa County COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008—7:00 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE, COUNTY-INITIATED, (County File: GP # 07-0001). The proposed General Plan Amendment involves revisions and updates to both the Land Use and Transportation/Circulation Elements of the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020) in support of an update for the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan. II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the County Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors as follows: a. Find that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration presented under Exhibit "A" to this report has adequately reviewed and considered the environment effects of the project in compliance with, the State and County Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), . find that there is no substantial evidence the project will have significant effects on the environment which cannot be mitigated, and .adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, subject to the corrections in the MND noted in the Response to Commentsdocument, which is also presented under Exhibit "A"to this report. b. Adopt the General Plan Amendment for the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update (County File: GP#07-0001), as more-fully described under Exhibit"B"to this report, which includes: 1) Amending the Land Use Element, including the Land Use Element Map to re-designate a 19-acre vacant parcel. on airport property between Marsh Drive and Sally Ride Drive from Commercial (CO) to Public/Semi-Public (PS) and Business Park (BP), and to update and clarify the text, which specifically adds new and re-numbers Policies #3-92 to 3-101, under the heading "Policies for Buchanan Field Area F at pages 3-47 and 3-48 in the Land Use Element". (see Exhibit B-1) d S S-7 L 2) Amending. the Transportation/Circulation Element, to remove the Diamond Boulevard extension as depicted in the Roadway Network Plan Map, and, in conjunction with removing the Diamond Boulevard extension from the Roadway Network Plan Map, revise and clarify the text under "Policies Regarding Buchanan Field" in the Transportation/Circulation Element, at page 5-26, specifically Policies #'s 5-49 and 5-50. (See Exhibit B-2) III. PROJECT LOCATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS/SETTING A. PROJECT LOCATION Buchanan Field Airport is located in an unincorporated area of north central Contra Costa County within a triangle formed by I-680, SR-4, and SR-243.1 The Buchanan Field Airport is within the City of Concord's Sphere of Influence and Planning Area Boundary. Concord city limits abut the airport property to the northeast, east, and south. The southwestern and western portions abut the City of Pleasant Hill and the unincorporated community of Pacheco, respectively. The area directly north of the airport consists of unincorporated land. The airport's location in relation to the surrounding jurisdictions and surrounding land uses within a developed area of the County are each shown under Surrounding Jurisdiction Map and Generalized Land Use Map, respectively (see maps listed as Figures #1 and 2). B. EXISTING CONDITONS AND SETTING Buchanan Field Airport is principally a general aviation and commercial service airport. The 405-acre (+/) airport is owned and.operated by Contra Costa County. The Airports Division of the Contra Costa County Public Works Department operates Buchanan Field Airport and Byron Airport, another general aviation airport in East County owned by the County. The operating and capital expenses for these County-owned airports are solely supported from airport-generated revenues. General aviation is the predominant user at the Buchanan Field Airport. Existing uses within the airport consist of both"airside" and aviation, aviation-related uses and non aviation related "landside" uses. Existing airside facilities consist of a mainrunway (Runway 01 L/1;9R) which is 5,010-feet in length and 150-feet in width, a 4,602-foot by 150-foot primary crosswind runway (Runway 14L/32R), a 2,770-foot by 75-foot secondary parallel runway (Runway 01R/19L) and a 2,779- foot by 75-foot secondary crosswind runway (Runway 14R/32L). Additional ' Except for a small acreage area that is within the City of Concord located east of the Walnut Creek Flood Control channel,the airport is located within the unincorporated area. S-2 FIGURE #1 • fha' Pct`�S�o: . . . _ . �. . .. •�. .�OP�dy . �y{8`l ate• , ., o1`ay,�Q�. a ,a t ROa, f r 680 `,oc°�a ®.�r�;!(f .� ,;f,.fk . 1, int '�* z •``'.`-�" f0 - •r r` f � 'i o �p •1 � O r F '•�C� j� MARTINEZ '` ' Center Avenue r f I . Z �sncarr/AVe t i Chdpl4c dgo 66®'�® tae c a Adr�; "Q 7. . ; r. f�oaa j w rr r -EEASANT-:1iILG: sa0 ' .... . .. r LSA LEGEND Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan P"� Airport Boundary D Martinez Update and General Plan Amendment N� Initial Stud /Miti ated Negative Declaration O Concord y $ g Unincorporated Contra o. �0s0 2200 = Pleasant Hill O Costa County Surrounding Jurisdictions FEET SOURCE: BASE MAP:NAVTEQ TELE ATLUS,2005;LSAASSOCIATES,INC.,2006. I:\BDK430 buchanan fieldUiguresTig_3.ai (8/21/08) FIGURE #2'. fjog AL 10j +•�-„'fy h ' .� f f F' $�:INDUAL �j_.� '��`�'� � j Ft �a-.✓'v rrrd'�:-` +,t3• S,�'+L $ , ji t'. � ry. t f�*. =., -',,�;�? R�EACH �•s : x '; 0'`s� 4�E IC�TiERS '�,.,duti . .,•.'��•'*,�ex ��^'- WEST � � � �� ,'�,,K. �� '"` �.r'` �HAR'N AR`� '�<, o�-t'i � - d� r °'�'`�•s,.�'' � w�- �_ r d -k ��\�t� � � � ' .w� i 5,� �t 9, �. p' � �� ,s �_ y �SINGLE•EAMIL►Y- , •��." `� ,,;� �• � t_t`: r ,� �• �� '� �'.f'` RESIDENTIAL USES HOME' PARKS J County�Qirport'S ; � r; t rte ,�� •� � A ,, ��,� }< 'a r�' 1 '5�r'r tf�cf�1• •. ! 1 ! JJ -G< •F � �"��..• ? -.-�kr� f VEST F�Tower• 'Tr� Fs 5 `S a ifiiY t!f � 0^9 RTp f INDUSTRIAL' ti0 /" ---•� -y{ r �`�„' o�� 7 '�- < 4`,, 1r 1��= ,; APRON \,,. - AREA 4 OFFfCE PARK f, t ° r i ,b r FBO'S ' ' :•' .:7' ' USES ' ��• r�_ �,�a �,�fr � � I . ,: ,or ,. Sports•Authonty }�� , COURSE y ,1A Plaza:Hotl v SL ;c 1 sR D: , '+.y,ro • ' �. . Taco Bell .. w�' r -A, IGHT e ? 1 IND1 STRIA '' �a3t ;a Jiffy Lube � �, -: '•'" �t � '��{,B iii' ` t � •� �., �, � ,�,�/� , . # +COMMERCIAL AND ' c `' �,_•;-,." :�. � W �.`,� �',�,,�,� ..>a ` MIXEDjUSES �'�,� � y��; r � ,�. ,,� .� ,,.� Pi rf tUd�rys �'� �f' �".r�CiY '. `�rz�.•a� / t_ _/ LSA (N) LEGEND Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan ® 660 �s2o == .0 Update and General Plan Amendment 0 duo PROJECT BOUNDARY Initial Study/Mitigated Negatiue Declaration FEET Aerial View of Airport and SOURCE: GLOBEXPLORER,NOVEMBER 2005. surrounding Land Uses I:\BDK4,0 Buchanan fie1d\figu1es\Fig_4.ai (4/7/08) airside facilities include the taxiway system that provides access between the runway and the various landside areas. There are currently 14 taxiways at the airport. Landside facilities include five .fixed base operators, aircraft storage hangars, maintenance hangars, a terminal facility and public meeting space, County'Airport administration offices, an Aircraft. Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) station, air traffic control tower facilities, several fuel storage facilities, automobile access/parking, non-aviation businesses and other such uses. Non- aviation businesses located on the airport property include: Sam's Club, Sports Authority, Jiffy Lube, and Taco Bell located on the southeast side of the airport with frontage on Concord Avenue; the Crowne Plaza Hotel located on the southern border of the airport with entrance at the northwest corner of John Glenn Drive and Concord Avenue; and, Buchanan Field Golf Course located on the southwestern tip of the airport property. There is also a law enforcement training area on the eastside of the airport near the Walnut Creek Channel, and Mediplane/Reach, Inc., a helicopter medical air transport business is located on the northeast side of the airport. See Figure #3 for a map showing the existing airport layout. Approximately 500 aircraft are based at the airport and its four runways support just under 129,000 aircraft operations (take-offs and landings) a year. z Buchanan Field Airport is one of 23 airports that serve the commercial and general aviation users in the SanFrancisco Bay Area, and it is an integral part of a regional airport system that links the Bay Area to communities throughout the United States and beyond. Buchanan Field Airport does not currently have scheduled commercial air passenger service. The FAA has authorized up to two scheduled air carriers to operate at Buchanan Field. Pacific Southwest Airlines (PSA) offered commercial air passenger service, from Buchanan Field to Los Angeles International Airport, beginning May 1, 1986. PSA offered between four and five daily roundtrips on the route, using its 100-seat BAe 146 aircraft. USAir continued the service after purchasing PSA in 1987? In 1991, however, USAir announced that it was parking its BAe 146 fleet and dismantling most of the west coast network that it had acquired from PSA, including service to Buchanan Field Airport. Since USAir's departure in 1992, Buchanan Field Airport has not been served by commercial air passenger service. J IV. AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE An Airport Master Plan is a study required by the Federal Aviation . Administration (FAA) which is used to determine the long term development requirements of an airport. It includes an inventory, surveys and data collection, aviation activity forecasts, demand and capacity analysis, determination of facility requirements, development of alternatives and concepts, and financial and 2 Source:Buchanan Field Airport Total Annual Aircraft Operations(1961-2006),.Division of Airports,Public Works Department,Contra Costa County. 3 According to Director of Airports,there were up to seven(7)scheduled air passenger flights that departed from Buchanan Field Airport at its peak in the late 1980's. S-3 FIGURE #3 The Barnard Dunkelberg&Company Team T Hangars I � a 0 ', 0 O 10 a Co olTower c' minal { ti• f 1 H gar ngars Crowne Plaza ■• ,`_ d� Exisitng Airport Layout � • Buchanan' Field FAR Part 150 study SOIJOCE:Buchanan Field ALP,Shutt Moen ASSDCi3teS,September 1990. A.8 implementation plans. It is subject to environmental review. The plan also includes a review and update to the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) in accordance with FAA operating and design standards. An Airport Layout Plan which is . another FAA requirement which is a scaled drawing, depicting existing and future facilities and property necessary for the operation and development of the airport. An Airport Master Plan.typically covers a twenty (20) year time period and the FAA encourages updating the plan every ten years. The last update to the Airport Master Plan for Buchanan Field Airport was considered and approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 8, 1990. In recognition that aviation issues at the local, regional and national level have changed since 1990, the Board of Supervisors directed the Airport Division, County Public Works Department to initiate an update of the Airport Master.Plan. The current effort to update the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan was initiated in 2005. The Airport Master Plan update is intended to address the physical layout and development for aviation and aviation-related uses at the airport through the year 2025. The primary goal is continued improvement of the Buchanan Field Airport in a manner that is both financially realistic and appropriate in consideration of its.surroundings. Subsequent to the initiation of the Airport Master Plan update and the completion of a draft proposal, the Board of Supervisors on January 23, 2007 then authorized a General Plan Amendment study at the request of the Director of Airports to consider changes to the Land Use and Transportation/Circulation elements in support of the Airport Master • Plan update. The proposed Airport Master Plan update was prepared by Barnard Dunkelberg and Company under the direction of the Airport Division, Public Works Department, and based on guidance and input from the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Steering Committee (a 58 member committee comprised of a cross section of community and stakeholder interests), County staff (including the CAO, Department of Conservation and Development, Public Works, etc.), and members of the general public. The proposed Airport Master Plan update is the result of 18 meetings conducted between 2005 and 2007 with the Airport Master 'Plan Steering Committee, numerous community and stakeholder interests, and the general public. In developing the Airport Master Plan update, several development goals were considered that took into account the short-term and long-term needs of Buchanan Field Airport, including safety, capital improvements, land use compatibility, financial and economic conditions, public interest and investment, and community recognition and awareness. Six airfield development options were evaluated for the airport using a set of eleven evaluation factors. Based on the evaluation and input received during the update process, the preferred airfield development option recommended under the Master Plan would maintain the airport's existing four-runway configuration, including length and width, and the plan identifies taxiway improvements and reconfigurations to S-4 reduce.complexity for ground movement of aircraft and to comply with Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) design criteria. The proposed Airport Master Plan update assumes that Buchanan Field Airport will continue to function as a busy general aviation reliever airport through 2025. The types of aircraft projected to be used at Buchanan Field Airport, during the next 20 years, are the same types that use the airport presently. These aircraft type include small single engine propeller aircraft to larger business-use (jet) aircraft, as large as the Gulfstream V and Bombardier Global Express. The plan forecasts that airport operations (landings and take-offs) will increase from approximately 128,375 in 2004 to 181,465 by 2024, and aircraft based at the airport will grow from approximately 500 to 660 by year 2025. It assumes that the existing four- runway configuration will remain, but it recommends the reconfiguration and expansion of taxiways within the airport property. The plan also provides for the possible resumption of commercial airline passenger service to at least the service levels that existed in 1,992 when scheduled service.ceased operation. This could be expected to occur in the event that the underlying economics of the,airline industry improve and market conditions change resulting in renewed interest and demand for regularly scheduled passenger service at Buchanan Field Airport. The recommendations of the proposed Airport Master Plan update are provided as background infonnation to this report, including Figure # 4: Conceptual Development Plan and Exhibit "C", an executive summary of the Airport Master Plan. The proposed Airport Master Plan update describes two categories of development, airside development and landside development. Airside development refers to the airport's runway and taxiway system. Landside development refers to the area off the runway and taxiway system, primarily the facilities designed-and developed to meet the needs of the aviation users at the airport. The key recommendations for airside and landside development in the Airport Master Plan update are as follows: Airside Development The updated Airport Master Plan's airside development recommendation would maintain the existing four-runway configuration. All existing runway lengths and widths would. be retained. However, a number of taxiway improvements and reconfigurations would be implemented to reduce complexity of aircraft movement on the ground and to comply with FAA's design criteria for all airfield pavements.. For more details on the airside development recommendations, see Figure #4: Conceptual Development Plan and Exhibit C: Airport Master Plan, Executive Summary. Landside Development — The overall objective of the landside development recommendation is to provide facilities that are conveniently located and accessible to the community and will meet anticipated aviation needs and demand (predominantly general aviation). The plan acknowledges that the landside development area of the airport will be constrained due to space limitations; therefore, the plan strives to make the most.efficient use of the available area for S-5 FIGURE #4 +y � ,,�_---•¢ �,,••.•$'��.ti,--�-,ti_...��cr•� .�,��`�. �' S��j-- I—rte^'—•-� �'^'�'. {'•-., 'SYS-`tV" F,z:`' � rk� zi.�r �o,y � .3= 4/'�,. �`�1) a�" �+ � r fi.• FamS,. � -��+�;s it 4"rear' rl_�t"!" F"�}•�•''1'riL � dpi.tw<'� ��{�+`t ,¢-S�?'t �� ,{,� t �\'.. � �\l\ t.��s Y }aY�' '• ! 1,,S"t�'f yF � ,/)y��.rr�y f+ ,�`�7 a .✓f'' �.rn �,t� -..jay.•�Fl�:br k Yr '1 lt,'S - � ^''�l .t.3� �'.�`t3l T7' `'�' Jb, r,.> 1'i. ,y T / 54 , "Z w+ / {r r I �. 4.��{t'�,'�''�' 'L»:/ d` 'durzi y.Jjr."4+r'S'� � Z� •s w d �*i tI �1��'!, �a •�1� 1 .,,� y =� �V^�1 d �!��-�;" �'/r � ,�',E !r arr` i4�` .n o� ! +� �� r-!ice.,\ �'Y_" ti � �Lt.•i � 'r�.i ! �• r � r-+R C1i � 0. C Ey Y"•�aW./ },...r 1 ni a 1 S �, ..i f/J/ "•-''f R s^R.•/ 1 J .S`4 x �•�'�" stingy 6il��:¢ ai sD�-r,.-v�L�}i-.,urs A N'�`r'u" .:� .� 4 + * .'� .. 1I7 �h �r p' T !� r a ! !' l• o reC r .' g W G a r M >t t�� J i '�S �" 4�:'at4 n 'J,r '� �'�.',� � J'r� •:« -_ � ��arx-�y M"'z' 8 � a 'J r iS Iftladti- i � t k . � 4. Yet •Y �� ?"' �, " � /� y ��y,--• � �•" �;;. ti � _°`� ,tib' .� }� 1 . �a` �• y j +' t.(. 9 3 I �?u,i'�Yr�� y - c2 Ff z tat iv �= ry 1,, :{r �;� a �f ,:-,�;'�'�•� �w j �.. � s ttJ ./,;;:rt a i'. pq / a o I't+� ffl�-s. bb �' o x,r��y '.1�` r t. ''>�� o�5�s •,r;� ``.: Q g�•r' r�"f;,f A G 4'«� 2' /�`..y tF, '�"��°ss" �. A* �� c ` .• �` « ac per, ! 3j,: . 't, ci fi - \• k�G�' , t �V Jam.-+' _'1 of 1=1 -W ' } }��..2.•'� -�..\�:2- N � �lac aviation and aviation-related uses. While landside development at the airport would include both aviation, aviation-related, and non-aviation related development, to the greatest extent possible, aviation use facilities required for aircraft operations, storage; maintenance, and safety would occupy the majority of airport property that is not already utilized by the runway/taxiway system. The Airport Master Plan identifies landside development recommendations in four locations on the airport property: • West Development Area. The west development area,comprises of three sites, totaling approximately 77 acres. The first ,of these sites is located at the southern end of the development area that comprises a mix of undeveloped and under-developed land. Aviation uses, such as aircraft storage and executive hangars with adjoining office space are recommended for this area. A small portion of this area would also include some non-aviation activities, such as a business park, to support and complement the associated aviation functions. The second development area was identified in the previous Master Plan for use as a commercial aviation terminal and the third parcel was previously set aside for non-aviation development. These two parcels have been reconfigured and combined and would allow for the development of a single mixed-use aviation area that can accommodate several types of aircraft hangars. This would also require the reconfiguration and truncating the limits of Sally Ride Drive. • • Southeast Development Area. The approximately 39-acre southeast development area is essentially built-out and would continue to function in a variety of uses, including commercial general aviation uses, along with non- aviation uses in areas that are not provided with taxiway access. Any new facilities in this area would likely involve the removal of existing structures or the conversion of tiedown apron area.At present, Buchanan Field Airport does not have a centralized air terminal facility to meet the landside needs of transient general aviation aircraft, their operators, or passengers. Development in the southeast' development area may include a new general aviation terminal building, possible relocation of the existing control tower, and the siting of an on-airport Air Rescue Fire Fighting (ARFF) station. The ARFF station could also be located in the north development area, discussed below. • North Development Area. A small.portion of the 11-acre north development area is currently utilized by emergency/medical helicopter operations. Because it would be advantageous to co-locate all emergency helicopter operators in the same area, the Master Plan recommends that all emergency medical service and law enforcement helicopter operations be located in this area. This area is also the alternate location for the ARFF station, which may be co-located with helicopter operations. A variety of hangars with .attached office space may also be developed in this area. S-6 • East Development Area. Development"of the approximately 10-acre east development area is dependent upon the details of the recommended airside development plan and access needs. A service road connecting the southeast and east development areas is being explored. Provided there is access, this area may be better integrated with the operation of the Airport by providing additional space for aviation use or aviation support facilities. For more details on the landside development recommendations, see Figure #4: Conceptual Development Plan and Exhibit "C", Airport Master Plan, Executive Summary. V. CURRENT COUNTY GENERAL PLAN POLICIES FOR BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT Policies pertaining to Buchanan Field Airport can be found in three General Plan elements, and are summarized below. A. LAND USE ELEMENT Most of the airport property is designated as Public/Semi-Public (PS) under the Land Use Element Map. As the title implies the PS designation includes land owned by public agencies and is typically, applied on land where public facilities have been developed (e.g. fire station, library, schools, etc.). The PS designation 'has been applied to the portion of airport owned lands which are exclusively devoted to airport operations, comprising of the runway/taxiway system, fixed based operations, hangars, and aircraft tiedown areas. The balance of the airport property (approximately 106 acres of County owned land within the airport environs), which is not exclusively.used for airport operations is designated as follows on the Land Use Element Map: • Airport Commercial (ACO) - Approximately 6 acres of already developed land at the southwest corner of John Glenn Drive and Concord Avenue, which are commercial uses that stand separate from airport operations but serve to support the airport functions, including the Crown Plaza Hotel and Caffino drive thru coffee stand. • Commercial (CO) - Approximately 13 acres for already developed non-aviation, retail commercial uses located at the southeast corner of John Glenn Drive and Concord Avenue, including Sam's Club, Sports Authority, Taco Bell, and Jiffy Lube. • Commercial (CO) - Approximately 19 acres of vacant land west of the main airport runway located on the west side of the airport at Sally Ride Drive and Marsh Drive. • S-7 J • Parks and.Recreation (PR) —Approximately 66 acres of the Buchanan Field Golf Course, which occupies the southwest portion of,the airport property. • Light Industrial (LI)—Approximately 2 acres of land on the north side of Marsh Drive (detached from the airport by Marsh Drive but County owned land) currently occupied by an-automobile sales lot. The current General Plan land use designations for the airport property and the immediate vicinity adjoining the airport are shown on Figure#5. In addition to the Land Use Element Map, there are policies in the Land Use Element at page 3-47 for the Buchanan Field Area, which are numbered# 3-91 to # 3-98. These policies are aimed a providing guidance and direction for land use development on or near the Buchanan Field Airport. B. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION ELEMENT There are . a number of policies and implementation measures in the Transportation/Circulation Element, at . Section 5.10, Airports and Heliports, which affect both the Buchanan Field Airport and Byron Airport. This General Plan Amendment proposal is only concerned special policies #'s 5-57 and 5-58 for Buchanan Field, at page 5-26 in the Transportation/Circulation Element. ® Currently, these policies call for the construction of the Diamond Boulevard extension from Concord Avenue northerly to Center Avenue and Marsh Drive, and make development on the western side,of the airport contingentupon the completion of this roadway extension. C. NOISE ELEMENT The Noise Element contains noise contour maps for both Buchanan Field Airport and Byron Airport. These-noise contour maps were updated in 2005 based on the most recent Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan prepared by the Airport Land Use Commission (see discussion about ALUC at Section VI. Q. The noise contour maps for the airports are intended to guide planning for public and private projects near airport property. The General Plan Amendment discussed in this report does not propose to change the noise contour map in the Noise Element for the Buchanan Field Airport area. Although at some point in the future it may necessary to revisit and possibly revise the noise contour map in the Noise Element pending the FAA's review of an airport noise compatibility study, known as Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study. The FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study requires the County to develop existing and future Noise Exposure Maps (NEMS). The future NEM is required to show projected.base case conditions 5 years into the future, in this case year 2012. Based upon the FAA's review and approval the FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study, an updated airport noise monitoring and mitigation program S-8 Buchanan Field Airport Area Figure #5 Current General Plan Land Use Element Map 7T d sliver - s d� 0 � y r — N K � S � 0 6 B rc',$ha an C/ �i I r Cell 9 r� Al irpo f7 0 d .7' cr �0 w; 0 Co � ncorq,q� 1 e aim ro d ° o 0 0 SH(Single Family Residential-High) I - . BP(Business Park) ML(Multiple Family Residential-Low) CO(Commercial) ® o MM(Multiple Family Residential-Medium) OF(Office) © MH(Multiple Family Residential-High) L� LI(Light Industry) 0.Rk`inJ��' a��tgg o �S� MO(Mobile Home) 222 ACO(Airport Commercial) PR(Parks and Recreation) PS(Public/Semi-Public) OAssessor Parcels Feet a, Zx. Airport Property w »mem 0 1 !�-,- 0. ,000 2,000 0 .�.,. �..me,,aa City Limits "� a" apA PAPI WON\ '41 4 gi��I� A . X11��I �• A s+ L7'V • A •� 1 A ®, �. ®r� ��erg° +• . lot s 111 C►�� `� �► ' , , 1 %Pleasant Hill C(General commercial) R-6(Single Family Residential)tR-B(Retail Business) T-1(Mobile Home/Manufactured Home Park 1 0-1(Limited Office) R-7(Single Family Residential) C-M(Controlled Manufacturing) M-17(Multiple Family Residential) �® o I ,,, ,,. - may be required that may include a proposed revision to the noise contour map for Buchanan Field area in the Noise Element. VI. CURRENT ZONING AND OTHER REGULATIONS AFFECTING THE AIRPORT A. COUNTY ZONING The current zoning for the airport property and the immediate vicinity is illustrated on Figure #6 to this report. The airport property is zoned in the Unrestricted (U) District. Aside from shoreline and water areas of the County, the airport property.is the only other area of the County zoned under the U district. The uses allowed within the U District are determined by action of the Board of Supervisors. The other zoning districts 'for property immediate adjacent to the airport within the unincorporated area include: T-1: Manufactured Home/Mobile Home Park District, C: General Commercial District, L-I: Light Industrial District, and H-I: Heavy Industrial.District. B. COUNTY AIRPORT ORDINANCE Activities and conduct on the airport property are regulated by County Ordinance 87-8, and as amended by County Ordinance 88-82. C. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION California Public. Utilities .Code section 21670 establishes airport land use commissions in each county to provide for the orderly development of air transportation and to ensure compatible land uses around airports. The Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission(ALUC) was established pursuant to state law to provide for appropriate development of areas surrounding public airports (Buchanan Field Airport and Byron Airport) in Contra Costa County. The primary mission of the ALUC is to minimize the public's exposure to. excessive aviation noise and aviation safety hazards, and to ensure that the approaches to airports are kept clear of structures that could pose an aviation safety hazard. The plan adopted by the Contra Costa County ALUC in December 2000 sets forth referral boundaries, uses which are prohibited or discouraged, projected noise levels, noise standards, and limits on building height, population density, residential density, and lot coverage. The ALUC consists of seven members: two appointed by the County, two appointed by.the incorporated cities, two members appointed by the airport manager, and one general public member 'appointed by the other members of the Commission. • S-9 VII. PREVIOUS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS RELATED TO BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT The following is a summary of previous adopted General Plan Amendments that are related to Buchanan Field Airport '(presented in ascending chronological order): v ALUC Land Use Compatibility Plan General Plan Amendment, County File: GP#02-0001: An amendment to the Land Use, Noise, and Transportation/Circulation Elements adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 18, 2005 to bring these elements of the General Plan into conformity with the December 2000 ALUC Land Use Compatibility Plan. o Buchanan Field General Plan Amendment (89), County File: #1-89-CO: An amendment to the County General Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors on May 8, 1990 to re-designate lands east of Marsh Drive and - east of John Glenn Drive from.Office to Commercial and to make minor' map shifts. The. amendment covered the Land Use, Transportation/Circulation, Noise; and Recreation elements to the County General Plan. o Buchanan Field Airport General Plan Amendment (84): An amendment adopted on April 4, 1984 that covered both the airport property and the lands next to the airport. The amendment affected the Land Use, • Circulation, Noise, and Recreation elements to the 1984 version of the County General Plan and it established new, special policies related to the Airport Land Use Commission. VIII. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT Based on the proposed Airport Master Plan update, this General Plan Amendment proposes to amend the Land Use Element Map by re-designating the vacant 19- acre airport-owned parcel at Sally Ride Drive and Marsh Drive from the Commercial (CO) designation to Public/Semi Public (PS) and Business Park (BP). The PS designation would be extended over an approximately'16-acre area of airport property at Sally Ride Drive in order to match the proposed Airport Master Plan's recommendation that this land area be reconfigured and absorbed directly into the operational area of the airport. Within this 16-acre .area the proposed Airport Master Plan recommends an expansion of the taxiway system and the development of a new mixed-use aviation area to accommodate several types of aircraft hangars. Re-designating this 16-acre area to PS would be more reflective of how the updated Airport Master Plan envisions exclusive aviation development within this area of the airport property. The remnant portion of the vacant 19-acre parcel, totaling approximately 3 acres, is recommended for re-designation as-Business Park (BP). The updated Airport Master Plan does not identify a need to retain this remnant area exclusively for S-10 Buchanan Field Airport Area Figure #7 Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Map ID r d d 1 U.�chnan o Field ® s,kirport AMN 0 • .a j ®M � ve it gra:. ® tenter A 1 0 N, N a ®®�931D � ` d Pie• - ® fl Gon o 0 0 SH(Single Family Residential-High) BP Business Park ML(Multiple,Family Residential-Low) CO(Commercial) Q MM(Multiple Family Residential-Medium) OF(Office) N 'W, MH(Multiple Family Residential-High) O LI(Light Industry) °�pgo Pym 04 00/ MO(Mobile Home) ACO(Airport Commercial) PR(Parks and Recreation) PS(Public/Semi-Public) 7 77 / O Assessor Parcels �w•�.P� w. °a �� Feet o = A. �n, ,.�w,•sb, .s., ` Airport Property .�1 0 1,000 2,000 ,<n,�,.e°wdueE �;o Cit Limits .:.no%��,�:e... m.roa:Mb" airport operations. By designating this now vacant 3-acre remnant area to BP, the ® airport would retain the capacity for up to 18,500 square feet of'commercial uses to support and complement the aviation functions of the airport. The changes to the Land Use Element Map affecting the Buchanan Field Area are illustrated in Figure#7 to this report. In addition to the change on the Land Use Element Map for the 19-acre airport parcel at Sally Ride Drive and Marsh Drive, this General Plan Amendment also recommends revisions to the text for policies in the Land Use Element, at page 3- 47 under the heading "Policies for Buchanan Field Area". The purpose of the text changes to the policies is to update and clarify the range of aviation, aviation- related, and non-aviation uses and activities intended for the airport property. New text is proposed as policy clarification to explain that a broad range of commercial aviation uses and support services . on the airport are deemed consistent with the PS designation under the General Plan. The proposed new text would establish a definition for a fixed base operation (FBO), as an aviation business providing comprehensive general aviation services, the text lists the range of services that fall within this definition, and the text cites a policy document that had been adopted by the Board in 1979 but not previously mentioned in the.General Plan, referred to as the "Buchanan Field Airport Policy and Standards for Development". While this document was prepared primarily to guide.decision-making on lease agreements affecting the airport property, it has • relevance to and should be cited within the General Plan policies for Buchanan Field. A copy of this policy document on airport leasing is included for reference under Exhibit "D" to this report. The proposed new text would also clarify that in addition to FBO's the airport property designated PS may also be leased for auxiliary and executive aviation uses and services, and it lists the .range of services that fall within this classification. See Exhibit`B-1"to this report for a complete copy of the proposed text revisions to the policies under the heading "Policies for Buchanan Field Area", pages 3-47 to 3-48 in the, Land Use Element. The existing text on "Policies for Buchanan Field Area" is provided first, then followed by proposed text revisions in redline and strikeout format. IX. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION ELEMENT The Diamond Boulevard extension currently depicted on the Roadway Network Map in the Transportation/Circulation Element would be removed. This future roadway is currently shown to extend through the airport property from Concord Avenue to Marsh Drive through the golf course. The Diamond Boulevard extension through the golf course was conceived under the 1990 Airport Master Plan. The 1990 Airport Master Plan anticipated the need for improved circulation and access to accommodate planned uses on airport property, including a potential S-11 air passenger terminal and up to 180,000 square feet of commercial .uses on the west side of the airport property. The updated Airport Master Plan no longer calls for an air terminal on the airport's west side, it instead recommends a general aviation terminal be located in the airport's Southeast Development Area, and it also recommends that approximately 16 acres of the vacant parcel on the airport property at Sally Ride Drive previously designated for commercial use be reconfigured and incorporated into the operational area of the airport. These changes significantly reduce the scale and intensity. of potential development on the airport's 'west side. The.need for improved circulation and access on the airport's west side, via the Diamond Boulevard extension, as assumed under the 1990 Airport Master Plan, would therefore be significantly reduced. Also, since the adoption of the 1990 Airport Master Plan, the City of Concord has gone on record as opposing the Diamond Boulevard extension.4 Given the reduced level and intensity of development on the airport's west side under the updated Airport Master Plan, and the City of Concord stated opposition to the Diamond Boulevard extension, the recommendation is to remove the roadway extension from the Roadway Network Map. In its place, the former roadway alignment would be reserved-as a corridor for a future regional trail and/or transitway.. In conjunction with the removal of the Diamond Boulevard extension from the Roadway Network Map, "Policies Regarding Buchanan Field" in the Transportation/Circulation Element, specifically Policies 5-49 and 5-50, would be revised. These revisions would delete the requirement that the construction of the Diamond Boulevard extension be a prerequisite for approving development on the western side of the airport property and would clarify the County's intention to • reserve space or right-of-way for a future regional trail and/or transitway. The proposed text revisions to the policies .in the Transportation/Circulation Element, at page 5-26, under the heading "Policies Regarding Buchanan Field" are shown in redline arid.strikeout under Exhibit "B-2". The existing text on "Policies Regarding Buchanan Field" is provided first, then followed by the proposed text revisions in redline and strikeout format. X. CEQA REVIEW AND DETERMINATION A proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)/Initial Study Checklist has been prepared. for this project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued on July 10, 2008 setting a 30-day public review period which closed on August 11, 2008. This Notice to Adopt a-Mitigated Negative Declaration along with Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study is attached as Exhibit"A"to this report. Comment letters in response to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration were received from the following agencies and-individuals: 4 Source: Letter from Mr.Phillip Wood,Principal Planner,City of Concord,dated October 28,2005,re:City of Concord's Comments on Airport Master Plan Working Paper No.2, S-12 • State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research (August 12, 2008) • State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research (August 12, 2008) • State of California, Delta Protection Commission(July 31, 2008) • California Regional Water Quality Control board (August 11, 2008) • Contra Costa County Airport Land.Use Commission(August 8, 2008) • Contra Costa County Public Works Department • City of Martinez (July 25, 2008) • City of Concord(August 8, 2008) • Mr. Jeff Horner(July 28, 2008) Copies of these comment letters along with enumerated responses to the comments can be found under Exhibit"A"to this report. Corrections to the MND that are appropriate in light of the comments received and responses provided, or which are necessary, to clarify information in the MND, are included in the responses. XI. PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENT,RECEIVED TO DATE As of the preparation of this report, except for.comments submitted on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration,,to date no other comments have been received by the Department from the public, organizations, or other public agencies regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment. XII. CONCLUSION The last significant review of General Plan policies affecting Buchanan Field Airport occurred in 1990 in conjunction with an update of the Airport Master Plan. The recently completed draft Airport Master Plan update provides an opportunity to consider whether policies and maps related to Buchanan Field are still relevant or require updating. The General Plan Amendment proposal would update and align the General Plan policies and maps affecting Buchanan Field in the Land Use and Transportation/Circulation Elements consistent with and in support of the Airport Master Plan update. S-0 .LIST OF EXHIBITS AND FIGURES EXHIBITS Exhibit"A": CEQA Review • Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration(IS/MND)for the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan and General Plan Amendment and Mitigation Monitoring Program • Comments on IS/MND and Response to Comments Exhibit`B": General Plan Amendment Detail "B-1" Proposed map and text revisions to the policies in the Land Use Element 44B-2" Proposed text revisions to the policies in the Transportation/Circulation Element Exhibit"C": Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan, Executive Summary • Exhibit"D : "Buchanan Field Airport Policy and Standards for Development" FIGURES Figure#1: Surrounding Jurisdiction Map Figure#2: Generalized Land Use Map Figure 43: Existing Airport Layout Figure #4: Conceptual Development Plan from Airport Master Plan Update Figure 45: Current Land Use Element Map, Buchanan Field Area Figure 46: Current Zoning, Buchanan Field Area Figure #7: Proposed Land Use Element Map, Buchanan Field Area r FABuchanan Field Master.Plan\cpcsrptbuchananfieldgpa092308.doc S-14 Exhibit "A": C'EQA Review • Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan and General Plan Amendment and Mitigation Monitoring Program • Comments on IS/MND and Response to Comments .Depol menl Of Contra Dennis it Barry,AICP } QQ ^ `1 Interim Director Conservation OC ( =O`'�� Catherine Kutsuris Development V v Interim Deputy Director County x. ®ommunity Development Division s -L --- — a o� 8 Jul . County Administration Building 65.1 Pine Street ,iDEP (, t r }� North Wing, Fourth Floor ! co L(0 , ��Il�iy 0 X008 Martinez, CA.94553-1229 (925) 335-1200 S.L:'.WEIR,--COUNTY CLERK Phone: C T TA COJJNTY BY EPUTY DATE: July 10, 2008 NOTICE OF-PTUBLIC REVIEW FOR A PROPOS Eb MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION .County File: GP#07-0001 Pursuant to. the State of California Public Resources Code and the "Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended to date, this is to advise you that the Department Conservation and Development for Contra Costa County has prepared an,Initial Study on the following project: BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (County File: GP#07-0001): The proposed project involves an update of the existing 1990 Master Plan for the Buchanan Field Airport, consistent with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements, and a related amendment to the Land Use and Transportation/Circulation Elements of the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020) in support of the Airport Master Plan update (collectively referred to as the"proposed project"). The proposed project would result in environmental impacts, but such impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. t A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all documents referenced therein may be reviewed in the"offices of the Department of Conservation and Development (Application and Permit Center) :at the Contra Costa County, McBrien Administration Building, North Wing, Second Floor, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, during normal business hours. In addition, a copy of the Mitigated. Negative Declaration may be viewed online at www.CoCoPlans.org and information regarding the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update may be viewed online at www.buchananfieid-b,/ronairports.org. (over) Public Comment Period - The period for- accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental review documents extends to Monday, August 11, 2008. Any comments should be in writing and submitted to the following address: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 651 Pine Street,North Wing, 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Attn:Patrick Roche It is anticipated that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be considered by the County Planning Commission when. it reviews and considers the proposed General Plan . Amendment. The tentative date for the County .Planning Commission's public hearing on the General Plan Amendment is Tuesday, September 9, 2008. The County.Planning Commission re l y meetings>are:held + 7:0? p:rn. en:+? e 2"�-al: -", Tl I.Aay of each mmon�.h :iri the oavl" Chambers at the McBrien County Administration Building,Room 107, Pine and Escobar Streets, Martinez, CA. Interested parties should 'contact the Department of Conservation aril Development to confirm the date and time when the County Planning Commission would consider action on this project. Sincerely; Project Planner, cc: County Clerk's Office Q copies) FASuch—Field Master PIAWNotice of MND.doc { ' 1 • DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CEQA) FOR THE BUCHANAN FIELD. AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT LSA July 2oo8 • DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CEQA) FOR THE BUCH.ANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Submitted to: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development • Administrative Building 651 Pine Street ]North Wing, Second Floor .Martinez, CA 94553-1295 Prepared by: LSA Associates,Inc. 2215 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 510.540.7331 LSA • July 2oo8 TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION..........................................................................1 CHECKLIST........................................................................................................................................22 I. AESTHETICS.................................................................................................................22 II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES..................................................................................24 III. AIR QUALITY................................................................................................................25 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.........................................................................................29 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES............................................................................................33 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................................................36 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS............................................................40 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.....................................................................44 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING.......................................................................................50 X. MINERAL RESOURCES...............................................................................................52 XI. NOISE.............................................................................................................................53 XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING....................................................................................56 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES.......................................................................................................57 XIV. RECREATION................................................................................................................59 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC....................................................................................60 XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ........................................................................63 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.........................................................66 REPORTPREPARATION..................................................................................................................69 A. REPORT PREPARERS ..................................................................................................69 B. REFERENCES................................................................................................................69 P:...I0'PBODUCTSIIS-MND\Public\PUHLIC ISChecklist 070808.d.0(7/9/2008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUC:HANAN FIELD AIRPORT BOASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • FIGURES Figure 1: Airport Location Map..........................................................................................................3 Figure2: Airport Vicinity Map...........................................................................................................4 Figure 3: Surrounding Jurisdictions....................................................................................................7 Figure 4: Aerial View of Airportand Surrounding Land Uses...........................................................8 Figure 5: Existing Airport Layout.......................................................................................................7 Figure 6: Conceptual Development Plan.......................................................................................... 15 Figure 7a: Proposed Changes to General Plan Roadway Network Plan.............................................16 Figure 7b: Proposed Changes to General Plan Land Use Element Map.............................................17 TABLES Table 1: Project Regional Emissions...............................................................................................27 Table 2: Project Trip Generation Estimates.....................................................................................61 Table 3: Approved and Proposed;Development Within The Airport..............................................68 r P:\BDK430\PRODUCTSUS-MND\PUblic\PUBLIC IS(becklist 070808.doc(7/9L'008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT JJ DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Name.Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update and General Plan Amendment Project Location. Buchanan Field Airport lies within an unincorporated portion of north-central Contra Costa County and is generally bordered by State Route 4 (SR-4)to the north; Marsh Drive to the west; the Walnut Creek channel to the east;and Concord Avenue to the south. Summary Description of Project.The proposed project involves an update of the existing 1990 Master Plan for the Buchanan Field Airport, consistent with Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) requirements,and a related amendment to the Land Use and Transportation/Circulation Elements of the Contra Costa County General Plan(2005-2020),in support of the Airport Master Plan update. Findings.It is hereby determined that,based on the information contained in the attached Initial Study,the project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.Mitigation measures necessary to avoid or reduce to a less-than-significant level the project's potentially significant effects on the environment are detailed on the following pages. These mitigation measures are hereby incorporated and fully made part of this Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project applicant has hereby agreed to incorporate as part of the project and implement each of the identified mitigation measures,which would be adopted as part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Date: V-?Ll"08 Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development P:UlUK430V'RODU('"1'1Uti-MNUU'ublic\NilI7I,1('.IS(7�kIis11170R0R,lnc(7/98008) PUBLIC REVIFW))RAFT 1 r INITIAL STUDY/M[ITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. SUMMARY INFORMA'iTION 1. Project Title: Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update and General Plan Amendment County File: GP#07-0001 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street North Wing,Fourth Floor Martinez, California 94533 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Patrick Roche,Principal Planner Phone: 925-335-1242 4. Project Location: Address 550 Sally Ride Drive, Concord General: The regional location and vicinity of the Buchanan Field Airport are depicted in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. The project site lies within an unincorporated portion of north- central Contra Costa County and is generally bordered by State Route 4 (SR-4)to the north; Marsh Drive to the west;the Walnut Creek channel to the east; and Concord Avenue to the south. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Contra Costa County Airports Division 550 Sally Ride Drive Concord, California 94520 6. General Plan Designation: Contra Costa County General Plan: The majority of the project site is designated Public/Semi- Public (PS); smaller portions of the site are designated Commercial(CO),Parks and Recreation (PR),Airport Commercial(ACO), and Light Industry(LI) City of Concord General Plan:Public/Quasi-Public 7. Zoning: Contra Costa County Zoning Idap: Unrestricted(U) • P:\BDK430\PRODUCTS\IS-MWD\Public\PUBLICISChecklist070808.doc(7/9/'!008) PUBLIC flEV/Ew L)P(FT 2 ■Own ® Smb Rosa ' POLO YOMWe NAPA Vacaville , SONOMA Na ■ f ■Fad Id M Pelakona ■city _ City ------------ !SACRAMENTO , SOLANO M A R I N Suisun ,� Vallejo Bay Novato ' San Pablo Bay - Buchanan Field Airport _ I i o Concord kTw is nd = � � WaW Creek Beriieliiy \ Oa 3• CONTRA COSTA ® •San F U San Rinwn Pacific Oc Uvehliore ..can Francisco- � San Francisco Bay — Pacifica Beam ALAMEDA SAN MATEO Beh6wft ................................... w.••v'vvn . v•vv v v_ve•v•s -•1 : Ab :I SANTA CLARA _ s e Sa L S A FIGURE I ® N Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update and General Plan Amendment 0 5 10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MILES Airport Location Map SOURCE: MICROSOFT STREET&TRIPS,2005 1:\BDK430 buchanan field\\figures\Fig_l.ai (9/28/07) Mallard Reservoir, % 1 �ro c J'• ;i Q�,o' I piwera oad r ^oI d L_1 a- air- ar way I' Ce AvEn.• , 3 E, • rr MARTINEZ J LI ' ;j' �oncordgV noe r Boulevard •Chit an in 11C d CONCORD w ,d PLEASANT HILL 1 N co Taylor Boulevard- a L S A FIGURE 2 LEGEND Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan N � — _ 1 AIRPORT BOUNDARY J Update and General Plan Amendment• 0 5 10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MILES Airport Vicinity Map SOURCE: NAVTEQ TELE ATLUS,2005. I:\BDK430 buchanan fie1d\\figures\Fig_2.ai (9/28/07) LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 8. Other agencies whose approval may be required: • Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)' • United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)* • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)* • California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)* • California Department of Transportation—Division of Aeronautics (Caltrans) • Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD)* • San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB)* • Airport Land Use Commission of Contra Costa County(ALUC) •Indicates approval would be required for subsequent Master Plan development projects,not for approval of the Master Plan itself. This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration(IS/MND) evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Master Plan update and a related amendment to the Land Use and Transportation/Circulation Elements of the Contra Costa County General Plan(2005-2020)in support of the Airport Master Plan update. The IS/MND provides background information about the project site, a description of the proposed project, and an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the project based on established significance criteria in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). The IS/MND specifically addresses the potential program-level physical environmental impacts that may result from both the Master Plan update and General Plan Amendment. Additional environmental review may be necessary as subsequent development projects anticipated as part of the Master Plan are proposed. B. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING Buchanan Field Airport(hereafter referred to as the Airport) is located within unincorporated Contra Costa County and within the City of Concord's Sphere of Influence and Planning Area Boundary. Concord City limits abut the Airport to the northeast, cast, and south. The northwestern portion of the Airport abuts the City of Martinez,while the southwestern and western portions abut the City of Pleasant Hill and the unincorporated community of Pacheco, respectively. The area directly north of the Airport consists of unincorporated land. The Airport's location in the context of surrounding jurisdictions is depicted in Figure 3, Surrounding Land Uses The unincorporated area directly north of the Airport is sparsely developed,while all other surrounding areas are densely developed. Noise sensitive facilities located within I mile of the Airport include surrounding residential neighborhoods and several schools including: Marchus School, Concord Christian,Mount Diablo High School, Glenbrook Middle School, and Queen of All Saints School. Land uses immediately surrounding the Airport are depicted in Figure 4 and are described below. ® )The FAA is responsible for approval of the Airport Layout Plan,which is associated with the Master Plan update. P:\BDK430\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\PUBLIC ISChecUist 070808.dx(7/9/2008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 5 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLANAMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • North. The Airport is bordered to the north by SR-4,which runs in an east-west direction. Large tracts of light and heavy industrial uses exist north of the highway; including Tosco Oil Refining Company and Monsanto Chemical Company. Pacheco Slough extends south towards the Airport from Suisun Bay,which is approximately 4 miles north of the Airport. East. The Airport is bordered to the past by the Walnut Creek channel,which extends southeast from Pacheco Slough. On the opposite side of the creek channel, to the northeast, single-family residential uses are the predominant land use. Southeast across the channel, land uses primarily consist of industrial and office park uses. Father east, SR-242 runs in a north-south direction. East across the highway,land uses consist of residential uses to the north and commercial uses to the south. South. The Airport is bordered on the south by Concord Avenue. South of this roadway, land uses consist primarily of commercial and office developments. West. The Airport is bordered to the west by mobile home parks and a light industrial area located within the unincorporated County. I-680 runs in a north-south direction west of this development. Grayson Creek extends southwest from Pacheco Slough, crosses beneath 1-680, and runs generally parallel to the Airport. West of I-680, light industrial land uses transition to office, commercial, and multi-family residential uses, followed by single-family residential uses farther west. Existing Site Land Uses Existing land uses located at the Airport consist of both"airside"and aviation-related and non- aviation-related"landside"uses. Some of these uses are depicted in Figure 4 and are described below. There are also several acres of undeveloped property at the Airport. The existing Airport layout is depicted in Figure 5. Airside Facilities. Existing airside facilities consist of a main runway(Runway 0ILA 9R)which is 5,010-feet in length and 150-feet in width, with a displaced threshold of 600 feet; a 4,602-foot by 150-foot primary crosswind runway(Runway 14L/32R)with a displaced threshold of 300 feet; a 2,770-foot by 75-foot secondary parallel runway(Runway 01R/1.9L); and a 2,779-foot by 75-foot secondary crosswind runway(Runway 14R/32L). Additional airside facilities include the taxiway system that provides access between the runway and the various landside areas. There are currently 14 taxiways at the Airport. Landside Facilities. Landside facilities include five fixed base operators, aircraft storage hangars, maintenance hangars, a terminal facility and public meeting space, Airport administration offices, an Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting(ARFF) station, air traffic control tower facilities, several fuel storage facilities, automobile access/parking, non-aviation business and other such uses. Non-aviation businesses located on Airport property include: Sam's Club, Sports Authority, Jiffy Lube, and Taco Bell located on the southeast side of the Airport;the Crowne Plaza Hotel located on the southern 2 A displaced threshold is a runway tiireshold located at a point other than the physical beginning or end of the runway.The portion of the runway so displaced may be used for takeoff but not for landing.Landing aircraft may use the displaced area on the opposite end for roll out.Most often the offset threshold is in place to give arriving aircraft clearance • over an obstruction while still allowing departing aircraft the maximum amount of runway available. P:IBDK430V'RODUCTSQS-MND\Public\PUBI IC ISCbecklist 070808.dm(7/9/:?008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 6 �c�&C .+ l I \ i,�� I ` , + I. 's # f �oj x ti'• y�a`1" o s r _ J �•:i , f . •coo b ♦ \ k ti 77 1p �• f � m / ,, , �.i f f f i f f f •, � kf+.f+. k t ti E. .f v Of 1^ ff frr 4 y ti 1 1 f f f Gfi►Ipartcr /`' � Pd. 1� � .� _ r � - ; •, k "Bop F� : � ,�` r•� � a' �. f � ��•?,' Po 46 f, f � 4f�f t••t Y•• :':•:•:•:' I Or/,f\ 4f i �� ••• .! _ 680 j'. • 1 .•.'. t 51 L S A FIGURE 3 LEGEND Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan N E� Airport Boundary 9-71 Martinez Update and General Plan Amendment D Concord [ Pacheco Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 0 1050 2100 D Pleasant Hill Unincorporated Contra Costa County Surrounding Jurisdictions FEET SOURCE: BASE MAP:NAVTEQ TELE ATLUS,2005;LSA ASSOCIATES,INC.,2006. IABDK430 buchanan fie1d\\figures\Fig_3.ai (9/27/07) ?t` r� Rim Old 23. Tit , M{ S{� �i� �i C1 r ray .E. ': ,moi . •.. - - o�,,, EFFF • ;/ ' LIILL9 LL �1.i1'LR�I.c�l• -, :1 , a''t,n.-- �v'— Sa'�'° "•,." li ^7 i [ a _,-� ..i"'Y. •-� a•x •"". 1 13 `a i i., ' V �'rlr•^ � ,• r_-x '� �,.�t� �1.' �. `; y'y Al ba. q5�4•�" +: t.. �^�: I k r 1 C l AAr'•"� 1, �.=+1 sr- i +;.,. t `° + \A t a'*• "• .,h',�Pe' ''•Lija. t Jrr �. 'r�,. , � } ua►g�`aP°i7.`y a yt:i' 4`1 y �Y f4 .�r •`+Yr nQ oyb\ C.` 'St . • ^a'' �. � ,/'.�Jj r�W L�.x�Zi�fi� .L�� ]• S�'�� x y �,� f j �.` Y��€.i .:,p .I Y d'.�,,.y`�•..^S.rte`� .c' r i*�- .1 t �`w. � .�x4 tr � * t*\\ `*•ate R�'�• �bg`S Y''� +i►�c' }�. W- 1 : 1 �,:rrt.�nyy.�,•1+n�1a6ttas•�,� ` � �- �ty = v ''4�� y �' �a� :Q x .,.,p ink, +y "'� •.r`' - 'J•Cl .1ta �l�'N'. i��44"' 63e „�,y,� F € S t '1�� ,5 •` i tl �„ '�. - dC r 4� •tt•. I�+.�t 4 00 - � t � ;^y� a. � � .��, kyr z*,r .••; � '.�»_ 2� ,ti�� F►•}'•1}•1 :a' '�` : . -�i r ' d/ '' '�ti j`�r.� £•.+► ��•i, :;/ •h,aae �'�' 4 0� � � .ii �y ,�.}Ir1g•�,'ryr ,�.�� C tr P Lj t° R^ 4 F t �Y ".l` y T y +t ax r 3 6`}` isia•��y r -{ '�rj, e i. t Cx, 'r,, '�•�}'4. ' '9 r,�'' 'y`'f ti , W-j��— *1 0 • MIN, `r.0 ' '� 4 II�,}�.•w .' + .,4,t-/I t "ti.� {�� ! ,.,,,. �p y� �+^4l. ` "r'Ia..�"4`+-'�TrA s I�� ,'r:F *{9 iU�7°�'kte��'!} �a•A mss'+ �s' i�d`'' ✓��-' .«TM( �4=s. �,a"',\ ,R 3,,r`� �` ;. , y'� x;. <,�.,,'�+^)w,T'��„�r',y+�+7.,-. I / -` 4y i y 3 -, ar•lrs • 1• F.M �'. ` S /'t. RRI ;;_ '•{ri + i ♦ �1s��o�S gi•!al+�� ' Ffj 'a'#:_t f . .,;P 4� ��1 � ?y r 4' 1r � i.,<,�`•»}l��`S+l"��e,�I � �}.0 �/, '• �' � r Y �, ��' k4 ,�, .� � � � �.S'C. f^`^►� p. � P^ � �MVM Q$Iy ♦ r+ir r � _ � tz ��; r •tq+••�*�;«� 6 r..7 y,.,- `r ',,.��j 3 e r �� "`� 7 � � f � ru,q r�c�-r Iva ,::2 '� r'�' abi .1) ••� t I� A"W_,+c'•e' ;f IIIn+a1 '7,NUM ori+ �.•�aG a v �, 2't+n1...0 t p �.��•-; 1�ti�4 'des#+�.�+•'-_ 0 � f!' � .!�� 'r °�' j1° �`, , a �� `a � !'-+,J/ �+.�, � o- " +r �y `'M 1 v �.�ct ,t !. i C ! •,r-(f / / E '' 'f,: 'c.-1•�s.�. 3` � �P '.f JIrY .�r T>h- V�✓ Q;' '680 p : j �'a:iP r 4 , }��.L '' - �7� �k� 111,,,,x• .RG�� kif � -_ y �7''. t 1 1. � g si ,4�1.,�` / ,} ,i �,^I� i��. •.ix ri/`r .�'y . 13 �' Mwl . wirir °' � � :`' i`' F() �i,�//[.yyp.$�II7`.11��7,//��yy ryry�� „' • }iyi r'z^^a.. �'!'r� S {(/f �c{2.....-,..i^; ��.^.: Iry �.`.y� .k 1•l � 1 tj 1�, 1��Y lW-; A � ��l 1 �' •� • Ver'” �Y ._ • V �'�'` "'•✓§�est-. •+-^' ,V•�-i ¢•._ 1 ;/ice ''�� i s 7. �� `�" � � f 4j n��x.,. y.�{�a '�, i�t , b' r��j-a,'i'!„ -f b�,�'`_�,� ? }•. ,�;,��.t�� F r �� , '+�?fir' F�,r; /1•41� t -:..;5 •i:�.i y.`3 ' r�A7a !j? 'r1{` �i, r ' j .fie`` 4�.pi �,�. .�a h P[�" �1 '. �'r$ � � �ir`��a `Lc �f, �� ••..q � ' <f� na+ l+ � ,p.�, ,�,. .,�z{rt/r"� 3 � !y ''•. � 4 �rrY��-;r F'w'��i� � � �• .�r � r ,f `� r ,^ , µgs` '� ,+--z s Ir & j. gib' a w r f •. )ai ��.i r*.�. J� �, yf;� � ! tea+ �;� u• Y © , t I I I 1/ I • I 1 I 1 I I I • I I I 0 Ga �• �9 T Hangars /' c I s • �' 9 As! County I 0' Airport 0 O 0 Offices I `" o 141 h � J%qr C i Control Tower ' enc ds urinal C,h c • H gar O. ngars Crowne Plaza �e■• O ape e �oota 1 C� L S A FIGURE 5 ® N Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update and General Plan Amendment NOT TO SCALE Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Existing Airport Layout SOURCE: BUCHANAN FIELD ALP,SHUTT MOEN ASSOCIATES,SEPTEMBER 1990. I:\BDK430 buchanan fie1d\\figures\Fig_5.ai (4/7/08) LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • border of the airport;Buchanan Field Golf Course located on the southwestern tip of the Airport; and the law enforcement training area and Mediplane,Inc. A helicopter medical air transport business is located on the northeast side of the Airport. Undeveloped Areas. The majority of undeveloped Airport parcels consist of non-native grassland vegetation with scattered patches of;ruderal forbs. Several drainage channels are also present throughout the Airport property. These include a large drainage channel which runs parallel and adjacent to Marsh Drive, a north-south drainage swale in the parcel bounded by Sally Ride Drive, a northwest-southeast channel in the northern portion of the site, and a small tributary to the larger drainage channel in the southern portion of the site. Existing Site Access and Circulathm The Airport is located within a triangle created by I-680, SR-4, and SR-242, providing it with regional automobile access from all directioni. Concord Avenue connects directly to I-680 and is a major arterial providing access.to John Glenn Drive and general aviation facilities at the southeastern end of the site, as well as to major commercial facilities on the property. Marsh Drive provides access to facilities along Sally Ride Drive on the site's western side. Marsh Drive is accessible from the north and east via Solano Way and SR-4, and from the west and south via Contra Costa Boulevard/Pacheco Boulevard and Center Avenue. Circulation throughout the site consists of the taxiway system, which provides access between the • runways and the various landside areas. Cross-airport traffic includes aircraft, service and delivery trucks, and ground-transportation of passengers and personnel. Regional public transportation is provided by BART, which has stations in downtown Concord and north Concord,both of which are located within 3 to 4 miles of the Airport. The County Connection provides limited local bus service from these stations to the Airport environs. Pedestrian access is provided by sidewalks located along local roadways. Several bicycle routes serve the Airport, including an off-street bike trail located on the eastern side of the Walnut Creek channel. Class II and Class III bicycle lanes are also provided along Marsh Drive. C. PROJECT DESCRIPTI(0)N The proposed project involves an update of the existing 1990 Master Plan for the Buchanan Field Airport, consistent with Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)requirements, and a related amendment to the Land Use and Transportation/Circulation Elements of the Contra Costa County General Plan(2005-2020) in support of the Airport Master Plan update(collectively referred to as the "proposed project"). The details of the proposed project are as follows. 1. Airport Master Plan Update The Master Plan update was prepared by Barnard Dunkelberg and Company and addresses the potential for future aviation and non-aviation-related development at the Airport through the year 2025. The objectives for implementing the project are to: 1)reconfigure the taxiway system in order to create a more efficient circulation pattern within the Airport; 2) develop aviation and non-aviation- related uses on underutilized portions of Airport property; and 3) adequately address the needs for • P:IBDK430IPRODUCCSUS-MND\Public\PUBLICISCh,cklist070808.do (7/9/::008) PUBLIC REVIEW DAFT 10 GSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 4008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION projected aviation demand. Implementation of the Master Plan update aims to provide for a more efficient development pattern at the Airport. Project Background The Airport began in the spring of 1942, when Contra Costa County purchased the land for develop- ment of an airport, with construction scheduled to begin later that summer. However,prior to the completion of airfield improvements, the U.S. Government, through the War Department, acquired the entire airport for use as an army airfield for the remaining duration of World War II. Concord Army Airfield operated from 1943 until 1946. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed many temporary and permanent facility improvements during this time period, including the runways currently designated 01L/19R and 14L/3 2R. In 1946,the Air Corps deactivated Concord Army Airfield, and the property and buildings were deeded to Contra Costa County. In August of 1946, Buchanan Field Airport was opened as a public- use airport operated by the County and has been in continuous operation since that time. During the post-war period,runway 6/24 was constructed and was in operation until 1961. The Airport's history also includes periods of commercial air service beginning in the 1960s and continuing into the 1970s with commuter service to San Francisco International Airport and Oakland International Airport by fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. However, the most significant period of ® commercial service took place from 1986 to 1992,with flights from Buchanan Field Airport to Los Angeles International Airport and San Jose International Airport. Commercial service ended in 1992 due to the prevailing economics of the airline industry. Many modifications to individual components of the runway/taxiway system have been made over the years; however,the basic configuration is essentially unchanged from when the Airport first opened. In particular,the Airport's two major runways have retained their original length despite several changes to the landing threshold placemene and usable length. Among the notable additions to the airfield was the construction during the 1960s of a shorter runway adjacent to each of the two primary runways. Also, from 1949 until 1967, a short,roughly east-west runway(now a taxiway)was in use. Today the Airport occupies a total of 495 acres of property and controls avigation easements4 on an additional 10±acres. Over 500 aircraft are based at the Airport and approximately 129,000 aircraft operations took place in 2005, including takeoffs and landings during nighttime hours after the traffic control was closed. Master Plan Process In developing the Master Plan update, several development goals were considered that take into account considerations relating to short-term and long-term needs of the Airport including safety, capital improvements, land use compatibility, financial and economic conditions,public interest and 3 The placement of that portion of a runway which is usable for landing. ® 4 Avigation easements convey rights associated with aircraft overflight of a property,including creation of noise, lighting,limits on the height of structures,and trees,etc. P:\BDK430\PRODUCTSas-MND\Pubec\PUBuc ISCh.klrsw7oaos.aoc(7ivnoos) PUBLIC REPIEWDRAFT 11 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 200E INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • investment, and community recognition and awareness. In consideration of these various goals, several airfield development options were evaluated. These development options are described below.' • Option One. This option considered maintaining the existing runway configuration, length and width. Miscellaneous taxiway iriiprovements and reconfigurations could be required to comply with FAA's design criteria for all airfield pavements. • Option Two. This option considered minimizing crosswind runway influences by closing the secondary crosswind runway(Runway 14R/32L) and reducing the operation of Runway 14L/32R to small aircraft only. • Option Three. This option considered closing the secondary north/south parallel Runway 01R/I9L, which would have reduced the complexity of airfield layout for both airborne and ground users. • Option Four. This option considered improving the parallel runway system by moving Runway 01R/19L to the east to allow simultaneous operation of all types of aircraft, closing the crosswind runways, and extending Runway 01L/19R approximately 515 feet to the south. • Option Five. This option considered improving the orientation and lengthening primary Runway 01L/19R by moving the north end to the west and the south end to the east, in addition to closing Runway O1R/19L. • Option Six. This option considered closing the secondary parallel runway(Runway 01R/I9L)and the secondary crosswind runway(Runway 14R/32L). Several goals are specific to the planning effort at the Airport and were considered in choosing a preferred development option. These;factors are listed below. • Minimize Capital Expenditure 0 Provide Runway Extension • Maintain Wind Coverage 0 Minimize Land Acquisition • Maintain Operational Capacity 0 Maximize Potential Approach • Reduce Airfield Complexity Improvements • Provide Additional Aviation-Use Area • Maintain Two Runways for Larger Aircraft • Maintain Existing Aviation-Use Area • Maintain Existing Non-Aviation Use Area In consideration of the options analysis and evaluation of the factors listed above, input from County staff and input from the Steering Committee and the public, the preliminary airfield development concept for the Master Plan is to maintain the existing runway configuration(Option One). This option would not reduce airfield complexity', provide additional aviation-use areas,provide for runway extensions, or maximize potential approach improvements (such as improving the capabilities and increasing the use of landing instruments). S Barnard Dunkelberg and Company,2006.Buchanan Field Master Plan Working Paper Three.January. P;IBDK430IPRODUCTSUS-MND\Public\PUBLIC ISCbmklist 070808.doc(7/9/1008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 12 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Characteristics The conceptual"airside"and"landside"development plan is depicted in Figure 6 and potential Master Plan development is discussed below. Airside Development Concept. The preliminary airside development recommendation is to maintain the existing runway configuration(Option One). All existing runway lengths and widths would be retained. However, miscellaneous taxiway improvements and reconfigurations could be implemented to reduce complexity and to comply with FAA's design criteria for all airfield pavements. These improvements would result in the addition of 3.24 acres of new taxiway pavement and the removal of approximately 9.02 acres of pavement(resulting in a net gain of 5.78 acres of pervious airside surface area). Landside Development Concept. The overall objective of landside development at the Airport is the provision of facilities that are conveniently located and accessible to the community and which meet anticipated aviation needs and demand. To the greatest extent possible, aviation use facilities required for aircraft operation, storage,maintenance, and safety would occupy the majority of Airport property that is not utilized by the runway/taxiway system. Landside development at the Airport would include both aviation and non-aviation related development on approximately 45 acres of pervious Airport surfaces (resulting in a potential net loss of 45 acres of pervious landside surface area). The conceptual development plan for landside development is described below, in terms of several mapped ® development areas. West Development Area. The west development area comprises three sites,totaling approximately 76.95 acres. The first of these sites is located at the southern end of the development area that comprises a mix of undeveloped and under-developed land. Aviation uses, such as aircraft storage and executive hangars with adjoining office space are recommended for this area. A small portion of this area would also include some non-aviation activities, such as a business park, to support and complement the associated aviation functions. The second development area was identified in the previous Master Plan for use as a commercial aviation terminal and the third parcel was previously set aside for non-aviation development. These two parcels have been reconfigured and combined and would allow for the development of a single mixed-use aviation area that can accommodate several types of aircraft hangars. This would also require the reconfiguration of Sally Drive. The first 52 feet of land east of and parallel to Marsh Road would not be developed as part of the Master Plan as this area is a dedicated right-of-way for a pedestrianibicycle trail and transitway. Southeast Development Area. The approximately 38.9-acre southeast development area is essentially built-out and would continue to function in a variety of uses, including commercial general aviation uses, along with non-aviation uses in areas that are not provided with taxiway access. Any new facilities in this area would likely involve the removal of existing structures or the conversion of tiedown apron area.6 At present, the Airport does not have a centralized terminal facility to meet the landside needs of transient general aviation aircraft,their operators, or passengers. Development in the southeast development area may include a new general aviation terminal building,possible relocation of the existing control tower, and the siting of an on-airport Air Rescue Fire Fighting(ARFF) station. The ARFF station could also be located in the north development area, discussed below. ® 6 Anchored aircraft parking area. P:\BDK430\PRODUCTSUS-MND\Pub11cIPUBLIC ISChecklist 070808.doc(7/9/2008) PUBIC REVIEW DRAFT 13 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • North Development Area. A small portion of the 11-acre north development area is currently utilized by emergency helicopter operations. Because it would be advantageous to co-locate all emergency helicopter operators in the same area., the Master Plan recommends that all Emergency Medical Service law enforcement helicopter operatioi s be located in this area. This area is also the alternate location for the ARFF station,which may be co-located with helicopter operations. A variety of hangar and office space may also be developed in this area. East Development Area. Development of the approximately 10.1-acre east development area is dependent upon the details of the recommended airside development plan and access needs. A service road connecting the southeast and east development areas is being explored. Provided there is access, this area may be better integrated with the operation of the Airport by providing additional space for aviation use or aviation support facilities. 2. General Plan Amendment On January 23, 2007, the Contra Carta County Board of Supervisors authorized a General Plan Amendment study to consider changes to the Contra Costa County General Plan(2005-2020)in order to maintain consistency between the General Plan and the updated Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendment involves revisions to the Transportation/Circulation and Land Use Elements of the General Plan based on recommendations from the proposed Airport Master Plan, as described below. Transportation/Circulation Element. The Diamond Boulevard extension currently depicted on the Roadway Network Map in the Transportation/Circulation Element would be removed. This roadway is currently shown to extend through the Airport property from Concord Avenue to Marsh Drive. The roadway alignment would be reserved as a corridor for a regional trail and/or transitway. Figure 7a shows the removal of the Diamond Boulevard extension as a result of Master Plan implementation. In conjunction with the removal of the:Diamond Boulevard extension from the Roadway Network Map, "Policies Regarding Buchanan Field"in the Transportation/Circulation Element, specifically Policies 5-49 and 5-50, would be revised. These revisions would delete the requirement that the construction of the Diamond Boulevard extension be a prerequisite for approving development on the western side of the airport property and would clarify the County's intention to reserve space or right-of-way for a regional trail and transitway. General Plan Policies 5-49 and 5-50 would be amended as follows: Pokey 5-49�-anspof- do .,..d(`;,-..ulat;.,n Element fe es the e nstf:uetio of the Diamend .lvyar-,7 e3ae sief f;-of Geaeefd Ayefine,,,.i4he-ly to rentor. A. enue as approval of development pr-ejeets an th siddee Policy 5-50: The Buchanan Field Golf Course exists on the southwest edge of the airport adjacent to the intersection of Concord Avenue and I-680. The r-ea�l ts alle 7 for-by this plan, and; pa ftie lar the Diamend Beide...7 eon, The Bicycle Facilities Network Plan Map, which is incorporated into the Transportation/Circulation Element, identifies a proposed Class I trail facility approximately located within the conceptual road alimiment for the former Diamond Boulevard extension. Also,the conceptual road alignment for • the Diamond]Boulevard extension had reserved space for a future transitway.. P:IBDK430\PRODUCTSVS-MND\PubliclPUBLICISCb,cklist070808.doc(7/9/2008) PUBLIC REVIEWDRAFT 14 2 C p 12 �Tx� 4[li 'z o� v� t,�,,, �-_ ��,,.., � •,•',, o, � is x+.. a .. '" " d' r ✓Y"'�s-St'. � a�f� ��/?-� �.; � a ��.��', -reek .gam�7t` -• ;�,'}• x,��,.`.;�'r 4' e tQ�aft ��'�1ri :k 3+3!" �'"se / _. + g. §\�..^ �f` .'� "v'-,ter O � "t � ."�` 1��..i.�� "�� ,pi4t%e 14 SI� I U yo b ,fin 0 "�''.. ,,3 � � > ;,yQ � •• - a_r 6 z,1 >. U6� :y�m , - 35$ l�rt 0.11 dAf � . S- . ,yj , �.�G d y'�bj} 'r"` s'+�f ,P - 4#.. 4 a h t}}� r O ma, cn ON s` c� a� t t �4 �r1 O gr4 }M �ip e / - 1 '- !a.F '.lJ SE� (a/ �, / D `,•t /� / .� yZ�jF�� W,nri 1:./ifY \ \ y� /•' t ",�.— _/= — it ' z1 T� ,tf� AOM FV ff Uj CD p J ----- _ h � it .•, ; — � ty' D g,�Q� ,:, i #3rC�"�p—�snc, �.`, a Q 19Dl \v, x 3 � IM 16 In ph o o m w WItZF' & W m �.r fl� �+*r .- a �� •r('��+3f '� S, sr as W�j, �; � �u� �`j�fj ' �•�_ x.,3,�,"�-� .�' a�� 3 ,.'�s� W; ,,. ��s'`�f �`� � ��QI Wl /�/ y �ffi� q `�n t",�'�.<� �':_-.^"`��'� �/ 3rt� � j.�"e�.��Y�� ...�-'.t- --t•:z.-•^�ri,.- �' '�4. Xi s!�.-: ��%a.w��,8°rte o W � A J w � W y.r d V LI eov��rli�'S�i`o#�1 �{ ��. T.- �� •� t � O � o o r a k b $ 44 t 1 $ 7 1 a i �M A 0 cz St cd Cd r` 0 ami p B E u w Po y q*µ O 8 � J � � Current General Plan Land Use Designation " a"� I/ rem?o r�, /,�/k'4 �' �a - Y .;yam � .71 '� ;'!f$tv�'�-.'7+ //• � � J:j 3 VIP 680 ZI Up- ONE III a . Concord. �•I °•;Pleasant HillLA • • . �� LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • The subsequent development of the Class I trail and transitway within the alignment of the former Diamond Boulevard extension will depend on when future funding becomes available and it may require modification to the existing golf course. This plan encourages the maintenance of a small golf course or some other recreation facility in the location of the golf course. Land Use Element. The proposed General Plan Amendment would include a revision to the General Plan Land Use Element Map. Approximately 15 acres of the land use designation for the 19-acre Airport-owned property on the west side of the Airport,between Marsh Drive and Sally Ride Drive, would change from Commercial(CO)to Public/Semi-Public(PS)use; this land use designation would be more consistent with the Master Plan recommendation to retain approximately 3/4 of the 19- acre property exclusively for aviation or airport operation purposes. Approximately 4 acres of this 19- acre Airport-owned property would-be retained for non-aviation commercial development that would be separate and distinct from the Airport operations,but could provide services in support of Airport functions (e.g. office,hotel,retail, etc.). This 4-acre area located at the southern end of the airport property between Marsh Drive and Sally Ride Drive would be designated Business Park(BP)on the Land Use Element Map. Figure 7b depicts the existing and proposed land use designations for this area of the Airport. In additional to the Land Use Element Map changes associated with the Airport, the"Policies for the Buchanan Field Area,"in the Land Use Element, starting on page 3-46 of the General Plan,would be updated to clarify the uses and activities intended on Airport lands. The proposed revisions to the text in the Land Use Element,under the heading"Policies for Buchanan Field Area," are as follows: POLICIES FOR THE BUCHANAN FIELD AREA • Land Use Policy 3-91: The General Flan Policies for Buchanan Field Airport are set forth below, and additional policies may be found in the Transportation and Circulation Element (a description and policies regarding airport operations and roadways in the area), and the Noise Element(a description and policies regarding acceptable noise contours). Policy 3-92: Most of the land area comprising the Buchanan Field Airport has been designated Public/Semi-Public (PS),reflecting its primary function and operation as a public owned and operated general aviation and commercial service airport:. This plan provides for a range of commercial aviation uses and services in support of the aviation functions on the airport lands designated PS, including fixed base operators and auxiliary and executive aviation. Policy 3-93: Airport lands designated PS may be leased to a fixed base operator(FBO). An FBO means an aviation business providing comprehensive general aviation services in accordance with the"Buchanan Field Airport Policy and Standards for Development,"as adopted by the Board of Supervisors, and as may be amended by the Board. As used in the context of this plan, aircraft maintenance, sales, service and storage functions, aircraft charter/rental, air taxi or commuter air services, and air terminal or ground services are activities and uses C:\Doc=cnts and SettingsW Weinstein\Desktop\PUBLIC ISCheeklist 070808.doc(7/9/2008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 18 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION commonly associated with a general aviation airport falling under the category of an FBO. Additionally, an FBO may provide pilots,private aircraft owners, other aviation businesses, travelers, and airport visitors with other services such as: lobby and lounge spaces,weather and flight planning services,temporary aircraft parking and tiedowns, restaurant/catering/vending facilities restrooms hotel and automobile rental reservations, automobile and automobile rental parking,meeting space and business center, office space for aviation and aviation-related businesses, and other items of public convenience and necessity. Policy 3-94: In addition to FBO sites airport lands designated PS may be leased for auxiliary and executive aviation uses and services,which may include open and/or enclosed storage of private aircraft,private corporate/executive hangar(s)with or without attached office space,pilot center and-lounges,unique aviation sales and services(not provided by or in competition with an FBO) and other facilities that meet the needs for general aviation. Such proposed auxiliary and executive aviation uses and services must serve the aviation community and give evidence that such development will not compete with FBO operations. Policy 3-9-25: The two areas adjacent to the Buchanan Field airport, which are County-owned airport lands, are designated for non-aviation commercial uses: 13 acres located _ at the intersection of John Glenn Drive and Concord Boulevard are designated Commercial (CO), ander 4 acres at Marsh Drive and Sally Ride Drive are designated Business Park(BP)adjuce nt t�o�h�^�� ^�* of the a4pet4 oanwa�. Policy 3-9-36: A range of commercial uses are allowed in this ea* both the CO and BP land use designation . The actual uses allowed will be finalized through review of projects and leases for the use of the land. Policy 3-947: For these two non-aviation commercial areas to be developed, transportation improvements are required to be constructed or committed. Such improvements will be tied directly to the County leasing of these areas for development. The extent of improvements are-is to be determined by the Board of Supervisors as part of the bid package. Policy 3-938: The area designated for ECommercial (COluse at the entrance of John Glenn Drive is limited to development of 220,000 square feet of space;the area designated Business Park(&Jon-at Marsh Drive and Sally Ride Drive is limited to 190,000-_18,5000 square feet. Policy 3-9699: The major privately owned lands within the areas are designated for light industrial use and are located along I-680, west of the airport,between the existing mobile home park and the golf course. ® Policy 3-9-7100:The California Public Utilities Code requires that the intent and purpose of the plans and policies adopted by the County Airport Land Use Commission be P:1BDK430TRODUCTSQS-MNDVPublicTUBL1CISC6eck1ist070808.do (7/912008) PUBLIC R7/JEWDRAFT 19 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCIHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION incorporated into the County General Plan. The commission has adopted numerous regulations which strictly define what types of land use, and the design of the uses, which will be allowed within the Commission's airport "planning area"and within designated"safety zones"under the airport's flight path. These policies and regulations are detailed in the"Airports and Heliports" section of the Transportation and Circulation Element. Transportation Policy 3-9-9101: [See the policies listed under the"Airports and Heliports"section of the Transportation and Circulation Element(Chapter 5).] • P.\BDK430TRQDUCTSIIS-MND\PubfidPUBllC ISChuklist070808.d.(7/9Y.:OO9) PUBLIC REVIEW DPAF' 20 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION D. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact'as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Hazards&Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination.(To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ■ 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. O I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. O I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact"or"potentially significant unless mitigated"impact on the environment,but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required. N>at- �-e� -,I�&, ?, X008 Signature Date I':U3llK430\I'RUDl1CIS\I,S-MNll\PublicU'IIBLIC]SClaroklisl 070ROR.Joc(7%J/?008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 21 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2003 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • CHECKLIST Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact . Incorporated Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS.Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 13 b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which Would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) • Scenic vistas in the vicinity of the Airport include views of Lime Ridge Open Space area, which is over 3 miles southeast of the Airport. Long range views of Mount Diablo are also available to the east. In addition,portions of SR-4 and SR-242 within the vicinity of the Airport are designated Scenic Highways and Expressways on the Contra Costa County General Plan Scenic Routes Plan. Given the urban built-up nature of the area surrounding the Airport, it is unlikely that landside development at the Airport would obstruct views of the Lime Ridge Open Space area or views from SR-4 and SR-242. In addition, Section 86-4.014 of the Contra Costa County Zoning Code limits building heights to 20 feet within 1,000 feet of the end of Airport runways in Approach Zones 1, 2, 3, and 4. Development within Approach Zones 5 and 6 is limited to a height of 20 feet at a distance of 600 feet from the end of the runway. All turning zones have a maximum height limit of 150 feet. Therefore,proposed landside constriction would be tall enough to visually infringe upon large areas of open space or undeveloped hillsides,that constitute a significant visual resource. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The Airport is bordered on the north by a portion of the SR-4 Scenic Corridor and the SR-242 Scenic Corridor is located to the east. Scenic;Corridors within the County are defined as much of the adjacent area that can be seen from designated scenic roadways. Policies and implementation measures in the Contra Costa County General Plan seek to preserve and protect scenic views within the City-desig- nated SR-4 and SR-242 Scenic Corridors through allowing flexibility in project design. The General Plan calls for development controls to be applied to retain and enhance scenic qualities,restrict unsi- • ghtly use of land, control the height of structures, and provide site design and architectural guidance P:\BDK430\PRODUClSUS-MND\Public\PUBLIC ISChecklist 070808.doc(7/9/:!008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 22 1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION along the corridor. Evaluation of individual Master Plan-associated project site plans, architecture,-and landscaping would be required as part of the approval process for individual developments. New stru- ctures located on Airport property would also conform to the height restrictions outlined in Section 86-4.014 of the Contra Costa County Zoning Code(see Section I.a). As a result,Master Plan implem- entation would have a less-than-significant impact on scenic resources within the SR-4 Scenic Cor- ridor. Master Plan development projects would not be physically adjacent to the SR-242 Scenic Cor- ridor, and would blend in with surrounding urban development,resulting in a less than significant impact to scenic resources within the SR-242 Scenic Corridor. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The majority of the Airport is characterized by relatively flat open space and runway areas. The golf course area is characterized by slightly hilly terrain and scattered trees. Existing Airport development consists of one-and two-story buildings, hangar areas, and surface parking lots. Implementation of the proposed project, which would develop some of the open space areas and introduce new structures of varying heights on Airport property, would not substantially degrade the visual character of the site and its surroundings. While more development would occur on the site with full implementation of the Master Plan,the resulting change in visual character would not be adverse. Implementation of the Master Plan would not constitute the development of a new land use on the site, but,rather, would build on a pre-existing pattern of development. The conceptual development plan (see Figure 6) is consistent with the existing character of the Airport and its surroundings. In addition, as part of the approval process for individual Master Plan development projects, evaluation of individual Master Plan-associated project site plans, architecture, and landscaping would be required. Therefore, architectural style of new commercial developments would be required to be compatible with the existing architectural context of the area. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) Interior and exterior lighting associated with new buildings could create new sources of light and glare. However,the project would be required to comply with the use restrictions established by the FAA and County Ordinance Code, which prohibit uses which would make it difficult for pilots to distinguish between airport lights and other lights,result in glare in the eyes of the pilots using the airport, or impair visibility in the vicinity of the airport. Compliance with these use restrictions would ensure that new light and glare associated with Master Plan development projects would not be substantial enough to adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. P:\BDK430\PRODUCISUS-MNDIPublic\PUBLIC ISCh,cklist 070808.d.c(7/9/2008) PUBLIC REV/EW DRAFT 23 t 1,\ LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES.In determining whether impacts to.agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farrridand),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,could result in conversion • of Farmland to non-agricultural use? a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non-agricultural use? (No Impact) The Airport is located on land classified by the California Department of Conservation as "Urban and Built-up Land. ,7 Implementation of'the proposed project would not lead to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farrinland of Statewide Importance. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (No Impact) Airport lands that are proposed for development under the Master Plan or subject to the General Plan Amendment are not zoned for agricultural use or subject to a Williamson Act contract. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? (No Impact) Development that would occur as part of the Master Plan and General Plan Amendment would be located on Airport property,which is not designated for agricultural uses. Because the Master Plan. would maintain the existing operational capacity of the Airport and the General Plan Amendment 7 California Department of Conservation,Division of Land Resource Protection,2006.Important Farmland Map for • Contra Costa County.July. P:\BDK430\PRODUCTSUS-MND\Public\PUBLIC ISCheeklist 070808.dae(7/9%1008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 24 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION would not result in changes to agricultural lands,the proposed project would not convert agricultural land to non-agricultural use. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact III. AIR QUALITY.Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air ® quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Less-Than- Significant Impact) An air quality plan describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a city, county, or region classified as a nonattainment area.Nonattainment areas are areas that do not meet State air quality standards. The main purpose of an air quality plan is to bring the area into compliance with the requirements of federal and State air quality standards. To bring the San Francisco Bay Area region into attainment, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD)has developed the 2005 Ozone Strategy. Air quality plans use the assumptions and projections of local planning agencies to determine control strategies for regional compliance status. Since the plans are based on local General Plans,projects that are deemed consistent with the applicable General Plan are usually found to be consistent with the air quality plans. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in increased aircraft operations, but could include new development at the Airport to accommodate additional on-site aviation uses. ® This development scenario is consistent with the overall buildout scenario for Contra Costa County envisioned in the County's General Plan. Therefore, the assumptions used in development of the P:\BDK430WRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\PUBWCISChecklist070808.doc(7/92008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 25 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION County's overall vehicle traffic data for the 2005 Bay Area Ozone Plan would be consistent with implementation of the proposed project. The proposed project would not result in a significant increase in traffic volumes above that projected in the County's General Plan and would therefore be consistent with Bay Area 2005 Ozone strategy. Global climate change is an emerging environmental concern being raised on State-wide,national, and global levels. Regional, State, and federal agencies are developing strategies to control pollutant emissions that contribute to global warming. State approaches are reflected in Assembly Bills 1493 and 32,Executive Order 5-3-05 and Executive Order 5-01-07. However,neither CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines mention or provide any methodology for analysis of greenhouse gases (GHGs), including carbon monoxide(CO2),nor do they provide any significance thresholds. Under the provisions of Senate Bill 97, enacted in August 2007 as part of the State Budget negotiations, the Office of Planning and Research(OPR)has been directed to propose guidelines advising lead agencies how to mitigate the impacts of GHG emissions in CEQA documents. OPR released preliminary guidance in June 2008, and is expected to promulgate guidelines by July 2009. The Resources Agency has been directed to adopt the guidelines by January 2010. The proposed project would not increase the operational capacity of Buchanan Field Airport(or associated flight emissions). The new hangar,office,restaurant, and business park uses that would be constructed as part of the project would generate a total of 830 new daily vehicle trips (and 89 afternoon peak hour trips). In the context of regional emissions of greenhouse gases, the new emissions generated by these vehicle trips would not be significant. Although it is possible to generally estimate a project's contribution of CO2 or other GHGs into the atmosphere, it is a matter of speculation whether any particular project would increase existing levels of GHGs globally or in the State of California. Moreover, even if it is assumed that a project does create an incremental increase in those emissions, it is typically not possible to determine whether or how an individual project's relatively small incremental contribution might translate into physical effects on the.environment. The amount of increased GHG emissions that may be generated by the proposed project would not,by itself, influence global climate change. It cannot currently be determined if the proposed project would provide an incremental contribution to the cumulative increase of GHG emissions. As discussed above,there are no published thresholds of significance, and no approved regulatory guidelines available to evaluate climate change and GHG emissions in conjunction with individual development projects. In addition, the scientific an,d technical literature indicates that there is not yet a methodology for reflecting the impact of individual land use decisions in climate change models. Until such time that sufficient scientific basis exists to accurately project future climate trends and sufficient guidance is provided by regulatory agencies on the control of GHG emissions and thresholds of significance, the proposed project's contribution to global GHG emissions is determined to be less than significant. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Short-term air pollution emissions associated with the proposed project would result from construction activities during the buildout of the Master Plan development areas. Short term emissions would be generated by construction activities such as grading and equipment use,while long-term emissions would result from vehicle trips associated with use of the Airport. The discussion below describes r P:\BDK430\PRODUC[SUS-MNDTublic\PUBLIC ISChecklist 0708O8.doc(7/9/2008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 26 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION potential air quality violations that could occur as a result of the following: construction equipment exhaust emissions; fugitive dust; long-term vehicular emissions; and local carbon monoxide hot spots. Construction Emissions. Development of the Master Plan would result in project-related construction activities that would include site preparation, earthmoving, and general construction. These activities could temporarily increase the local concentration of particulate matter. If construction activities associated with the proposed project result in blowing dust, a major source of increased PMIo and PM2.5 concentrations,the project could contribute to the Bay Area's existing particulate matter air quality violation. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure AIR-1: During the excavation, earthmoving, and grading phases of the proposed project, the construction contractor shall implement the following measures at the project site: 1) Water all active construction sites at least twice daily; 2) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials, or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard; 3) Apply water three times daily, or apply nontoxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access routes, parking areas, staging areas at inactive construction sites, or inactive construction sites; and ® 4) Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply nontoxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles and un-vegetated areas (until vegetation is established). Long-Term Emissions. Long-term air emission impacts would be those associated with changes in permanent usage of the project site. Mobile source emissions would result from vehicle trips associated with development proposed as part of the Master Plan. The Master Plan would not result in an increase in operational capacity; therefore, it would not increase flight traffic(or associated emissions). The Urban Emission Model(URBEMIS2007)computer program, which is the most current air quality model available in California for estimating emissions associated with land use development projects, was used to calculate long-term mobile source emissions associated with the proposed project. The emissions from daily vehicle trips associated with the buildout of the development areas are illustrated in Table 1. As shown, long-term vehicular emissions generated by the proposed project are not anticipated to exceed the BAAQMD's operations thresholds and would have a less-than-significant impact on local or regional air quality. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not generate long-term emissions beyond those identified for the Master Plan. Table 1: Project Regi nal Emissions ROGa NOxb PM10` Project Emissions 8.68 14.29 11.49 Significance Threshold 80 80 80 Exceed BAAQMD No No No Emissions Standards? (yes/no) 'Reactive Organic Gases b Nitrous Oxides ® `Particulate Matter Source:LSA Associates,Inc.,2008. P:\BDK430U'RODUCTSVS-MND\Public\PUBUC ISChecklist 070808.doc(7/9/2008) PUBLIC RENEW D'4FT 27 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • Local CO Hot Spots. Local ambient air quality is most affected by carbon monoxide(CO) emissions from motor vehicles. Areas of vehicle congestion create pockets of high CO concentrations called"hot spots."These pockets have the potential to exceed the State 1-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm)of CO and/or the 8-hour standard of 9.0 ppm. Monitored levels of CO in the area are 3.2 ppm for 1-hour and 1.5 ppm for 8-hour concentrations. Given the low background levels of CO in the project vicinity and the low number of vehicle trips associated with the proposed project, impacts related to local CO hot spots are expected to be less-than-significant. The proposed project: 1)is expected.to comply with State and federal ambient air quality standards; 2) is consistent with the air quality management policies in the current air quality plans; and 3)would result in emissions that would be below the emissions thresholds established in the BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines.7 The proposed project would not violate air quality standards or exceed emissions thresholds. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The proposed project is located in a federal and State non-attainment area for 1-hour ozone emissions and in a State non-attainment area for PMIo. The project would cause temporary construction-related emissions (as discussed in Section Ul.b and Section HIA),but is not expected to result in a significant increase in long-term emissions. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines state that a project would result in significant emissions(on both the project and cumulative scales)of criteria pollutants if the project results in the emission of more than 80 pounds per day of ROG,NOx, or PM10. The proposed project would not exceed these emissions. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial cumulative impact in terms of any criteria pollutant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Construction of the Master Plan may expose the surrounding land uses to airborne particulates and fugitive dust, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e.,usually diesel fueled vehicles and equipment). However, exposure would be limited by the short term nature of construction activities. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ofpeople? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) Some objectionable odors maybe generated from the operation of diesel-powered construction equipment and/or asphalt paving during construction of the Master Plan. However, these odors would be short term in nature and would not result in permanent impacts to surrounding land uses, including sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to objectionable odors would result from the proposed project. • P:\BDK430\PRODUCTSUS-MND\Public\PUBLIC ISChecklist 070808.dm(7/9/2008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 28 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool, ® coastal,etc.)Through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ❑ 13 biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local,regional,or State habitat conservation plan? P:\BDK430\PRODUCTSUS-MND\Public\PUBLIC ISChecklist 070808.doc(7/92008) PUBLIC PEV/EW D]4FT 29 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department offish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Portions of the Airport remain undeveloped and the potential exists for special-status species to be affected by development associated with implementation of the Master Plan and the General Plan Amendment. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)reports seven protected plant species occurring in the vicinity of the Airport: slender silver-moss (Anomobryum julaceum),big tarplant(Blepharizonia plumose),Diablo helianthella(Helianthella castanea), Congdon's tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii), Contra Costa goldfields(Lasthenia conjugens), Hall's bush mallow(Malacothamnus hallii), and Mt. Diablo fairy lantern(Calochortus pulchellus).8 None of these protected plant species have been observed or are expected to occur within the Airport site. The CNDDB reports four special-status animal species occurring within the general vicinity of the Airport: California tiger salamander'(Ambystoma californiense), California red-legged frog(Rana aurora draytonii),burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), and Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus).9 The California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, and Alameda whipsnake are listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. However, the California tiger salamander and red-legged frog-are not expected to occur at the Airport due to its urban setting, the lack of known breeding records in the site vicinity, and the low habitat value of the on-site drainages. The Alameda whipsnake is unlikely to occur on the site due to the absence of suitable • habitat. Furthermore,Alameda whipsnakes typically occur in foothill landscapes,not in low-elevation areas such as those in the vicinity of;the Airport. Although burrowing owls have not previously been observed on Airport property, suitable habitat is present due to the presence of California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) and their burrows. In addition,the mowed grassland portions of the Airport are ideal for burrowing owls,which prefer short vegetation that allows them visibility of potential predators. Burrowing owls are a California Species of Special Concern and their nest burrows are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA)and California Fish and Game Code. Individual development projects at the Airport may disturb or remove burrowing owl habitat,resulting in significant biological impacts. The following two-part mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure BIO-1 a: Pre-construction surveys to determine the presence of burrowing owls on or within 500 feet of construction areas shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of any construction-related activities. If burrowing owls are observed on or near the construction area during these surveys,the Airport shall implement an exclusion zone(i.e., an area where all project-related activity shall be excluded)around the nest burrow. Exclusion zones shall comprise a 160-foot radius from occupied burrows during the non-breeding season of September 1 to January 31. Passive relocation of owls that includes the placement of one-way doors over burrow entrances, allowing owls to exit but not return, may $California Natural Diversity Database(CNDDB),2006. Special-status Species Occurrences from the Walnut Creek 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle.Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch,California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. • 'Ibid. P:\BDK430\PRODUCTSUS-MND\Public\PUBLIC ISChecklist 070808 d.(7/9/2008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 30 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION occur at that time. During the breeding season of February 1 to August 31, exclusion zones shall comprise at least a 250-foot radius from nest burrows.No project activity shall occur within the exclusion area until the young have fledged. Mitigation Measure BIO-lb: In accordance with CDFG requirements, development projects resulting in the loss of existing burrowing owl habitat on Airport property shall provide suitable on-or off-site habitat at a minimum compensation to loss ratio of 1:1. Suitable habitat may also be provided in the form of credits at a CDFG-approved habitat conservation bank. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) A small stand of riparian vegetation is located within the north-south drainage swale in the parcel bounded by Sally Ride Drive. Although the removal of small amounts of riparian vegetation at the Airport would not likely have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat, implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure 13I0-2: The amount of riparian vegetation trimmed,removed, or disturbed as part of Master Plan implementation shall be minimized. Where practical, the'Airport shall ® replace removed riparian vegetation within on-site drainages. Any revegetation efforts shall be completed prior to the rainy season. The plantings shall be maintained until successfully established. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Several drainage channels at the Airport are likely subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Potential jurisdictional features include the large channel parallel and adjacent to Marsh Drive, a north-south drainage swale in the parcel bounded by Sally Ride Drive, a northwest-southeast channel in the northern portion of the site, and a small tributary to the main channel in the southern portion of the site. The drainage channel parallel to Marsh Drive would not be directly affected by implementation of the Master Plan or the General Plan Amendment. This area is part of a dedicated right-of-way set aside for potential road widening or a light rail corridor, which would be subject to future environmental review by the agencies sponsoring these projects. However, indirect impacts to the channel may occur as a result of construction activities associated with new development in this area. Also,new development could directly and indirectly result in alteration or fill other wetland areas on Airport property. Fill of any or all portions of the above-described drainage features would require a Section 404 permit from the Corps, Section 401 water-quality certification from the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB), and potentially a 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement with the CDFG. ® Implementation of the following two-part mitigation measure would ensure that the fill of Airport drainage features would have a less-than-significant impact on federally protected wetlands. P:\BDK430\PRODUCTS\lS-MND\Public\PUBLIC ISChecklist 07080B.d.(7/9/2008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 31 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2009 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mitigation Measure BIO-3a: When specific development projects envisioned by the Master Plan are proposed, the project sponsor shall obtain the appropriate State and federal permits authorizing the fill of Airport drainages considered waters of the State and/or the U.S. The project sponsor shall provide proof to the County of compliance with the terms and conditions of the permits prior to issuance of a grading permit. Mitigation Measure BIO-3b: Individual projects proposing to fill any areas subject to Corps or Regional Board jurisdiction on Airport property shall provide compensatory mitigation and shall comply with Corps and Regional Board requirements. Preferred mitigation shall be the purchase of mitigation credits in an approved mitigation bank at a minimum ratio of 1:1 (area purchased: area impacted). The purchase of mitigation credits would compensate for the loss of wetlands and would likely be required at a ratio of up to 2:1 or greater, depending on the functional or ecological value of the impacted feature. The purchase of credits and obtaining the necessary Corps and Regional Board authorizations must be verified by the County prior to the initiation of construction activities within wetlands or jurisdictional features on-site. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) No wildlife corridors would be adversely affected by the proposed project. The Airport is located • within a triangle created by I-680, Sk-4, and SR-242, all of which are major,heavily traveled roadways that preclude the movement of terrestrial wildlife species. In addition,no fish are present within the Airport drainages. However, the open grasslands and drainages at the Airport may attract migratory bird species. In 1997, an Ecological Study of Wildlife Hazards was prepared for the Airport. The study concluded that the Airport and its surroundings served as a significant wintering area or migration stop for many bird species. However, the presence of these birds, especially large flocks, represents a hazard to aircraft operations. The study recommended habitat modifications, including grassland and drainage management to reduce the attractiveness of the Airport to bird species in the interest of aircraft safety. Suitable bird habitats within the general vicinity of the Airport include salt and freshwater marshes (e.g., Suisun Bay), intermittent or ephemeral creeks,ponds,man-made reservoirs (e.g.,Mallard Reservoir), flood-control ditches, and open grasslands. Airport improvements would not substantially interfere with the movement of migratory bird species through the area due to the continued availability of other suitable habitat in the Airport vicinity. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) There are few trees located on Airport property; however, individual development projects which would remove trees from the site would be required to comply with the County's Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance(Chapter 8.16-6 of the County Code). • P:\BDK430\PRODUCTSUS-MND\PublicTUBUC ISCh.klist 070808.d.c(7/9/2008) PUBLIC REVIEW DLAFT 32 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The County General Plan Conservation Element discourages the fill or alteration of wetlands. Individual Master Plan projects may fill or alter existing wetlands at the Airport,which would contribute to the loss of wetlands within the County. Individual development projects would be required to comply with General Plan Policy 8-1, which requires minimization and/or compensatory mitigation if wetlands cannot be avoided. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-3a and 13I0-3b would ensure that individual Master Plan projects comply with General Plan policies regarding wetlands. ,) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? (No Impact) There are no Habitat Conservation Plans,Natural Community Plans or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans that apply to development at the Airport. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.Would the project: is a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in§15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance 13 of an archaeological resource pursuant to§15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Historical structures within the County are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, as well as with the State of California Office of Historic Preservation(on the California Register). There are no known historic structures located within or in the vicinity of the Airport. However, two structures located on Airport property were possibly constructed prior to 1950. These structures include a Quonset but and tarpaper building located on the west side of the Airport, north of the administrative offices. These structures were not originally associated with the Airport and currently accommodate non-aviation uses. These structures are being vacated and may be demolished or altered due to Master Plan implementation. Although not anticipated, these structures may be considered historic resources under the criteria provided in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. The following mitigation ® measure would ensure that Master Plan implementation would not significantly affect historical resources: P:\BDK430\PRODUCTS\]S-WQDtPuhlic\PUBLICISCheckklstmosos.do<(7isnoos) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 33 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • Mitigation Measure CULT-1: Prior to demolition or alteration of any buildings older than 50 years of age, a cultural resources investigation shall be performed to determine the historical significance of the affected structure. Should a structure meet the historical resource criteria, the cultural resources investigation shall recommend the appropriate mitigation measures for reducing impacts to the resource to a less-than-significant level prior to issuance of a demolition permit. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) There are no known archeological resources at the Airport. However,there are over 600 sites within the County that have been recorded with the Archeological Inventory,Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University. Although the Airport is not located in an archeologically sensitive area due to the urban and built-up nature of the site(as shown on the Contra Costa County Archeological Sensitivity Map), it is possible that previously unknown historic or prehistoric resources could be discovered during grading and excavation work associated with new construction. The following mitigation measure would ensure that impacts to discovered archeological resources would be less- than-significant: Mitigation Measure CULT-2: If deposits of prehistoric or historic archeological materials are encountered during project activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected • and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the deposit finds and make recomm- endations.1 0 While deposits of prehistoric or historic archeological materials should be avoided by project activities, if the deposits cannot be avoided, they shall be evaluated for their California Register eligibility. If the deposits are not eligible for the California Register, avoidance is not necessary. If the deposits are eligible for the California Register, they shall be avoided. If avoidance is not feasible,project impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with the recommendations of the evaluating archaeologist and C:EQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 (b)(3)(C), which requires implementation of a data recovery plan and avoidance of human remains. Upon completion of the archaeologist's assessment,the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results, and provide recommendations for the treatment of the discovered archaeological materials. The report shall be submitted to the project sponsor, appropriate County departments, and the Northwest Information!Center(KWIC) of the California Historical Resources Informa- tion System, at Sonoma State University. 10 Prehistoric materials can include flaked-stone tools(e.g.projectile points,knives,choppers)or obsidian,chert,or quartzite toolmaking debris;culturally darkened soil(i.e.,midden soil often containing heat affected rock,ash and charcoal, shellfish remains,and cultural materials);and stone milling equipment(e.g.,mortars,pestles,handstones).Historical materials can include wood,stone,concrete,or adobe footings,walls and other structural remains;debris-filled wells or • privies;and deposits of wood,glass,ceramics,and other refuse. P:\BDK430\PRODUCISUS-MND\Public\PUBLIC ISChecklist 070808.dm(7/9f.2008) PUBLIC R'V]EWDRAFT 34 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) There are no identified paleontological resources or unique geologic features or sites at the Airport or within the immediate vicinity. However, there is the potential for paleontological resources to occur at the Airport and to be adversely affected by Master Plan-related construction activities. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that impacts to paleontological resources are less- than-significant: Mitigation Measure CULT-3: If paleontological resources are encountered during demolition, site preparation, or grading activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until a qualified paleontologist has assessed the discoveries and made recommendations. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, adverse effects to such resources shall be avoided by project activities. If project activities cannot avoid the resources,the adverse effects shall be mitigated. At a minimum, mitigation shall include data recovery and analysis, preparation of a final report, and the formal transmission or delivery of any fossil material recovered to a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology(UCMP). Upon completion of project activities, a final report documenting methods and findings of the mitigation shall be prepared and submitted to the project sponsor, appropriate County departments, and a suitable paleontological repository. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) The potential to uncover Native American human remains exists in locations throughout California. At the Airport,the probability of ground disturbing activities uncovering such remains is unlikely due to the disturbed nature of the site. Although not anticipated,human remains may be identified during the construction period, resulting in a significant impact to Native American cultural resources. Implemen- tation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential adverse impacts to human remains to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure CULT-4: If human remains are encountered, work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the Contra Costa County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the situation. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Most Likely Descendant(MLD)to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Upon completion of the assessment,the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results, and provide recommendations for the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report shall be submitted to the project applicant, Contra Costa County, and the Northwest Information Center. P:...'0\PAODUCTSUS-MND\P,blic\PUBLIC ISChecklist 070808.doc(7/9/2008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 35 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ■ iii)Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? iv)Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available:for the disposal of waste water? a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i)Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and • 1 P:\BDK430\PRODUCTS\IS-MND�Public\PUBLIC ISChecklist 070808.doc(7/9x008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 36 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 200E INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Geology Special Publication 42; ii) Strong seismic ground shaking; iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; iv)Landslides? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) i) Fault Rupture.Fault rupture is displacement of the earth's surface resulting from fault movement associated with an earthquake. The Hayward and San Andreas Faults are the two principally active faults within the Bay Area and are located approximately 15 and 32 miles west of the Airport, respectively. Other active faults within the region include the Green Valley, Rodger's Creek, Calaveras, Clayton,Diablo, and Marsh Creek-Greenville Faults. The Concord Fault runs in a northwest-southeast direction immediately east of the Airport. Areas that are most likely to experience fault rupture from movement of the Concord Fault are located within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Extending approximately 1,000 to 2,500 feet wide on either side of the fault line, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone was established by the California Geological Survey under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972. Development within this zone is strictly regulated, and requires the preparation of detailed geologic and seismic evaluations to assess the potential for fault rupture hazards before a construction permit can be issued. This zone covers small portions of the North and East Development Areas at the Airport'( indicating a potential for fault rupture within this area. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that Master Plan-associated development within the Alquist- ® Priolo Special Studies Zone would have a less-than-significant impact related to fault rupture. Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Prior to issuance of final grading permits or issuance of building permits for individual development projects located within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, the County's Consulting Geologist shall determine if a fault rupture investigation is required for the project. If required, the fault investigation shall conform with the Alquist-Priolo special studies zones General Guidelines for Evaluating the Hazard of Surface Fault Rupture. The results of the investigation(if required) shall include recommendations for adequate construction setbacks for structures that minimize the potential for damage by fault rupture. fl) Groundshaking. The Airport is located in a seismically active region and, like all construction in the San Francisco Bay Area, would be subject to potentially severe ground shaking during a major earthquake on an active fault in the region. Because it affects a much broader area than surface fault rupture, ground shaking is the cause of most damage during earthquakes. Three major factors affect the severity(intensity) of ground shaking at a site in an earthquake: the size(magnitude) of the earthquake; the distance to the fault that generated the earthquake; and the geologic materials that underlie the site. Thick, loose soils, such as bay mud, tend to amplify and prolong ground shaking. The project would result in an increase in the number of people, structures and improvements exposed to seismic hazards. Because of the proximity of the Airport to nearby active and potentially active faults,moderate to strong ground shaking could occur at the site as the result of an earth- quake on any of these faults. The aggregate probability of the occurrence of one or more magnitude ® )I Association of Bay Area Governments,2006.Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones Map. httn:Hquake.abag.ca.gov.August 16. PiBDK430IPRODUCTSUS-MND\Publi,TUBLIC ISChecklist 070808.do (7/92008) PUBLIC REVIEW DAFT 37 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 200E INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • 6.7 plus earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Area over the next 25 years is estimated at 70 percent.12 The risk of structural damage from ground shaking is reduced through adherence to design and materials standards set forth in building codes. The International Building Code requires use of seismic parameters which allow the structural engineering analysis for buildings to be based on soil profile types. Compliance with building and grading regulations and conformance with Title 24 specifications for seismic design would reduce the potential for ground shaking impacts. However, to ensure that the potential adverse effects of ground shaking are reduced to a less-than-significant level, the following mitigation measure shall also be implemented: Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Prior to issuance of final grading permits or issuance of building permits for individual development projects,the project sponsor shall submit site specific geotechnical reports prepared by a qualified and licensed geotechnical engineer. These site specific geo-technical reports shall address differential fill thickness, total and differential settlement within building pads, soil stability,potential seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, and potentially expansive soils, and shall provide specific building foundation recommendations to reduce the risk associated with soil subsidence, liquefaction, differential sediment, and expansive soils. These reports shall be reviewed and approved by a designated representative of the County Public Works Department Engineering Services Division. iii) Ground Failure and Liquefaction. Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon primarily associated with • saturated soil layers located close to the ground surface. These soils lose strength during ground shaking. Due to the loss of strength, the soil acquires a"mobility" sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, saturated, fine-grained sands that lie relatively close to the ground surface. However, loose sands that contain a significant amount of fines (minute silt and clay fraction)may also liquefy. The Airport is underlain by Quaternary Alluvium consisting of consolidated and unconsolidated sediments that have a high potential for liquefaction, as shown on the Concord General Plan Geologic and Seismic Hazards Map. As discussed above, the proposed project would be constructed in compliance with applicable construction codes and requirements intended to mitigate any adverse impacts resulting from ground failure and liquefaction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would reduce any potential significant impacts associated with ground failure and liquefaction to human safety to a less-than-significant level. iv)Landslides. The Airport is located on flat topography, with no risk of landslides or mudslides. 12 Michael,A.J.,et.al.,2005.Major Quake Likely to Strike Between 2000 and 2030—Understanding Earthquake • Hazards in the San Francisco Bay Region.USGS Fact Sheet 152-199.Rev.May 6. PiBDK430TRODUCrSUS-MNDTublic\PUBLIC ISChecklist 070808.dm(7/9!2008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 38 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2005 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) The potential for soil erosion and loss of topsoil exists during the period of earthwork activities and between the time when earthwork is complete and new vegetation is established, or asphalt is laid. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP) and Erosion Control Plan are a routine requirement for projects requiring grading permits. The SWPPP identifies the"best management practices"that are most appropriate for the site, and the Erosion Control Plan, which is required for final grading permits, provides the details of the erosion control measures to be applied on the site and maintained throughout the winter rainy season. As recommended in Mitigation Measure HYD-la(see Section VII.a,below), implementation of a SWPPP and an Erosion Control Plan, submitted for individual development projects at the site and reviewed and approved by the County, would reduce the impacts of soil erosion and the loss of topsoil to a less-than-significant level. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) As described in Section VI.a,the soils that underlie the Airport are potentially subject to the effects of liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse. Compliance with Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure that potential impacts from soil instability would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Near-surface,highly expansive clay soils may be present at the Airport due to the presence of Quaternary Alluvium beneath the site. Expansive clay soils are prone to heave and shrink movements with changes in moisture content and, consequently,must be considered in the design of graded surfaces, foundations,drainage features, and landscaping. The effect of compressible soils can be adequately controlled with appropriate structural design of foundations and civil design of surface grades and gradients for gravity-flow pipes. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would reduce the potential impact from potentially expansive soils to a less-than-significant level. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (No Impact) Conveyance and treatment for Airport wastewater is provided by the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District. Implementation of the project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. P:IBDK4301PRODUC7SUS-MNDIPubIidPUBLIC ISCh«klist 070808.doc(7/9/2008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 39 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result, • would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? • P:IBDK4301PRODUCfSVS-MIJDTublidPUBUC ISChecklist 070808.d-(7N/2008) PUBLIC/EVJEW DRAFT 40 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) New development at the Airport would include additional aviation and non-aviation-related facilities. Aviation fuels, oil, and small quantities of other hazardous substances, such as paints and janitorial supplies, would continue to be used at the Airport. The Airport is identified as a hazardous land use in the Contra Costa County General Plan. Facilities such as the Airport that use, store, or handle hazardous materials in quantities greater than 500 pounds, 55 gallons, or 200 cubic feet are required to prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Plan(HMBP). An HMBP is required by the State of California and is implemented by the County Airports Division. The HMBP is intended to provide detailed hazardous material uses to emergency responders. HMBPs must remain current and at a minimum must be reviewed every three years. As future development projects are approved to implement the Airport Master Plan, the HMBP would be updated. The most recent HMBP submitted by the Airport to the Contra Costa County Health Services—Hazardous Materials Program(for the period of January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007) states that the Airport maintains a daily average of 500 gallons of diesel fuel in 1,000 gallon tanks. The Airport generates approximately 1,000 gallons of waste aviation engine oil each year; the waste is collected and removed from the site on an as-needed basis (generally every 60 days). ® The HMBP includes an Employee Training Plan and an Emergency Response Plan, which details procedures for preventing and minimizing the effects of hazardous material releases. All fuel storage and dispensing facilities are inspected on a weekly basis. The inspection includes checking for exterior leaks, interior leaks in valves or piping(as indicated by leak detectors installed in the system)and the general condition of the facilities. Any routine or corrective maintenance is documented on the appropriate inspection forms, which are kept on file in the Airport administration building. Employees whose duties include refueling are trained on procedures for handling of fuel and proper response to a hazardous material spill. Spill response kits are stored near fueling areas. Because of the volumes and location of above ground storage tanks(ASTs), the Airport is also required to prepare a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Compliance Plan(SPCC Plan). The Airport's SPCC Plan is dated August 31, 2003, and describes tank containment information, spill prevention measures, and personnel training procedures. Adherence to applicable regulatory requirements(e.g. requirements of HMBPs, including employee training and emergency response, hazards communication training, and injury and illness prevention plans)would mitigate potential impacts from routine transport,use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Although these plans and engineering controls would not completely eliminate the potential for a hazardous materials release, they would reduce the potential severity of a release to a less-than- significant level. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) ® During operations at the Airport, existing hazardous materials regulations would reduce the potential impacts of a hazardous materials release to a less-than-significant level (see Section VH.a, above). P:IBDK430\PRODUCTSUS-MND\Public\PUBLIC ISChecklis1070808.d.(7/9/2008) PUBLIC RE VIEW DRAFT 41 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • Master Plan-associated development projects could include demolition or renovation of existing structures and excavation and grading of soils for construction of foundations. Contaminated soil and groundwater, if present, could expose construction workers and/or the public to hazardous materials. Releases of hazardous materials to the air through fugitive dust could affect nearby schools, residential uses, and other sensitive receptors. The following two-part mitigation measure would reduce potential exposure to hazardous materials in soils and groundwater to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation'Measure HAZ-1 a: As a condition of approval for any permit for demolition, grading, or construction for subsequent specific development projects envisioned by the Master Plan that would involve ground disturbance and/or the demolition of buildings that may contain lead, asbestos, or other hazardous materials, a Phase I environmental site assessment shall be conducted by a qualified professional (e.g., a California-registered environmental assessor). The Phase I report shall identify past releases of hazardous materials on the development site or the existence of hazardous building materials. The assessments shall be performed in accordance with standards adopted by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) for Phase I site assessments. The Phase I site assessment shall identify limitations to development due to hazardous materials on or near the site, and present recommendations for further investigation of the site, if warranted. These recommendations shall be incorporated into specific development projects as conditions of approval. Mitigation Measure HAZ-lb: If a Phase I site assessment(required for projects that involve ground disturbance and/or the demolition of buildings that may contain lead, asbestos, or other hazardous materials) indicates that a release of hazardous materials could have affected the site, additional soil and/or groundwater investigations shall be conducted by a qualified environmental professional to assess the presence and extent of contamination at the site. These investigations shall be conducted in conformance with State and local guidelines and regulations. Recommendations made as part of the subsequent investigations shall be incorporated into specific development projects as conditions of approval. If the results of subsurface investigations(s)confirm the presence of hazardous materials, site remediation may be required to protect the health and safety of future site users,with oversight by the applicable State or local regulatory agencies. Specific remedies would depend on the extent and magnitude of contamination and the requirements of the regulatory agencies. For a site where contamination has been identified, construction shall only occur in accordance with a site-specific health and safety plan prepared by a certified industrial hygienist. The plan shall include provisions for monitoring exposure to construction workers, delineate procedures to be undertaken in the event that contamination is identified above action levels, and identify emergency procedures and responsible personnel. The health and safety plan shall include performance standards identified to minimize the effects of air-borne contaminants (for example, stopping work on days of high wind velocities, limiting excavation areas, or wetting down surfaces). Construction workers in contaminated areas shall be required to receive hazardous materials training in accordance with federal and State regulations. Future Airport improvements may involve the demolition or renovation of existing buildings at the • site. Buildings constructed prior to 1980 may contain lead-based paint(LBP) and asbestos-containing P:IBDK430V'RODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\PUBLIC ISCheckli,1070808.doc(7/9/2008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 42 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION building materials (ACMs). Although LBP and ACMs in good condition would not be expected to present an immediate health risk, lead and asbestos particles could potentially be released to the air during building demolition, which could pose a health risk to construction workers. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts due to release of lead and asbestos to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: As a condition of approval for any construction or demolition permit affecting a structure known to be constructed prior to 1985, a lead-based paint and asbestos-containing material survey shall be performed at the structure by a qualified environmental professional. Based on the findings of the survey, all loose and peeling lead-based paint and identified asbestos hazards shall be abated by a certified contractor in accordance with federal and State requirements. Federal and State construction worker health and safety regu- lations shall apply to demolition activities, and any required worker health and safety procedures shall be incorporated into the demolition specifications for the project. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Marchus Elementary School is located less than 0.25 miles east of the Airport site. However, ® implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, along with existing hazardous materials regulations (see Section VIl.a)would reduce the impact to sensitive receptors, such as Marchus Elementary School, to a less-than-significant level. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) As noted above, the Airport is identified as a hazardous land use in the County General Plan. However, as noted above, implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, along with existing hazardous materials regulations(see Section VIl.a)would reduce the hazardous impacts associated with future Airport development projects on the public and the enviromnentto a less-than- significant level. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) All Master Plan-associated improvements at the Airport would be in accordance with FAA regulations. These regulations would reduce potential safety hazards to a less-than-significant level. j7 For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact) ® No private airstrips are located within the project vicinity. P1BDK430TRODUCTSIIS-MNDiPublictPUBLIC ISChe klist 070808.d«(7/92008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 43 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2009 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (No Impact) Proposed development at the projects site would not interfere with emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. Improvements to the taxiway system would improve on-site circulation and in turn would reduce the potential for automobile and aircraft-related collisions on Airport property. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (No Impact) Land uses adjacent to the Airport include developed urban areas. Although the land directly north of the Airport consists of undeveloped open space, this area is separated from the Airport by SR-4 and is itself surrounded by urban uses. Therefore,proposed Master Plan development would not be exposed to a high wildfire risk. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.Would the project: • a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a:manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? • P:\BDK430\PRODUCISUS-MND\Public\PUBUC ISChe&Iim 070808.d-(7/92008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 44 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding of as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ® j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? The 1993 Drainage and Flood Control Study"prepared for the Airport was used to prepare portions of this section. The Drainage and Flood Control Study serves as a plan to mitigate and control incremental runoff associated with future development at the Airport. a) violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) The following subsection discusses impacts to water quality associated with construction and operation of development envisioned as part of the project. Construction Period Impacts. Excavation, grading, and construction associated with future development at the Airport would lead to temporary disturbance of surface soils and removal of vegetative cover. During the construction period, excavation and grading activities could result in exposure of soil to runoff,potentially causing erosion and mobilization of sediment in the runoff. Soil stockpiles and excavated parcels would be exposed to runoff and, if not managed properly, the runoff could cause erosion and increased sedimentation in drainages within the Airport, including Grayson Creek, Walnut Creek, and Pacheco Slough. The accumulation of sediment could result in blockage of flows, potentially resulting in increased localized ponding or flooding. The potential for chemical releases is present at most construction sites. Once released, substances such as fuels, oils, paints, and solvents could be transported to nearby surface waterways and/or ® 13 Hodges&Shutt, 1993.Drainage and Flood Control Study,Buchanan Field Airport.January28. P:1BDK430iPRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\PUBLIC ISCbe klist 070808.doc(7/9/2008) PUBIC REVIEW DRAFT 45 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • groundwater in stormwater runoff,wash water, and dust control water,reducing the quality of the receiving waters.. Operation Period Impacts.Future construction and intensified land uses at the Airport would likely result in increased vehicle use and potential discharge of associated pollutants. Leaks of fuel or lubricants, tire wear, and fallout frons exhaust would contribute petroleum hydrocarbons,heavy metals, and sediment to the pollutant load in runoff being transported to receiving waters. Runoff from landscaped areas may contain residual pesticides and nutrients. Long-term degradation of runoff water quality from the Airport could adversely affect water quality in receiving water bodies. In addition, the proposed project is subject to the Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)Provision C.3. Provision C.3 is separate from, and in addition to,requirements for erosion and sediment control and for pollution prevention measures during construction. Provision C.3 requires applicable development projects to capture and treat operational stormwater runoff prior to discharge to receiving water bodies or storm drainages to the maximum extent practicable. Where feasible, development projects must also minimize the area of new roofs and paving and should substitute pervious surfaces fir impervious surfaces to allow runoff to reach the underlying soil. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the potential operational impacts of individual Master Plan projects to water quality. The following two-part mitigation measure would reduce construction and operational water quality impacts of the project to a less-than-;significant level. Mitigation Measure HYDRO-la: Construction activities associated with subsequent specific development projects envisioned by the Master Plan will be regulated by and shall comply with the construction activity general permit(National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPES)nonpoint source permit). A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP) is required under the general permit and would be prepared by the Airport. The construction SWPPP would establish procedures and controls designed to mitigate potential impacts to surface water quality during the construction phase. The SWPPP shall, at a minimum, include the following major components: • A comprehensive erosion and sediment control plan, depicting areas to remain undisturbed, and providing specifications for revegetation of disturbed areas. • A list of potential pollutants from building materials, chemicals, and maintenance practices used during the construction period, and the specific control measures to be implemented to minin ize release and transport of these constituents in runoff. • Specifications and designs for the appropriate best management practices(BMPs) for controlling drainage and treating runoff in the construction phase. • A program for monitoring all control measures that includes schedules for inspection and maintenance, and'identifies the party responsible for monitoring. • A site map that locates all water quality control measures and restricted areas to be left undisturbed. • P:\BDK430\PRODUCTSUS-MND\Public\PUBLIC ISChecklist 070808.doc(7/9%1008) PUBLIC REVIEW DAFT, 46 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mitigation Measure HYDRO-lb: As required in the County Code, (Title 10, Chapter 1014- 4.004)the Airport shall prepare and implement a Stormwater Control Plan(SWOP) in accordance with the Contra Costa County Stormwater C.3 guidebook to minimize potential runoff pollution during the life of each Master Plan-associated project. A building permit shall not be issued for subsequent individual development projects until the Contra Costa County Public Works Department reviews and approves the proposed storm water controls. Specifically, individual projects shall incorporate landscaping features into the drainage design and shall direct roof flows toward swales or landscaped areas before discharge to the storm drain system. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) The Airport is underlain by the Ygnacio Valley groundwater basin. Aquifers in the basin are hydraulically connected to the Sacramento River. No use of groundwater is proposed at the Airport, although some dewatering could be required during construction activities. Any dewatering activity would be expected to be temporary and affect only the uppermost water-bearing zone, not the regional water supply aquifer. Master Plan implementation would increase the percentage of g impervious surfaces (e. .,paved p surfaces, buildings)at the Airport. Airside improvements associated with Master Plan implementation would result in the addition of 3.24 acres of new taxiway pavement and the removal of 9.02 acres of pavement. This would result in a net gain of 5.78 acres of pervious airside surface area. Landside development would include both aviation and non-aviation development on approximately 45 acres of pervious surfaces(approximately 34 percent of total landside development acreage). Full implementation of Master Plan-associated airside and landside development would result in a net loss of approximately 40 acres of pervious surfaces at the Airport. The increase in low permeability cover of 45 acres could reduce infiltration of precipitation and interfere with groundwater recharge at the Airport. Although the Airport is not located in a designated recharge area,maintenance of basin-wide infiltration capacity is important for aquifer recharge and watershed health. The loss of area available for infiltration and groundwater recharge could be substantially mitigated by incorporation of site design practices to promote infiltration and reduce the area of impervious cover. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO-lb would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off site? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) Storm drains serving the Airport are maintained by the Contra Costa County Public Works Depart- ment. Currently, drainage from the Airport generally flows east to west. Drains on the west side of the ® Airport feed into open drainage swales that flow north into Grayson Creek. A small portion of Airport runoff drains to the Walnut Creek channel to the east. Runoff from the Airport eventually drains north P:\BDK430\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\PUBLIC ISChecklist 070808.doc(7/9/2008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 47 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • into Pacheco Slough and then into Suisun Bay. Although the project could change the volume and quality of stormwater runoff at the Airport, it would not change the existing drainage pattern. Runoff would continue to drain into Pacheco Slough and Suisun Bay. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Historically,the Airport drainage system has experienced difficulties in maintaining free open surface channel flow during certain storm events due to the extreme high water level of receiving water bodies. The low-lying open space areas between runways and taxiways often function as detention basins during storms. Some of these locations were specifically designed as detention basins in the early 1990s. The drainage systems are considered adequate as long as the backwater surface elevations do not overtop and flood the runways and taxiways.14 Implementation of the proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces at the Airport and therefore could affect surface runoff volumes and recharge rates. Fill of drainage channels would also alter the existing system for conveyance of runoff, increasing the risk of runway and taxiway flooding. Increased runoff volumes could exacerbate downstream flooding problems and/or cause hydromodification. Hydromodification is defined as the alteration of the hydrologic characteristics of coastal and non-coastal waters, which in turn could cause degradation of water • resources. One example of hydromodification occurs when a stream bank is eroded by flowing water. This typically results in the suspension of sediments in the water course. Compliance with Provision C.3,required by Mitigation Measure HYDRO-lb, along with implementation of the following mitigation measure, would reduce the potential impacts of the project on runoff volumes and the rate of runoff conveyance to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure HYRDO-2: The Airport shall perform a review of the 1993 Drainage and Flood Control Study, and update the report to establish the baseline drainage condition. The study's discussion regarding the baseline condition shall acknowledge that since build-out has yet to fully occur, there will be construction of impervious surfaces over time as the land is utilized as planned. The study shall identify projects that have already been developed and/or approved since approval of the- 1990 Master Plan. The Airport shall require all future,applicants to utilize this new study as the basis for their project specific drainage plans. The County Public Works Departments and the Centra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District shall review and approve the revised study prior to implementation of the proposed development or drainage improvements. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) 14 Ibid. • P:\BDK430TRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\PUBLIC ISChecklist 070808.doc(7/9/2.008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 48 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Existing regulatory programs that would ensure that Master Plan-associated projects do not exceed the capacity of downstream stormwater conveyance systems are described in Section VIII.d. The potential for the project to add substantial sources of pollutants to runoff is described in Section VHI.a. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO-la and HYDRO-lb and HYDRO-2 would reduce on-and off-site impacts to water quality and storm water conveyance capacity to a less-than-significant level. In addition, any grading activities associated with Master Plan implementation would occur in relatively flat areas. Construction-period stormwater controls required in Mitigation Measure HYDRO-la would minimize the erosion and runoff potential for the Airport during construction activities. fi Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) Aside from potential impacts related to construction activities and post-construction site uses (see Section VIII.a, above),the project would not adversely affect water quality. g) Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (No Impact) No housing is proposed for the Airport. h) Place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?) (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) The western portion of the Airport is located within the Grayson Creek watershed, while the eastern half of the site is located within the Walnut Creek watershed. As discussed above,the Airport drainage system has experienced difficulties in maintaining free open surface channel flow during certain storm events due to the extreme high water level of receiving water bodies. This has resulted in localized flooding in the low-lying areas of the Airport and on nearby properties. The existing mobile homes located downstream of the Airport(the Rancho Diablo Mobile Homes)are protected from flooding by an existing floodwall, which was constructed in the 1970's.15 Increases in runoff volume and runoff conveyance rate associated with implementation of the proposed project could reduce the effectiveness of the existing floodwall and could expose the mobile home community to an increased risk of flooding. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2,which requires an update to the existing 1993 Drainage Study would ensure that potential increases to downstream flood risks are reduced to a less-than-significant level. The Contra Costa County Flood Hazards Map indicates that land on the eastern side of Walnut Creek is subject to a 100-year flood. This would not affect development at the Airport. However, the northwestern portion of the Airport is also located in the 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) and shown in the Contra Costa County Flood Hazards Map. Portions of the North and West Development areas at the Airport are located within this ® 15 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,2006.Memorandum from Tim Jensen, Associate Civil Engineer,to Beth Lee,Business and Development Manager,Airport Division.November 16. P:\BDxa30TRODUCTsvs-MND\PuhiicTUBLIC ISCheckfist o7O8O8.aoc(7/9RO08) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 49 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • flood hazard area. Development in this area would consist of large hangars and other structures that could impede or redirect flood flows. Contra Costa County participates in the National Flood Insurance Administration(NFIA)program, which is administered by FEMA. Proposed development projects within the West Development area would be subject to the provisions of the Floodplain Management Ordinance, which regulates development within the flood zones and complies with the NFIA program. Compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance (and implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2)would reduce the impacts.of development within the floodplain to a less-than-significant level. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding of as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The eastern portion of the Airport is located within the mapped dam failure inundation area for the Lafayette Reservoir.16 Lafayette Reservoir, which has a capacity of 4,250 acre-feet,was constructed in 1929. The dam at the reservoir, a 13:22-foot-high earthen dam, is under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Water Resources,Division of Safety of Dams (DWR).Existing dams under DWR's jurisdiction are periodically inspected to assure that they are adequately maintained and to direct the owner(in this case, DWR)to correct:any deficiencies found during the inspection. Regular inspections and required maintenance of the dams substantially reduce the potential for catastrophic failure. In addition, given the distance of the Airport from Lafayette Reservoir(approximately 10 miles), it is unlikely that dam failure would pose a significant risk to life or property at the Airport. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (No Impact) No surface water bodies likely to be affected by seiches are present in the Airport vicinity. Given the distance of the Airport from the coast and other water bodies (over 15 miles from San Francisco Bay and over 4 miles from Suisun Bay), development anticipated as part of the project would not be affected by tsunamis. As the project,area is relatively level, no impacts from mudflows would be expected. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact IX. LAND USE AND PILANNING.Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable laird use plan,policy,,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 16 Association of Bay Area Governments, 1995.Hazard Map Dam Failure Inundation Areas,Concord,CA. • P:IBDK430IPRODUCTSIIS-MNDIPublic\PUBLIC ISCh.klist 070808.d.c(7/9r.?008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 50 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? a) Physically divide an established community? (No Impact) Proposed Master Plan development would occur on the site of the existing Airport. Implementation of the Master Plan would result in the on-site construction of new buildings and the modification or relocation of existing buildings and taxiways. These developments would not disrupt or divide an established community. Also, the project would not result in any significant changes in the current land use or development pattern of the surrounding area. No existing businesses or residential structures would be displaced as a result of the Master Plan. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The Contra Costa County General Plan designates the majority of the Airport property as Public/Semi- Public (PS). This designation includes all airside operations as well as the North and East Develop- ment Areas. This designation typically includes properties owned by governmental agencies and a wide variety of public and private uses are allowed. However, the construction of private residences or private commercial uses is not permitted within this designation." Only aviation-related development is proposed on Airport property within the PS designation as part of the Master Plan; such uses are permitted within the PS designation. The West and Southeast Development Areas are designated Commercial(CO), which allows for a broad range of commercial uses typically found in smaller scale commercial districts. The maximum allowable building height under this designation is 35 :feet. Master Plan development projects would comply with the provisions of the CO designation, where applicable. In concert with the Airport Master Plan update ,the General Plan Amendment includes a proposal to re-designate B/4 of the West Development Area(airport property located between Marsh Drive and Sally Ride Drive) from Commercial(CO)to Public/Semi-Public(PS)to reflect the Master Plan recommendation to set aside this portion of airport property exclusive for aviation uses in support of airport operations, extend airport taxiways, and reconfigure Sally Ride Drive in the vicinity of this property(see Figure 7b). The remaining balance of this airport-owned property, approximately 4 acres,would then be re-designated from Commercial (CO)to Business Park(BP) for non-aviation development that would be of a commercial nature, which while standing separate and distinct from the airport operations would provide services in support of airport functions(e.g. office, hotel, limited retail, etc.). ® 17 Contra Costa County,2005. Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005—2020.January 2005(reprinted April 2006). P:�BDK430\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\PUBLIC ISChecklist 070808.doc(7/9/2008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 51 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • Smaller portions of the site are designated Airport Commercial(ACO)and Parks and Recreation(PR). No new development is proposed on parcels within these designations. Proposed development projects on Airport property would take place in accordance with the goals and policies of the County's General Plan. In addition,the Airport property is within the Unrestricted(U) Zoning District,which allows any lawful use that is compatible with the General Plan. No land use incompatibilities or conflicts with existing plans or policies would result from the implementation of the Master Plan. In addition, although the Airport is located within the City of Concord's Sphere of Influence and Planning Area Boundary, it is predominantly located outside the City limits; and is therefore not subject to Concord's Zoning Ordinance. The Concord General Plan designates the Airport as Public/Quasi Public,which is applied to property owned by governmental entities. The future Master Plan-associated development would not be incompatible with this designation. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (No Impact) Please see Section IV.f. Potentially Significant • Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? (No Impact) Mineral resources currently being mined within the County are predominantly located in the east County; however scattered resource areas, such as Los Medanos Hills, are located northeast of the Airport between Bay Point and the Concord Naval Weapons Station. However, the Airport is not designated as a locally-important resource recovery site in the County General Plan Mineral Resource Area Map and there are no known mineral resource sites located within the Airport or vicinity. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (No Impact) See Section X.a. • P:\BDK430\PRODUCTSUS-MNDNublic\PUBLIC ISChecUst 070808.doc(7/9/2008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 52 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Less-Than- Significant Impact) The proposed Airport Master Plan and the General Plan Amendment would not themselves generate additional aircraft flights,however, existing flights from the Airport are an existing noise source in the area and flights from the Airport would increase over time. Additionally, the Master Plan and the General Plan Amendment would include development of aviation and non-aviation land uses which could generate additional vehicle trips on roadways adjacent to the Airport. Noise impacts from the proposed project would be primarily from aircraft or aviation noise sources. Federal Aviation Regulation,Part 150, "Aviation Noise Compatibility Planning,"sets forth noise compatibility guidelines for land use. These guidelines determine the acceptable or compatible level of maximum noise exposure for people in areas affected by Airport and aviation related noise sources. ® According to these guidelines, exposure to noise levels below 65 dBA CNEL would be considered acceptable or compatible for all types of land use. According to the Contra Costa County General Plan P:\BDK430\PRODUCTSUS-MNDTublic\PUBIICISChe klist 070808.dm(7/92008) PUBLIC REVIEWDRAFT 53 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 200E INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • Noise Element, the normally acceptable noise levels for residential land use is 65 dBA CNEL, commercial uses can range up to 70 dBA CNEL and industrial facilities can range up to 75 dBA CNEL. The Federal Aviation Administration Order 5050AB and Order 1050.1E,Environmental Analysis of Aircraft Noise Around Airports further regulates and outlines the required process for considering environmental impacts for project-related noise changes. These orders require that noise contours showing 65, 70, and 75 dBA CNEL be calculated and illustrated using the FAA's Integrated Noise Model. The Contra Costa County's Airport Ordinances 87-8 and 88-82, regulate such aircraft operations as aircraft engine runup, touch and go operations,preferential runway use, and noise levels. Ordinance 88-82 states that the maximum permitted noise level for takeoff is 78.0 dBA according to the measuring procedures set forth in the ordinances. Buchanan Field Airport has six noise monitoring stations. Data:from each of these stations was collected and analyzed for the past year(2005). The Buchanan Field Airport Part 150 Study 18 shows that for all six sites the Community Equivalent Noise Level (CNEL)was below 65 dBA CNEL. The site with the highest reported CNEL was 1091 Concord Avenue, at 64 dBA CNEL. 1775 Solano Way at 61 dBA CNEL, was the one other site above 60 dBA CNEL. The noise contours and land use analysis under existing conditions (2005 data), indicate that no • residential, agricultural, commercial, or parks or recreation land use are located within the 65 dBA CNEL existing noise contour. The only land uses within this contour are transportation(265 acres), .industrial(1 acres), and open space(22 acres). Furthermore, none of these industrial acres are within the 70 dBA CNEL noise contour. The projected future noise contours and land use analysis for the year 2012 indicate that, as is the case under existing conditions,no residential, agricultural, commercial, or parks or recreational land use would be within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. The land uses within this contour in the year 2012 include transportation(283 acres), industrial(4 acres), and open space(32 acres). None of these industrial acres would be within the 70 dBA CNEL noise contour. This future scenario represents an increase from the current total of 288 acres within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour to a new total of 319 acres. The closest residences to the Airport are located to the west along Marsh Drive. Other residences within close proximity to the Airport:are located to the southeast along Contra Costa Boulevard and to the north of the Airport along Solano Way. Due to the orientation of the runways, the future year 65 dBA CNEL noise contour line would extend nearest the residents living along Solano Drive. However, the noise levels recorded at this site for the year 2005, as referenced above,only reach up to 61 dBA CNEL. This is considered an acceptable noise exposure level according to the governing standards outlined above. The calculated noise contour lines for the year 2012 do not represent a significant change from the existing contour and residential units would remain outside the 65 dBA CNEL 18 Barnard Dunkleburg&Company,Buchanan Field Airport,Part 150 Study/Working Paper One.June 2006 • PiBDK430\PRODUCISUS-MND\Public\PUSUC ISChecklist 070808.dm(7/9/200E) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 54 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION contour. Therefore,the noise level impact due to aircraft and aviation sources would not be considered significant. The project is expected to generate an additional 830 daily trips to surrounding roadways. This number of additional trips would not cause a significant increase in traffic noise at offsite locations. The long term noise increase from traffic sources would be considered less-than-significant for this project. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project could temporarily expose persons in the vicinity of the Airport to ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. However, the County considerers this short-term impact to be less than significant if each of the noise- reducing measures, described below, is implemented. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the project's temporary construction-period noise impact to a less-than- significant level: Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: Specific development projects envisioned by the Master Plan shall comply with the following noise reduction measures: General construction noise shall be limited to weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; ® however, construction activities may occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekends and federal and State holidays once a particular structure is fully enclosed, subject to prior authorization by the County. • Pile driving(if required) and similarly loud activities shall be limited to weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. • All heavy construction equipment used at the Airport shall be maintained in good operating condition, with all internal combustion, engine-driven equipment equipped with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition. All stationary noise generating equipment shall be located as far away as possible from neighboring property lines, especially residential uses. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The expected ambient noise increases associated with implementation of the proposed project are discussed in Sections XI.a and XI.d. A significant permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project site vicinity due to implementation of the proposed project is not expected. d) A substantial temporary orperiodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Project-related construction activities could result in high intermittent noise levels at adjacent land uses. This noise would result from the temporary use of earth-moving and construction equipment ® during the project construction period. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. P:\BDK430\PRODUCTSUS�,\INDNublic\PUBLIC ISChmklist 070808.doc(7/9/2008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 55 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • Single event noise, such as an aircraft flyover or an aircraft engine runup, would occur periodically throughout the day on the project site. These noise sources can be measured using the single event noise exposure level(SENEL) scale„ which measures the sound intensity of a single event. The Buchanan Field Airport Part 150 Study shows example SENEL values calculated for the past year at monitoring locations adjacent to the site. The results show that the majority of the SENEL values over 65 dBA occurred between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.,which coincides with typical peak hours for ambient peak community noise levels (i.e., traffic, landscape equipment and delivery trucks). Airport planning efforts are currently evaluating options to reduce airport related noise to the extent feasible;however,project related noise would not create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) As discussed in Sections XI.a and XI.d, above,the project would not expose people residing in the area to excessive noise levels. With the implementation of the proposed project, noise levels would be within the regulatory guidelines of the various agencies governing the project. fi For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) • As discussed in Section XI.e, above, significant noise exposure is not expected due to any aircraft or aviation related noise sources associated with the project. The proposed project would not expose people living or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING.Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either 13 directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? • P:\BDK430\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\PUBLIC ISChecklist 070808.doc(7/9/2008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 56 LSA ASSOCIATES.INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2009 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly(for example, through extension of roads or other infra- structure)? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) Implementation of the Master Plan would allow for the construction of new uses as well as the modif- ication or relocation of existing buildings and taxiways on Airport property.New development on the site would result in an improvement in Airport operations as well as provide for the commercial use of underutilized Airport parcels.New businesses located on Airport property would largely support exis- ting Airport operations, and new business established as a result of the General Plan Amendment would be in support of the Airport functions. New uses could incrementally increase on site employment;however, this increase would not be considered significant in the context of anticipated growth within the County over the next 5 years. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact) No housing exists within the Airport property. No displacement would occur as a result of Master Plan implementation or the General Plan Amendment, and no replacement housing would be necessary. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact) See Section XILb. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? P:�BDK430�PRODUCTSUS-NWDiPublic�PUBLIC 1SChecMist 070808.d.c(7/9/2008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 57 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2009 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Other public facilities? ❑ 1 ❑ 0 a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered govern- mental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:Firm protection,police protection, schools,parks, other public facilities? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) Implementation of the Master Plan and the General Plan Amendment could result in increased demand for public services such as fire and police protection. These services for the Airport are generally provided by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District(CCCFPD) and the Contra Costa County Sherriff s Department,respectively. However,Airport staff may also fulfill some of these functions. The Contra Costa County Sherriff s Department Field Operations Bureau provides patrol, investiga- tion, and administrative and community services to the unincorporated areas of the County, including the Airport. Muir Sherriff Station is ;located in Martinez at 1980 Muir Road, less than 2 miles west of • the Airport. County General Plan Policy 7-59 establishes a maximum response time goal for priority 1 or 2 calls of five minutes 90 percent of the time within central business districts and urban and suburban areas within the County, including the Airport. The CCCFPD provides fire protection,rescue, and emergency medical services(paramedic)to portions of the western central and eastern areas of the County, including the project site. Fire Station 9, located at 209 Center.Avenue in Pacheco is located approximately''/z mile from the project site. Fire Station 9 houses one Type 1 Engine and one Type 3 Wildland unit. This station is staffed by three personnel at all times, one of which is a paramedic. General Plan Policy 7-63 establishes a total response time(including dispatch phis running and set-up time) of five minutes 90 percent of the time within the central business districts and urban and suburban areas within the County, including the Airport. In addition to CCCFPD services,on-site fire response is provided by Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF)response vehicles located directly north of the Airport administrative offices along Sally Ride Drive. ARFF is staffed by Airport Operations personnel. Because the project would not result in an increase in operational capacity or population,no increase in demand for police, fire protection,rescue, and emergency medical services would be expected. Nor would school or park space be adversely affected. The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities. In addition, prior to issuance of individual building permits, the County Sherriff and CCCFPD would have the opportunity to review and provide input for individual development projects associated with Master Plan implementation of • the General Plan Amendment to ensure that each project complies with site design safety standards. In P:\BDK430\PRODUCTSUS-MND\Public\PUBLICIS('hecklist070808.doc(7/9/:!008) PURLICREVIEWDRAFT 58 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION addition, individual development projects at the Airport would be required to comply with the construction and fire suppression guidelines developed by the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, East Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, and the Contra Costa County Airports Division.19 For all of these reasons, implementation of the Master Plan would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts to public services. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XIV.RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ® a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (No Impact) Because neither the implementation of the Master Plan nor the General Plan Amendment is expected to result in an increase in the local population, the proposed the project would not increase demand for existing recreational facilities. In addition,neither the Master Plan nor the General Plan Amendment would involve the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (No Impact) See Section XIV.a. ® 19 Contra Costa County,2007. Guidelines for Construction of General Aviation Aircraft Hangars.February 13. P:�BDK430iPRODUCTSVS-MND\Public\PUBLIC ISChecklisc 070808.dm(7/9/2008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 59 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT WASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFTIC.Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e.,result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency or designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g., farm equipment)? • e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted polices,plans,or programs supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i:e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Less-Than- Significant Impact) The proposed project includes an update of the existing 1990 Master Plan for the Buchanan Field Airport and a related General Plan Amendment making revisions to the Land Use and Transportation/ Circulation elements. The objectives of implementing the Master Plan update are to: 1)reconfigure the taxiway system in order to create a more efficient circulation pattern within the Airport; 2)develop aviation and,non-aviation-related uses on underutilized portions of Airport property; and 3)ensure the compatibility of the Airport with adjacent land uses. The Master Plan update would not increase Airport operations. The proposed Master Plan update includes a Landside Development concept plan that would allow for aviation use facilities required for aircraft operation, storage,maintenance, and safety. The • P:\BDK430\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\PUBLIC ISChecklist 070808.dm(7/92008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 60 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION development would also include non-aviation related development on a portion of the site. The Landside development would involve construction on 45-acres of the project site. Additionally, the project's General Plan Amendment involves a revision to the Roadway Network Map contained in the Transportation/Circulation Element. This amendment would remove the Diamond Boulevard extension that is now shown as traversing the golf course from Concord Avenue to Marsh Drive on the Roadway Network Map, and include revisions and updates to policies in the text of the Transportation/Circulation Element. These revisions include removing the reference to requirements for the construction of the Diamond Boulevard extension as a prerequisite for development of the airport-owned property on the west side of Buchanan Field Airport. Potential traffic generating land uses on the site include hangar space, aviation office space, a restaurant, and business park space. Aviation office space requires increased space per employee compared to typical office development due to the need for large storage space, therefore, for purposes of this analysis, it is assumed a maximum of 63 employees would be employed at the airport office development. Lease provisions would restrict use of the office space to aviation uses, ensuring a low ratio of employees to square footage of office space. Trip generation for the uses that would be developed as part of the proposed project is shown in Table 2 below. ® Table 2: Project Trip Generation Estimates Size Daily Tris PM Peak Hour Land Use Rate Total Rate In Out Total Hangar' 32 planes 5.0 160 .52 9 8 17 Office 63 Employees 3.32 209 .46 5 24 29 Restaurant` 2,500 Square Feet 89.95 225 7.49 13 6 19 Business 18,500 square feet 12.76 236 1.29 5 19 24 Park Total Tris 830 1 32 1 57 89 Note: Numbers may not add due to independent rounding. e Based on ITE Code 022—General Aviation Airport.PM Peak hour of Generator.Based on anticipated ratio of hangar space to aircraft. b Based on ITE Code 710—General Office Building.Based on lease provisions;only aviation uses would be permitted to occupy the office space. Based on ITE Code 931—Quality Restaurant d Based on ITE Code 770-Business Park Source:LSA Associates,Inc.,January 2008 The Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program requires a detailed traffic impact analysis for projects that generate 100 or more peak hour trips. The proposed project would generate 89 peak hour trips. Therefore, additional analysis is not required. The increase in trips associated with the proposed project would not represent a substantial increase in traffic on the roadways surrounding the project site. P:\BDK430\PRODUCrSUS-MND\Public\PUBLIC ISChecklist 070808.d.(7/92008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 61 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency or designated roads or highways? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The project would not result in a significant increase in traffic volumes and would not exceed level of service standards established by the County. See Section XV.a. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The proposed project would expand the taxiway system at Buchanan Field Airport to create a more efficient circulation pattern within the airport.No adverse change in safety risks would be expected, and Airport safety and vehicular circulation would benefit from Master Plan changes. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) Vehicular access to the Airport would continue to be provided by Marsh Drive and Concord Avenue at John Glenn Drive. Under the proposed Master Plan and General Plan Amendment,the West Development Area would be developed but in much different and less intense level than the development planned as part of the 1990 Master Plan. The proposed project would require the reconfiguration of Sally Drive. Based on the Conceptual Development Plan,the reconfigured Sally Ride Drive would not have hazardous design features, and would improve vehicular and emergency access to the West Development Area. The project would reconfigure the existing taxiway system, develop underutilized portions of the Airport and ensure the compatibility of the Airport with adjacent land uses. At the Master Plan level of detail, the project would not create design feature hazards or result in incompatible uses. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) Vehicular access to the project would continue to be provided by Marsh Drive and Concord Avenue. Sally Ride Drive would be reconfigured to provide improved vehicular and emergency access to the West Development Area. The potential airport service road proposed for the southern portion of the site would also enhance emergency access. The Master Plan recommends the consolidation of emergency helicopter operations in the same area. This recommendation would benefit existing emergency operations and access. J) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) The conceptual development plan designates auto parking areas for sites that would potentially generate vehicle traffic. As each site is developed, the minimum number of parking spaces for the proposed land uses should be provided. The parking supply should be consistent with the County's requirements for the proposed land uses. Meeting the County's requirements for parking spaces by land use would ensure that the project would have adequate parking capacity. Implementation of the • P:IBDK430TRODUCTSUS.MND\Public\PUBLIC ISChecklist 070808.dm(7/9!2008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 62 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION following mitigation measure would ensure that subsequent specific development projects envisioned under the Master Plan would have adequate parking capacity. Mitigation Measure TRAFF-1: Development plans for aviation support facilities and non- aviation uses at the Airport shall include minimum off-street parking requirements as designated in County Code 82-16.018. g) Conflict with adopted polices,plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) Alternative transportation to the site is provided by Bay Area Rapid Transit(BART), which has stations in both downtown Concord and North Concord,both of which are located about 4 miles from the Airport. Local public transportation in the Concord area is provided by County Connection, which provides fixed-route bus and paratransit service throughout the central Contra Costa communities of Clayton, Concord,Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, Danville, San Ramon,Lafayette, Orinda, and Moraga, as well as unincorporated communities. Concord Avenue on the Airport's southern boundary has sidewalks along most of its length, and allows pedestrian crossings on at least one side of each major intersection, including at John Glenn Drive. The sidewalks on Concord Avenue connect to sidewalks that run the full length of John Glenn Drive,thereby providing pedestrian access to on-airport facilities. Several local bicycle routes serve the Buchanan Field Airport. Bike routes are provided along Marsh Drive and an off-street bike trail follows the eastern side of Walnut Creek Channel. Additionally, as part of the General Plan Amendment,the roadway alignment and right-of-way segment for the Diamond Boulevard extension that traverses the golf course would be reserved as corridor for a regional trail and/or light rail transit. A regional trail or light rail link through this area would benefit alternative transportation programs. The proposed project,which would not affect existing transit,pedestrian, or bike access, would not conflict with policies, plans, or other programs supporting alternative transportation. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 71 applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board`' b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? P:�BDK430V'RODUCTSUS-MNDV'ublic�PUBLIC[SChecklis070808.doc(7/9/2008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 63 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and • regulations related to solid waste? a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) Wastewater conveyance would be served by existing main lines, and implementation of the Master Plan would not require new or significantly altered wastewater infrastructure. Contra Costa County Sanitation District(CCCSD)owns and operates the Wastewater Treatment Plant(WWTP) in Martinez. The Treatment Plant has a wet weather design capacity of 240 million gallons per day(mgd) and a dry weather design capacity of 55 mgd. The average effluent discharge from the WWTP is currently limited to 53.8 mgd by RWQCB NPDES permits.20 The average daily dry weather flow in 2004 (the most recent year information is available) was 39.9 mgd. Master Plan development would not result in a significant change in operational capacity at the Airport due to the nature of proposed development. Implementation of the Master Plan and General Plan Amendment would not generate sigrnificant amounts of wastewater and any small future increases in wastewater generation could be accommodated by the existing capacity of the WWTP. Therefore, Master Plan development would not;exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB. 20 Leavitt,Russ,Engineering Assistant II,Central Contra Costa Sanitary District,2005.Personal communication • with LSA Associates,Inc.,December 7. P:\BDK430\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\PUBLIC ISChecklis1070808.doc(7/912008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 64 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 200E INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less-Than-SignificantImpact) The Airport is located in Contra Costa Water District's (CCWD) Treated Water Service Area. CCWD operates two water treatment plants within its water supply and distribution system: the Robert D. Bollman Water Treatment Plant and the Randall-Bold Water Treatment Plant(co-owned by the Diablo Water District). CCWD's overall daily treatment capacity is 100 mgd. Future development associated with implementation of the Master Plan or the General Plan Amendment would not significantly increase water demand at the Airport.No new major water treatment facilities would be required as a result of this project. As noted above in Section XVI.a, neither the Master Plan implementation nor the General Plan Amendment would require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Master Plan implementation or development as a result of the General Plan Amendment may alter the existing drainage on the site, requiring the construction of new storm drain facilities, which could in turn result in adverse environmental effects. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO-la and lb and HYDRO-2 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. See Section VIII.d. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Less-Than Significant Impact) The Contra Costa Water District(CCWD) supplies water to the Airport. CCWD receives a maximum delivery of 195,000 acre-feet per year from the Central Valley Project(CVP),with a reduction in deliveries during times of water shortages, such as drought years.21 CCWD does-not anticipate any constraints to the provision of water for new development in the built-out portions of the County, including the Airport.22 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) Please see Section XVI.a. 21 Garland,Fran,Principal Planner,Contra Costa Water District,2005.Personal communication with LSA Associates,Inc.,November 14. ® 22 Contra Costa Water District,2005.Water Quality—The Source of Your Water.httT)://www/ccwater.com. September 21. P:\BDK430\PRODUCfS\IS-WJD\Public\PUBLIC ISChecklist 070808.dm(7/9/2008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 65 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Less-Phan-Significant Impact) Franchised solid waste collection, disposal, and recycling services for the Airport are provided by Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal. Airport waste is hauled to any one of the three landfills located within the County or to landfills located outside of the County. Solid waste generated by Master Plan development would include construction and demolition waste due to the renovation of existing or construction of new buildings as well as the removal of existing pavements. Operational waste would also be generated by new development. However,neither the Master Plan implementation nor the General Plan Amendment would generate a significant amount of solid waste, such that the permitted capacity of any receiving landfills would be significantly adversely affected. Airport waste oil is collected and recycled by Clear Water. Businesses and individuals dispose of hazardous waste generated at their facilities to the nearest solid waste facility that accepts such products. Master Plan development would not increase Airport-wide hazardous waste generation or substantially reduce the capacity of receiving hazardous waste facilities. g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (No Impact) The project would comply with all federal, State, and local solid waste statutes and/or regulations related to solid waste. • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a.fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict:the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal,or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.) t P9BDK4301PRODUCISVS-MND1Public\PUBLIC ISLTecldist 070808.da(7/92008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 66 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Master Plan implementation or development under the General Plan Amendment could adversely affect protected wildlife and riparian habitats. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO- la and BIO-lb would ensure that potential impacts to burrowing owls are mitigated to a less-than- significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would ensure that potential impacts to riparian habitats are also reduced to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measures CULT-1 through CULT-4 would ensure that potential cultural resources within the Airport are evaluated and protected, ® as appropriate. With mitigation, neither the implementation of the Master Plan nor the General Plan Amendment would : 1) degrade the quality of the environment; 2) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; 3)cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; 4) threaten to eliminate a plan or animal community; 5)reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or 6)eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) (Less-Than-Significant Impact) Other planned and anticipated projects at the Airport are included in Table 3. These foreseeable projects could be expected to result in minimal adverse environmental impacts, similar to the implementation of the Master Plan. These impacts could include incremental increases in stormwater runoff,minor disturbances to wildlife, and other effects typical of projects undertaken in already- developed areas. With the mitigation measures recommended in this IS/MND, the impacts of Master Plan implementation or General Plan Amendment are individually limited and not cumulatively considerable in the context of impacts associated with other pending or planned projects. Master Plan implementation would result in additional aviation and non-aviation-related development, consistent with existing uses at the Airport. All environmental impacts that could occur as a result of Master Plan implementation or the General Plan Amendment would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this IS/MND. P:V3DK430�PRODUC7SUS-MND�PublicV'UBLIC 1SChecklist o70s08.doc(7/9/2oos) PUBLIC REVIEWD)UIFT 67 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • Table 3: Approved and Pro ose'd Development Within the Airport Applicant/ Project Title Acres Location Proposed Use Concord Jet 5.5 West side,north of Airport offices Hangar and offices ace Seecon 2.03 West side,south of Apex Aviation Corporate hangar and offices ace DHI 0.9 Fest side,north of Sally Ride Drive and Corporate hangar and office space west of Apex Aviation ADG 9.0 West side,south of Sally Ride Drive and 44 small,medium,and large hangars,office, east of Center Avenue and community space CCR Hangars 11.0 North side,west of Walnut Creek Channel Mixed-use hangar area,with office complex LLC Sterling East side Redevelopment of existing fixed base Aviation 5.4 operations,new office space,restaurant and arking gara e East Ramp 46 East ramp 5 existing tie-downs to be converted to box 11 Project ' and t-hangars Source: Lee,Beth,2007.Airport Business and Development Manager,Buchanan Field Airport.August 23. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Implementation of the Master Plan could expose construction workers and the public to soils or • groundwater that have been contaminated by historical land uses at the Airport. However, imple- mentation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-la,HAZ-lb, and HAZ-2 would reduce this hazard to human health to a less-than-significant level. • P:IBDK43OTPODUCTSIIS-MNDIPublicIPUBLIC ISCbecklis1070808.doc(7/9%!008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 68 REPORT PREPARATION A. REPORT PREPARERS LSA Associates,Inc. 2215 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 David Clore, Principal-in-Charge Adam Weinstein,Associate,Project Manager Theresa Bravo,Planner Amy Fischer, Transportation/Air Quality/Noise Specialist Phil Ault, Analyst Patty Linder, Graphics and Production Jennifer Morris, Word Processing ® E. REFERENCES Association of Bay Area Governments, 1995. Hazard Map Dam Failure Inundation Areas, Concord, CA. Association of Bay Area Governments, 2006. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones Map. http://guake.abag ca.gov. August 16. Barnard Dunkelberg and Company, 2006. Buchanan Field Master Plan Working Paper Three. January. Barnard Dunkelberg&Company, Buchanan Field Airport,Part 150 Study/Working Paper One. June 2006 California Department of Conservation,Division of Land Resource Protection, 2006. Important Farmland Map for Contra Costa County. July. California Natural Diversity Database(CNDDB), 2006. Special-status Species Occurrences from the Walnut Creek 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 2006. Memorandum from Tim Jensen,Associate Civil Engineer,to Beth Lee, Business and Development Manager, Airport Division.November 16. Contra Costa County, 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005—2020. January 2005 (reprinted April 2006). P.\BDK430\PRODUCiSIIS-MND\Public\PUBUC ISCbecktist 070808.doc(7/9/2008) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 69 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BUC:HANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS JULY 2008 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • Contra Costa Water District, 2005. `Water Quality—The Source of Your Water. http://www/ccwater.com. Settember 21. Contra Costa County, 2007. Guidelines for Construction of General Aviation Aircraft Hangars. February 13. Contra Costa County, Board of Supervisors, 1979. Buchanan Field Airport Policy and Standards for Development. June 26. Garland,Fran,Principal Planner, Centra Costa Water District, 2005. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc.,November 14. Hodges& Shutt, 1993.Drainage an!d Flood Control Study, Buchanan Field Airport. January 28. Michael,A.J., et. al., 2005. Major Quake Likely to Strike Between 2000 and 2030— Understanding Earthquake Hazards in the San Francisco Bay Region. USGS Fact Sheet 152-199. Rev. May 6. Leavitt, Russ, Engineering Assistant II, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, 2005. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc., December 7. Uniform Building Code, 1997, Volume 2, Div. 5,page 2-23. • P:iBDK430iPRODUCTSVS-MNDTublic\PUBLIC ISChecklist 070808.doc(7/9%5008) PUBLIC REVIEWDRAFT 70 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(MMRP)has been formulated based upon the findings of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration(IS/MND)for the proposed Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update and General Plan Amendment(project)in Contra Costa County. The MMRP lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND for the proposed project and identifies monitoring and reporting requirements. The MMRP specifies the County department responsible for implementing and monitoring each measure. Table 1 presents the mitigation measures identified for the proposed project. Each mitigation measure is numbered with a symbol indicating the topical section to which it pertains,a hyphen,and the impact number.For example,AIR-1 is the first mitigation measureidentifiedin the Air Quality analysis of the IS/MND. The first column of Table 1'identifies the mitigation measure. The second column,entitled"Party Responsible_for Implementing Mitigation,"names the party responsible for carrying out the required action.The third column,"Implementation Procedure,"describes the steps involved in implementing the mitigation measure. The fourth column,"Implementation Timing,"identifies the time the mitigation measure should be initiated.The fifth column,"Party Responsible for Monitori ng,"names the party ultimately responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. "Action by Monitor"outlines the steps for monitoring the action identified in the mitigation measure.The seventh column,entitled"Monitoring Timing,"states the time the monitor must ensure that the mitigation measure has been implemented. The last column will be used by the County to ensure that individual mitigation measures have been monitored. C:IDocimm.-d Sm p\AW..t6.\D.1dop\MNWP-I.d« 1 ' 0 O u •C6 .. Q L' •LolO A ° a z to ' •C a� a Q2 E Of F 41� N � � a i C •C U O CL t; a. C F o.' ci a E a� 'N 000 > > ,> � w h UUAU � AUAG.1. m � Q c � U ' O L � 01 U � •d y . E obi E ~ z v 0 �•G ayCi Oa ❑ . a OC, ca .SG ° � tti Q° � °' v o c o 9 i ['�., � � cn'o � o o �, •° � may ° . .� � �? �? 3 O '_' O i•" p O .,d, cC �.' C. � � O 4' F e V icy ❑ pq `�' .-• N b .O O eV v p ami .0 m iC cC C c4C 3 O O cd U .V O O > O . a; z o L ° � e V Ci £" W 0 z - W Cq aW C b z % y a° o o D h O C v L N z O T d w N G C 5 o 7.0m -5 C a Z p, h O W p bD p U ❑ O C a � .� •� ° 3 aL°i z d� o cd 0 o a U L � vi d E L••� L h �y L'i CC Vi Q� Q� •Vl [- as a a a ❑ > 0 > ; c a o o ° o p a� o 0 w° UUAU caAUAA s < e c M D e ea s o z °' F• o •a � • a C. 6 m '" z •v ° U L Cl W T � Y ^ � Co 6a p, A O A d.L O G C O m"" .. a � o > •ap a U o Uc°i cvd G CG w � ` cg L •y � ° w E CDtocn w '.>^ d q N ai b o w 0 >^ .� m °'„ c c`a ro ❑ ° ° •� v 44)i = d o '�^ cc '4o. a°i o o °p 0 m - y 9 z L i r- id �.+' O U >. O 3 .� .� N O 'b p cd o m y c��a a .� `� 3 a�Ctli •� o v o ` o a0i F o 3 T o U _ > o ° p a w Q U H C 3 0 O ° 7 C N C Z p y ccv N E ° :: 3 `� o on � 3 ° cu•.. ..v •0 3 'C • L E >.b •v q o A .n � ° 3 •� a a : y U = UNo U 0 Om u m • m . U y U - IIw K v C C O U O =19 r I x ' W G y d ..t � 5+ ✓ 61 1�..ra � O- � R G m Gi•G y. ° o fApUA m 4• �'�+ :G c o o� vp U G p � C4 o c°�U GZ� �•e's C4 C Cd W •a � en a�.G q � 45 � R� .Q .a Ck •'U a 0 $ t. 'y 0 i G ✓ O m c J O Ir. G a . � �;` p w0 m"fl �O i m�V y.y Nom.-+mak.. � � •y tD y' �' � O �^.'� ,V'•„w0'� O w R m R O tm. J N •A N 9 ' . v i 9 O Q•G O � w >� O G �� rte' � 00 d' ria � �� 9. y R o m o S> R -G > aoi N m m U G m A O w � 6 E'er' a w • o � u y u cd A z w E z e ti of z � ov tw a e b ti . < L o L as te z z o > n v � C y <� � w � w •a•� � � c w � ° `od � o � cc a d C ye °PQ C «N O C U °' °' E C o Q o o o a °�i o 0 0 ° F y /- .L. ❑ ed rn N O] ti .L+ C cd - N N ..N. . a s' O O d 0 /N� O /N•� •/'�—•� 0 0 0 O b O N ••�+ 4 W UUQU eCdnUI—/ FSI UU ,QU cCdQ UA Q - a o o O y ° o a a L c • G o 0 5 U O y CLW N y O O . w _ d) • i C ° N m u .0 owL° C 3 cj ed 8 0 a b o o fl Q y Dr O 3 3 d .R .?w. cw L o . a, a L O Lcd N • O `''"' .-. C _' p Ca^ e �" v00 ❑ ia� •°' ai b p ov o L auQ o b .� :: U W L .0 s C t~ C U L O d C > O C •'a ;,d U y C O ::•= • v 9 z N L O L CW U O O. d d N Q 0. T�n O cd cd > d y ti C i y .� •vi 3 Q•'E ° u 7 O O O .�. G w a� ni L+ +•�-' R.b O cd O C m .W. N U Q•"C O 4'; ti ca fl o 0. =u o o w :o -0 t�•_° w °: �° c�.°_ aai ' a a o a0+ L cd O w 4., r.' U .•. ..0 .� A. O O V d C -- fL h O 5 'o 0 a C-q harnn Ws a7 o°N'> i N •' ' ._ .Y U+- OU ` rfl LO O. o Fes -5 , opCOUm y O cd N N CO '6 Ecc 0w0O0 CCM lU b Q = CCo O Oa .2o a) >1 w ° .o m "0 t5 o. 3 .j a U U3L rb y'"sx W O H y zd : OZA o 2z > U q a E. z ma y f° en a� c °' •OF O v ... p z W F. in W m z •"a b z Cd o .. �zo E� 3Cc ° o o. c oaF a B � > a O O a� h 4rT y LY O. r z't. u y > y O O u a> m ej O. C F C O.L.py cd L>' ' y O O O O F, a y C. w F' cd vi > > .y C. 7 0 C > > w° UUAU 9AUL1A a , z ani a F" G L O � 'b � • a C O 15. C3 0 � G L O L v v to w o p = C O LTi w CO L •N C of w E - u oO OO L d • ONO a)T ft .0 UO O Rt O Y NpUNCV CO O V NO 'y,e�yn wV CO .NON ateV rA) ~ap. C N�•, gj wy .�'�W'" O p .� O ..d -O C .b •cC 'b Oco Cl) CL cdW'� U '00j) N cz F. .E— £i °° v ° DO � aoi b m ID `;. cLi U c`v o� ;c cd �.t a L �o � Op t7 Lo � •� � v � U m to 040 '. .•-.� ° .a �; v •t� ,; o n, N v c ° o b N ''� '• o T y ,°•��••'' ° ° °� Q Ccz ya Fmd a'+ Opa Loc ccu sCd Lc '+❑. .� LaC,ULO 3 LC3V •LLO NL ^ s ,° y, �7Ey '�Okn V Wo Gy '•' •01�^. U� i 4U"-00m" GGy 0 cd i ' E 'cc C c u o C �, u u za i a w w W tu h u a ° ry C � y CL F � O � O a ro a = °= C 0 3 � y F 24 W .[ m a o 13 F:, G Ir 4 h v 8 O cOo CU 5 " s CU m G A y ct1 0 V LL tSY ^ m o U O � • O m O O y C �•.+ U 0 ° u 3 co �' G cV ° •O C. cc «i v v c4.>, n� a h 'o c a o ey_. '(5 v a ca y :' .�. L y 'U O N•.. w ,U itt i• "" U C m d O U ❑ ctt rUn ° > o ._ C •:, a 3. -acc u t^ a .c � a,... -o •�.�• � ° '� a < o ce .0 'tee e� o> o a c �lV o .-_�. �•n 3 � � y 0,-0 � a olU y C V O t: �•. w O V b > °" 'S7 .� O t7 6� N-C 8... v C 9 d N WZ 's sz O U ro O p O 2 w O O •N b W U ¢l ect y r 'C7 4r Q v, N . 43 E O z C 00 za F� A ate. 99 Z i O � y a apa + .0 U •4 C a a w v a �" m o a a 'V Q Z V F _O Op N N O O > V Q c o o m0 80 h U <O G 0 0 O O 'E aCi aYCi . 3 ^ 10 °' E 4 0 0 F 0 ? 8a o a .?n y u > y > c V y y p w < i'C a J c a E Cd w C0 ° ° •° a a a d > > '> c w U U A U A U Q Q d a C a o c � o a Z CL pyo a � o V . yp„ ~O ai xy 0 p G. O O i •o C G,b v aon a msCd a W O m y O h N N L d C1. y N O etl ❑ O — U t Urn U_ 0 E O - a� o 7 3 0- 10 E 0., r V U > N ` ` o a W d E N d N w 6 E v o + L W = a O L S 0 ¢ a to ' U U cC 'C7 •N Ry rFn mo ZS �d'°_-', v �•�y'^°qt44�a°aJ'o'OUcN°a' soaZwUs ca>ai �aaa :°' o" a yCaas .oa E°' 0 00 cd 0 O wo u !C. .�a°°a 'O > o '. ° v n�° o U ma ,oo0 cos m °oC E 0 o`0 o s 0 'o a=C,3 ^ � s g a co - yo 0Aa _ oAUEa ° EEE 0c) 3 U ' Oa O to N oOovo va� Id aea_ U U Cbo 3 ^ 0UOO •V^ oU U. yop a '., w U o ° °a 3 ° eti n ` d� 5- to � 0 � Etl •y . ° Q ocd oQ ' > = ° 0 U C4 'a U UxcnAy>c wU c�yaEo+nV� .�0os a UZ 9 U dv Fa � Z W o t� 9 chi as �� bs r � a c , e -,c-y y U CD a cd U F O N U cC 17 O cm C m p" y�OCG+•'�, � N wed ��'` � � N � O �� O � Yf''`� U 3`'j °' as °� ,°^� ea d o m o o ea •r D otd y 5 '� ca G ca N cd v6 ,w Y `� ol 3 ea o m w v y cad °ry o' Obo �a U u d ✓ d✓ m end oll p 9 R N N ca os ri, d N tY"CY r` ea .n N Q+. J ' 1 a o U cid $: Z v y td'A ci w F � z a G � t w Pqt 4"n O yy N U ° Is r F a c 0 a G a ' z m � s°'• o y �� U � m a:G °v °J ro r � f o p O fl .•F o v off„ o ° o ° N o ° az a ,• ° ca G o � E .wo °z, y"` ym � yroa� 6y � 55G � �y9. "CS ..f G 'l "' O �-' '', � ci c«+ p G V.�' il.` G '' �.. cd V � .✓ O U,t" ,q'. � d ° o G N y CJ v G G o•, ° G ti, o ° m is .Ga ° ��+ '{• 7 o y o v r6 y �• Os N % olYr t� R rG r A `"•.' y a "d U Ca Q,� G S R N y y w a� epi' o U „ • d w tti d N a . 7 y G G C 4 A z y w y� � V � z oG td d td a. � •+- p cn ota. a x a ti. e me Q 'i «s td OD 0 bD �.. w i C C U A v, '� � �•� N G y G o y C y .. r a � 0 0 a w < W N x x. a o `ns a.Y � a CA m v- a m d W > w A A G o ed ..• W i+ � L V e�6 N Q •�� V y Ql , . t° p w is5 .ry 'b0 G �. p y`•--,"' Ty Q w U O "' .fl N ``� v x' p O t ..a °� o o ti C� o p a a. o� b . •x c ~Otd od 5 � � Z/, oy " o. crxc � • x m .0 d Q � .,•. .-• W O p ice.. O ^ r � y� N N � cE Aj 9., p od a� U � �'� •o � nen a� is � .� •• r o C ou .5 y .5 x A 7 Q C N W�'L';;...,;.....+•+'G a w ,� OA 9 RS .a e � A ofl v G G 'fir. C u> 9 � 6'r•`�' ?e6'r3 i^`O y i y �,� N •N N O A ;4 e �.� O p, � N U •N 7 :G G�+ yo„ UU •G o onG' � w o c � .H g �'� � �•�x Y o � w ty 0tD Z Lr .✓ X63 w r^r! £^ O .0 ON a w e o o ✓ U W N W 4• tt� 4 6 0 ts •p^ ! y G.y Q .fl U p °� �'" cb i.G m ✓G..� ."� �' V v tQd i A m %O N C zOj•. �" ,Of. � a' .✓ U �" •m m {°�". N T ri o ^ o to N A G ti-O v o y a Uy 'id d O •y y N R ° J P vPw -6 � oAo.�oD p•� a�i o d G � ° : °•� 9.Q+i G %'.G�p .U•+.-^ .+ rP N ..+E G+ "` p O y 7 O v au ca ai ca d r• d .. G G 3 V•.) J N W G am/' O •U 'G'in .L� •" G 'GC, O• N v �'.N a rot•°� �;; � :? ;,��o'No �•o °'� �� °= c� �, � oG � �a-c oD HCl � p Ny ... f>+i ,,..� U d`�' �U ';1 � Ud•N t«+ �'"� � �'' �', �.G ed� � . Z ,�,,' � � � p.U '�'f' ,��+d U W N �� w a� dam•�,'' N%o. � e � 4y m .-1 w a d ° c co y y oz z � w f w G d y•c z G a. d a L %A Cd a Z o �, w � V O O z d � w � F a d ° u o d' z d � F w a � c a 4 � � C � G a z � • a x � C m o y a C 0 CA � u � L 8 L � , �'a a 'aW•0 � � °a O. N O ." Na m o05 o % m 0 is a — b y ce n .n U N N v ci - y � � � � N :: nu ° °^ a� •°'.c cui � �'3 $ � 'm y•� $.y c ° •c3� •pU � � d p w.N'{w "�Y �/• �. o 0 N d >+ bA'..� N ed � �.rte+ N U •° v m �" fi aoi a v S is 4 a p •N o 15- o Y- y u N O� ^. � ai � � d U RsY o ° y mr' m "p w �w ,Q N i w 0 O F Z y O •O m a P. o on a z w ` 7 C C C cd s p a � 3 y •D •b0�.. � :« � LL O 'V, Z N W w G N N U' CL d a > cc h s .7 d w •� i ° CO C i C - � ao � 0E eqM. o .� c+ 0 ° a W U U A U w Q U A a 00 Z 41 E., Q 'O s7 U 7 y m y `cd C lu . O itl iC � ti � O . 03 L O L d u Cd fl O .G CO t- C. Cd r- 0 o w b .bo44,-.1, ca •0 C-2. CdCL i um. O C p y •� epi a Q O . a a .0cw Noaenb � � � Cpc > ov W � a ` v �' o � oa ma -0 E7 o; > � cocdy � api � Ads°'. ° . 9 cd '� �. O O •G ` Y.� v a' 4Ci y p w _� 'C b p, w N C d v;V] C •d C w O 5 p N y 0 E a w y E a1 c c o o '� ° � ° o w o M 3 y Uw U c ? 4i o o o ° o ° o ° b' P? b E-p o c° o o . y > o a1 cn a _ono 4; o w � 4y '_' � C �- •� � 'd � v � O `n �" C bn �' a s d Nro s o o s > ❑ > o o o > a > o a o oq E ° 41 9 ccs y a s o a s c o c g o s o 0 0 ° o a1 a1 x ° [� sb v ate, o O • V'1 w o:y � u _ EzA F � dv W > n Z � � c Z d o E-F a a dZ a pa 1. Z w W O G C a d F.a 6 p 7 L d G a 0 a o C w ai EK L c• < G L ~ d 5 U O CA o • u w D C b u u � u - d to. y 6Q � C C tLC•O .cwon a+ o ol A N' tG �' O .G ,�.G •ca .4 .0 C O xoa ca'i ° ' 3 ar AT d o o cQ y G Y g m .�.. ^6 U Cd o r .o $ 0 o V m .o .G r1 O O m 0. O S a� rnw � •� cd 'H3 y . tl3 C ' a V O v G ' 61 � J GES Q ci ci y W N �V J ' d W $ ;yam O �•� � � d ° aA+ C•y U � � O � � m � �, � 000aU `° • x O p V d E' SS d J d y w a o " Cd tG (Q L+ ; N n tli kA 0 oma°' m ti J y m �� j U J co �' G J °� �6 • C� C.N t" O O J J ` F V 7 — o � � d J •� o� � ° mo w '' d •� N O O v O ..p � � � p .� R ' W a o � , d a c � ow w Z' w o P ~Q W y a C ov c D 40 ot d N 5,• .p, o � u 6 v G s u Q a d A Oar U y aamy +'� a L H Ow •OG y w o m A o O Gi+ Q C 'Ty �• cd y " N N w m .+ 43 W .ty nl V., Ir. a 9 0.+ w A O p -S3 9 .O .•--�.A U bA tu'a p g N N .C} T- •� cd mi`,,r' ,,•. -, T L: '1cd w O .A+"A' t'6 .�L� A cd v3 a S H .o 0 0.. - °' at, u 4 Ie a� Z a � v � v2•�'oaw v -o' �„ � � o � .y d ... a� 4, •.c, � -a .a � oc °DpS. Rcy'ya7oa, GG � 000 � ° � aaitod u 6 ns O e3 v b�0 r 3 g H A O v d DUs U v �G c Un Ery 14) N„ 4 �4 �� E 0 pta p az = oUa w�'n � � QAImQQ/ � o �„ a odpaiy3itt � > oTy � 0006aQ • ew d N �r6 w as U ^i a' � c Z 1 � C i a a a O bA G. w zo a 3 o Z: o H o w un F ice.+ ,tee' � U �• Cd � � � . . a c p ani a.0 03 z F d ci' "Wo 3 v ° d o as M c .� w o : Q .O •O CL CA 0 GX O C.7UrG� W.LhR a a . a C . w O to m Or TJ a 'Cw r�.. o o � U DT c cd ao K .2 cPCo U w > o o U o c a G ats. U c n E w v 3E o y aci m Cd a c 3 va ao •w c �y o c cl o E ofy C13 � _ 3 a, � > bA o c w cor o v W o c ❑ . �y b U y c a o w o.- c o v «, o ° d .,a w a c 3 .� .G �°� as °' oAd ci 9 Z. 0? it Zsy'L7. U rUi, O .` c° -C�pJ w •�o oa cco °ocEwa- E 'd) wa"O�"',.a`; .'°U' aS ao o Qa�61 "ti>Q ?v? O3 a Uo� cao o c CcA• -yoN �o>.,UU�OC.qsGae. co �ep, o o FN o a o bb Ua nA o .b -0o 'a5Gnom ami Uaoo2acis� � ao. ar3 9 y � G a , rn oo;, d r 7 ' Z e0 gyp/•E'r d } w w C• a 9 z p d r� O w p p tr 9.O •N :i� °• � O Oma+ � ' m � vd d C O •N a � o d d•� a mcct�" i G l w � Z d Z d p U y y w a y d ag y, N N CC J N d ...+ 3 a" oOr+ 0 0 ami .p v ;�, � �P ea � � p'� O• •� p A .� '� 3 � � •oma a� cd -' r' � � � NU rya rn � ,.. *�" � Y✓ .Jig J CY sd .. O* Yr V d O O y G � ,�,Wa � • as v.W } w v p � et CIA a` p to .L' '° 4 'O �60 •Cy a td td wF. a G ° U c UL°}.�rQWQ '� h F ' y `4 0 rot y `3 IZy u x14) � y n, o -it 9 p O N N N.O 'd fl ccnd•N •r O �n 'L} .-+ t�. ^ 3 cjcz �U3ow aycV g`� C3Q�U O O •'m T Q p,w ca :ty U .,. =..,; > ., y U r > �y G 'g N 00 W U O L . U.y y T C. ,r p v^d T} y,^G .,.� p °, °' 'e, ca �' °' mac•. .✓ C w i i�'d N «+ e0 N cE Z5 y d a o N N `N° T ° r °?w td 0.4 G p p3' N O Ott sn •y rte+ � t°,,, F,•� •zy � y �. � p .� p• •o > `� a• r? �rr�, _G� G p m w a� � ,.� G` d � P+ N o d v G C y of �, •y U � 7 z P V � ✓ J 6'P p � OQ dG cd 0 DD W • d d Lj"U C� �,• G� w d p d 0 P osis - d d 7i H'd O W . .wry.a a� ..y N f 0 • p!d v •N J .qG O Op'.'• y�',y 'A b11 '✓ 7 ,T �}`eb p•!d G y S„' 3 y pr, P" N .4 A O O d N O y O y N✓y •O A ,�",. �a,Nd 9 N N w y . y' m'CS O• 9 A �G O y '✓ aY• m O G^O�po O ✓y p G w �8 w '� 4 d P � � A m �"? d 9`'. p o O v +'' td� Cp i d "p y-� d � o � � 9.. a p .y �D V v d i •9 O b�r "O✓ 9 ib ✓ O`O O w- , O 7 'T J ✓� '7'•00 N O m v' ✓A 7 ✓ A N O•i N ✓ 'w •�, v . In 75 P S w. y !• m C A O o A ✓ da w N U x 'w G o A •�-� .O a y ' w cd ''� �✓ �'� qty,p O O � � � 'y_ 6 w cd Q•Q G � � � _ T. 'rte by i' a p t3 p � o rp VIS ry fl CA 4S �` U1 .• O.. of a� Ul 2 o w „a Ro,o+ oo �+ N 0 Y" W y Cd r1td d cd N W F LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CARLSBAD PALM SPRINGS SAN LUIS OBISPO L C A 2215 FIFTH STREET 510.540.7331 TEL FORT COLLINS POINT RICHMOND SEATTLE J ` BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94710 510.540.7344 FAA FRESNO RIVERSIDE S. SAN FRANCISCO IRVINE ROCKLIN MEM-ORANDUM DATE: September 16,2008 TO: Patrick Roche, Principal Planner, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development. FROM: Adam Weinstein;Theresa Bravo and David Clore SUBJECT: Response to Comments on the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update and General Plan Amendment Draft IS/MND This memorandum provides a response to the written comments received on the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update and General Plan Amendment Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration(Draft IS/MND). The public review period for the Draft IS/MND extended from July 11 to August 11,2008. Comment letters on the Draft IS/MND were received from the following agencies and individuals: Letter A: State of California,Governor's Office of Planning and Research(August 12,2008) ® Letter B: State of California,Governor's Office of Planning and Research(August 12,2008) Letter C: State of California,Delta Protection Commission(July 31,2008) Letter D: California Regional Water Quality Control Board(August 11,2008) Letter E: Contra Costa CountyAirport Land.Use Commission(August 8, 2008) Letter F: Contra Costa County Public Works Department(August 11,2008) Letter G: City of Martinez(July 25,2008) Letter H: City of Concord(August 8,2008) Letter 1: Jeff Horner(July 28,2008) The comments in each of these letters are enumerated and discussed below. Comments are numbered in the margin of each letter.For instance,Response D-2 refers to the second enumerated comment on the California Regional Water Quality Control Board letter. The enumerated letters are attached to this memorandum. Corrections to the Draft IS/MND that are appropriate in light of.the comments received and responses provided,or which are necessary to clarify material in the Draft IS/MND,are included in the .responses. Underlined text represents language that has been added to the Draft IS/MND; text with ® seat has been deleted from the Draft IS/MND. PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DESIGN _ r LSA ASSOCIATES A.NC. Letter A: State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research August 12, 2008 Response A-1: This cover letter was mailed by the California State Clearinghouse with a letter submitted by the Delta Protection Commission on the Draft IS/MND. The letter from the Delta Protection Commission is'included in this memorandum as Letter C.The cover letter from the State Clearinghouse notes that Contra Costa County has complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for environmental documents.No further response is required. Letter B: State of California,Governor's Office of Planning and Research August 12, 2008 . Response B-1:This comment indicates that.the State Clearinghouse received a comment letter from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) on the Draft IS/MND after the official close of the comment period. This memorandum includes responses to all letters submitted on the Draft IS/MND,including the Regional 'Water Quality Control Board letter(which is included as Letter D). Letter C: State.of California,Delta Protection Commission Response C-L• This comment,which states.that the Master Plan area is located outside of the jurisdiction of the Delta Protection Commission, is noted.No further response is required. Letter D: California Regional Water Quality Control Board August 1.1,2008 . Response D-1: This,comment,which requests that State and federal jurisdictional waters on the project site be identified,is noted. A wetland delineation of the entire Master Plan area was not conducted as part of the environmental review for the Master Plan Update and General Plan Amendment because such a delineation was not required to identify the significant environmental effects of the project(and appropriate mitigation measures). Identification of potential jurisdictional features on individual development sites within the Master Plan area would be identified as individual development projects are proposed. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BI0-3a and-3b would ensure that impacts associated with fill of jurisdictional features that may occur with development of Master Plan projects would be reduced to a less than-significant level. Response D-2: This comment, which states that the RWQCB does not prefer the use of off--site mitigation banks for compensatory mitigation,is noted. In response to this comment,page 32 of the Draft IS/MND is modified as follows: Mitigation Measure BI0-3a: When specific development projects envisioned by the Master. Plan are proposed, the project sponsor shall obtain the appropriate State and federal pen-nits authorizing-the fill of Airport drainages considered waters of the State and/or the U.S.The project sponsor shall provide proof to the County of compliance with the terms and conditions of the permits prior to issuance of a grading permit. 2 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Mitigation Measure 13I0-3b: Individual projects proposing to fill any areas subject to Corps or Regional Board jurisdiction on Airport property.shall first avoid and/or minimize such impacts, to the extent feasible. If avoidance is not feasible,preferred mitigation shall consist of on-site preservation of jurisdictional features at a minimum mitigation ratio of 2:1 (area created and/or enhanced: area impacted). If on-site mitigation is determined to be infeasible individual project sponsors shall provide compensatory off-site mitigation and shall comply with Corps and Regional Board requirements. Preferred off-site mitigation shall occur within the watershed where the impacts would occur.be4The purchase of mitigation credits in an approved mitigation bank shall occur only if all other preferred mitigation options are infeasible and shall occur at a minimum ratio of 24-:1 (area purchased: area impacted).The purchase of mitigation credits would compensate for the loss of wetlands and would likely be required at axatio of up to-2:1 or greater,depending on the functional or ecological value of the impacted feature. The purchase of credits and obtaining the necessary Corps and Regional Board authorizations must be verified by the County prior to the initiation ofconstruction activities within wetlands or jurisdictional features on-site. Response D-3: The comments on the Hangars Project(which entails a separate application for development on the Airport site)are noted. The Hangars Project was evaluated for environmental impacts independently from the Master Plan Update and General Plan Amendment. The environmental analysis in the Draft IS/MND,including the identification of mitigation measures, ® has been conducted in accordance with the level of detail available for the proposed project. As is typical for environmental review of a Master Plan and General Plan Amendment(where development details would be specified as individual projects are proposed),certain mitigation measures require the preparation of additional studies (e.g.,wetland delineations),review by the County of these studies to ensure that they are adequate, and the procurement of permits from State and federal agencies(which require adherence to certain environmental standards).The mitigation measures in the Draft IS/MND establish specific criteria that County reviewers can use to determine if the subsequent studies and permit requirements are adequate and fulfill the intent of each mitigation measure. CEQA Guidelines section 15126.5 specifically forbids the deferral of mitigation measures to a later date,but'states that"mitigation measures may specify performance standards which would mitigate the significant effect of the project and which may be accomplished in more than one specified way." Certain mitigation measures in the Draft IS/MND(including the wetlands-related.mitigation measures referenced in the comment)require the project sponsor of an individual development project to undertake additional analysis at a later date,and to incorporate the results of this analysis—and permit requirements—into the project plans. However,such mitigation measures do not"defer" mitigation to a later date because: 1)the mitigation measures in the IS/MND specify certain perfor- mance standards that must be met by both the project sponsor of an individual development project and the required analysis/permit conditions,and 2)these mitigation measures are adequate to reduce impacts associated with the range of specific development projects that could be built as part of the Master Plan Update and General Plan Amendment. The mitigation measures in the Draft IS/MND are adequate and are appropriate for the level of detail provided in the Master Plan Update.They do not inappropriately defer mitigation to a later date. Potential impacts to water features that may result from Master Plan development projects would be ® evaluated at the time that individual development projects are proposed. Specific mitigation 3 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. , measures,beyond those already identified in the Draft IS/MND would be recommended,where appropriate. Response D-4: Refer to Response D-3 in regard to the RWQCB's comments on the separately- proposed Hangars Project. Although the Master Plan Update and General Plan Amendment include the set-aside'of a corridor for a potential future transitway,the construction of a transitway is not proposed at this time. When a transit system is proposed,it will be evaluated independently for environmental impacts, including impacts to drainage channels and other potential jurisdictional features. For the purposes of this Draft IS/MND,the set-aside of the corridor includes only the retention of land within Airport-owned property; no development activities are proposed to occur on this land. Response D-5: This comment is noted. Detention areas for storm water management would be defined as individual development project are proposed. Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2 requires the Airport to review the-1993 Drainage and Flood Control Study, and update the report to establish the baseline drainagecondition.Furthermore,the mitigation measure requires that these baseline conditions be used as input data for all subsequent drainage plans,which would ensure that adequate land would be set aside to manage;increased flows from new impervious surfaces. Also refer to Response D-3 regarding deferred mitigation. Response D-6: Additional environmental review of all subsequent development projects in the Master Plan area would take place;to determine whether new structures would impede or redirect • flood flows.No specific projects are included in the Master Plan Update analyzed in the Draft IS/MND. Therefore, it would be premature to evaluate the potential impacts of individual development projects on flood patterns. The sponsor of each individual project would be required to utilize the baseline drainage conditions in the updated 1993 Drainage and Flood Control Study to ensure that the project would not result in a significant effect associated with flooding. Response D-7: The site-specific design of features that would promote infiltration of surface water into the groundwater table would be defined as part of proposals for individual projects (and would be analyzed independently in supplemental environmental review documents). The RWQCB would have the opportunity to comment on"whether appropriate steps will be taken to provide for infiltration of precipitation"when it reviews the CEQA documents prepared for'individual development projects proposed in the Master Plan area. Response D-8: The comment regarding provision of an adequate buffer between a development project and the levee adjacent to Walnut Creek is noted. This buffer and other development consid- erations would be incorporated into the designs of individual development projects proposed in the Master Plan Area. The efficacy of these measures would be evaluated in supplemental environmental review conducted for individual development projects. Response D-9: This comment states that areas of concern are likely to require additional investigation to determine whether constituents of concern for water quality are present." Such investigations would be required through implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 a and HAZ- lb in the Draft IS/MND. These measures require that a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment be conducted prior to the initiation of'project activities that require ground disturbance,and adherence to remediation and environmental protection measures(including a health and safety plan, if • appropriate)if hazardous materials are identified.The Hangars Project was evaluated independently 4 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ' of the Master Plan Update and General Plan Amendment that are the subject of the Draft IS/MND. Follow-up activities for investigation of contamination on the Hangars Site would occur independently of approval of the project analyzed in this Draft IS/MND. Letter E: Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission August 8,2008 Response E-1: The comment refers to the role of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) in reviewing non-aviation development on airport property and aviation or aviation-related development on airport property,where there is proposed construction or alteration of a structure(including antennas)taller than 200 feet above ground level,regardless of inclusion in the Airport Master Plan. The comment calls for the ALUC's review of aviation and non-aviation developments on airport property to determine consistency with the ALUC's Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. ALUCs were established under State law with certain defined functions.An ALUC's primary function is to ensure compatible.development near an airport and to adopt plans that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards.The ALUC does not function like a regular planning commission in approving or denying a project;rather its role in the development review process is to make a determination ori whether a project is consistent with an adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan where it has the legal authority to do so. It is noted that the legal authority conferred to an ALUC is described in the California Public Utilities Code sections 21670 to 21679.5. The Public Utilities Code does not specifically confer authority to the ALUC regarding the review of ® a project involving non-aviation development on airport property. However, in the case of certain types of aviation development on airport property it does confer a specific requirement to review airport development plans. This would include Master Plans,construction plans for new airports, and airport expansion plans (defined as construction of a new.runway, extension or realignment of a runway, or acquisition of a new runway protection zone). These airport development plans must be referred to the ALUC so that it is aware of any amendment to the Airport Master Plan, and to provide advice in the Master Plan amendment process and identify if the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan needs,to be revised so as to stay current with the Master Plan. Input from the ALUC on the development of airport property is certainly valued and desired, and,as such,the Contra Costa County General Plan(2005-2020)provides for review and comment by the ALUC. General Plan Policy#5-68,under the heading"Special Policies Regarding the Airport Land Use Commission,"Transportation/Circulation Element, page 5-29,reads in.part"... all major land use actions within the Buchanan Field and Byron Airport Influence Areas as shown upon Figure 5-5 shall be referred to the Contra Costa Airport Land Use Commission for comment" [emphasis added]. This policy means that all non-aviation development projects on the airport property are to be referred to the ALUC for comment,but this review would be in an advisory capacity role(e.g., no determination of consistency with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; except where provided under the Public Utilities Code). Airport development plans,including a Master Plan amendment,construction plans for a new runway,runway extension or realignment,etc.,are also to be referred to the ALUC under this policy. The approach described under General Plan Policy#5-68 provides for a non-mandatory review by the ALUC of proposals to develop airport property that is within the ALUC's authority as defined under the Public Utilities Code. In response to this comment,page 43 of the Draft IS/MND is modified as follows: 5 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. All Master Plan-associated improvements at the Airport would be developed and constructed in accordance with FAA regulations,including those related to height restrictions. Additionally,in accordance with General Plan Policy#5-68,under the heading"Special Policies Re ag rding the Airport Land Use Commission,"Transportation/Circulation Element non-aviation development:on airport property and Master Plan-associated improvements (airport development titans)would be referred to the ALUC for review and comment. The combination of adherence to FAA regulations and the implementation of the ALUC comment referral process under General Plan Policy#5-68 These reg leAian_ would reduce potential safety hazards to a less-than-significant level. Response E-2: As used in the context of the Draft IS/MND,a"transitway"refers to either a grade separation exclusively used as a bus-only or high-occupancy vehicle road that,forms a part of a bus rapid transit(BRT)system,or a grade separation exclusively used for the operation of light rail vehicles that forms a part of a light rail system. Private vehicles (with the exception of vehicles used for maintenance) are not permitted to use a transitway.The transitway is intended to be elevated; it is either at-grade or below-grade. At the present time, there are no plans to develop or operate a transitway in the project site. The intention of the proposed revision to General Plan Policy#5-57, Transportation/Circulation Element,is to indicate that space will be reserved for a future regional trail and/or transitway within the area once identified for the Diamond Boulevard extension where it traverses the Airport property in the vicinity of the golf course. The subsequent use of this area as part of a regional trail or for transit would occur subject to planning;design,environmental clearance, and funding for such a project. • Response E-3: Page 19 of the Draft 1S/MND is modified as follows: Policy 3-9-58: The area designated for eCommercial (CO)use at the entrance of John Glenn Drive is limited to development of 220,000 square feet of space; the area designated Business Park(BPl errat Marsh Drive and Sally Ride Drive is limited to-14'')0,000 X18,500 square feet. Letter F:. Contra Costa County Public Works Department August 11,2008 Response F-1: Page 47 of the Draft IS/MND is modified as follows: Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1b: As required in the County Code, (Title 10, Chapter 1014 4.004) the Airport shall prepare and implement a Stonnwater Control Plan (SWCP) in accordance with the Contra Costa County Stonnwater C.3 guidebook to minimize potential runoff pollution during the life of each Master Plan-associated project. A building permit shall not be issued for subsequent individual development projects until the Contra Costa County Public Works Department reviews and approves the proposed storm water controls. Specifically, individual projects shall incorporate landscaping features into the drainage design and shall direct roof flows toward swales or landscaped areas before discharge to the storm drain system. Approved Best Management Practices/Integrated Management Practices. (BMPs/IMPS) shall be maintained and inspected in perpetuity. If feasible the Airport shall develop an area-wide clean water feature or BMP that provides treatment for all Master Plan projects (or groups of proje&s). The Airport shall develop an Operations and Maintenance 6 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. (O&M) Plan and enter into an O&M Agreement,to the satisfaction of the Contra Costa County Public Works Department. Response F-2: Refer to Response F-1 for revisions to Mitigation Measure HYDRO-Ib,made in response to this comment. Response F-3: Page 10 of the Draft IS/MND is modified as follows: Regional public transportation is provided by BART,which has stations in downtown Concord and north Concord,both of which are located within 3 to 4 miles of the Airport. The County Connection provides limited local bus service from these stations to the Airport environs. Pedestrian access is provided by sidewalks located along focal roadways. Several bicycle routes serve the Airport,including an off-street bike trail located on the eastern side of the Walnut Creek channel. rClass III bicycle lanes are also provided along Marsh Drive. Class I bicycle facilities are planned along Marsh Drive in the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, adopted in December 2007. Response F4: This comment,which relates to funding of projects described in the proposed General Plan Amendment, is noted.A funding source would be identified when a specific plan for the Class I bike facility is proposed. Response F-5: This comment,which states a preferred width of the transitway right-of-way,is noted. Currently, a width of 40 feet is present between the existing drainage channel east of Marsh Drive and proposed development on the adjacent vacant parcels.The required width for the transitway would be determined when specific proposals for that project are evaluated. Response F-6: The.transitway,for which land would be reserved within the Airport property,has not yet been proposed. When plans for the transitway (and any associated bike facilities) are developed, they would be incorporated into the Bicycle Facilities Network and Trail Maps. Response F-7: The need for and scope of individual traffic impact studies would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as individual development projects allowed under the,Master Plan are proposed. At that time,the appropriate intersections would be evaluated,as required. Therefore,no findings would need to be made for the proposed project in regard to significant impacts to intersections. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to operation of the intersections listed in 'Comment F-7,based on the analysis conducted as part of the Draft IS/MND. Response F-8: This comment,which requests that widening of Marsh Drive be considered,is noted. The need for Marsh Drive to be widened to accommodate a.two-way turn lane would be considered when necessary traffic studies are conducted for subsequent specific development projects. Response F-9: The anticipated ratio of aircraft to hangar space is 1 aircraft per 9,000 square feet of hangar space,and is based on data provided by County Airport staff(based on knowledge of existing and proposed aircraft hangar space).The proposed project includes approximately 288,450 square feet of hangar space. Response F-10: The office space employee estimate used in the Draft IS/MND was based on ® occupancy projections developed by County Airport staff. Approval of the Master Plan Update would 7 LSA-ASSOCIATES. INC. • be conditioned such that a maximum of 63 employees would be permitted to occupy proposed office space on the site. If occupancy is revised upwards, supplemental environmental review would be required. Response F-11: The trip generation data in Table 2 are based on the total number of employees for all office buildings that would be developed on the site as part of the Master Plan Update. Therefore, no revisions to Table 2 are required. Response F-12: For the purpose of the Draft IS/MND,all restaurant uses developed as part of the Master Plan Update would be high-end sit-down restaurants(and not restaurants with a higher average rate of turnover). The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors would be responsible for approving the lease agreement for any restaurant located at the Airport.This approval would provide a mechanism to ensure that higher-turnover restaurants are not permitted on the site without supple- mental environmental review. Response F-13: This comment,which notes that sidewalks may be required on the east side of Marsh Drive,is noted. The need for sidewalks along Marsh Drive will be evaluated as part of project- specific environmental review. Response F-14: Refer to Response F-5. Response F-15: This comment,which states that aviation and non-aviation development will be . subject to the County's traffic mitigation fees,is noted. The sponsors of individual development projects proposed in the Master Plan area would be required to pay these fees. Letter G: City of Martinez . July 25,2008 Response G-1: This introductory comment is noted. Response G-2: Figure 3 on page 7 of the Draft IS/MND is modified as shown on page 10. Response G-3: Buchanan Field does not currently have scheduled commercial air service,although the FAA has.authorized up to two scheduled air carriers to operate at the Airport. However,Buchanan Field has not been served by commercial carriers since 1992,and no reestablishment of service is expected in the near term due to economic factors. The proposed Master Plan Update assumes that. Buchanan Field will continue to function as a busy general aviation reliever airport through 2025, and that the types of aircraft that would use the Airport would be the same types that currently use the Airport. In.addition,the Master Plan provides for the possible resumption of commercial airline passenger service at levels that existed in 1992,when commercial service was halted. However,it is unknown when airline passenger service would be re-established due to the underlying economics of the airline industry and uncertainty about when market conditions would change,resulting in renewed interest and demand for regularly scheduled passenger seryice at Buchanan Field Airport. To clarify these points,page 10 of the Draft IS/MND is modified as follows: • .8 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. The Master Plan update was prepared by Barnard Dunkelberg and Company and addresses the potential for future aviation and non-aviation-related development at the Airport through the year 2025.The objectives for implementing the project are to: 1)reconfigure the taxiway system in order to create a more efficient circulation pattern within the Airport;2) develop aviation and non-aviation-related uses on underutilized portions of Airport property; and 3) adequately address the needs for projected aviation demand. Implementation of the Master Plan update aims to provide for a more efficient development pattern at the Airport. Implementation of the Master Plan would not preclude the re-establishment of airport commercial service at levels that existed prior to 1992. Response G-4: The baseline for Airport operations,as analyzed in the Draft IS/MND,is existing conditions at the Airport,not potential development allowed by the existing 1990 Master Plan. Refer to Response to Comment G-3. The Master Plan provides for the possible resumption of commercial airline passenger service at levels that existed in 1992,when commercial service was halted. Response G-5: Page 54 of the Draft IS/MND is modified as follows: The closest residences to the Airport are located to the west along Marsh Drive. Other residences within close proximity to the Airport are located to the southeast along Contra Costa Boulevard and to the north of the Airport along Solano Way. Due to the orientation of the runways,the future year 65 dBA CNEL noise contour line would extend nearest the residents ® living along Solano Drive. However, the noise levels recorded at this site for the year 2005,as referenced above, only reach up to 61 dBA CNEL. This is considered an acceptable noise exposure level according to the governing standards outlined above. The calculated noise contour lines for the year 2012 do not represent a significant change from the existing contour and residential units would remain outside the 65 dBA CNEL contour.Therefore,the noise level impact due to the gradual increase in existing aircraft and aviation sources would not be considered significant. Letter H: City of Concord August 8, 2008 Response H-1: This introductory comment is noted. Response H-2: Refer to Response E-2 for clarification of the use of the teen"transitway"in the Draft IS/MND. A transitway would not be open to vehicular use. Response H-3: Refer to Response E-3,revisions to page 19 of the Draft IS/MND. 9 �oQe .f f' 4 e -ft F f ♦l / ti o �O/�, 4.1 a t •r F i St J ¢ • e PN icro e � CC Center Avenue; °r d IR \s .o ' Avepp ( :ChdAaricingop ae�!' �...... _. •'` �,a,a�� gyp° :F•.r'•�'I l O'• d r s.. r spa f 680 `, �\a \ RLESP} .HILI.. 4 t ` f L S A FIGURE 3 LEGEND Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update and General Plan Amendment N � Airport Boundary (� Martinez p • L-J Concord Unincorporated Contra Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 0 oe0 2100 Pleasant Hill L—' Costa County Surroundingurisdictions PM 9 FEET SOURCE: BASE MAP: NAVTEQ TELT ATLUS,2005:LSA ASSOCIATES,INC.,2006. I:\BDK430 bucbanan field\\figures\Pig_3.ai (3/211;03) LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. Letter I: Jeff Horner July 28;2008 Response I-1: This comment is noted. The proposed Master Plan Update is intended to provide for more efficient and economical operation of the Airport.and would not substantially increase Airport operations. • 11 Letter pF P STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND`R2NCH 'x OF 00 �! STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANttK''?ING UNIT ARNOLD SCHWARZENGGGER Ui# ' t.Q CYNTHIABRYANT GOVERNOR DIRECTOR August 12,2008 : Patrick Roche Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Bring Martinez,CA 94553 Subject: Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update and General Plan Amendment SCH#: 2008072031 Dear.Patrick Roche: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed thestate agencies that-reviewed your document. The review period closed on August 11,2008,and the comments from theresponding agency(ies)is(are)enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c)of the.Calif6mia Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are 1 required to be carried out or approved by agency. Those comments shall be supported by, specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments,we recommend that you contact the commenting.agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, Terry Rob Director,State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 140010th Street P.O.Box 3044 Sacramento,Califomia 95812-3044 (916)445.0613 PAX(916)323-3018 iiRm.opr.ca.gov Letter A , Document DetailsReport State Clearinghouse Data Base cont. SCH# 2008072031 Project'Title Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update and General Plan Amendment Lead Agency Contra Costa County Type' MND Mitigated Negative Declaration Description The proposed project involves an update of the.existing 1990 Master Plan for the Buchanan Field Airport,consistent with Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)requirements,and a related amendment to the Land Use and Transportation/Circulation Elements of the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020)in support of the Airport Master Plan update(collectively referred to as the"proposed project"). Lead Agency Contact Name Patrick Roche Agency Contra Costa County. Phone (925)335-1242 Fax " email Address 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing City Martinez State CA Zip 94553 Project Location County Contra Costa City Concord,Martinez Region, Lat/Long 37°59'25"N/122°3'20"W • Cross Streets Concord Avenue and John Glenn Drive Parcel No. 125-010-023 Township Range Section Base Proximity to,: Highways SR 4 Airports Buchanan Field Railways BNSF Waterways Schools Mt.Diablo High School Land Use General Plan:Public/Semi-Public(PS),Commercial(CO),Parks and Recreation(PR) Zoning:Unrestricted(U) r . Project Issues Aesthetic[Visual;Agricultural Land;Air Quality;Archaeologic-Historic;Biological Resources; i Drainage/Absorption;Flood Plain/Flooding;Geologic/Seismic;Growth Inducing;Landuse;Minerals; Noise;Population/Housing Balance;Public Services;Recreation/Parks;Schools/Universities;Septic System;Sewer Capacity;Toxic/Hazardous;Traffic/Circulation;Water Quality;Water Supply Reviewing Resources Agency;Regional Water Quality Control.Board,Region 2;Department of Parks and Agencies Recreation;Native American Heritage Commission;Public Utilities Commission;.Office of Emergency Services;Office of Historic Preservation;Department of Fish and Game,Region 3;Department of Water Resources;California Highway Patrol;Caltrans,District 4;Caltrans,Division of Aeronautics;Air Resources Board,Airport Projects;Delta Protection Commission Date Received 07/11/2008 Start"ofReview 07/11/2008 End of Review 08/11/2008 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. Letter B N' oQTtOfPJAV, . a' STATE OF CALIFORNIA i< GOVERNORS OFFICE of PLANNING AND...R: SEAR, �•` s, .oa STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT ARNOLDScawARZENEGGER 08 AUG 14 PH 1.: 29 �oR GOVERNOR August 12,2008 i Fi v*+' f""!ty OL Jt'fu N Patrick'Roche Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,CA 94553 Subject: Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update and General Plan Amendment SCH#: 2008072031 Dear Patrick.Roche: The enclosed comment(s)on your Mitigated Negative Declaration was(were)received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the state review period,whicli closed on August 11,2008. We are forwarding these comments to you because they provide information or raise issues that should be addressed in your final environmental document. ® The California Environmental Quality Act does not require Lead Agencies to respond to late comments. However,we encourage you to incorporate these additional comments into your final environmental document and to consider them prior to taking final action on the proposed project. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have any questions concerning the environmental review process. if you have a question regarding the above-named project,please refer tc the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number(200807203 1)when contacting this office. Sincerely, Terry oberts Senior Planner,State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 140010th Street 'P.O.Box 3044 Sacramento,California 95812-3044 (916)445-0613 PAX(916)323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov 1 Letter C. STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGE DELTA PROTECTION COMMISSION 14215 RIVER ROAD Y: P.O. 60X 530 WALNUT GROVE, CA 95690 Phone (916) 776-2290 FAX (916) 776-2293 E-Mali: dpc@citlink.net Home Page: www.delte.ca.gov RECEIVED July 31,2008 AUG - 6 2008 STATE CLEARING HOUSE State Clearinghouse P.O.Box 3044 Sacramento,California.95812-30.44 SUBJECT: Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update and General Plan Amendment (SCH#2008072031) Dear Project Manager, The staff of the Delta Protection Commission(Commission)has received and reviewed the subject document dated.July 11,2008. From the information provided,staff has determined that the proposed project is located out of the Legal Delta, Therefore actions for approval or denial of projects located out of the Legal Delta are not subject to appeal to the Commission. The Delta Protection Act(Act)was enacted in 1992.inrecognition of the increasing.threats to the resources of the Primary Zone of the Delta from urban and suburban encroachment having the potential to impact agriculture,wildlife habitat,and recreation uses. Pursuant to the Act;a Management Plan was completed and adopted by the Commission in 1995. 1 The Management Plan sets out findings,policies;and recommendations resulting from background studies in the areas of environment,utilities and infrastructure,land use,agriculture,water,recreation and access, levees,and marine patrol/boater education/safety programs. As mandated by the Act, the policies of the.Management Plan are incorporated in the General Plans of local entities having jurisdiction within the Primary Zane. A copy of the Management Plan and the Act are available at the Commission's web site www.delta,ca:govfor your reference. Please contact me at(916)776-2292 or lindadpe(a,citlink.net if you have any questions regarding the Commission or the comments provided herein. incerely, Linda ia4w - Executive Director Letter D California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality'ControlµBoartl � Unda S.Adams t �M �. Arnold Serreiaiyfor 1515 Clay Street,Suite 1400,Oaklund.Califomia 94612 ' Schwnrrenc u L nviroivaental Protection Phone(510)622-2300,FAX(510)622-2460 W SIrzenogg hup://ww%��.wnterbo tnls.ca,gov/sanfranciscobay (141 li0 C Date: I X00$ CIWQS Place.No.: 724060(ICRH) State Clearinghouse No. 2008072031 Patrick Roche Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street North Wing,Fourth Floor Martinez,California 94533 SUBJECT: Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update and General Plan Amendment, County File: 6P#07-0001,Concord,Contra Costa County Dear Mr. Roche: Water Board staff has reviewed the July 2008.Draft.Initial Stud) &Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 13itchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update and General Plan Amendinew (Initial Study& M_NT), prepared by LSA Associates. The Water Board has the following comments on the document: SECTION IV.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: This section refers to several potential jurisdictional,features on the airport property. These include the large channel parallel, and adjacent to Marsh Drive, a north-south drainage swale in the parcel bounded by Sally Ride Drive, ' a northwest-southeast channel in the northern portion of the site, and a small tributary to the main channel in the southern portion of the site. Cotrcnient I.Jurisdictional Features: Based on the Water Board's familiarity with the portion of the site where the Buchanan Hangars Project is proposed(southwest portion of the site adjacent to the Marsh Drive Drainage Channel),there are also two other water related features that should be acknowledged in the Initial Study&MND. One is a channel determined to be jurisdictional for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(Corps),which runs in a roughly cast-west direction in the southern section of the Buchanan Hangars Project site, and the other is anon-Corps jurisdictional,but State jurisdictional drainage channel in the northern portion of the same site. The Initial Study& NfND does not refer to any other State or federally jurisdictional features on the airportsite. Are there any others along the portion of the site adjacent to Walnut Creek? We request that verification of any other additional features,or lack thereof, throughout the airport site be provided in the document. Preserving,enhmecinb,and rextaring the.San Francisco Ba)-Areas wales for over.i0 Yeats CO/tecvcied/'aper Letter l? cont. Buchanan Field Airport 2 Water Board Con-unents: -Master Plan Update" Comment 2, Mitigation.Aly)rouch: The Initial.Study&MND recommends Mitigation Measures BIO-3a&.3b to ensure that.the fill of these drainage features would have.a less-than=sigtrificant impact on protected wetlands. Mitigation Measures 13I0-3a&;3b include obtaining appropriate State and Federal permits authorising tlxe_fill of the drainages considered waters of the State and/or the U.S.,and provision of compensatory mitigation.The document states that preferred mitigation shall be the purchase of mitigation credits in an approved mitigation bank at a ' minimum ratio of 1:1, or greater. The Initial Study k:MND must be modified to reflect the Water Board's mitigation policy,whict does not prefer the use of mitigation banks for compensatory mitigation. Although the national 2 Corps policy on mitigation for wetlands impacts has changed-in recent months,the Water Board's policy for mitigation has;not changed.The Water Board requires that an applicant first demonstrate avoidance and iminirr}ization of impacts:their for those impacts that are un- avoidable,.on-site mitigation is the first avenue to explore for compensation for tosses. On-site Iiitigation.is required to.the extentfeasible in order to ensure that lost water quality functions and benefits are replaced. Going off-site for mitigation does not provide in-kind replacement of lost functions,and is discouraged. If on-site mitigation isnot feasible after an exhaustive assessment of opportunities,the Water Board will then consider other in-kind mitigation within the watershed where the impacts will occur. Only after this possibility has also been explored in depth will we consider location of mitigation features at a site outside of the local watershed,or ata mitigation bank. Coinment 3, Details of Mitigation:The Initial Study&MND does not includespecifics on mitigation that will-be required for permitting under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.Stating that permits will be obtained, and mitigation provided does not satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). GEQA requires that specific mitigation measures be discussed and provided to order to allow the reviewing parties to assess whether the measures are adequate. For example, for the proposed fill of drainage channels within the Buchanan. Hangars Project area,it has not yet been demonstrated(by the Section 401 application)that the 3 area set aside for mitigation is adequate, and/or whether there is a potential future conflict with the use of the transit corridor along Marsh Drive.Comments on this application were provided to the applicant on May 19,2008. The Initial Study&MILD,has notadequately addressed the mitigation for these features,and other water features that could be proposed for fill in the more northerly parcel along Sally Ride Drive. The Initial Study& MND should provide a detailed mitigation plan for proposed impacts to water features that may result fi•oni development on the various parts of the site. Comment 4, Transit Corridor: One of the concerns expressed in the Water Board letter that is yet to be resolved is the potential conflict with the transit corridor.Contra Costa County(County) 4 plans for the future use of this corridor are not clear. If it is to be used for light rail,or some other feature that would require a significant amount of space,will the County be proposing Preserving.enhancing, and restoring the San rrancisco 13m Area's waters fbr over S©years Cc?Ret)+rted Paper Letter - D cont. Buchanan Field Airport 3 Water Board Comments MasterPlan Update modifications to the channel?If so, such modifications would likely have a significant impact on the mitigation currently proposed for the Buchanan Hangars Project. i.f previous plans were to potentially relocate the Marsh Drive Drainage Channel in order to snake room for light rail,then wouldn't the proposed-mitigation and storm water treatment features for the Buchanan Hangers Project be within the footprint of any future relocation of the stream channel?The Water Board, would.consider the option of relocating the stream channel,but does not support placement of the 4 Marsh Drive Drainage Channel into a culvert. Our current policy is to promote keeping water, features above ground, as water quality functions are permanently lost when channels are placed cont. under ground. It is very difficult, if not impossible to mitigate for these losses.Therefore, Alarming for fill of the Marsh Drive Drainage Channel in the future is not advised. We request that the Initial Study&MND address the potential for conflict between the transit corridor and mitigation for impacts associated with development on the airport property. Adequate space should be made available to allow for appropriate and acceptable.mitigation;and.also for relocation of the Marsh Drive Drainage Channel should that become necessary. SECTION VIII, HYDROLOGY&WATER QUALITY:This section notes that there will be an overall increase in the amount of impervious surface over the airport site as a result of development(approximately 40 acres). This could result in impacts to water courses as a result of pollutant discharge, hydro modification,and loss of groundwater recharge. It is not possible to fully evaluate this impact and.proposed mitigation without more detailed plans for management of increased flows that would result from new impervious surfaces. Comment 5, Storntwater T14eatment cX Flora Control:The document states under Mitigation rJ Measure HYDRO-1 b that a Stormwater Control Plan(SWCP)will be developed in accordance with the County's Stormwater C.3 guidebook to minimize the potential runoff of pollution. However, this, and later sections in the document do not mention the potential need for providing detention on-site for flow control requirements.included in the C.3 guidebook. Note that adequate land area must be set aside to provide for both treatment of stormwater and control of the additional flows that will result from the new impervious surfaces(and loss of existing drainage channels that may be filled).. Comment 6, Flood Prone Areas: The document refers to review and update of the 1993 Drainage and Flood Control Study as a mitigation measure for hydro modification impacts,and other issues associated with drainage problems on the site. Section VIII(h)discusses the potential for flooding on the airport site, and notes that portions of the North and West Development areas are located within the 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. As such, structures placed within this area have the potential to impede or redirect.flood 6 flows. It is not clear from the document how review and update of the drainage study will effectively address these issues. Hydro modification impacts must be addressed through compliance-with flow control requirements included in the County's C.3 guidebook. Placement of structures within the flood prone areas,and potential redirection of flows is•a concern that would have to be addressed by ensuring that redirected flood flows are handled in a manner that Preserving,,enhmurng, and restoring the Snn.Francisco 13ny Area's venters for over SO i alis ea k:ryrrGr 1>�ln, . Letter cont. Buchanan Field Airport 4 Water Board Comments . Master Plan Update does not negatively impact water resources and associated beneficial uses(for example,are there seasonal wetlands in these flood prone areas, andlor.will redirected flows cause hydro 6 modification impacts to a stream channel?), if Walnut and Grayson Creeks are already vulnerable Cont. due to high flood flows, then taking up capacity within the flood plain with structures is not advised. Comment 7; Groundwater Recharge: The Initial Study& MND notes that the increase in low- permeability(impermeable)surfaces could reduce infiltration of precipitation and interfere with. groundwater recharge on the airport property.The document notes that implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1.b would reduce.this impact to a less-than-significant.level. The - 7 Mitigation measures mentioned(incoiporation.of site design practices to promote infiltration and reduce the area of impervious cover)are not detailed in the document. Therefore, we call not determine whether appropriate steps will be taken to provide for infiltration of precipitation, More detailed assessments of land area needed for such measures should be provided. Comment 8, Development Adjacent,to t3Vahrut Creek; The Initial Study&MND indicates that. development is proposed along the Walnut Creek stream.channel in the North Development Area and the East Development Arca. These development areas are directly adjacent to the levees • along Walnut Creek. The Initial Study&MND does not provide details on the specific location $ of development within these parcels, so it is not possible to determine whether an adequate buffer zone will be provide between the developed area and the outside of the levee.For this major stream channel, we recommend a minimum setback of at least two hundred feet for any structures or parking areas, in.order to allow room for potential relocation and/or modification of the levee in,the future. SECTION VII,HAZARDS &HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: As noted in our May 18,2008, comment letter on the Buchanan Hangars Project, additional investigation of areas of concern are likely to require additional investigation to determine whether constituents of concern for water quality are present. These comments are/may also applicable to other portions of the airport site, The May 18,2008, comment letter noted.that the Phase 1 LSA for the Buchanan Hangars Project included observations of several areas of concern that could cause impacts to water quality if they are not handled appropriately during development of the site. The Phase 1.ESA.made several 9 recommendations for follow-up actions. Of particular interest are the former military refueling pit,oil staining on floors and under aircraft, historic use of agricultural chemicals, and the septic system. Another item not mentioned in the Recognized Environmental Conditions section of the report,is a dry well located immediately behind the MPDA building(Section 3.6.2).This dry well is also noted in Section 3.6.3,Stonn Water,as a collection.point for stormwater runoff. Considering the past use of the site and the adjacent land to the east that drains to the stormwater. system, it's possible that the underground stormwater collection system is also'an area of concern. For all of these areas, it is critical that appropriate measures be taken to further Preserving, enhancing,and restoring the San Francisco Bcry Areas watenv for over SO tears Cct'Recyr"lert Paper Letter D cont. Buchanan Field Airport 5 Water Board Comments Master Plan Update investigate whether there is soil and/or groundwater contamination that needs to be addressed, and that such problems,if present,be remediated prior to development of the site. The Phase I ESA recommends that further inspection occur for the refueling pit,the oil stain areas, and the use of agricultural chemicals. It further recommends that underground.storage tank removal documentation be obtained from Buchanan Field Airport personnel for the former 9 military refueling pit, and that the exact location of on-site historical piping be identified,and soil in this area inspected to determine if any hydrocarbon impacts have occurred. Please provide C011t. an update on follow-up actions that have taken place,or those proposed for addressing the potential for the presence of chemical constituents in all of these areas where impacts to water quality could occur. We recommend that all appropriate measures be taken to investigate these areas, and the dry well,septic tank, and storm drain system areas(including sampling for chemical analyses),to ensure that any contaminated soil and/or groundwater can be addressed prior to development of the site. If you have any questions, please contact Katie Hart at(510)622-2356 or via email to khan cr?waterboards.ca.,,ov. Sincerely, C Kathryn Hart Water.Resource Control Engineer Watershed Division cc; Bill Orme, SWRCB-DWQ Suzanne Gilmore, CDFG, Yountville State Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento,CA 95812-3044 Preserving, enhancing,and resrarring the San Francisco Bav Area's watets.for over 50 years ZcJ,Recycderd Paper Letter E Airport Contra Dennis M.Barry,A1CP d Interim Director Land Use Costa Catherine Kutsuris Commission Interim Deputy Director %Department of Conservation&Development County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing C Martinez,California 94553-0095 Phone: (925)335-1229 August 8,2008 Ann. Pat Roche Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 651 Pine Street,NW,4'I'Floor Martinez.CA. 94553 RE: Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update and General Plan'Amendment Dear Mr.Roche: The Airport`Land Use Commission finds the Mitigated Negative Declaration to be acceptable with the exception of the following: The Mitigated Negative Declaration needs to incorporate the following language under Section VII(e)Hazardous and Hazardous Materials: In order to establish consistency with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(ALUCP)all non- aviation related projects would require submittal to the Airport Land Use Commission for a determination of consistency if not included as part of the Airport Master Plan. In addition, all projects on airport property will require submittal to the ALUC for a consistency determination if the proposed construction or alteration of structure(including antennas)taller than 200 feet above the gffound level at the site regardless of inclusion within the Airport Master Plan. Transportation/Circulation Element page 14: "The roadway alignment would be reserved as a corridor for a regional trail and/or transitway". I 2 Further clarity is needed by the tern"transitvvay", such as is it at ground level or below. On page 19 under Police 3-958: the comma placement shows 18, 5000 should be 185,000 I 3 Office Hours Monday-Friday:8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st,3rd&5th Fridays of each month Letter E cont. If you have any questions regarding these comments,please contact me directly at 925-335-1229 or by email at lerosrakd.cccounw.us Sincerely. Lashun C.Cross ALUC Planner cc: ALUC commissioners ALUC file Letter ® F ;Contra Costa. Counter Julia R. Bueren, Director Pubhc Works Deputy Directors D e, p a r t m e n t R.Mitch Avalon-Brian M.Balbas Stephen Kowalewski-Patricia McNamee Memo TO:. Patrick Roche, Advanced Planner, Department of Conservation and Development DATE: August 11, 2008 FROM: Monish Sen, Associate Civil Engineer, Engineering Services Division SUBJECT: . Comments on The Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update and General Plan Amendment — Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (CEQA) The Engineering Services Division of the Contra Costa County Public Works Department has reviewed the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (CEQA) for the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update and General Plan Amendment and submit the following comments: • Mitigation Measure HYDRO-ib on p. 47 states that a Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) shall be prepared and implemented "during the life of each Master Plan- associated project." It should be noted that the approved Best Management Practices/Integrated Management Practices (BMP/IMP) shall also be inspected and maintained into perpetuity by the Airport.This will likely include the Airport producing an Operations&Maintenance (O & M) Plan and.then entering into-the O &M Agreement. • Also in the Hydrology and Water Quality b) section there is discussion of possibly 45 acres of additional "low permeability cover"that would be added to the Airport with the implementation of the Master Plan. Considering the relatively large amount of treatment area that will be required under provision C.3, it may be appropriate to consider an area 2 wide dean water facility or BMP that could provide treatment for all ultimate master planned facilities, instead of separate facilities for each development identified in the Master Plan. Please call me at (925) 313-2187 if you have any questions regarding the comments stated above. The Transportation Engineering Division of the Contra Costa County Public Works Department has reviewed .the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative. Declaration (CEQA) for the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update and General Plan Amendment of unincorporated Contra Costa County and submits the following comments: 1. p. 10 Existing Site Access and Circulation Paragraph 3 states.- 'Several bicycle routes serve the Airport; including an off-street bike trail located on the eastem side of the Walnut Creek channel. Class II and III bicycle lanes are also pro vided along Marsh Drive." 3 a. Class II bicycle facilities do not,exist along Marsh Drive. Along Marsh Drive, Class III bicycle facilities currently exist and Class I bicycle facilities are planned in the.Contra un"de-Bicycle-and-P-edestxaan-P-lar Adopted-Decernber--1-7-2-0033,-but-wave Accredited by the American Pub/ic Wo Association" 255 Glacier Drive Martinez,CA 94553-4825 TEL:(925)313-2000•FAX:(925)313-2333 www.cccpublicworks.or9 r Le'tte'r F Patrick Roche cont. August 11, 2008 Page 2 of 3. not been installed. Please correct the existing bicycle lanes on Marsh Drive and include I 3 reference to the planned bicycle facilities on Marsh Drive. Cont. 2. p. 14 General Plan Amendmenk Transportation / Circulation Element Policy 5-50 states 'rhe Bicycle Facilities Network, Plan Map, which is incorporated into the l"ransportation/Circulation Element; identifies a proposed Class I trail facility aporoOmately located.within the conceptual road alignment for the former Diamond Boulevard extension. 4 Also, the conceptual road alignment for the Diamond Boulevard extension had reserved space for a future transitway." a. The County has no mechanism in place to support these facilities. If the construction of this Class I trail is an Airport priority, then the Airport will.need to identify funding for the construction and maintenance of this facility. b. The right-of-way width for the future transit corridor and bike facility is not specified in the report. A minimum right-of-way width of 52 feet is required for the future transit I 5 corridor and Class I trail facility. 3. Figure 7a Proposed Changes to General Plan Roadway Network Plan a. The Bicycle Facilities Network & Trail Maps should depict the full extent of the future transit corridor in the vicinity of the Airport. Figure 7a depicts the future transit corridor . terminating on the east side of Marsh.Drive south of.Sally Ride Drive. Public Works 6 discussed reserving right-of-way with the Airport for a future transit corridor and Class I bikeway further north along the east side of Marsh Drive to the northern intersection of Sally Ride Drive.This-may need to be included in the General Plan Map. 4. p. 19 Policies for the Buchanan Field Area Policy 3-947 states. 'For these two non- aviation commercial areas to be developed, transportation improvements are required to be constructed or committed. Such improvements will be tied directly to the County leasing of these areas for development, The extent of improvements is to be determined by the Board of Supelv1sors as part of the bid package." a. A traffic impact analysis by the proposed development should be performed to identify 7 the impacts on local arterials and nearby'intersections. This includes impacts.to Marsh Drive, Concord Avenue, and Center Avenue as well as impacts to the following: Marsh Drive/Center Avenue intersection; Center Avenue/Pacheco Boulevard intersection, Center Avenue/I-680 on/off ramps, Marsh Drive Bridge over Walnut Creek, and Marsh Drive/Solano Way intersection. Findings may need to be includedin .the General Plan Amendment and the Master Pian Update. b. Considerations to widen Marsh Drive for the addition of a two-way turn lane should be considered with the proposed developments. I 8 5. p. 61 Project Trip Generation Estimates a. For the hangar land use, the 32 planes are based on the anticipated ratio of hangar I 9 space to aircraft. What is this anticipated ratio and the increase in. the number of hangar space created? b. Realizing that the office space is for aviation uses only, what is the basis for the 63 I 10_ employees? L Letter F Patrick Roche coat. August 11, 2008 Page 3 of 3 c. ITE Land Use 710 states that if the buildings are interrelated, that is they are proposed to share_a parking lot, or are a walkable distance to each other, then the total of the building areas or the total number of employees for all the buildings should be used to 11 calculate the trips generated. If this is the case, then "recalculate Table 2 using this conditional requirement. d. The restaurant estimate is based on ITE's Land Use 93.1, "Quality Restaurant". If ITE W 932, "High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant" is used, this will increase the PM PHT's,to 12 97, which is precariously close to the TIA requirement. Does the project intend to propose a high-end, dinner-type restaurant, or a restaurant that can serve airport patrons for more hours during the day? 6. P. 63 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, pr programs supporting alternative transportation. a. Paragraph 2 addresses the sidewalk along Concord Avenue, but does not address the lack of sidewalk along the east side of Marsh.Drive. Incidentally, the majority of the 13 proposed development is located on the east side of Marsh Drive. The proposed developments shall be required to construct sidewalk pedestrian facilities to County standards along the east side of Marsh Drive. b. Per discussion between Public Works and the Airport, the proposed developments should be required to set aside a minimum of 52 feet of right-of-way on the east side of ® Marsh.Drive for a Class I bike path and transit corridor. Where the transit corridor terminates along Marsh Drive, the proposed developments should be required to set 14 aside a minimum of 12 feet of right-of-way on the east/south side of Marsh.Drive for a Class I bike path according to the County Bike Plan. As part of this right-of-way set aside, no facilities, including parking lots, clean water features, or any other type of mitigation planting or improvements should be placed within this area. 7. General Comment a. Each aviation and non-aviation development will be subject to the County's traffic mitigation fees. Traffic mitigation fees will be calculated at the time each development 15 application is permitted. Please call Angela Villar at (925) 313-2016, or Adelina Huerta at (925) 313-2305, if you have any questions regarding the Transportation Division comments. MS:AV G:\EngSvc\Land Dev\GPA\Comments on the DIS and MND for Buchanan Airport.docx CC: G.Huisingh,Engineering Services S.Gospodchikov,Engineering Services A.Huerta,Transportation Engineering T.Rie,Flood Control D.Swartz,Flood Control ).Greizter,DCD Transportation Planning I Letter G 4 r City of Martinez 525 Henrietta Street, Martinez.CA 94553.2394 COMMUNITY DL'VELOPMI EN'),D �PARTMEN'T (925) 372-3515 fu tt`1. 2E; Fri fS�ci 1 R 7 rll';I,ti�11r' i1111%l;3VA1lM July 25, 2008 AtyiyJ.�1C'iZ��irtfsrl Patrick Roche Department of Conservation and Development ^ Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, North wing,4`i' Floor Martinez,CA 94553 Stibiect: Comments regarding Draft Initiai Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for "Buchanan Field Airport.Master Plan Update and General Plan Amendment" (County File: #GP 07-0001) Dear Mr. Roche: Thank you for your project referral notice for the Airport Master Plan Update,and related General Plan Amendment and Initial Study. while tale City of Martinez does not object to the County's proposed land use changes within the airport, we believe the Initial Study should be clarified in two areas: I. 'i'hc illustration showing jurisdictional boundaries("FIGURE 3") is incorrect. Although nol intended to illustrate jurisdictional boundaries, the Martinez City Limit is correctly shown in 2 "FIGURE 2; Airport Vicinity Map." I've highlighted areas within the City's jurisdiction on the attached graphic. _. The Initial Study and current C0LI1ltV publications are hotentialiy inconsistent in describing anticipated increase in ai>7)ort use. Based in inlbrmation provided to the public in the County Airport's most recent "Buchanan Field Master Plan Flyer" the Drafi.Plan calls for: • 'i-he airport to remain a General Aviation Airport. with tlhe possibility for commercial airline service(schechded airline flights?)"should demand return.for such services," • Operations are forecast to increase about 1:75%annually over the next 20 years. 3 a. If the Master Plan is to allow for the potential for the return of commercial airline service, the discussion within "Project Background"(page 1.1) should state so after the sentence "C'nrnrnercial service ended in 1992 due to the nrevailing economics of the airline industry. " b. The discussion within the"Transpoi-Wion"section (page(50)states that The Memel- Plan update wotdd 1701 increase operations. " Is the baseline for"operations"the Airport's current use, or the current 1990 Master Plan which may allow for more 4 intense activities than is currently found at the ai►port? This statement regarding "operations"should be clarified that while the scope of"operations"are not O Page 1 of 2 Le'tte'r G cont. envisioned to increase, there will be a nominal increase in traffic due co anticipated growth of existing General Aviation operations. While I thOLI-ht the County envisions Buchanan Field activities to be limited to General Aviation, the Draft Plan's 4 allowance far the possible return of scheduled airline flights (and the trip generation Cont. that would result from a return to scheduled airline flights) could be seen as a significant"increase in operations"were such`operations"not made subject to a separate future review process, c. The discussion within the"Noise"section(page 53-54) states that "... evisling.flights fi•ona the{rbpml are circ existing noise soyme in the area and ligrhls would increase over time...The calculated noise conlow-lines for the}%ear 2012 do not represent a significant change...Therefore the noise level impact due to aircraf and avialion S snt.Wces• would not.be considered significant. " Again, it should be clarified that this anticipated "less than significant impact"is predicated on the increased noise being limited to the gradual growth of the existing operation as a General Aviation Airport. 1i'you have any questions, please call me at(925) 372-3518. Sincerely, • Corey M. Simon, Scnior Planner attacnmcnt cc kith Late,Assistant Director;Contra Costa County Airports,550 Sally Ride Dr.,Concord CA 49520 Karen Majors,Assistam City Manager.Community C 1:commtic Development F tcnaun:nd y 0-1,11—WI r•.r,;.W..Crwnry Rrnrenis t.L rrrracr,,rn<.,'.ti„6, „,.r,"net GPA.crra,,,aya„ • Nage 2 of 2 Letter • G cont. C.. !a J.7 . V. i .. t AIM 1 t O 680 --------- ... \aA V � 3 161 •"ti "t t C� �DG N MARTINI ,a i. Cegr ntel I �m+ OF -t unanch �"�"`tw �, ate. dd ,�� •O �� , qr ! �LE�S NT Nlll se0 . 1 � S FLGURE 3 LEGEND Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan N i= Airport Bound ( R7artinez Update and General Plan Amendment [=7 Concord Initial Stud Concord Negative Declaration ® �' iosn Zinn '.-_�-J•.' Pleasantliill Unincorporated Contra CostaCouoty Surrounding jur.isctictions MET SOURCE: BASE MAP;NAVTEQ TELE ATLUS.2005;LSA ASSOCIATES.INC.,20W 1:1BDI.A}II buctenen fieldllfigurtsU ig_3.ai 1927/071 Letter G Cont. ��s y -Nla�04 - i�r-r r T.. 1 ' f`'/ off• i °�� Alvei Doe Nil i._lohn.N�uiFParkwaY ��._ �1.2��'o: 7e \• �_�`-.>r'�-! ��(,` /:��.\••.(�I Al t _�;1 X11 1 f-� i �i l.� I li `_ L'.CeM I /L �` t ...r, I! •IC ` j Poi C y'ti MARTINEZ 171DL T i ! ` �.. con CC ::'%_r' �•1- 1 I' i i i .,' 1 -��°i_ 1 / /' I��•� 'c tdBouSevaid. Chilpanting ri- ��• CONCORD s�aY J. oa 1 v + ° r , 1 r ,A I+� r PLEASANT HILL ;I J 1� i f \ Taylor)Boulevafd 1 , .i ✓ 04 '''• ;� m r/ 0.1 L S A FIGURE 2 LEGEND AIRPORT BOUNDARY Buchanan Field Airport Mosier Plan N I '•- I J Update and General Plan Amendment O0 5 10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MILES Airpot•t Vicinity Map SOURCE: NAVTF.Q TELE ATLUS,200 S. _ I:1BDK430 buchanan ficW%figwcMFis 2.ai (.9/28/01) - Letter H Cil'1'1'or C:mcottI1 rC1TV COYNctl, PIumn-Q\t•Fat ', I r r Will lain Il shitlll,\4avur . 1950 Parkside nriv<: ) I It h n A4 Vic,:lllen`;\ic1I:n'or 61fit C.nicln•d,C.ahtoruia 94514)2578 t {I�ilIr fii l tylt " SµIl.r Laura M.I IolTnlcimer _. kilephoiic (9 5)Grl 3454 r tf, / Marh A.Petel.;nn' Fax: (925)671-33,81 J 1 r F1A jl-�- L!il`+gAiln:ul,[Jit\Clerk . �E=^ � l_;irt'r, '1•hlrntas].Wemlit)1"Cily"hva,slir r — f... •nom V I i(1 nr",� -rr;: 3;tti}r. /u!J1Yil• l' ?�»)�.tarots.IntcritnNi:o City lagur. Vl August 8,2008 VIA FAX: (925)335-1222 (Hard copy via regular mail) Patrick Roche Advance Planning Chief „ Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 651 Pine Street,North Voting,0' Floor Martinez,CA 94553 RE: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Buchanan Field Air- port Master Plan Update and General Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Roche: The City of Concord has received and reviewed the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update and General Plan Amendment. The proposed project involves an update of the existing 1990.Airport Master Plan and a related General Plan amendment. It is our understanding. that you are soliciting 1 comments fi•om interested parties as to the nature and scope of the environmental informa- tion and analysis in the Initial Study for the subject project. The City has evaluated this en- vironmental document and is providing the following comments: l) The proposed revision to Transportation/Circulation Element includes removing the Diamond Boulevard extension as depicted on the Roadway Network Map and reserv- ing acorridor for a regional trail and/or transitway. In addition; Policy 5-50 provides the following text revisions: Policy 5-50: The Buchanan Ficld Golf Course exists on the southwest edge of the airport adjacent to the intersection of Concord Avenue and 1-680. ThT- 2 extension: The Bicycle Facilities Network Plan Map, which is incorporated into the Transportation/Circulation Element, identifies a proposed Class 1 trail facility approximately located within the conceptual road alignment for the former Diamond Boulevard extension. Also the conceptual road align- ment for the Diamond Boulevard extension had reserved space for a future transitway. . r-runif: citainflFri.ronc-urd.ea,us • ;,reblile:tl>\t'aacityulcoticoril.rrry t Letter H cont. Mr. Roche August 8, 2008 Page 2 of 2 The removal of Diamond Boulevard extension would seem to indicate that future 2 vehicular traffic would not be allowed. However, the City would request further confirma- tion that the proposed corridor for the regional trail and/or`transitway' does not accommo- co' nt. date for future vehicular traffic; and 2) The proposed revision to/Land Use Element includes a placing a new limitation 'on allowable development square footage. Policy 3-98 provides the following text revi- sions: Policy 3-9-58: The area designated for eCommercial (CO) use at the entrance of John Glenn Drive is limited to development of 220,000 square feet of space; 3 the area desihnated Business Park (BP),eo at Marsh Drive and Sally Ride Drive is limited to !80,000-18.5000 square feet. It appears that there is a typographical error with the new allowable square footage. Please verify that the policy intent is to reduce the allowable development_square footage from 220,000 square feet to 113.500 square feet. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Study and • Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update and General Plan Amendment. We look forward to receiving a response to our comments. If you have any questions, please contact me at(925)671-3284. Sincerely, Phillip Woods,AICP Principal Planner cc: Deborah Raines, Planning Manager Ray Kuzbari,Transportation Manager Frank Abejo, Senior Planner 08!11'.090 • Lettei, I I i `• V'%NAN Ms°Beth Lee,Assistant Director of Airports �'ih'i s Mr.Keith Freitas,Director of Airports ZVUH JUL 28 A q> 1.$ Ms.Gayle B.Uikema,Supervisor,Contra Costa County Ms.Susan A.Bonilio,Supervisor,Contra Costa County- Ms.Mary N. Phiepho, Supervisor,Contra Costa County I received Ms. Lee's mailer updating the Buchanan Airport Master Plan and celebrating participation of the community and airport management to reach accords.First,I could say no accords were reached. Community opposition to airport expansion was ignored to the.point where activists simply gave up and stayed home,knowing the meetings were a waste of their time.But,enough said on this. ® My real point is that General Aviation is dying and any more money spent on Buchanan Airport will be money down a rat hole. This kind of waste is troubling,particularly in these difficult economic times. Avgas is over$5.00/gallon and we don't have to be rocket scientists to know it will be going much higher. China, India, Brazil and other emerging nations are entering the 21st century and demanding greater and greater shares of the world's finite petroleum resources.Out-of-control demand increases coupled with environment restraints have driven up Avgas and Jet Fuel prices up again and again and we have only seen the tip of the iceberg. I live close to Buchanan Airport and have seen airport operations drop off significantly as fuel prices have soared. Look for a lot more of the same in the future. Commercial carriers have suffered huge losses due to higher jet fuel prices. Several have been forced into bankruptcy,and surviving carriers have cut way back on flights and stopped flying to many secondary airports,concentrating instead on flying full loads between major locations.The push has been to minimize cost per passenger mile flown and every flight I have been on lately has been full.Don't look for airline service at Buchanan in the future. Corporate jets aren't the answer to Buchanan's problems.Sure,a very few extremely wealthy entrepreneurs will continue to fly in their own jets,but don't expect the moderately wealthy to continue spending huge sums for private flights when they can book first class passage for a lot less;and don't expect corporations to continue flying their execs.around in private jets either, Letteh . I cont. We have reached a turning point where life styles are changing.My wife and i recently traded in.our Grand Marquis for a Prius and I won't be buying the SUV I considering either.General Aviation will go the way of the buffalo and the sooner we realize this the sooner we can stop wasting money on Buchanan Airport and start spending it where it is really needed,how about medical insurance for Mt.Diablo School Cont. Districts teachers,how about cutting back spending to match declining fax receipts. Regards, 9,0'1 Jeff Homer 2217 Hidden takes Ct. Martinez,CA 94553 ` ph(925)825-9077 1 �- Exhibit "B": General Plan Amendment Detail "B-1" Proposed map and text revisions to the policies in the Land Use Element Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update Figure 7b Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Map Change (County File: GP#07-0001) AIL Current General Plan / Land Use Designation West Development Area CA CO PS QY N `G S v PS v Buchanan BP Reid s� Airp®r d Cen of n 0 Conco�alg Ve ®®aim o Gota Gr o 0 0 C� SH(Single Family Residential-High) r BP(Business Park) ML(Multiple Family Residential-Low) CO(Commercial) ® Q MM(Multiple Family Residential-Medium) OF(Office) op MH(Multiple Family Residential-High) LI(Light Industry) MO(Mobile Home) ®ACO(Airport Commercial) Chi\pa��n9. o. . PR(Parks and Recreation) 0 PS(Public/Semi-Public) OAssessor Parcels Feet West Development Area 0 1,000 2,000 City LimitsIM no o Eye c r 4- C 3. Land Use Element .POLICIES FO THE CLYD AREA 3-90. Altho h the sma t wn of Clyde i mostly b t ut, there are, acant prope ies adjac t to the nt Costa Canal nd near he mmunity par which are eing devel ed. An utur infill within t area ust c nform to the f (lowing p icies: (a) the isting residential nigh orhood is designate Singl Family Re ' ential- igh Density to 7.2 u its per net a re), ut in the Cl de area he density , f any infill ousing (excl di the area escribed in b) below), is of to excee 6 units per a acre; (b) vacant land djacent to Contra Cosa Canal is d ignated Single Family Resid ntial-Me Density (3. to 4.9 uni per new acre). This reduced density efle is larger lot in this s e areas and will help to avoid exces ' e traffic along na ow Par tre t; (c) new constru ion ould b compatible ith th existing architecture to the extent po ible. Ult a modern design i archite ture should be discouraged; a d (d) the burden providing a equate utili a and traffi circulation for new constru ion shall be orne solely t the develo r. POLICIES FOR THE BUCHANAN FIELD AREA Land Use 3-91. The General Plan Policies for Buchanan Field Airport are set-forth below, and additional policies. may be found in the Transportation and Circulation Element (a description and policies regarding airport operations and roadways in the area), and the Noise Element (a description and policies regarding acceptable noise contours). 3-92. Two areas adjacent to the airport are designated for commercial uses: 13 acres located at the intersection of John Glenn Drive and Concord Boulevard, and 22 acres adjacent to the existing mobile home park, west of the airport runway. 3-93. A range of commercial uses are allowed in this category. The actual uses allowed will be finalized through review of projects and leases for the use of the land. 3-94. For these two commercial areas to be developed, transportation improvements are required to be constructed . or committed. . Such improvements will be tied directly to the County leasing.of these areas for development.. The extent of improvements are to be determined by the Board of Supervisors as part of the bid package. 3-95. The area designated for commercial use at the entrance of John Glenn Drive is limited to development of 220,000 square feet of space; the area on Marsh Drive is limited to 180000 square feet. 3-96. The major privately owned lands within the area are designated for light industrial use and are located along I-680, west of the airport, between the existing mobile home park and the golf course. 3-97. The California Public Utilities Code requires that the intent and purpose of the plans and policies adopted by the County Airport Land Use Commission be incorporated into the County General Plan. The commission has adopted numerous regulations which strictly define what types of land use, and the design of those uses, which will be allowed within the Commission's airport "planning area" .and within designated "safety .zones" under the airport's flight path. These policies and regulations are detailed in the "Airports and Heliports" section of the Transportation and Circulation Element. 3-47 Ex�ecP� e Cu.cc►��' 3. Land Use Element Transportation 3-98. See the policies listed under the' "Airports and Heliports" section of the me Transportation and Circulation Element (Chapter 5). 3-99. The plan for the area in Pacheco o ated generally al ng Center Aven a west of the flood co trot channel i dEsignated for Mul Jple Family Re idE ntial- Medium 'and Hig Density (12. to 20.9 units and 2 .0 to 29.9 un' p r net acre, respective) ). The Plan ndor es efforts to co solidate sm er p rcels into.logical grou mgs for the rivate redevelopment of areas from ingle mily homes to multi e family r sidenti• I uses. Projects overing s aller existing lots should lead higher nsities and. better designei J projects Additionally, cot solidat• n of Lots should lead to wer a cess point; onto arterial,ands collector r ads such a Center Avenue and b odar Drive. North of Center Avenu a, it •' hoped that rojects can be g-oup d into three pr four applications, an s nth of Center- Avenue applicati ns hould includE all of existing blocks c r e remnants of existing blocks. 3-100. The Plan recog ' es the historical significance of tt W.T. Hendrick liouse (218 Center venue) and a ourages its ntinued preservation. Development it surround the hc use should be a igned in zi.fashiot that compliments h :structure and wo ks toward its o tinued preservati n. POLIC ES FORTH VINE HILL/PACHECO BOULEV D AREA Land U e 3-101. The sc icassE is and unstablelopes of he Vir e Hill "Ridge 'are o be protec d for op n space/agricult al use. 3-102. The esidential neighborhood eat of 680 shall be buffered fro the ind trial/land • 1-related uses. 3-103. A roximately acres of land sc ut of the ATSF racks, between Ivorello d• Pacheco, is Jesignated "Agricu t al Lands," to encourage the conl inued peration of the liano family.viney s and winery. POLIO FOR THE PLE ASANT HILL BAi STATION AR A Land U e 3-104. Thea a.immedi telt'• adjacent tote Pie ant HiIIBA RT station is the s jbject of spec I devel pment standards outlined i the Pleasant Hill BART E tation Specific n; a pted in 1983 an as amen ed th ugh 1988. Most f the residential d c mmercial develo ment allow, un er this specific Piz n has already been qroVed by the Comity, with the a ce tion of development on a large parcel o ned by the BART District, much which has not yei been approved for cor uction. To assist in the assembla e' of developmen sites and to finance re ' red infrastructure to support a developmen , the County, in 19E4, a pted a R development Kin r the, area The Redevelopment: Ian wa amendec in 1988 to facili ate t developm ent of affordable rental housing i order t .achieve a jobs/housing lance. 3-105. The overall goal for the Pie ant iill BART station rea are t (a) increase lie. concentrati f high intensity employmen USE s and affordable housing in the ea to better utilize the region I transit accessibili y provided by BA 3-48 PROPOSED Page 3=47, Ch. 3 Land Use Element, Contra Costo County General -, Plan (2005-2020), proposed new,text is underlined in boldface ® italics POLICIES FOR THE BUCHANAN -FIELD AREA Land Use 3-91 The General Plan Policies for Buchanan Field Airport are set forth below, and additional policies may be found in-the Transportation and Circulation Element (a description and policies regarding airport operations and roadways in the area), and- the Noise Element (a description and policies regarding acceptable noise contours). 3-92, Most of the iand area.comprising the'Buchanan Field Airport, has been designated Public/Semi-Public (PS) reflecting its 2ri,mary function and operation as a publicly owned and ooerated oeneral aviation commercial service airport. This pian provides for a range of commercial aviation uses and services in support of the aviation functions on the airport. lands designated- PS,. including fixed Base o2erators and auxiliark and executive aviation. 3-93. Airport lands designated PS may be leased to a fixed base operator. A fixed base operator (EBO) means an aviation business providing com2rehensive general aviation services in accordance with the "Buchanan Eieid Airport Policy and Standards for Development", as adopted by the Board of Supervisors, and as mag be amended by the Board. As used in the context of this pian, aircraft maintenance, sales, service and storaoe functions, aircraft charterlrental, air taxi or commuter air services, and air terminal or ground services, are activities and uses commoniv associated with a general aviation airport falling under the cateoorX of ars I=BO. Additionaliv, an EBO may provide pilots, private aircraft owners, other aviation businesses, . travelers, and airport visitors with other services, such as: lobbM and lounge spaces, weather and flight planning services, tem2orary aircraft parking and tiedowns, restauranticaterinalvendino facilities, restrooms, hotel and automobile rental reservations, automobile and automobile rental oarkino, meeting space and business center, office space for aviation and aviation-related businesses, and other items of public convenience and necessity. PROPOSED Page 3-47, Ch. 3 Land Use Element, Contra Costa County Genera/ Plan (2005-2020), proposed new text is underlined in boldface italics 3-94. In addition to F90 sites, aiMort land's designated PS maK be Lased.for auxiliary and executive aviation awes and services, which maX include open andifor enclosed storage of private aircraft, ,private corooratelexecutive hancar(s) with or without attached' officesome, pilot center and lounges, unique aviation sales airyd services not provided or in competition with an PBO), and other facHities that meet the need's for General aviation. Such 2roaaosed auxiliar and executive aviation uses and services ,must serve the aviation community and give evidence that such deveiopmrent-will not compete with FBS} operations. 3-9-215. Two areas adjacent to the Buchanan Pieid airport, which are County-owned airport lands, . are designated for non- aviationcomme' rcial uses: 13 acres located at the intersection of John' Glenn Drive and Concord Boulevard is designated Commercial (cO1, and 2-2 3 acres at Marsh Drive and Salle Ride give is designated Business bark (BP!41 andim-o-1 3 93.3-96._.A range of commercial uses.are allowed H9 this ease in both the CO and BP land use designations. The actual uses allowed will be. finalized through review of projects'and leases for the use of the land. • 943-97. For these two - non-aviation commercial areas to :be developed, transportation improvements are required to be constructed or committed. Such improvements will be tied directly to the County leasingof these areas for development. The extent of improvements are to be determined by the Board of Supervisors as part of the bid package. 3-9598: The area designated for ,ecommercial CO) use at the.entrance of John Glenn Drive is limited to development of 220,000 square feet of space; the 'area designated Business park CBP)en at Marsh Drive and Sally Ride give is limited to 44G,099-18,500 square feet. 3=9699. The major privately owned lands within the-area are designated for light industrial use and are located along I7680, west of the airport, between the existing mobile home park and the golf course. 3-9-7100-. The California Public Utilities Code requires that the intent and purpose of the plans and policies adopted by theCounty Airport Land Use Commission be incorporated into.the County General Plan. The commission has adopted numerous regulations which strictly define what types of land use, and the design of those uses, which will be allowed within the Commission's airport "planning area". and PROPOSED Page 3-47, Ch. 3 Land Use Element, Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020), proposed new text is underlined in boldface ® italics within designated "safety zones" under the airport's flight path. These policies and regulations are detailed in the "Airports and Heliports section of the Transportation and Circulation Element. Transuortation 3-98101. [See the policies listed under the "Airports and Heliports" section of the Transportation and Circulation Element (Chapter 5). "B-2" Proposed text revisions to the policies in the Transportation/Circulation Element S. Transportation and.Circulation Element AIR PORTS. AND ELIPORTS iOALS 5-Q To encoura a the devei meet a oeration oftVgel p pose publ' airports in e county. 5-R. To.allow he iports, restri ed appro riate locatiowou d add t the economic w 211-being and sa ty of the ounty. AI ORTS'AND 4ELIPORTS OLICIES Ovle rail Policies 5-5 Regulatea loca ' n of rivate airel s an elipo to minimize 'eir impacts on adjace. t res' ents, nsitive rece ors and toe isure public fety. 5-5a. Protect t e yron Airport environs om urban encroach e t through a combinati of land acq isition, ease ent acquisitio s and la us regulations. Work adjacent citi s to ensu hat Buchana Field rport environs are leve pe and redeve oiled in a s. which pro. ct t publi safety and ma' tain he viability o the a' ort.. 5_56. or wi the FAA aid licopte operators inimize onflicts with residenti i areas and 's sitive lad uses, su as school3, hospitals, residenc , and other sitive nois receptors. Policies Regarding,Buchanan Field Buchanan Field is located on.a 495-acre site in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County adjacent to the cities of Concord and.Pleasant Hill; a very small portion of airport property is located within Concord. It is a-general use airport and has provision for scheduled commuter airline service. The land use plan designations for this airport are shown on the Land Use Element map. Land uses allowed on the airport property should enhance the airport function and be consistent with its goals and operational requirements. Most of the site is designated "Pubk/Semi-Public" to reflect the airport use. SRecial Policies of this pian that apply to Buchanan Field are as follows: 5-57. The Transportation and Circulation Element requires the construction of the Diamond Boulevard extension from Concord Avenue northerly to tenter Avenue as a condition of approval of development projects on the western-side of the airport to major new uses. 5-58. The Buchanan.Feld Golf Course exists on the southwest edge of the airport adjacent to the intersection of Concord.Avenue and 1-680.The road improvements called for by this, plan, and in particular the Diamond Boulevard extension, will require modification to the existing golf course.This plan-encourages the maintenance of-a small golf course or some other recreation facility in the location of the golf course. 5-59. Passive recreational uses are appropriate in the approach path of the airport and will constitute an environmental enhancement and balance to serve as amenities for the development at the airport. Some maintenance responsibilities for these recreational facilities may be required of the airport projects. 5-60. Trail connections surrounding the airport are required. A riding, hiking and bicycle trail is shown along the Walnut Creek Flood Control Channel. Hiking and bicycle trails are shown.flanking the airport on its remaining perimeter. These trails will 1 serve as an amenity to the new office facilities in the area, as well as providing a connection to a regional trail linkage along the Walnut Creek Channel. 5-26 PROPOSED Page 5--26, Ch. 5 Transportation/Circulation Element, Contra Costa O County Genera/ Plan (2005-2020), proposed new text is boldface, italics, and underlined. Policies Regarding Buchanan Field Buchanan Field is located on a 495-acre site in the unincorporated area 'of Contra Costa County adjacent to the cities of Concord and Pleasant Hill; a very small portion of airport property is located within Concord. It is a general use airport and has provision for scheduled commuter airline service. The land use plan designations for this airport are shown on the Land Use Element map. Land uses allowed on the airport property should enhance the airport function and be consistent . with its goals and operational requirements. Most of the site is designated "Public/Semi-Public" to reflect the airport use. Special policies of this Ulan that apply to Buchanan Field are as follows: 5-57. 5-57. The Buchanan Field Golf Course exists on the southwest edge of the airport adjacent to the intersection of Concord Avenue and .I-680. Th�ad Q�. '� •�-�' eAensien The Bicycle Facilities- Network Plan Map and Bicycle Trails Map, which are incorporated into the Transportation/Circulation Element and Open Space Element, respectively, each identify a proposed Class I trail facility located proximately within the conceptual road alignment for the former Diamond Boulevard extension. Also, the conceptual road alignment for the Diamond Boulevard extension had reserved space for a future transitway(non�elevated). The subsequent development of the Class I trail and transitway within the alignment of the former Diamond Boulevard extension will depend on when future funding becomes available and it may require modification to the existing golf course. This plan encourages the maintenance of a small golf course or some other recreation facility in the location of the golf course. 5-58. Passive recreational uses are appropriate in the approach path of the airport and will constitute an environmental enhancement and balance to serve as amenities for the development at the airport. Some maintenance responsibilities. for these recreational facilities may be required of the airport projects. 5-59. Trail connections surrounding the airport are required. A riding, hiking and bicycle trail is shown along the Walnut Creek Flood Control Channel. Hiking and bicycle trails are shown flanking the airport on its remaining Exhibit "C": Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan, Executive Summary MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND FAR PART 150 STUDY DRAFT FINAL REPORTS SEPTEMBER 2.00$ : BuchnnelcAz opt` , Mdster�Planning Progrom, and --- � FAR Part 150 study ;a r t , ., a a .. The Barnard Dunkelberg&Zbmpany`Team w M'A,STER PLAN UPDATE, AND. i ;'FAR PART 150 STUDY ` DRAFT. FINAL REPORTS S'EPTEMBER 2008: - a Z., ,�J r� z'J ✓ a# i 1h, j 11 • rf r/ z Buchanan Fie�Ai Master Pnnin P�oJ/�\ dYn dod =( - _ ` t IS J. , ; GLY' 0:Stud " FARP ' y , n3 a The preparation of thisadocument was financed"in part through • ' ' $ a planning grant from the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) ,asprovided'under Section 505 of the:Airpo,rt anis Airway'" t '-d # Improvement Act of 1-982 as amended by the Airway Safety and I Capacity Expansion Act of 1987.,The contents do not necessarily r ieflect,the'views or,policy of'the FAA. ' Acceptance of this,re,portdoe's-not many way constitute a , J s commitment on the part of the United Stateto,participate in the ! _ - GC ! " { develo Pmerit depicted herein-,nor does rf indicate that the ` .I .� proposed development€s.environmentally aaeptable in accordance;with appropriate public law:This document is intended to"be a planning document for Buchanan Field Airport:.Final R.' decisions concerning implementationcfthe,recommendat€ons u shall be-made by Contra Costa County Airports Division: x• „ £ b w, . a d T , v , EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Buchanan Field Airport is a busy general aviation reliever airport serving Contra Costa County and multiple communities located in the Northeastern portion of the greater San Francisco Bay Area. The Airport has been a catalyst for business growth in the region and has served as an anchor for the local employment base as well as meeting the aviation transportation needs. This is indicative of the fact that the Airport is an important element of the national airport system and an integral component of the transportation infrastructure for the region. Previous Buchanan Field Airport planning studies include a Master Plan,which was completed in 1990,and a Federal Aviation Regulation(FAR) Part 150 Noise Exposure and Land Use Compatibility Study,which was completed in 1989. During that time,aviation issues on a local, regional and national level have changed. The re-evaluation of these issues in the Master Plan Update requires an understanding of existing and likely future aviation needs. The Master Plan Update is intended to address a variety of concerns with the formulation of a long-range physical development plan for the Airport. The primary goal is the continued improvement of the Airport in a manner that is financially realistic and that is appropriate in consideration of its surroundings. The Master Plan has been conducted under the direction of the County Airports Division, and Contra Costa County,with financial assistance from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS). It has been prepared to assess and direct improvements that will likely be necessary to accommodate future aviation needs. Like a long-term plan for any major institutional campus (e.g., a hospital or university), the long-term development program for an airport should reserve room for potentially needed facilities. However, those potential future facilities for which a site has been reserved are only constructed when actual demand occurs. Thus, the Airport Master Plan Update is not a decision document on whether or not an improvement will be built;it is a planning tool that indicates how the land at the Airport might best be used in consideration of anticipated future demand. The long-term development program for Buchanan Field Airport is intended to establish a strategy to fund airport improvements and maximize the potential to receive federal and state matching funds,while also establishing a financially prudent plan for improvement funding on a local level. 04Buchanan Field Airport Master Planning Program and FAR Part 150 Study The master planning process has made use of a Steering Committee to provide input concerning airport development issues. Nine Steering Committee meetings have been held, along with nine Public Information meeting opportunities, and one public hearing meeting for the FAR Part 150 Noise Study held concurrently with the public information meeting. The purpose of the Steering Committee meetings was to gather input on the operational and capital improvement issues facing the Airport and to establish a concept for future development from a broad range of interested parties. In addition, the development of the Airport Master Plan has been coordinated with Airport Division staff,various Contra Costa County departments, CALTRANS Aeronautics Division, and the Federal Aviation Administration. Concerns expressed and input received from the various committees and groups during the master planning process were varied and diverse. However, recurring themes included the following: ■ The need for a comprehensive planning analysis. ■ The need to support corporate/business aircraft. ■ The need for maximizing the functionality of airside facilities. • ■ The need for improved instrument approach procedures. ■ The need for a conceptual layout for the redevelopment aviation facilities (hangars, etc.) to allow for orderly future development that makes efficient use of a limited amount of land. ■ The need for alternative roadway access development for the landside interface between airport property and the surrounding communities. ■ The need to maintain and enhance the compatibility of the Airport and the surrounding communities. ■ The need for a comprehensive,long-term capital improvement project listing. Development Considerations and Assumptions Buchanan Field Airport will continue to be a busy general aviation reliever airport with some unscheduled/scheduled air carrier and military activity, and with the some potential for additional unscheduled/scheduled air carrier service. The Airport is an important transportation facility; a center for aviation-related business and,it supports City and regional economic development activity. Buchanan Field Airport Master.Planning Program and FAR,Part 150 Study The aircraft types projected to be used at Buchanan Field Airport, during the next 20 years, ate the same types that use the Airport presently. These types include small single engine prop-aircraft,larger business-use aircraft as large as the Gulfstream V and Bombardier Global Express. The number of annual aircraft operations (landings and takeoffs) at the Airport is forecast to increase modestly during the next 20 years. The total number of aircraft operations is forecast to increase from 128,375 currently, to approximately 181,465 at the end of the 20-year planning period covered by the Master Plan Update. The number of based aircraft at the Airport is expected to increase, from the current number of approximately 497, to 660 in 20 years. Several basic assumptions were established in the Master Plan Update,which are intended to direct the development of the Airport in the future. These include: Assumption One. The Airport will be developed and operated in a manner that is consistent with local ordinances and codes, federal and state statutes, federal grant assurances, and FAA regulations. Assumption Two. This assumption recognizes the role of the Airport. The Airport will continue to serve as a facility that accommodates general aviation activity, along with some scheduled or unscheduled air carrier service activity and some military activity. Assumption Three. This assumption recognizes the size and type of aircraft that utilize the Airport and the resulting setback and safety design criteria used as the basis for the layout of airport facilities. Assumption Four. The fourth assumption relates to the need for the Airport to accommodate aircraft operations with great reliability and safety. This indicates that the Airport's runway system should be developed with instrument approach guidance capabilities and adequate runway length to accommodate the forecast operations as safely as possible under most weather conditions. Assumption Five. Landside development area at an airport is always at a premium; therefore, the fifth assumption is that the plan for future airport development should strive to make most efficient use of the available area for aviation-related activities. Bucbanan Field Airport Xaskr Planning Program and FAR Part 150 Study Assumption Six. The sixth assumption focuses on the relationship of the Airport to off-airport land uses and the compatible and complimentary development of each. To the maximum extent possible, future facilities will be designed to enhance the compatibility of the operation of the Airport with the environs. The long-term development plan for the Airport is described in the following paragraphs and is graphically depicted at the end of this Executive Summary in a figure entitled CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. Development Recommendations Following an examination of several alternatives, along with input from the Study Committee, the public, County staff, CALTRANS, and the FAA, a recommended development plan was identified. As shown in Figure 1, CONCEPTUAL.DEVELOPMENT PLAN, the recommended plan for the Airport has the following mayor features: ■ Runway 1L/19R(Main Runway). The main runway will be maintained with its existing length and width (5,001'x 150'). Runway 1L is programmed for non-precision approach capabilities with a not lower-than 3/4-mile visibility minimum, for future • potential GPS driven Lateral Navigation/Vertical Navigation (LNAV/VNAV) or LPV approach. The approach visibility to Runway 19R will continue to be 3/4-mile or greater, however, the Airport will continue to provide a larger than required Precision Runway Protection Zone to allow for the future potential implementation of GPS driven Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV) approach to '/a-mile. The Airport Reference Code (ARC) for Runway 1L/19R will remain B-III (designed to regularly accommodate aircraft as large as the Gulfstream V and the Bombardier Global Express). ■ Runway 1R/19L(Secondary Parallel Runway). The secondary parallel runway will remain at its existing length and width (5,001' x 150'). Runway 1R/19L will continue to be served with visual approach capabilities only. The ARC for Runway 1R/19L will remain B-I Small Aircraft Only for aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds. ■ Runway 14L/32R(Primary Crosswind Runway). The primary crosswind runway will be retained at the Airport's primary crosswind runway with its existing length and width (4,602' x 150'). Runway 14L will continue to be served with visual approach capabilities only. Runway 32R is programmed for non-precision approach capabilities with a not lower than 1 mile visibility minimum, for future potential GPS driven Buchanan Field Airport Master Planningg Program 17' and PAR,Part 15D.Study LNAV/VNAV or LPV approach. Runway 14L/32R will continue to maintain an ARC B- III designation (designed to regularly accommodate aircraft as large as the Gulfstream V and the Bombardier Global Express). • Runway 14R/32L(Secondary Crosswind Runway). The secondary crosswind runway will also remain in its current length and width (2,799'x 75"). Runway 14R/32L will continue to be served with visual approach capabilities only. The ARC for Runway 14R/32L will remain B-I Small Aircraft Only for aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds. ■ Taxiway System. New parallel, lateral taxiways will be constructed to serve the 19-acre development in the West Development Area. Portions of Taxiway D at Taxiway A and the Runway 32R will be removed, and Taxiway H in between Taxiway J and Runway 14L/32R will also be removed. Taxiway L will be extended from Runway 1L/19R to Taxiway E,while Taxiway C from Taxiway E to Taxiway D will be removed. Taxiway F will be extended from Runway 1L/19R to Taxiway E,with the removal of the diagonal section of Taxiway F in between Taxiway E and Runway 1L/19R. The existing Taxiway K will be removed and replaced in between Taxiway A to Taxiway E. ■ Run-Up Areas and AirField Service Roads. Eastside run-up expansion areas will be constructed for Runways 19R and 19L. A new run-up area on the East Ramp,west of the Taxiway Band Taxiway J intersection will be constructed. Portions of the run-up area on the East Ramp adjacent to the Runway 32R threshold and portions of the run- up area in between Taxiway E and Runway 1L/19R will be removed. Airport service roads are programmed for construction from the Hotel Ramp to Taxiway E, from the Northwest Hangars to the North Development Area, and from the East Ramp to the East Development Area. ■ Aircraft Parking. An appropriate taxiway/taxilane/aircraft parking apron layout for the North Development Area and the Southeast Development Area are programmed to maximize the ability to efficiently support future hangar development. ■ Aviation-Use Facilities. Aviation-use facilities required for aircraft operation, storage, maintenance, and safety will occupy the majority of airport property. Aviation forecasts indicate that areas should be reserved for the storage of approximately 163 additional general aviation based aircraft. Initially, future facilities should be developed in the existing general aviation development areas. M4Buchanan Field Airport kdwr Mannin Program and FAR Part 150 Study • Additionally, the Buchanan Field Airport master planning process culminated in recommended transportation and land use changes to the Contra Costa County General Plan. The recommended changes including the following: ■ Removal of Diamond Boulevard extension on the west side of the Airport, but maintaining up to 52 feet of the proposed alignment for a future public corridor; ■ Change of land use designations (in between Marsh Drive and Sally Ride Drive on the west side of the Airport) from Commercial to Public/Semi Public and Business Park; ■ Providing change of description of allowable uses and activities offered or provided by Fixed Base Operators (FBOs) or Auxiliary/Specialty Aviation providers and project to reflect a full range of supportive full service uses. Development Program In overview, the Development Program for Buchanan Field Airport calls for the retention of the Airport's basic layout of facilities. As described above, major airside improvements are related to the realignment and enhancement of the taxiway systems and the run-up areas • and airfield service roads. Other major improvements are related to the conceptual layout of aviation-use facility development areas. During the initial development phase (the first five years of the 20-year planning period), when detailed CIP project needs can best be identified, specific improvements will include: ■ Runway and taxiway pavement rehabilitation and improvements ■ Taxiway layout improvements ■ Development and improvement of run-up areas • Security improvements ■ Installation of noise monitoring and flight tracking system ■ Airfield lighting and electrical improvements ■ Instrument approach improvements ■ Construction of airfield service roads • Construction/expansion and rehabilitation of the aircraft parking aprons ■ General aviation hangar, access taxiway, and parking apron construction • Buchanan Field Airport Master.Planning Prog'ra'm and FAR Part 150 Study ■ Aviation-use facilities expansion • Terminal building, auto parking, and terminal apron expansion ■ Land acquisition for Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) and land use compatibility • Construction of a new Air Traffic Control Tower ■ Drainage improvements Early stage improvements will likely include pavement rehabilitation, security improvements, taxiway improvements, airfield service road construction, new technology instrument approach capabilities, aircraft storage, and aircraft maintenance facilities. During latter stages of the planning period, the need for projects will, for the most part, be driven by demand. Buchanan Field Airport Master.Plannin Program and FAR Part 150 Study • Summary The development plan for the Airport is a comprehensive proposal. If aviation demands continue to indicate that improvements are needed,and if the proposed improvements prove to be environmentally acceptable,the capital improvement financial implications discussed in the Master Plan are likely to be acceptable for the FAA and Contra Costa County. However, it must be recognized that this is only a programming analysis and not a commitment on the part of the Sponsor or the FAA. If the cost of an improvement project is not financially feasible, it will not be instigated. • • BuehananField Airport Mtwt r.Pdanning Program and FAR,Part i o study R dY! ,joag G'Tl1 UA 0 M wr fl, � yyyy / ♦�- a ,a � ;� "� i/ i x'�`.�r✓,�G'�,y�.'•':_+� �Q_, �T�ny'a. y�'xl�♦t#,O, �,q�, `-�c .��j�k 5, ■,�i�w� "t'�}K��G7 ,��, •� / <g p M k • �-ov A!4- sin `."'1P" aL 1w of },� p}�...✓' ".�.� \ (�� f, t t � \ C^' ��F �..,tope. pol � - A x O. co � /tk`t�`., t e� a { E 1/ m ",�', ^ (� i-^•�"p �\\ \ \\ f' �� 77 t�fl s t`r�� ?1� j a �� 7( saO tGt� (' .' f D f n� rJ►- < moi' �.?C`y} ��-.�y.-- _ ,`it I �/ ��•P`"IL f (�� t + 1 W��a l�ri rt��:�' `�� 'r��5 rn � �� `i' •i' lljJ ..}� +� / � , 't �/ 'f fif'b �` III� � � }�7 ti. t�i e{{}':•,�,.s�Y,yr' v..'�� j t, s � 1'�',pia / !"�., � ;'•/. �T 1 Ery:!`� _ w,low- �_ i�t� e1 $ .'- 1.�,%�� V t +�' t • J( -1r ;.S��. �� 11 r a�y�ray' `l lI � 3��'' 0� -.• 4\�Jj {nj S��if ~ '� - y o'o'� `' kp R - ' �A. ,,•a� ,�,, f E`� �� „'�„� CS 1 .{ i _ 1. �� `'•-...T%1�• to / °3.�a,�p$ ,��!;, o x p � �� q �d >,^@,�r+:•-�. t��*�c.�`' l# ,•J(' i`�r I.r; l _ � �,q�^ `� �,'t fi 3� f! ' �► ate' < z o � �tJ'� � � t, 1 � ( 59 p ao U �E ce J/y ".,� ,..`•.,� t �. ' •"'"'� �' 9 a� �rnW� .: / }, ,1"1i `�y .. �, � t` �tr4-c'`"��y�h�� N u � ° �E'77 `3 �i� �•.��" r ` y.`':- �" " 3` °'�` - i " .S`1. '+y''� \4,r.�a �4f "'jy �-��s'�61 O' tib=" •`� t ; hgn � �• s ' s. �V �'iyr'c �a`' y,;�_ X•' .�. fl't:. S S� t • G a •� ."" p`Q�,�Q•� "'" ,4s. .1} .Z �ot4 .:ff("t1...-+'.�'Ty", ry ,i `W a o ! .�}a1 6 �."�,�(�• r `" �,� '�}� { ' `i�+ . ,.A.�$" �i:<$'� MOTs„q�``'ts>d 1�° �i r � C1r r'^.-. / �5 �� ."� �� t _� ° e�� `,.a,� G Al - dy �q} a rte �,,r �' ;F•,r! v� � � � ..�.-^"p ;"+��^ a, �'` .,..(:� ��t?�� f r � -\\,+a� ka 4 0/ ' �'f,__ . F4 +_w7r„- a -vp F' d� t `F } or .'i� i �yi F � -� �,',#"`: ti ,� tl'A._)ys,y �'-r.J �/ rr t�"� ri�., �. j�jj ? �o^.=.,-c"r•r£ t � � " fy NI }'qd'��.�., 'j r'� Kt "�{+.:t� ",�,.3 •,�jy�,�,�,',It,`f ',.;{:•„', ao.o tl�•�'l. ,�E 'r o + .:y \ r .p`r,"dl- �!�Rk3,r^ > L lo,_^'�. iCcy� o. �,\y�'�'�'��' � i\S`o ��,^ @'� z�,,l ,:� r v r�" .:.� �.+..�� L� 'iE� a �'+. � t:--. �2y.� y✓i3� �� i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT FAR PART ISO STUDY The purpose of a Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility(Part 150) Study is to assess the noise environment, prepare forecasts of aviation activity, identify land uses within the airport environs,and explore ways to mitigate land use compatibility conflicts. A FAR Part 150 Study requires the development of Noise Exposure Maps(NEMS)that depict the existing aircraft noise levels,expressed in terms of the Day-Night Noise Level (DNL) metric,and the five-year future noise levels(based on the DNL metric). Supplemental metrics, such as Time Above,were prepared to aid understanding of Buchanan Field Airport(CCR) noise levels.The technical reports provide a history of the development of the CCR Part 150 Study Update. The CCR FAR Part 150 Study Update has a five-year planning horizon. The baseline year for the official NEM is 2005. The future NEM is based on 2012 and represents a forecast five years from the date of anticipated submission. A review of historical aviation activity is presented, as well as a forecast of activity for the study period. • The data used to compile the aviation forecasts were derived from the forecast of aviation activity, developed for the 2007 Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan; population data were taken from the Association of Bay Area Governments Projections, 2005. Using existing and future contours as a base, the noise compatibility process focused on development of realistic, feasible, and effective operational alternatives to mitigate community noise exposure. In addition to operational alternatives, a wide range of land use alternatives and administrative actions were evaluated with potential solutions,which accommodate both airport users and residents inside the airport's environs within acceptable safety, economic, and environmental parameters. The content and recommendations of the Part 150 Study Update represent the culmination of input from a variety of stakeholders including the Master Plan Steering Committee, the FAA, airport staff, the general public, elected officials, and others. The CCR Part 150 Study supports Contra Costa County's ongoing effort to reduce aircraft noise impacts,while operating a vital international airport and regional asset in a growing metropolitan community. The goal of the Study was to evaluate and recommend measures that will aid in reducing aircraft noise impacts to residential communities and other noise-sensitive areas. These measures must be safe, realistic and legal in order to gain FAA approval. Contra Costa r Buchanan Field Airport Master Plannin Program and FAR Part 150 Study County had tremendous participation in this effort by airport stakeholders including industry representatives, pilots, business and environmental groups, and community members. Forecasting Aviation Activity Forecasting future aircraft operations at CCR serves as:a significant basis for comparing existing aircraft noise levels and quantifying future noise levels associated with aircraft activity. Forecasting, by its very nature, is not exact; however, it helps establish general parameters for evaluating existing and potential aircraft generated noise,as well as airport development needs. Background In preparing a FAR Part 150 Study, one of the key products is the preparation of noise exposure maps (NEMs). The NEMs identify existing and future noise exposure (five years into the future). NEMs are prepared using the FAA's Integrated Noise Model (INM). To prepare a noise contour for a particular year, the INM uses information including the number of aircraft operations, the types of aircraft (fleet mix), and the time of day that the activity occurs. The forecasts prepared as part of the 2000 CCR Master Plan serve as the basis for future activity level projections used in the FAR Part 150 Study. The existing and future NEMs developed for this Study originally reflected 2005 as the existing year and 2012 as the future year. Aircraft Operations The forecasted annual aircraft operations are identified in Table 1 below (Table B12 in the Noise Part 150 Study). Annual aircraft operations are expected to increase from 128,375 in 2004 to 181,465 in 2024. Average annual daily operations were estimated from the annual forecast by simply dividing the annual level.by 365. Table 1 depicts the recent historic and, forecasted approximate level of use by aircraft types that are projected to use CCR. EiBuchanan Field Airport Master.,Planning Program it and FAR Part 15I Study Table I SUMMARY OF AVIATION ACTIVITY FORECASTS,2004-2024 Buchanan Field Master Plan Update Operations 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024 General Aviation 128,162 140,948 156,152 169,665 181,252 Single Engine 89,713 94,435 101,499 106,889 112,376 Multi Engine 8,971 10,148 11,711 12,895 13,775 Turbo prop 3,845 4,510 5,153 5,599 6,163 Business Jet 12,816 17,618 21,861 26,807 30,269 Helicopter 12,816 14,236 15,927 17,475 18,669 Military 213 213 213 213 213 TOTAL OPERATIONS 128,375 141,161 156,365 169,878 181,465 Local Operations 59,161 63,522 68,800 73,047 76,215 Itinerant Operations 69,214 77,638 87,564 96,830 105,250 Based Aircraft By Type Single Engine 406 424 441 463 481 • Multi Engine 32 35 39 42 46 Turboprop 16 18 21 23 26 Business Jet 29 49 64 72 77 Helicopter 14 17 21 25 30 Total Based Aircraft 497 543 586 625 660 Source:BARNARD DUNKELBERG&COMPANY. Buchanan Field Airport Master.Planning Program and FAR Part 150 Study Summary of Noise Compatibility Program Recommendations A summary of each recommendation is presented within the three categories listed below. Each category is described by an overall goal,followed by a brief description of the associated recommendations. Categories of Recommendations Noise Abatement Recommendations; ■ Land Use Management Recommendations; Program Management and Administrative Recommendation; and, ■ Recommendations and Actions for Further Consideration. NOISE ABATEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 1 Required Navigation Performance (RNP)Departure Procedures for Turbojet Aircraft Using FMS Technology. This recommendation focuses on aircraft'using the existing departure procedures, but would utilize Flight Management System (FMS) technology to reduce dispersion over non-compatible land uses such as residential neighborhoods. Aircraft would depart using either the Buchanan Eight or Kanan Two departure with an FMS overlay. For south departures, aircraft would still continue to perform a climbing left turn back to the north as they do today. The FMS overlay would be designed to take advantage of compatible land uses to the maximum extent possible, and to minimize flying over residential land uses. This Action could be used by approximately 80% of the projected turbojet aircraft fleet operating at the Airport. It would reduce the dispersion of the aircraft from the center flight path and also reduce the number of late turns by turbojet aircraft. The Airport will work with the FAA air traffic control to develop more defined and narrow departure flight paths using FMS technology to concentrate aircraft flight tracks via Required Navigation Performance (RNP) procedures. Recommendation 2 Aircraft Approach Angles and Altitudes for Landing Turbojet Aircraft. This recommendation evaluates methods to reduce the times that aircraft operate at lower altitudes during landing Buchanan Field Airport Master.Pbn. ing Program t1' and PAR Part 150 Study • at Buchanan Filed Airport (CCR). It examines increasing the altitude at which aircraft intercept the existing 3 degree VASI approach slope when landing at the Airport by flying a more continuous descent without the need to fly level flight at lower altitudes. Turbojet aircraft arriving on Runway 011,would establish an approach on an approximate 3 degree continuous descent to intercept the VASI approach lights that are also set at 3 degrees. The new procedure would fly a continuous descent, thereby reducing the time the aircraft is operating in level flight at lower altitudes with higher power settings. While aircraft may (at times) fly a continuous procedure, this alternative is to more formally recognize this approach as the preferred method for turbojet landings at CCR. The Airport will work with the FAA to explore methods of increasing the altitude at which aircraft intercept the approach slope by flying a continuous 3 degree descent. Recommendation 3 Runway 19R Visual Flight Rules (VFR)Departure Procedures for Turbojet Aircraft. This Action would not increase the utilization of the existing Runway 19R turbojet instrument departure procedure,wherein aircraft make a climbing left.(east) turn to intercept the CCR VOR north • of the Airport. This departure to the east would depend on air traffic control workload, aircraft sequencing, and weather conditions. Aircraft would depart Runway 19R and execute a-climbing left-turn, similar to the Kanan Two instrument departure. The departure procedure would not change from the existing procedure other than the majority of aircraft would be turning to the east,instead of the west. The procedure could be used by all turbojet aircraft operating at the Airport since it does not require special on-board navigational equipment. The Airport will work with the FAA air traffic control to develop a voluntary procedure for Runway 19R turbojet departures with the goal of aircraft following the left-turn (east) Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight tracks during Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions. Recommendation 4 Increased Use of Runway 32R as the Preferred Runway for Northbound Departures. This Action was suggested by the Steering Committee and is designed so that aircraft would use Runway 32R instead of Runways 01L/19R in order to place as much aircraft activity over compatible land use areas as possible. The use of Runway 32R would be requested,when available. Availability depends primarily on weather conditions, specifically, the direction of the wind M4Buchanan Field Airport Master Planning Program and FAR Part 150 Study i and traffic. When the tower is active, the tower will assign aircraft to a departing runway, unless the pilot requests otherwise. This action would;formalize the existing June 2004 Standard Operating Procedure between ATCT and the County regarding increased noise abatement use of Runway 32R. This Action is designed to foster the further utilization of the preferred noise departure runway (Runway 32R) when conditions permit, using the existing departure procedures. Aircraft would depart Runway 32R, fly runway heading until just before crossing Highway 4, then resume their own navigation or fly a heading assigned by the ATCT. In calm wind conditions, aircraft would be able to request a departure on Runway 32R,while Runway 01L/19R or Runways 19L/R are active. The Airport will work with the FAA air traffic control to develop a voluntary program to use Runway 32R for north departures,when weather and safety conditions allow. Recommendation 5 Pilot Controlled Lighting. The Airport currently has a preferential runway use program for use of Runway 01L/19R and Runway 14L/32R. Currently,:Runways 01L/19R and 14L/32R have runway edge lighting. However, during the hours in which the tower is closed,lighting to Runway 14L/32R is turned off. There is no line-of-sight between the thresholds of Runway 01L and 32R due to landside development. As such, only Runway 01L/19R is lighted during the night to avoid a potentially dangerous situation when the airport is uncontrolled. As such,it is not possible to fully implement the noise abatement runway use program during the nighttime operations. Departures on Runway 32 are preferred since it places aircraft over compatible land uses, especially if this could occur during the sensitive nighttime hours. This recommendation is technology dependent. This Action is to explore and evaluate a method to safely activate the existing runway lighting for Runway 14L/32R, during hours in which the ATCT is closed, so that the runway can be used along with Runway 01L/19R from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., as well as other runways as appropriate. LAND USE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 1 Continue Recommended Land Use Controls from Previous Noise Compatibility Program. The previous Part 150 Program Record of Approval contained the following approved land use mitigation measures: the adoption of standardized;land use compatibility standards and guidelines for the County and surrounding jurisdictions; amend local General Plans to Buchanan Field Airport 04 igaster:Planning Program M U� and FAR Part 150 Study preclude new or redeveloped housing units and other noise sensitive uses within areas of high noise or over flights; amend local subdivision requirements to require noise insulation and avigation easements in all new or redeveloped housing units within areas exposed to noise levels in excess of CNEL 60 dB; amend local ordinances to require acoustical studies and noise insulation to comply with Title 25, California Administrative Code for areas exposed to noise levels in excess of CNEL 65 dB; require noise or avigation easements in newly developed areas; and, update the Airport Land Use Plan as necessary. Continue the off- airport land use recommendations contained in the previous Part 150 Program and approved in the Record of Approval. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 1 Development/Implementation of Fly Quiet Program. Fly Quiet is a voluntary program and has the advantage of reinforcing desirable flight procedures without going through time consuming regulatory requirements of an FAR Part 161 process. A Fly Quiet Program has the potential of reducing single event noise levels and encouraging greater compliance with preferential flight corridors and procedures, and could potentially result in continued overall reduction in cumulative noise levels for areas around the Airport. As part of the Fly Quiet Program, a Fly Quiet Brochure (as an updated follow on piece to the Airport's current brochure) will be developed to explain the voluntary noise abatement procedures. The Brochure will be placed in FBO offices, transient pilot lounges, and administrative offices to dispense to both transient and based pilots. An existing voluntary Fly Quiet Program has been developed by the Airport and should be continued and modified to: ■ Monitor adherence to ideal noise abatement flight tracks, ■ Evaluate success of operators in following recommended procedures, ■ Quantify runway use, and ■ Establish goals. Recommendation 2 Operations Review and Part 150 Updates. It is recommended that airport management undertake a yearly review of the aircraft types and numbers, along with the actual number of operations occurring at the Airport, and determine if they are consistent with the projections contained in the FAR Part 150 document. FAR Part 150 defines the level of Buchanan Field Airport Master Planning Program "i` and FAR Part 150 study change necessary to trigger a revision of the Noise Exposure Map to be when any change in the operation of the Airport would create any substantial new non-compatible use in any area depicted on the map beyond that which is forecast for the fifth calendar year after the date of approval. That is, if that change results in an increase in the yearly day-night average sound level of 1.5 CNEL or greater,in either an area that was formerly compatible, but is now made non-compatible, or in a land area that was previously determined to be non- compatible and whose non-compatibility is not significantly increased. The various recommendations will also be reviewed as to their ability to mitigate the projected noise intrusion and the overall effectiveness of the program. At the end of the five-year time frame, all of the forecasts and aircraft mix are to be re- evaluated by airport staff to determine the extent to which they have changed from those projected in this study, and are to be updated to reflect the following five years. If necessary, new mitigation measures are to be evaluated. Contingent upon federal funds, the Noise Compatibility Program is to be re-evaluated and public review of documents will be incorporated. The FAR Part 150 Study is a five-year program recommended to be re-evaluated at the end of the five-year period. In addition,if there is a significant change in either aircraft types or numbers of operations, or significant new facilities, then it is recommended that the • Study be re-evaluated prior to the end of the five-year time frame. Recommendation 3 Establish Follow-Up Noise Issues Committee. Considerable time and effort have been expended, by both the Airport and the Steering Committee,in the development of this Study, especially in the "learning curve" effort that is too valuable a tool for communication to risk losing at the end of this process. This is especially true concerning the community planning representatives and their role in keeping the Airport, citizens, communities, and others informed on land use issues that concern the Airport, as well as Airport Traffic Control Tower personnel. It is envisioned that this follow-on committee would function as a subcommittee of the existing Airport Advisory Committee (AAC), and meet under their auspices. As such, an AAC member should chair the follow-on committee which ideally would be comprised of selected AAC and Master Plan Steering Committee members. Airport staff will present the results of the flight track monitoring program, noise complaint data, and other pertinent noise-related information. In addition, this Committee can help develop and modify the Fly Quiet Program, as needed. The Master Plan Steering Committee, or a portion thereof, should remain in place subsequent Buchanan Field Airport Master Planning Program and FAR Part 150 Study to the completion of this Study, and should meet on a quarterly basis to discuss noise abatement issues at the Airport. Recommendation 4 Install Noise Monitoring/Flight Track Monitoring System with Multilateration. This Recommendation would result in an updated noise monitoring system installed at the Airport to help monitor aircraft noise levels. In addition, the system would track aircraft flight tracks and provide a method to address citizen complaints concerning aircraft noise. The system would also help the Committee formulate and monitor the Fly Quiet Program. The Airport currently utilizes an older noise monitoring system that is out-of-date and does not offer flight track monitoring,which multilateration provides. The new system would combine flight track and noise monitoring specific to Buchanan Field Airport. The type of equipment and capabilities will be determined through the use of a Committee and staff/management from the Airport. The Committee could help identify the potential noise monitoring sites and review the specifications for the system. This process can take up to approximately two years to complete. The noise monitoring sites must be owned or long-term leased by the Airport, must be secure, and must have electrical power/telephone access. It is recommended that the Airport purchase an update to the existing noise monitoring system,which includes flight track monitoring with multilateration. This system would monitor aircraft noise levels, monitor flight track conditions, and track noise complaints. Recommendation 5 Update Noise Abatement On-Airport Signage and Brochures. The Noise Management Program Brochure was last updated in 2005. This Brochure is distributed to the aircraft owners based at Buchanan Field Airport and is also distributed by the FBOs to transient pilots. The information contained in the Brochure is also available on-line at the airport website, http://www.buchananfield-byronairports.org/airport/noise.htm. The existing Buchanan Field Airport Noise Management Program brochures and signage would be updated to reflect the voluntary and mandatory noise abatement procedures, as appropriate. New language would be included that reflects new procedures and goals that are developed and Buchanan Field Airport Master Planning Program Z.x and FAR Part 150 study adopted within the Part 150 Study (such as, new departure procedures, approach angles and altitudes, quiet technology, takeoff and maintenance run-up areas, modifications,lighting, etc.) and the Fly Quiet Program. It is recommended that the Airport continue to enhance its efforts to educate pilots, both based and transient, about the noise abatement program at Buchanan Field Airport. This updated effort should provide new information in a clear and graphical presentation format for pilots and users. RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTIONS FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION The following Actions are recommended for further consideration, but not for implementation at this time,and are not intended to be included in the Record of Approval. These should be considered and explored for sources of funding,or when operations increase such that run-up operations result in associated noise intrusion. Recommendation for Further Consideration 1 Explore Greater Use of Quiet Propeller Technology and Use. This would apply to propeller training aircraft fleet, propeller blade technology, and adjustable pitch propeller departure settings. Recommendation for Further Consideration 2 i Run-Up Noise Mitigation,Pre-Flight Run-Up Areas. This action would develop pre-flight run- up areas that would shift them to a location about 1,000 feet to the south or west and farther from residential areas. This would be appropriate when sufficient operations occur to warrant new run-up areas based on ground noise complaints. Recommendation for Further Consideration 3 Run-Up Noise Mitigation, Ground Run-Up Enclosure. This action would result 1n the development of a ground run-up enclosure (GRE) to be used for performing maintenance run-up activities. Maintenance run-ups are longer in duration and at higher thrust settings then pre-flight run-ups. Such a facility can be very productive in reducing ground noise associated with such run-ups, and should be considered when such activities become intrusive at the Airport. Buchanan Field Airport i Master Planning Program .x and FAR Part 150 Study Noise Exposure Maps Existing 2005 (Base Case) Noise Exposure Map The noise contours used to identify areas eligible for various mitigation programs are the existing (2005) noise contours for CCR, Figure 2 (Figure D19 in the Part 150 Study). Of the conditions considered in a Part 150 Study Update, the existing noise contour (2005) is the largest noise contour generated by aircraft operating at CCR. The existing noise contour affects the greatest number of people (in comparison to future contours) because its larger size encompasses the greater number of housing units. In addition, because there is no guarantee that all the proposed Part 150 Study operational (noise abatement) recommendations will or can be implemented before 2012, it is important to address current conditions. For these reasons, the 2005 noise contour has been used to quantify the number of structures and people eligible for participation in recommended land use compatibility program measures. Future 2012 (Base Case) Noise Exposure Map As outlined in the FAR Part 150, the airport operator must develop existing and future NEMs. The future NEM is required to show conditions five (5) years into the future. The aircraft-generated noise contours used to identify the future NEM are the future Base Case (2012) noise contours for CCR. These contours represent the future conditions associated with CCR with no operational, facility, or land use changes; the Future Base Case reflects the existing airport layout and noise abatement procedures assuming a higher level of activity forecast for the year 2012 (150,283 annual operations). The future NEM is illustrated on Figure 3 (Figure HI in the Part 150 Study). Table 2 below presents the current number of people, the current number of residential units, and other non-residential noise sensitive structures found within the INM-predicted CCR Future Base Case noise contours that represent the 2012 Future Base Case NEM. Buchanan Field Airport Master Planning Program and FAR Part 150 Study • Table 2 FUTURE NOISE EXPOSURE MAP WITH EXISTING LAND USE,2012 Buchanan Field Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study CNEL 65 CNEL 70 CNEL 75 Land Use Contour Contour Contour Residential 0 Ac 0 Ac 0 Ac People 0 0 0 House Units 0 0 0 Churches 0 0 0 Schools 0 0 0 Agriculture 0 Ac 0 Ac 0 Ac Transportation 283 Ac 180 Ac 82 Ac Commercial 0 Ac 0 Ac 0 Ac Industrial 4 Ac 0 Ac 0 Ac Parks/Recreation 0 Ac 0 Ac 0 Ac Government 0 Ac 0 Ac 0 Ac Open 32 Ac 2 Ac 0 Ac Utilities 0 Ac 0 Ac 0 Ac Total Acres 319 Ac 182 Ac 82 Ac SOURCES: Aerial Photography,2000 Census Data,Contra Costa County Land Use Data,BDC Analysis. • Calculations are based on preliminary information supplied by aerial photography. The total figures for each contour are cumulative. The figures for the larger contours contain the area within all smaller contours. FAA Review The FAA review of the Part 150 study is pending and will commence upon approval of the Buchanan Field Master Plan by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. r Buchanan Field Airport Maskr.Planning Program xii and FAR Part 150 Study The BamaN Dunkelberg&Company Team �Qa The 65 DNL contour contains approximately 288 acres, P�cJ no residential structures and no people. The 70 DNL contour contains approximately 168 acres, no residential structures and no people. a The 75 DNL contour contains approximately 72 acres, no residential structures and no people. �a q� Planning jurisdictions are shown on the map. N7 ° Noise measurement sites and flight tracks are depicted Z- on the Noise Measurement Sites and Flight Tracks Maps. Residential land use,as defined by FAR Part 150,is an incompatible use without proper sound attenuation within the 65 DNL or greater contour. U3 3— The Noise Exposure Maps and accompanying documentation for the Buchanan Field Airport,submitted in accordance with a_ FAR Part 150 with the best available information,are hereby certified as true and complete to the best of my knowledge o 65 CNEL Imhorfor Po� and belief.�e In addition,it is hereby certified that the public was afforded the J2 �iL 70 CNEL Olivera.Rd opportunity to review and comment on the document and its contents. co °' m° Signed Date �L El e ena o i w Mo Arnold-Dr Plluir-Rd � o � �m O o MARTINEZ �Q 75 CNEL¢ /4V, S p o Pacheco m -5� r� �anter:Ave / High`s°` d 2nd. ^N ON 65 70 CNELCOnCO ce rdgCONCORD eh�C°inso 65 CNEL C.?r:, t P k Y st P d � 5a��o \a�`Oa. 3 I °� OOG91as,T I Co�C/ub Rd 0 m Sm JcaS� unt Orabto.gt omQ o �a9 1 I o1P/�O Q1 7 coke/ '9� Viking.Dr /qd 0 PLEASANT HILL a0 o, APd ¢ Legend S cJ dorn-Ln o �s°� ® City Limit Boundary -y>i eeJ V �J QO 2005 Noise Contours Viv an Dr ° © 0 1,500 3,000 Mill� Feet ® Figure 2 Existing 2005 Noise Exposure Map Buchanan Field Master Planning Program X111 �p The Barnard Dunkelherg&Company Team The 65 DNL contour contains approximately 319 acres,no residential structures and no people. 9a The 70 DNL contour contains approximately 182 acres, no residential structures and no people. The 75 DNL contour contains approximately 82 acres, C'exrat pve no residential structures and no people. lop Planning jurisdictions are shown on the map. d1 Noise measurement sites and flight tracks are depicted yon the Noise Measurement Sites and Flight Tracks Maps. / Residential land use,as defined by FAR Part 150,is an incompatible use without proper sound attenuation within Pacheco 9 the 65 DNL or greater contour. i ca The Noise Exposure Maps and accompanying documentation for the Buchanan Field Airport,submitted in accordance with Pmoid" FAR Part 150 with the best available information,are hereby certified as true and complete to the best of my knowledge /mhoff Dand belief. r pule 0) 65 CNEL tate In addition,it is hereby certified that the public was afforded the cJ opportunity to review and comment on the document and its contents. �0 70 CNEL Signed Date 'ic 1 r G1 kA� =IIs pr N Muir-Rd 75 CNEL D 75 CNEL MARTINEZ Pacheco o �/ o Nsjhs/ 1st Ave �o Y7 70 CNEL CONCORD a 65 65 CNEL GOP Pd �m Goik. fro` i 10 y p w Q �ro KiKi.D I 7 co, Viking.Dr ayyP � PLEASANT HILL ode" ��. o0 5. 0d `repo OPS 9 gPpr veto o. 9, Sylvia Dr _ Legend Doris-Dr— <<and ® City Limit Boundary o y 2012 Combined DNL C 0 © 0 1,500 3,000 Feet Figure 3 Future 2012 Noise Exposure Map Bucbanan Field Master Planning Programs xiv Exhibit "D" : "Buchanan Field Airport Policy and Standards for Development" r. BUCHANAN 'FIELD AIRPORT POLICY -015.STANDARDS FOR DEVEZOPMENT ' =A... GOALS AND,.OBJECTI:VES -- --- -. --= - -- ---- ••B., GENERAL::PRINCIPLES ---------=----------- C. GLOSSARY-------------------------=-=---------;� D: LEASE POI,I'GY---- --- --- ------ --------.--- -32.° Et BUILDING STANDARDS &:RESTRIC.TIONS (ARCHI.TEC'TURAl E. SIGN STANDARDS- ---------- -------- •-=-- ----- 19.-30 c. INtPI .MENTATIo1�-= --------=----=-=------------- -3� 32: H, ENF'ORCII+'IENT-------------- ------ r---------- - 3� : .. -1`. AMENbblkNT PROCEDURE---'- ----*= -------- 32 J. : VARIANCE PROCEnURE--f-------- --. ----------- 3334. = K. SEP.AFABILITY. -j------___�------------- .------= 35. L, '5ITE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTUAI, PLANS=.--.-- ------ A. G{}ALS AND .6BJECTIVFS Fnr urpcses . of establishing policy axed. standards to facilitate airport . deV opmeXI; , Buchanan Field Airport, which appro:)cimates 5OD attes , is .divided :nt&,;4-qo.mai or areas Qne , is the .aircraft operating area= (.the aitfielcl)• and :.tax wother is-, ae•s-i,gnated -f-or axis ting and- propris`ed deveI- opment. T�e a-ircrdit.': operating..area rpieans.' that, po'rti6n- of Buchanan.••:�ield Air- ort mperated by cir. under:.immediate control- of- the CPunt� of Contra os.ta {"C ' , r-y"} and,/er `the 'e.deral .Avia.txan Adiiiiriistration ''FAA") included are,runwagsy.: p %b'1 zC taxiways', . public a:,pro'ns• and all-required ;clew areas . the .remaining portion. af':the Airport:, showt..i on the Airport ;Layout Plan {.,els,") .drawing as exIsULng-.Ae�Velopment. and prop.ose'd•.new devetOpment, is-. the :subject of this p-QIcy-and. s:tazdards>. dcicuauent. pals 'and: ob j g tives of thit"p:o•licy. and• ,standards document are. as.; ). To address gneal avian on needs through. axe orderly., developmezxt of- vacant or •si.ibstandard airport •properties , consistent wit the Gknerai .Principles: outlined below. :. ) To d e.1 p other vacant or substandard t. which' Are clearly •determined .to, be - surplu fd. �.ong-'r"ange • ge-mexal aviation heeds.;.=•f.oi'. offi'ce•,` iidustr%' ariii/ r.':comimercial. •ptiiposes ; j( ) �o promote the iitias an af`` r 'te cap:i al , and . ta'encorarage increase- timely' .. orderly 6evelopment. for -puitj es: of .generating increase- County.-_x•even4e,,:xncre-as ed. Buchanan Field..A�•rport revenue.,. 'and xreza empl.oymeixt oppcirtunities , an to foster acid ehcourage•'•avi Mian /) To prci act aiid enhance the' economic `vita.lity of Buchanan-. Field ,Airpor-!,,tenant's , .and To accornpl iso -all .6f`.'the above with a dottibuing ' assessrurent of - To. -•to-.stab-i.lize. or. reduce adverse' nvirorimerita1. impact -to the' .gtitateei-t• 'practical extent.,- B.- xtent.,B. GENS-RAL. PRINCIPLES. As a: guy deli ices'--j.-and-as' an, ince ve for. tios.e-iia_ ng business-at -Buc".gan.:,Fi 611:Airpar,t, . and for those - x��ere' ited in the development of n-ew .facilities,. the followin-g, gexiera7 principles apply: .(1) The County. wi.11 .at-x.11 tires , - and-.,to,,_the -utmost of its aba.lity, 6pe.rate-Buchanan Field:Airport i2n-. thliest•-interest .of .�onzra Costa County., .the residents and coxurnunities affected by the . operation .of the. airport, the aviation .community, those served by the airport, its tenaxits , and the 'business community. A spirit of .cooperation and understanding will'be fas•tered -by - the -County at-, all times to avoid conflict between aviation. - users , the business community, and neighboring communities :. 1. (Revised 6/-16 /79) (2) All future aviation-related development will be - evaluated for approval vwifh' t7espect to whether or not Buchanan Field Airport is in compliance with State noise standards.- ..(3) The County. will under all circ=En tanced'.require;'-lease agreements with all BucYiarian Field'Airport tenants, and' will negotiate such leases in a. way that will insure a proper rate of return to -the .. County, while encouragIng the infusion-of' pri.vato- capital for facility'•development and faci:lity. impbo�rements, new'emplayment; and a. sound' Bueharian FieIA Airport e66noMIc structure. ' Every effort will he made tO5 deve'1op' •rates• and* 'charges which are 'faa.r_.-. and. equitable .for. all.eXxstin:g-. and future -aviation-.' tenants•.; (4) j.$uchanLn.Zieldkirpart wi7,1 at all tunes be.'operated,. -adminii.stered :arsd sieve]vpe = ri accordance:_-vithappZ'zca�le; guidelines 'pro� u3 gafed by .tiie Co-unty; •as' well�.•as tk�os `sit forth. by appropriate rega:0I State- and Federal "ager,cies. Unless -the. provision tir content otherwise_ requires, the. definitions c6riti'z ed"-in this Section.'.shall govern the construction' of, .this c7r7dinanc.�: . • . . (l) Aircta•ft Operating Areae. ".Aircraft. operati Ag.. area" .deans"that 'portAcgn -of, the..:Ai..'q-P : gperated by or: under. .the i.mine.diate control.: of the. Oanty •of Contra',Costa•.hereinafter referred to' as the. "county".i And/,Q.x.,the; Federal Avi ation -2 dor i,nistra•tion; herein' a€ter referred to. a:8 .,•the "FA ".;.,which includes .runways; helicopter pads,. • •publ d- taxiways, `all regvir.ea.•clear areas, and .a :perimeter. apron , roadway for:,atithor-ized. .vehicular traffic.; (2) Si te.�:. "•Site".:•means. a_ .parce.l: or, lot of property at the Airport Which. is leased.:or ava1:lable .for lease to individt,al Ca£egory.- - A, �B, G, or D 'tenants' I t 3) Aprdn Front.'Site, ."Apron .front site" meai-is "a site at the Airport. having .di-rec access. td the-aircraft operating area' and intended . dor.: lease `toy.Category ,A tenants. (4) ;Nan-Apron: Front ..Site. "Normapron front, site'° means a site at the Airport':havinq no'.direct• access to the aircraft operating a.•rea and intended for. lease to Category 'B; C, and D.tenants . (5) Primary . Street. "Primary 'street" means, a stfeet that serves' as a part_ of the principal Airport roadway network, .providi.ng access; traffic flow through` the airport, -and connecting areas• of traffic generation.. (6) SecondaryStreet. "Secondary street"- means a street .other, than a primary street.' 72— (Revised 6/26/78) (Corrected 3/19/80) ory A 'tenant:; "as*itgork•A t-'en' ". means 'a',tenant who by virtue `cf 2ie'.tenarit''a, a'eci:flc •type' Of- avis.ttIbn activiiy :shauld - cicaupyCh.e:Airport *ith conti:gu.aus. aarcraft, apron•'and , diriect-access to 'the a t.rcrt� operating afarea. {$}' Category. H`Texzarit.. "Category H tenant' means a tenant-whom by vir=tue."of -th.e':•t.enant°'s'.:spec.ifid type o ' 'aviation :activity: should occupy. a';site'.at t,'ie Airport, but .who does:.not -need- a site contig- uous to the,'aircraft :apron:and viho does.' not. 'need direct:.acce"ss. to the aircraft operating -area. ('9} G3t or :C. ,Tetmnt::. "Category-C tenant" me an a'tenant-'who•'by iie. o tkie.:.tei�ant.`s ..gener.&I 'type of avid.ficin-oriented,..activity.- .: .: . need: 'not' Aiz-port.:' ateo .D' enantw,:.'.: ' :Category: D 'tenant. means: a .tenant•:W.0, pY4" v r`tt�e; cf..t3ie ':te iant.�s non=a iatiori-.activity neer' nat :acq_r. $.• site' at` the Aizpcz't .. Base`.operator. 'Fixe'' base n}ierator" means a major.Airport...• aviation.°bus riess..prov�ding. compreherisi�e :•general aviation, pares : acid .services,' including° .but :iaot: 3imited•:tq° :an.;aiircraft;.deslr= s3iip:, ell: 'ng, a?ic 6erviciiig ,new and ,used aircraft- and component, :p"art.a_:and•;;pr"ovid3:ng e6mp1tte services and''fa lilties for .locally: based azid." tnerazit.:asrcraft. Addit3 one :;ac.tiv .t :es'.oP a fixed ba`se.:operator.;ra include. aviatit�n`. traIrii-ng, `aerial .pYtcitography,,' . air craf't'.:rcrita2 ac ,a ter' fuel. antl'."o31 s.al.es and: complete',eery'ass r.ega d�irg .•a�rcraf "-p werpl'ants, `_instruments.:.:; electric ijrclrau7;• e sy"stems:°propel]era and;l.oth:er arrcraft'_components. D.:. SASE POLICY {1_) Introduction.: St;is ••the .basic intention. of° :this 'Sedan Ll iiasure thakt the berms and, coiiditiox:s ,of ,each: airport ; greement . '. f fie::gei era Zy." uri3;iorm am ail teriaarits, .:and.:sp•t-ifica. ly.:•more' . uniform amtazig .:lessees .of a partciilaac• te:rz�arnt category•.{see. Glossary :, Sec,tiori: C}:,: This: intent viri32 -be: app'lied.:tQ the greatest.- e`�ctent .p,assible and practical: ;f:neo•far` a.s• the 'terms,.af.._ e ci stizig: l eases •an 'as$reementa N Airport lease. agreement negotiations. viill die structured '.to pe m`it' optimum generationof County revenue,. without_'the 'iiaposx i:on o., undue or excessive ,finaric•ial �burdoti upon' the-.lessee. . with respect ` to site 'development, and/or t}ie •,operatiorznnainteiiance ot• a, tenant°,"s site. th'e� County will. assum-e: no', obligations; except under extra-. ordinary circuma-tance.s a'n4 donditians.. ; - .A1- 1 new- airport ,'agreements. will "be subordinate.' to:-provisions -of agreerrients: bereen the Covntyy and the United 'States. of. :America �*elat ..fie to the dsvel:capment. .and:'operation of the airport as a `' public -facility. N got'3atidtis x!ith pnosp-ective new tenant$, involving new. facilities- and .serv :c-es', wiZl': be based in pari upon an ap rai f the market . . de rm-iiie the -ddsirabijity and- need or diti6nat serer-ice`s and fac•ilit-ss.. : uch. propose crew services '-and .facilities aril-.'-be evaluated-.by the' County••to reach.'a determination as to-whether an undue'•t'inancia2 •burden may-.be imposed upgn exist.i.ng tenants, which . catild in. turn diminish .overall income to: the.-County: • :S.uch • . , negot a:tir g po•1i�y will. help to'insui;e existing :tenants.`th2it-.the County- desires- to carry :oiit' th,e'`irr-tent'and :spiri't .oi' •existiing -a.ir- port '.agree sent.a Prosg.eetive` retiar tenarit:s .vtth 'whos�..tYre .:.County .negotiate&..wily be. r.equare '. to provide ch ;rtacter/busantss :red'ererices, .eez'ti ff ed'' financiaY .statements; acrd:if' reques.tet3 pro jec:ti:ons ar�d estimates' --of. business activity, including 'gross income. The'latter 1nfort. li; lOn,-OlgtAd be •utilized %by.:tht',Courity:.to -develop estimates, of ire a .rpert`:revenue:`when:-such 4ncome is based- upon 'a .p:eircentage cat: grass receipts. t ( } "p'ri'YUQ.&6s' and.-Ri t's. To:. .1. negotiations w#h.prospective: tenan'is in theproper-perspective.,. the. fohowing privilege and fights shaTl'.app11 -and are•,hereby es*a I.Eshed: a) The County=•mill '&.ant'.each .Idsse-e..the' right to conduct 'a sp.ec.ife`business 'activity, which will- be ,carefully- described within `each':lease: ' This:.�iill. not preclude a �lessdi ��. `row ;se.curng'.ane .or •more, addtiosal 'ac:tivities or business 'en-. • cleavors- prav ded r-hbweirer. .that. this:Rr ri lege will .req .ire' a . .separat:e and di's.tict' agre•emehtq In, ,any ,event, the 'less-ee mill beregtaired to. meet'. .stringent performance -qualjS catiohs regarding related, •eiper-ience, quality,-and -depth of management, . financial- services, ' etc o; b) , Each .lessee .rovill be 'epress2y prohibited from. conducting atiy activity oai the:..-a' I'rp'qrVother than. that.--described within the- provisi ,ns`.'of each. -le•aoe: . . I•n- th'is manner.; the value Nand.integ- ri'ty.oftall .a .rp. ort-'agreements will' ;be.maintained', and the County =ordinance iieguiat:irig commercial act -viii-es properly Enf orc a cl:.. c). �t1I agreements tari'11.;.'as. required. and applicable,-. inc3ude- pro- vi si bas that govern the hours of. operation, type of operation, . extent`-of services and quality, of performance. . Performance zta liiard•s are es&entia� .for -all .service-oriented activities ( i5ced `base operators , :restaurants, auto rental, -etc. ) .to insure- that th•e".public interest 'is.• being •served adequately, proinP'tly., . courteously, efficiently, and safely. d) Th:e -=Anda-te f or high performance standards is.intended to pr..omote :maximum service •aotivi ty .w,it . an atteirdant return to' the'.•.County in percentages of gross sales and. .other fees. Inc3ud'e d" in each service-orientedagreement Will •b-e' provisions for reme' d.i as in the. event -Nigh perf ormance Standards are ;not : 6udtai.ned: . such .as a.gregimen't.•c3ncell,ationf. :f'n.r� Feitcxre''`o ' 'perfoftazic:e 'bcxnd, ete.. . :C'auipl en e:•vir :t# .,hi_gh :p.er iormance.itandarda•*ill •be .determined _a�- th e`C oianty: (3}. . Bidding Procedure. ...The 'process: aY s.oliciting.bids for airport : development., oonducting negotiations, ' and ultimately, executing- .a tenan�••agrreezaent, will involve :the:. fallowing stages G.ounty...wl;Vl-:at Any, bineand 'at' itsi•:dis'cxetion. public'ally arino.unc.e',the a-irailabil3ty .of airport sites for 'develapm,ent: Interested: parties. wa ll.'be' •furni'she'd With ecipie8 of :t}iis..' ".Policy ariii.:Standards. far. Develtrpment". a. bd.proprisa2 form,' and .a,. detailed.bid' instaruct on` sheet, indf eating a. bf,d submittal:;: 'dead�: ne. '. .. .• - - `h} Upon receipt- of -j0ch bids.- -the d.0 he Cnty ;*iI .public4lly and with' due' iriot .ce•'•.caz�vene:'a:f ive�memle seFe'ening;.c°omval•ttae+!': - evaluate .a11 `b3 ds 'arid .to. establisk :atY', .axrler, of. aeceptasi:Z,i:ty.. - tfiase.proiosals that: would:•produce: new- developieat_.in compliance, ; with policy. and s:taiidards .for �.:deveiop�uent ' and.w2iich iera'uld. satisfy. the'::best interest...of.'•tY Lt Cou4ity a#idr:the akpprtn M1 generai'. c} The .s�iccessfui :bid' woui d be presented to the Hoard .off Sager-; " visor's'.with;: a •r'ecommeridation haat••:;thes.:ucceasful bidder be ....•,:_,�; off icially.'d'e.s!gnated As' the p,-a: vrith wh.o'za-'the.-County;wili ne a:tzatclease agre.e?'eiit;•:under;.•the teras: of th.e iia.. •prQpasal.. ,. d}:, 'Sh.oiil'd' •:seich ;xiegat itions•-with.. the succ.essfif3 bidder 'pracliicie a:.fir�al •leas'e agre;emexit;.:'such`. an-.-agreement would .be:.pre.'seiri-ed to :tris+ Btiarii.':a Supervisors.: or, approval arid;:execution. e} ?iaild- iiegatiat'i.ons,with. the'.successful 'Yiii3der .fail 'to .pro f.1 :e,age .agreement, , a�recommehdation - 'ould' .be asade' . to :tb6 Board-.•pf .Supervisors •that either'.iiew:bids;.be s.olic teii,. rir that (tie next. bidder . . i order o2'. acceptablty`.be:.•de;s•ig: "rioted as' th,e-party -with' whom the. Geuzity'".Xzl attsapt 'to`. negotiate .a final lease agreenaerit 'under •.the••terms af` .the bitl ' ..Shoill d negotiations "witFi� th,e next bidder fail' to.. iiroduoe. a. final agreement,, the px'oc.ess.••described herein (e} . •would:be kepeated. (4} Lease Terms.: The 'length of. lease term will be -determined based . upon the `foilowing considerationsr Screening.Committee- '(five members') . Aviation. .Advisory Committee '(2)' Public. Works. Department (2:} Mgnager of Airports .5 t. duration a) . .A21.,,agreemen s will be of .a-ufficlen ,. to allow the i ssee'. `to' fully' amortize-'capital, investment „during tli.e .,teem of the. .agreem.ent .and to permit 'a. t'oaacinable - '_Urn :on. invest= : ment, thus- establishing.,ari :Li tegral•re•Iation.ship b•eiMee t term arid..i_nvestmezit. Generally, a, lessee -may depreciate' the, invest- ment during th-e term of:the .nreement,.z-althaugh 'the useful - life of the- improyem.en-fed.saarr be longer. . -Ee.cause the. County, cannot legally siabordinatei: airport. prop 'ter- • 3!• I,es pq- Ioans: for: development. and .construction. may:' be'_:difficult to' obtain;, therefore,- -the County. wi11 carefully cozisider - Iessee. financing capabilities when •riego-tiatirig the Length'. of ease::.term, The:' Couzrty: will not .bind .itself'•to unnecessar..ily',Iong term; ",eases that iaay restrict' or impede future ..airport development. b,)' Agr;eezpen;ts•- vrh#:ch,. dd- not :inv.'61ve siibstanti.al.-?_essee capital iives•tmiezt ,wl>1 be i'iinited"°tQ a.:'Tease term .nat�.iri excess of :. .> five yoars•. C) : . 411''agrr pe,en-ts, .'and. in'-particular,. agreemeYats :ttr th a termi in . .ex-c-ese..d_f five -years., will I clude. a mechanism f or providing -ad jztstmerits• of -all -charges arid. fees at stat.ed".iease. terim. • Rental'`:Ra-tes�'•.ai�d,.Char�es. - '. - _.J Irih.erent; -in: th.e. pr"ocess'-Qf establishing.a Fair and eq" i t'rates.and..changes structure, is the gremi'se that each `le' see.will` 'be :r;ec}uired :to Pay: aperpriate~ rents•; and ;fees '.f:ar: i the priviSege of:'deve xopi :and operating airport pro�ierties ;aid that-. each user '.of .ahs .aircraftoperating area' be z'equired. to p,a,v appropriate rents azid. f.ees''for that privilege.. To i "a:s•sure th-e:.pr.oper calculati-on of fair: and, equitable.; rates- and charges, .`;tlie' Gounty wi 1T..erideavar to mai.ntaih: a cost accounting "syys'teu :whi6h...1dentifies spec. fi c..•cost centers'. to:-serve a.s .a va3,zd;',bass.s for ..es:tablish n' such. rates•`and• charges. , t is the- lhterit,..of the °County'to; ,recover .sail capital' costwe as operating maintenance expenses '-for .all COtinty-.constructed, P blic use facilities: b)- , For ►urposes .oi° this' policy' and standards for development,. rates. and charges -are expressed- in •terms .of`.'a standard'-rental 64e a variable rehtal- Staridard. Fates and charges., sometimes referred -to, ar a flat ora fixed .rex ta.1 Brill be incorporated into all agreements involvi7tig gr•ourzd. reri�a ; space rental, landing fees, etc:- Varlable rates and charges. perhaps 'iaore appropriately referred-to '.as 'a parcezitao rentals,' rill -be .incorporated into most`:kgr.eements. involving concess.ioziis, the sale. of goods' 'and ser' V cQs, e'tc-: fihis: rental method is considered optimum �for. eatabl:is'kiing. 'changes iii. ccing4,'deratibn. of :the. ,rights and pr-�:v`�.•lege�s' to operate a aommerci'ai'�act'f vi'ty'f or Profit= --this. charge Is- In .-add ;tioii to, a re"onable fixed charge for gr6und rental.. space reiital0 etc. When atx a re:ement specifies a percentage rental'- the Counter ri11 '•reQuir.e that either th.e lessee' ('at:lessee expense}' provide .aixcii is at spec- 'fic' •intervals- 6 f nduc.ted-- by'recognized ' suditirig:fir s. or that .the Courity:will- reserve: the..'Ieii. to • and t.;.the ,accounts and .records of: the lessee,.. rj, the base, of : the letter, •should 'a Ais-crepancy of .fivepercent .or`more found: in'.•.gross saie.a reported'. mit to. the Coy,. the cost :of the audit wi !`— be bpr'ne- by ;the Yessee,:. .Under certain..eircunns`taiices Wber . the cast of. an .audit mig}it..exceed" the'.`relative -ben.e:i•ts- ofsuch an auditalien_ tle County at its cptiori.iaayr eliminate. the: requirement far a :perc:entage rental. and revert to, a• stand- ard. (fixed-). :rental.. . . c).• To'znsure::'c:amgliance wi'th 'Federal, requzremertts .and. to. :susta�.zi the: .sn usiaix of. Fe.derafl. funning for caliital .improvem+snts,;. .,all. fixed base operators making the game .or- similar. use-,of'..�tlie- , a rp'ort as well as_ iitili zing ,the a'ame' pr similar facilitf es. will be.. sub;act to uniform' rates and• charges; to'.ttie..greatest extent that-grovis:i-ons af':, erist,ir* :.leases .w311: allow, Tenants will be assessed a testa]. rate:.'thiat: .is faun 'arid( . :. : equitable, '•subj:ect -to-''aitch -f' 'tors''as -16 cation, sizefskiape. •' condition,. i.n ended .use, etc: ','Rental rates :gill• be established: cixi the' basis `apt' costs ;and ex"penses incurred.'in, tttie. 'deve�.optent acid operat on of'that bizil.ding; plus.:comparison 'for..comped t:i:vd ,purposes with .similar" rentals ••on the .opezi"market. . Occupaiits '-engaged in ,the 'sale cif goads avid services',wi2'l he required to pay a.•percentage of"'gross sa'�.es and/ a"min mum . guarantee; wh• ,chever is greater.;- whi.ch''wi�ll 'lie considered a` part of evexall rental. consid6tatic,ns.. All.;le'ssees will .°tie r.equirsd tcs. pay. a- ground, '-rental -i'or• the. .gross area 2;eased: incl ud zzg areas for •structures,. .,a rcra:C park hg, ,au � to- par3ci . .l indscaping. ,etc. (b) Waixrtenance and Operational Dbliations. a . -A), '.-At all times, the County- wiL)1. exertevery effort to .maintain the aircraft ..operating area .in.'a proper and safecozuiitiari in accordance with-.prescribed Federal and' State standards and regulations' b•) A11 agreepents will contain. specific requirements .for lessee ' insurance. coverage (sed following Paragraph t 7)*.. C) Each' lessee will be, o'bli.gatecl •to. Pay any and all charges, assessaaents, levies, taxes, .etc. iimp-osed an. leased proper•ty siicl.contents by agencies having jt�ri•sd.i etion. Such assess- menta:may iricl'ude, but are net •limited :to. pr+aperty tax" possessory int.erest• tax, seder tax.. etct •d! s$6e will be obligated `to pro?ride f• r total security wzt in the .IeagL-d "s te- iTTcicid3ng, as�:d:e'termined necesaaryr by tk�e leasee, ac3"eq�rat.e_ 1igtiting, secur.itq fencing; alarms; . guard servie.e: etc: Th'e County will prow de, for'the security- at ecurityof the air.eraft .oper-ating. area and •areas 'fronting County. : streets.:. •. -. _ _ . . :». . e) Eadh. lessee• will be required to pr de total and c:ontimuous maint'erian*e of all buildings,.. grounds and appurtenances theretii. fad the duration -of' the 'lease to assure, first class apgearanc_e, andoperating..conditions at all times. f):` ;Each" 'lessce. will. be required .to..incur. complete and total; 66-tits' ,of'.ut'i•liti,es.-and. waste-,-services.. in all cases, on, site. teeters: "t�►TilZ' be-: required' acid prompt payment foi-". services ;i's i r.equ' ed to. :assure un3,izterrupted service. g) 'Under:most. c.,i:raunmstanc-es.,''.the.C aunty: Evill e�terid: to Cach I. site: the. 'Tollow.ing:. roads .and .curbs' dr veuray modifi cati.ajis' vii22, be at'. t;en,:ant' expense}:, electr7#al' power, tele-. phone,, :gas; sewer., and .storm 'drains. ` Where tYte.'co�t: off: exter"ding. roads, utili'ties', and/or. servic:es to a site -becomes nordira Ltely expensive due :to dis.tance,. amoian-t .of service, f e1d.. phdi:t!on s, .etc g, the County. vii'll require that -the lessee underrovrite all:.or- -a portion of th 'costa• reimbursement by tTie;.County;.•to ths.-Ie' sO. for:'incurred .costs .would• be.•iii the form' 'o f rarita] "abatement: or by: •a .compensation formula or. prai-atioii frsrmu a. as:. a-Hier:, sites',are..devefiopeci .ti+'2iich would:' • benef1't from 'the initial con'struction•'of .roads, ut%lines and s;erv'i c e Th cast"'-�f.--a$I on-siae.. utility/se vice connections. and" distri- ; biitibnz -:ill:.'•be borne -by: the .lessee Insurance..and Bonds. a}, ..All agi;eements':will require that the. lessee (at:'.lessee eperi's )�:Provide .'insvi-ance :and.:borid 'coverag.e' fn a: manner and •gorat�.acceptab!e to the ,County ind viiderwritten, ,by insuranc,a;_companies d'.eemed aca.eptable to' the County -_on. ' :'the basis;:of.. an:A=plus, general policyholder rating and California: Insurance Commission authorization to underwrite .such cciverage: : .. "Required- coverage will include3 third-party .comprehensive ..general liability insurance, for bodily injury and 'property damage including o*ned/nont owned..vehicles afid/or aircraft (trlien appl i c$bl`i),a, :products liability insurance "{where the :lessee operates a food service, 'or offers "goods acid merchan- ' -dise. -ger .sa2e):1 - statutory:w6r�aen"s .compensation•'and' emp'loyer's :Inability' insurance•,cssutprehensiv6 and- extended:insurance -for I destruction.'.or :damage .tn .personal property►, .fixtures. or 1.6asehold improvements made: •by th:e�-.less.ee; hgngarkee pens gerieral li-Abi.li- yi ',:care and.'•eusto.dy). :insiiranc6 coverage .'where the 'le'ssbe tigerat" a. fixed base ,operati•on'..or hangar .. - ,•?era; .. . _..» - — .. . _ i 3 ties}_ axsd: where the. l sse.!e r gray t the County a :per- ci itagd rental .and `emplo, band .coveriYtg dishonesty arid: :. depositak"6 rorgery.. : b) 11�B. limjtp _off' insurance. coverage. specified. in 'Paragraph a.) -above (excegt..:for. workmen'sc .4ensation and bond coverage). " will 'vary according to risk, .blit--iii no' event';iWilY ariy-;liinit be. le:ss than- a $$00,00.0 "combiixed .sirig16 4m;Lt. .Tlxe::bozxcl limit'will riot be -less than'-,$16;.000 �far each'; pacurre.6ce':.. ' c}., Izx al..case's,• it..will be necessary that the County be'named : as.:,add •insured, and .that: the. 'insurance underwriter. pravid'e 'thirty -tan} 'd ays.writteri_:ixotipe of .cancellation` to : : .the.,•C aunty. The lessee: vsrZ2.,bn required `.to, furxzish `.to the.:.County. in-a- 2., tzriiely. miariner a, c:erti,t'icate.•off insurance,. '.evcl'encirig.;the r. coverage :in' effect,'' Bin s., acid:,e iiration date=.. inc`luded M ust .be--.an•"endorsemeht- that. the: County: 3e'n;iiedea"s; add, tii inal- insured. and that thc'e:'ir suranca c,arz=a,er''wi11. ;give the;C,aiirity . thirty (30;)• days,, written r 6c efci`e '.of alteration:or -.cancellatiozf. e)' .the County reserves 'tle.right, to require that' t2%e ,lessee. provide sped l Pirie:`.protectaix .'systems :arid/or apparatus, br to:,restrict:the lessee. fr.om. .coriductirxg;:any dangerous; { acti'vi;t or;tfie'stor a of� fl;amiaable' •e 3,csive,-iaateri;a:ls v I. F +. all. for..:,the.,p.urp.ose..of` main tairii'zzg-an" acceptable insurance rate, .And'.to -prevent -.Insurance.:cancellatioiri5. " • S) '.'Pri.*a•te_..Deye•1•oyine a) In order f or' the Oounty. '•to• concentrate i:t's airport iliipro Ye-- menta expenditures .O . pubY3 ceruse' fz ci2i'ti e.s; .'the cost":of..all ' . site impravements.'will be botma,by the: lessae: b)'._.:•For :a21 develisptaeztt :and irapraYemerit`.;prci'je.cts;- thelessee will_.1i qui�red -.to sutsi�iit pertinerit'::factual a nforrriati.ci?' upon, cY the County Kiri12::base its •.deci-eilons ,regarding applicar' fiity. ari4 compiian,c* with grovi'si tins .of `the Cali :forxzia kviroxxmenta2 'Quality Act' c} All leseees will be- required to 'pease::a site. of sufficient... size .to satisfy #.1l operational. rejqu-ements including- buildings and •structures.' set-back requi.temerits, 'auto •parking, aircraft. `apron,• landscaping,. etc. d} Included in .all agreements will be the requirement thatthe lessee tmdertAke site- improvements :withinsc A preribed time..period. as de.termined.- ointly by the. lessee. and..the CO.Unty. •All lessees will' be required-to meet minimimx `imw :proveineszt•.stazidar._ . as. •e�rpresseri.in' square Footage and : dollar expend tore. .'tAs insure .development of desirable airport facilities, *to promote 'free enter rrise, and to protect the 'investment of other. airport .tenants..• ;A;11:'l.essees undertaking -;'site development acid izztprovement. �erill• be ;requ3.red• . to secure a me&hani.c�/materials bond, as' well. as 'a pe'rform-. ane°' bond, .to guarantee that suah -improveinertts: are completed in a tiime-ly manner and tree froze lien: .,- in a.cidition, the I-ess-ee. will be required 'ta' indemnify:and hold. the County . harmless :From, all alaims�;,, liabilities or damage 'arising groin sliah developments -and:*izn' rovemei itsn e) To protect 't2ie' County froin.:lfab lity, dor. the acceptance of obsolete'. faciuiiea arid• t. & 'potent'IiLl liability:for•.removing. such irmpr-ov6znents, ''each- agreezpez t.wi-2-.rdqu1i-d removal by the Less.°•° "At- h'is' sale •cost of all'.lessee constructed., n rove- . meets• %-., , term.izisti�xn of. 'the a . pemekn, .and for ,restoration of •the' prem sec; i l e... r l'1:'at. ail "tiiaea'-remain with •the lessee,° but,.the' 9? ty, will .retsi� i. the' Qp'ti"o -to. 'tate title at :t• •e• exp'ira 3.on f= the Kase in ileu of;,remgval'by ;the ' l sse of. lessee-c.on trticted mprove eats: �'r.avf`si-o's .'wi.21: ; be. i ncTucied . z- the .:3.ea.se agre.emint• or tithe lass°° to' prove de a 'bozid for other -acceptable:Forza..of i,a ocabl.e: deposit `,to be A app ia0.14oward .the required rem' ov' of improvements and/or clean-gip 6f• the 'sit+° if not•perfbrine d by the` lesseeq. :.. :, Further:, -•thLa County will retain the :option-. to' purchase •al3 , or apy item, of:personal pz.operty incidental to the -aperatiori, of- th& si-te••.at appraised :value., ;or. requit6 the lessee' to ' teiaove .the .property and" re'store'•the premise$°. f,) A-I lessee facilities 4nd site improvements t. fib:rel.oca'ti.ori,.t:o a suitable alt6rnati�e side., at;the Ccsunty°s Soret -on. rection..'..xui+3.,cost, should' die site .be required by the: ` +o..aocom Io Countytdate "future airi,ort. 'deve'. opmento g) The.County will. _reserve, the right to approve in advance the assigr>men _.or;.'ss;ib easing cif' any. agr(iement] such •approval: will;:1 a gub jec.t: to. a,,:coraple.te.,arid thorough .investigat 'on; of the propaced; asszgrie,e fir•:,_sub2essree to•insure continuity, : demonsti:ated experience, and '`finandi fil responsibility for the- pr_imile jte to fie: .under-taken,, 'to-insure conforiaity'and compatriliility,With the Airport Layout:Plaria -arid to- insure. cOntir iIZ41y Or perf ormance standards: ; h) The County will reserve the right 't.o• assign, .pledge or-- hypothecate any agreement vrithout• the cons•erit of airport lessee•$. This circumstance could occur in the future iti, for example, the..County chose "to. sell revenue bonds- lihich ' necessitated the-i`arzaatioh' -of an "authority" or. •"airport i) 'Ul --agreeii,ts. will:• contain provisions for Counnty -andj.'Iesaee pr.OteCt3 oT1 iii 'the ,event .o•f the c�esuructi on of 1ea$ed•'premises by fires Flood, explosii?r%-,' .the eluents,' or .public enemies, and• fair the r'educ'tfari or cessation of'Buchinan Field Airport to' aviation at``tivity. .. Cb.uarity;.grant Fin ..ogti-on,%for,: a.dditi.ona.l .airp:or't. . : ;p itrp.er�ty>'ar�ii,/or facilities, `the i`&ase 111' -b6' 'required_• to, Ocerclse such" apt oi�..within'.s,prd er be:d pe rt od';af time., - and tray° be. required. to pay .the::ri: t. to. .secure 'such an., OP' Prospe.c't_ive tenants will.;b.� : nco�araged to secure, adequat's property at. the' tfine. of.- ,initial_ development to .allow ftir. expansion requ.,remeritst,,wzthin, t-he. Ieased .site'. f 9) Fixed Base OP-erator (Y130) Sites. Althdugh precedents 'are. estab- l:ish"ed' by .exp sting FB0'•agreexaents, this °Paragraph (9) w111.. 'en,deavoz to �putline".general Policy .for,i'ncorpox~aton into any n:ew or the .intent of -auch policy is to pr.dtec :the ` "siibs�taiit :a:l capital 'investment of all'Ofl i : at Buchaii'an Field 'Aiz-�igrt: . :a)' The County will requ'zre..that an. F'BOi. ligase a:miniiaum:thr.ee (�} acre 'parcel o,f ai:rpor:t,• prop.briy for' ,t2 a c.o: striiction, bf• hiih&Lrs, of'fites; Aute parking ,•aircrikt -aprono . la docap ng. .;etc. ':.. . construct".at least ,one..'ha�ngar. including :o.tf �g:e:s.., straps, .Pa 'ts: storage,, lounges,.,":etc." 'of_ not 3ess:.than::l8,f?0 square; feet; :construct .paved apron. and. on 81 :taxiwajrs "for ingress egress..:to:. the ;aircratft; 'operating area;;.And ta..•harigar.facilities; -and for th-e park•,.ng;.o.f,leazi-Ws aircraft=`" ingest a.,miriinn-uua - amount .o '. caps tai" determ%ned. to be.;'.�iot.`less.:than the rep,l`aoei .. .' Ment ,va-1 a .of, like facilities at Buchanan-f'1"i i43 rpart to provii3e' compr6herisive 'FBS saSes arid' ser�rices".`as defined S.ectiaft..C. (Glossary). Any :aztport _Ie"saes .'wh'o. does not .meet .;ilia° requirements outer 1 ne,d' ;j a, abbVie.'willl .not;'be:,'periaitte&' to eixga' •iri :ai`y .cif . .. • = 5 the statecl -FBQ .sales';and sezvice •a:c-tivities« . . :' .. _ ,(ltd Auxiliary` Aviati' Sites: . a} In additiozi to "FBQ .the' county wi'l2 lease add :titinal: airport sates".foi , open and/or "enclosed storage:.-of .aircraft., baseci'..at; Bucfiariaii. Field' Airport. 5uak pnapicisecl.private' 'level- opaxent: must deaionsirate• a .need to se 46`-.+.he 'aviation::oom uiii'ty' an give:eri.denc,e',that• 'such .dsvelipment will not eom�jeie with FB0 operations . The County pol.ic•y Qi" encouraging- development of .new'.•ai-rcraSt : storage areas. "iric2ud rig T-hangars, ,by the: investment of:�. private capital .isr affirmed and will he coi' iniied. -Use ofsuch lessee aircraft sit orage 'arzcommodations by .air- craft Downers will expressly proh`iblt .aEhy .type of aviation activity- that directly .pr. indirectlycgmpetes ,with F88 •• operations., or the 'Operation of.any. .other .•duly, au.thori"zei3 aviation .buAbess At Buchanan Field.A :rp.ort.. b) 'In ad�it3-on*..to. FBb-sites ..and• those situ; i e$sed for storage- ` of based aircraft,' the C,otuity may- lease :additional 's1tes for other, $'n ation businesses-providing that siueh bus 1ness.es' .do =nsSt;.'in q. way a' OPpet'e' with sales ,:acid• Servide pri.vil•:eges gd''.-gip $uchaart Field A3rporBLJ's :by: lease agreement. F.�caiirp :e s: :o such ap auxiliarry�.dylatl4n, a:ctivr -.ty mjght;;i iclude' private corporat.a; ha�ngarti di•atributi:an :wareh'ouse, unique av k;,Cion-. sales and 's=ei-vic s, etd •With• regard to Outh:-matt ers, _. tho`CO-Unty will endeavor to axerci'se riro:ful and. considered-` judgment .to protect the'°intero'sts of existing aviation tenants,- . m 'K vfhIle• at the sae time responding to .the• needs of'' 'the air i hdt.stry and the flying piublici n -general: . ; .RUILDING..STANDA.RIII &"A.ESTRICplONS : 1')' S.e:t�back I,iriea.: the ',Causitgr hereby establishes .the,:f61lavving iminiintim faQntm, side axil.rear .si-to,,setbad ;lizie;s prohib3 ti ng..tiie _+caristruc- "-'tion_off'; all ;tiu liiiiigs: acaid:structure`s; :�aei-manent or- tempi�raxy, ` .tateCl distances f o ite.'3ioundary:l iijes.. from' cilrbs an '-si.dewaaks,.and froin..taxiwaj►s •arid"runways. ffiataitkinec3 f'or public :use :oii the, boui(:5, y, nf< or vi..thin-th�e ~site. . ; 'u oiit •setback . ii nes sha:3.l be: mea.sureri'�Troia t2ia exi stiri' czar or ;. .., , where agpl cable.:'th.e d:eS;ignated cus'b' line; and'-side'_ar��i .rear sets b-ack L .rhall, be measured f�^om t�;e ;site boundar�r lines•,. and s1 a1l, t�e•::as .fallow!i s. a} The. 'miniiMum frcont: setback from the primar or secoicidazy street c':urb..:line shall-be toren yfi-re.'.(25)� feet fora buildings arid:. sari ctu-6i Xxo:t'...eXceecting' of eteen> '(l )'. 'feet .;iit,•.height. thirty '�30 eot`::foi"-b.il2lct zgs .aaad striaet�rr.es :froffi. fourteen CIO tC�: _t�reraty,-five �. } :f`eet iit •height and thirty-�t-ive E35} feet for .kZuildiiags an -struct es-.exceeding twenty-five' .. (2 } ' feet iY heigit;' unless ,greater` di s.tarices are `required.:on. ae.cgiist of vitality °easements.. ' - b : ;T1ia.m.inimiam` side. s'etbaiek .froid,the site .boundary.:lne shall." ."be' :fta: ri:'(1 )' ' est far site ,: 2p, o azxd, irzi<2udiiig i:uidred;`•,�` 4Q}'`' ,eet in width and"" tivii^ty •�2�) eet 'far sites :` over ,biro 2auridred-'(200}:; feet n. vri lith•,• sinless greater .iiis.taxices are required. on account:of utility ea.semen' s:. c) '-�'The.minIptim-rear .setback_from .the.•.site boundary :line •-shall 'be•_• twenty Meet- unless a.`,greater distance .1s required on account' of. :utility" .easements.:. trarner :$ites. shat ciiziform to minimum front setback.requirexaents :. for each Of.. the jsriivary `aac3�isr' seccindary 'froage nt 'streets an _tci minimum-sxdi3 setback.reeq;uireirients. Corner sites `a_ ,re deemed -to have'•ne' bier 'rear boundary lines nor rear setback ;lines. mien mare than •one: building ar striscture- is props=sed for a site, { eacfi bU.z; din, 'or structure ,shall be deemed to .be.located on a. . sepai-2it.e .slit and 'applid."ie 'setback r.equirements 'shall apply to:-' each such s tex provided, hdwever, .thAt• -.his requiremetrit -imay► :be ` ' ; :- c.ourpreieriszve pai .ixa.eauty vai f p�C'ortided by the .tetaant`. showing current aiid- prop osed :site develop- merit and the planned ;iriterrelatiooship •of'alx- buil'difzgs,• atruct.ures andother site improvements. The•.�inimtmi. setback requirements' for. apr•on• front sites that-id join r:uriwaya and/or •pub1-id to-i*ays .shall' aPPIY ofiY to the extent such requirements do. not 'conflict with applicable FAA clearance' criteria; (2). He . ht Restrictions.. The maximum,height, of all buildings and s G�ue.`ures, pdtmaneini or temporary,; shall 'be governed by' Federal Aviaiti:om. Regu atious (PAR.). Part 7.7„•or other. app3icabl.e FAA: :., . regulat.iares. :-Teior to: comiuexic •ng any proposed'construction. or aZteratx`on, that. texaporarily 'or :upon--eomp7 leetion will. 'be: high th an imaginary►: surface ext6hding outward :and upward. ata 106 to 1 slope #'ram. th;e nearest runway the.; tenant,shall notify.;the ;•I�dta%ri strator of. the RAA•:ih th-e`-farii'and manner:.re.qu red..:by .FAA - r'egOlationis.`.(pre'sently ;Farm "6t3.-1 regpire• '•by FAR°.'Part p7 site _size, . A` ron f'rorit” sitesQx`a fiaerl base operator 62ia11::tie. -hot .less than .three (�} acres. in gize..' Apron front sites. shall` extend;"fr•gzn "th'e.., street'. to. 'th'e aircraft .operiting;.area.. Site.: ' b-oundary 1in;es sXia11 'be. .detprmi.per accar 3irig to. ttie minimum site size 'd' the:-avo idance;of. s�aail, .ai- irregular -.sites :cif,.limite, The shape' off• �aa site' shall where• practicable:'range,from the: wixitli being one�2ialf' ( 2) to= trb; (2� times the deat2i.'.'an8 Where :xec :. tangular'sites .are, 'not practicabXe 'the .sate 'shall confox p'.to 'aitch : Proport ona.- range-.;t6:.,the.>greatest: extent. .`race cable. `. . (4) Ground-Coverage. IJot. m'gre than fifty :(.50). percent 'of any,apron.-: 'front site shall' 'be- covered.:by bui-3dings' and:`structurea and•:ncit m4ore than seventy (?p•)..percent ,of any.;non: apron, (rant site;shall: .be:'.:coveted.:by buildings .and= structures. . ' Al] . of. -the texiat�t';s.site, root''covered •by :bixjA-dings'.attd..structures shall .be 'Tatidscaped &r• iD0,6d:.�atA rovide.a:`Di :'this ordinance and kept elean. ;and.:free' front.- .. ,reeds. :and :de ri s.' at. all times; ,.pr.'Qvi'i ed'..: however .:that-the;..C.-M t' may.• pursuant',to.."t2i s:;po2,icyi grant exceptions;' t`o': said-requirement : 'iii:''the -event,. that'.s :tenant.has `agreed. to .A CoOnt .appiroved phaseii developmelit'piin of the-- #ite. : (5) Taxirvay Aece.ss. The• locati ll-:taon .of taxiway. access, 'if arty; for each `site shae -subject to" County approval.. {'6? Landscayim.L. Each tenant, at the tenant's •own most a:h, • expense, sha11. landscape, plant and maintain landscaping and planting in'. accordance .with County approved -.landscaping .plans.and' t2ie following. requir.'eaents: a) `Corner .sites and. otheraites fronting..:-on streets. shall be. - cpmi Ieteiy 3andscaged from the sidewalk aiid/a' curb .line to the ;front buildzng, bine �w th reasozialrle ail'awance. .forneves- nary walkways, -paved driveway's and "aircraft display.pad$ for tenants '.engaged -in. the sale:of plea ai.rcraf�`. . 'iv ei-ays•,. wa;:�_w yd and 't -'"&. pads- shall be .separated from'.lsnd.60 bed. 'gpe'as. ty suitab�.e.curl�s or dividers,' c} $oc>z, wood .chips -orl similar material .sha-11" tie Permitted: on a limited basis a.s''ground. cover .in.any, area requiring- land scapang: . 'Not less- than seventy-fiya• -(?S') percent. of the area _ ;< t6.. be landscaped Torward 'of' bui'ldimg lines shad be planted.1. ' in -low .growiIng:ground.,cover such :.as: lawn, •Ivy"or ice pl'arit and the use of low earth`m'ounds is encouraged. r. d)' 'Not..less'.t}ran: one. (1) . approved fifteen. (1$.) gaT1bii. minimum. . eontainei}-size: specimen `tree'for each thirsty-dive .(3$)`-Za near ,a;} feet- of street:•frontage of: the- site shall be planted ,land cap areas forward of. building•..lines.. •i e)` .'Atipp'loyee aridvititar auto'parking areas .sha11 contain land- ' soaped 'areas that areseparated. from. paved: areas by .rai:sed. concret:e.::c urb : f Lfthe,CountjT a proves .a ..tertant's phased Sitc. development . iilan, the .tenant need only. comply,With landscaping require- menta 'for. the :area. of` t . site developedg provided, however,, 'that .the instal- lat on .of''specimen. trees 'along the •eentire tre'et frontage".of' a site':shall -be .re-qui.red ivith' the .first ase.. o•f` aevelopmeiit of the site in orderao maintain.con-:-: tinu ty-and the.:tenant at- a.Il times". sh* 1: keep the entire tiev.eYoped: and. undeve;l.oped poz�ti on oY the site, i ncludrig, . • e,aseinent.are,as. and any:area -under lease_, option, clean.'-and ` -free- from 'greeds,-.and 'debriS. g): landsdaped.-:and plaiited 'ar'ea s sh;alh• be..pro.*vided..wi-bh: an: auto- uratic irrigation system* h). Laridscap_irig .plan's.'..and: specifications, aiid. irrigation Plans. i a id:':specafications'sh'all be -submitted':for 'County approval , anti 'final con8trictz'on':plans and_.speczfications If .the = total landscapingrvori incxuding 'irrigation system, installed ` .n:'accordance` niith: apprgved:plans. anc�, these standards and restrictions; or is not completed utithin,nine#y C90}.i3ajrs ' after .the completion of ,buildi.iig construction or the :completioxi of-any bui:•ldj.ag alteration, or. :if' landscaping and irrigation 'systems are not .properly Ma.inta .ned' the County, -up-on 'the -tenant`s-.c.ontinued. .failure.:to complete:'or. 'properly. in""' taro such -.work for thirty (30)' days .after the County'give•s to..the tenant written notice of such failure,. ma3r landscape v plant, irrigate or mala't";i:.n .such .landscaping,"arid planting upon the site at the tenant`s .o�vn cost and ek dhnse. :-The tdnant' sMill.'..eaeroise particular '.care and attentionin the••p�;�"i�.ng aiid:_align of.-the landscaping so as'�to� minimize. and possibly .elima,n to the need for irrigation, 7) -Automobile -and Truck, Parking. -.'Cin-street-'6z1 curb=slde•:parkjr4 shad 1. be di sa*aura,ged' � The• tenant shall p.ovide`:'.lighted off-street parking facilities on .the' site or on an adjoining site for the to t''s empl oye�:s,,..:cus'tomers a:nd.•;v si:tor$ - The .t:enan. shall ; : prde a"t ,s:isc'h.. '� I .ties,'a. aim .:off .t�ir e:e. for each four (4). .per.sons .emp'I.Pyed'•ozr tfie 'site per work: shii't�' plus ad"eq:uat�e cuatdw'l .end` visitor ;��rk ng; stalls. . .Aiictit"i"o�ial parking stal3 sshall be.prove ded yirhere' "tenaxit work shifts 'overlap: :Sfte areas. used for vehicular. PkAing,- .including truck• parking '.areas; . shall -be' paved. and screened from.view°from. an-Y street by''ine.aiis. off' landscaped earthmounds .and'.oir '1"andscaging. Fences may.be used for screening: purposes sub jact. to prior County." approval: . wo parking•shall be.permitted. betwe.eti •'the front' a'ite boundary 111.6 :arid thp-pin rotmi front setback lime:., Parkintg -between the- min i,mum. 'f`ront..setback line and the front.:.building :line may .be per- mittied-;by',the,County subject to the '-tenant :providing County .approved.; scr$en n . at. tYie .minimum "wont -:'setback. line. • At the time:: nah 'cdn. ruetkgn- plans, and rpeei fi cations" are submitted to . - .Co:unty. fQr• County approva ;. .the..'tenasit shahl 'demonstrate that :sufficient,parking-areas_ ane* ':provided.:for ihe. type.,of 'building prop'os'ed,and it6. .I-ht.en'ded 'use•.' Sutisequent"modi. use :of the, s%te: rvh ch .will: 'gezierate Parking Fequzrements: in excess of avail= : able apac.es shall:not: be.. p:erpitte,d. withaut..the ;construction =:of addt%onai parking Aisle widthsfor park.�,n lots shah lie .:ri'ot Tess ,than twenty-Four' (24). feet f.or; riii:ety (`Q0'} d,egree parkin ,t :eighteei :.(.18) fee'E :far silty (60)}. degree_..park ng,.: t} teen {l3 feet fpr forty five :(.45): degree..parking.Axid twelve (12.) 'feet..for paral"lei parking.., -Mini.- p�•um size, of parking spaces s2ia11 be .rune .(9") fe;et 'by tvrenty- ('20) feet. There' shall be a ma�%imum :parking :loot allowance 'of twent.'y; (�0)' percent for. c.om act car spaces., ;which. spaces shall be :a.,mini= mum, size. of e'gkit . ($ :feet six (f) .:inches by:. sixte.en'. La idscaped• median" strips and :islands :of a minimum-width, of five {5.) :feet""shall'be. provided within each parki.i area and lar�c3s'caging.. of .a minimum width of" fiv..e'. (5)'6::feet "shall,.be: provided immediately ';: surrounding the .parking area arid. t2ie tptal-:area Qf` s�ich land- scaping. withinan-d•.surroiinding the .p-arkirrg: ,area sha1i' be:'riot less:::. tkian :five '(5)...perceit :of .the total :paved area .use d for or , : Vehi'cles...shall ot..:be::permitted: to overhang landscaped 'areas :or s. . Truck' boadin The..'loadng *r r unlaadng: :of. trucks .sha1T take. .• place "only., on. the site; and trucks being., lo.ade:d .or -uhl paned shall not .project ..onto any street` or' sidewalk. True k docks' for sites on- primary.�streets .aia3► "be provided only• at the. ":side ,or rear of build= ings and .shall- be screened from primary-streets. . Truck. docks' may. face secondary..streets provided.. such tlockr Arid trucks -are 'completely : ;behind the minimum front ;setback line and..:are: screened `from view from- secondary streets. (.g)' Architectural and Design standards." All 'buildings and structures' shall be .archtectUrally designed to create =a creditable" and acoeptable.: appearance. Particular emphasis shall:be. plase.ci Ari - . the design of 'building "surfaces faci.i* . street Irbhtages, tali- ways •and other.. areas expos.. ..tp 'the public;. Design features, use of material and. construction..standards shall be :submitted":to.th.e. • 15 . . , , Goin' Jnr the County. s::approvaal . d:. :County m4y reject,, .or 'egxtire( ch-:ages ._to: - sucYi desig f`catu-Ms,. maternal 6" construe.- , .ran :standardse.. met ;'bdzng. material g. fir sidaiig 'an'dfor' i-o;o1"' ' co`n,struct ph 'shall .be.�perr it d' 64 in the event that such.: :. materials are architecturally, acceptable to the 'Co c7nty and 'sII .:' • . -' bui-ldings..and .structures,are 4i*it'egrate.dl with .the landscaping„plexi. Calrir and. color combihations of.all,.bulldiags, structures signs .sYaall be. subtied to the C:o irity for the County's.approval:.• - No• roof :af any building,, :or m_ echancal 'equipment; gents, sky-:: ].igh•ts 'or' pro jectioas 'of any .tie. located on. any roof, .shall be. v2sble. fz� m. ground.°.Zeve� ,. .vnless architecural3y tx-ested 3n a• manner; 44ceptable •to .the. County,: Hangar roofs and` :roofs of uriq�ie architectural chara:cterr.. shah. .be' givtrxi .special cons'i,r3er- at ori during'early• 'stagers ;of .des'i'gno- .-an shall be subject ' nal, C.ciuty..:appr..oval'. Secux'zty' fences 'and= all ether 'feiceb. asa'd' r tiarri'ers of •a.ny•kind shall, •be:' subject to C:auiity apgf *Oi;Vi l 'as::to. height, .security faratux-es:,• :arch tectizral;`trea-,tm ni'," tyge.;.azzd lova- --s}a l Vie; Vgao ted..at. or_':beh ;nd' the` fcorxt setback '1' r.e,. but such esti.uc:turp,.,may; b•e, 1,6ccitjid on' the side or: rev� ;site 'boundary:-' Pines ::or In 't az•ea 2iet�ieeri:`th.e minimum: side and`iaxii•�um .reaz- se•tback lines. 'amd 'the ,.site:boundary_j3 nes�v •. Apron fr.ax- t- property -• - sh fence:a-.or ,otherwise .secured in eonformanee.with Aixpor.t certificat azi and recuri, requirement's. : . . Si .Sed. Section F. j Diiitts de, tbra a .' Ate. mater: els', s. pplies, -products,`.equipment or other:.pe>^sorxal property;;.:e tcept• .for;, s.aemble-d aircraft andrazap equipment,' and've li:clss: ,�n regular ,use. . shall°' be'stored`pr' per mi#ted:t0, a emiaifia,,6i, asiy, portXon,.p .the site outside'. of='C"aunty ' ' . -approved' buildings ° or. `structii -es' without :'the: prior wrttein `consent` of .`the Criuxsty''s.:Msriager. .-of •A:irports. , - Suc:h',apprroval for oiutside storage may:•be graxxted•::p.urs•uaint• :to• the followingconditi . ons# : . : : : a� That �tbe storage; area 'be -confined •to •t2iearea .between the. : read X,sit'e.'`bo•t b ary' linei and the .near 'bt i3di3ig line, • aiid br ; --the area betiere.en'tYis; minimum .side setback. nes and tkie i 'side; .wilding l fries;. -and' : b) ..The -.'the approved' outside storage:area is adequately screened from vi w `from f'acx:.ng s-tr-eet fr - agea-, taxzivays and areas. exposed- to tiep•u4id �. Site . Sa ntenaiiber' . ALL--buil.ii1219's; strnctitre ; ' signs;`drive* ys, ' curbs ,. a r ;.'.pads, agrr�ns, :taJciwAys,' Mechsii.icAl"equ-i me it:, utility:,li»ers,. drainage• and sewage' lines, . fuel storage: and dss!• perisxng facil.'ities„_.'-en*ironmental control equip?pt•; irrigatibn systems•and. 2arisc'ap-in; shall` gt all times be` maintaixted by 't3ie tenant ggo •ordpz-,. repajX and ccs id# t bn. Ali •:painted ex-terlpr,;.• 0 suifacts acrd- pu<rPa�ces .r•e. ri"h:j Tr.,.atMmnt_:'of ,any .:ki d� she11. bd' maintained. in -;Mt -�-class.C, 0n4 ti art -and 'ghall:be: repai�ited or:'- treated-as of-ten, as 'recjuired at tYie; i3isicret on' Of• th'e= Cciuir�ty's Manager of. Airports in order topreserve -"'the structure •and tQ mai main ld- h standards of appearance.•.at .`the":Airport. ' W) *A'sanc:6 Control.- , No activity shall -be. pertd,tted within -any site which'=directly, or indirectly:produces objecti oriable or aril awful ` aMD.Unts.or' levels, of air pollution (gases., .p:ariiculat'e." matter.; rid rs,,_';fumes..• smoke; or -dust'), water p.olluti-on, noise,. are, .heat emissiaris, "elec;tronia` or .radio nt`erfer'ezice ;with 'naX gational axid_. comii� catzon -facilites for 'the; operation of the" Airport and' ftir ; °ta, u:$ 'by ai'rcra t•..:_trash,or'r•e�.use': ad6umi latioin, vibrat. on, ::prop-rash,: tr , et: blast;' or., *hi'ch'':_is: hazardous. '6r�_:dahge nus by. reason or. risk'"off exploszQn, :' fre ctr;..haz�nful eiaisson'..: Within. the: nine a :., . . sae.'Was..,.e..... : ,. ' .,s, arate•:.'dranage, .00e.c� :or segiaranion system 'sha1T. be. proY�ded by :the tenant at' :h'e 'terrant'"s:.s le cost:and: expense to .*Insure_:•tha.t- na. unit eate•d. " liquid" waste Froin any type :of.,. operation. : :incluc3irg; but riiat; limted�• to« .paint` stripping, steam. 'arid .dhtemicai• el -snXng, washing, ar other types- cid', maintanarice 'actfv ,ty on..,aircraft,.-.:v6hicl.cS;:• equipment or' coinponarit. parts; .the eof - enters ' the Airport, storm .dra3ziage. aystea' ar: 'sanitary. s:erter:;`syst'et�.. .Eacii:•tenaiit shall: a.tall;times comply with all .applicai2e :1"aws, rules `air�d;`z=egulatioins of'federal; state;'' tir., local, goyirntaezit'a "agencies' . :lir a ud zIg,-. but:i a.t'_I mined toy the Cau.i)fy, the. Cel tra,�.A:3aiutary District:-anti the Safi Francisco Bay . R:sgzozral :Water :.Cuality:Control `Board.' ..Adequate enc]osures.. an'd/cr: scr�tneci areas. sh.&II be' prpvv 'd:ed:w •thin. the', site. for'.the short, term`accumula.tioh;.and storage..;of: sola.d waste, ;such as rubbish,,,, tra.sh. .,garbage; sludge, , d scarde8 m$ahirxe%y or. parte and any:other . :solid, sndtxstr- al' wastes:• Such enclosures: ;xWor;scree led.'areas shall: be �designe;d in,"'such.::s:.wayr•.:as. `to: •prevent odors,''fumes;. attraotion, of''pe`sts r and_ disp6isil •of.'wastes .due :to wind or. water '. .-.run-=off.. .a d sha32'. be `serviced. itequently"-by qualii'�edwaste " removal anird�dzsposa2 'sarv3ces ; •(`l5) Enyircinmerita2 Assessmeht.. . Airy con trua.taon- or" aTteratian 'of facil,� i't"i es at the Airport shall be subject to. all applicable laws, ands rules and' regulations of federal, .state and local gavernmenta3 agencies, includixig the county; regarding the .preparation .of. environmental documents and enviroiimeiital" .review. 'Applicaation� to the Co"unty for approval. of. construction' or "alteration.af. facil - ities at the Airport shall include all in.f-or�mation necessary for such.'envirox�mental.•review-and preparation of enviroirmental docu- ments..where'required: (26:) Diirection and Flow of Traffic, The C4urity reserves and retains'. . the right• to 'designate:.the. point or...points :at•which.;auto vehicular: traffic_ and aircraft .traffic may enter"-and- leave- any s-i e;' :and may -establish directionatl.. contr6i where; and as it" deems. .Appro= priate: or ,•necessary. : Sccu_ r irsn :s t� pres = :rantehal]. prcivi de. thzyaugh. 2ie Te e•.b tsudings,,. �atructures, :kvalls;= fences, and,'aimilar barriers; -•a c.ambinat. ori. heret f� "•pzssiti ve" uninterrupted anto securi;: y. ,at a.11 "times for' the. preventiori:ot., Wuiu:t*gri:zed pedestrian and vehicular`.•access to the a.•ircraft �op:erati.ng -area by ' A. of, the tenant's' site. Direct or. ..indiregt'•paints..of erxtry`to• thy :aircraft. operating area, to accommod4te authorized Iniiividizals and author= ized'veh ales_ stall b"e controlled.by the tenant in comp, iance with FAA and County security:z�'egtiire�ierits: --The. tenant• shadaftpri - ' wide security'for o' n-site fmcilitiej'such 'as' vehicular':parking lots`,. aircraft t3 e-d'owm' aprons; buildings-; •.hangars, ' fue2storage ar.ea.'g'aild•:.shops a •Adeq.uate -1 gh:ting 'shall'.-be. provided for. all- night illumination offt' the"-periin:e•ter; of all buil.dirigs., apr"orxs;. .air- cz-aft t e :dawn areas; . vehicular :parking l ts, 7i pedestrian: walk- w is: f ght iig isib e.: from street frP. ages• shall .be 'glare`,free and fighting :'in proximity to. aprons, =taX �nrays and-runways.:shall:be gl.�e. .free.' oil shielded ta. prevenV-.interfdrence: .with aircraft` piper at ans,r; Th-e.`Cbunty-may 'reiliure. :the-:tenan—to'pr��v d� ;unimpeded aacess:.•ythrough t2 .c'. site 'tb a .2 areas :anti: '�eyond:. tie' site':. , . .?V em6rgeiic-y .�rehi.cles: Tlie, tehant may:wish'. z4- Tch'eir sole a sense.. to orfs alT'a security, alarm-system; Fuel- S°torage - All 'fuel- storage facil%ti'es`in' excess o.f..50D •U:.S..' y gallons shall'•be 1:6c•ated' under riiund':,within .the% si:te -arid:.in. 'a l.ocatiora .nsuriiig�.safe, andl efficient fuel'- truck eircula-tion, patterns .farboth. the ,distribution. of fuel'•and::for hulk..:delivery to° 'the storage ;fse:il%tjr,;: Such-'�facilities: shall be prciper]y Xelde .vented: 'and .,othervwise 'protected to, Ins•ure again t .. 44,Px4.si,-an; .az d•p:b2lutibn. oi'°'the'•.au-.-csr water. ih•`.accardai'ic.e,. with. requi:remen#is. .of :a.l;g' ,dve' rnmental agencies -having' ;j.ur sc c ti on-, F.. .STA.N]7ARDS . (l)': Int.roduttion.. Tl�e rsbjective of. this 'sign standards poliay.is to p.xovi'de for necessary 'tenant identification .thYaugh .t'he'cirderly, Planned' use of signs,,.wi the appropriate provisions for adequar e size, content, 'number, Placement, and 'illumination. To =the' extent that sz.gns provided. by, product manufacturers ooxiform to. this Sign:.policy,';aid. serve,.the'anter.e'Sts 'af'teriarits ,and .the ' puhlic, tlieh'such••sign' -aie cleariy:pernsi$pible; •unless' a product. ' maniifacts rev's,''sign:varies •signi:flcantl, ,.from the: policy, the -County will 'not unreasonably withhold .approval. : ,Provisions are,_iric1ad.ed'fa .tenant .i:deritification signing mounted ;ozj.:biz ldiag'•5izrfaces; signs ,oih qk are .free -standing., .those mounted on-,free,•-standini walls anci combinations thereof; tenant 'sites. . whie'i�i'. fYbn't,On aircraft. operating, areas are,permuted' additional ;.-_ •.• isieifrificatitiu .signs'visi.ble •from the side and%rear;'..•.;`'Alsb included :xe ntati a5 ,goveriring 'tfie.'insiall:atian of 'dir*eotiobal. signs. (foi pn=site •pedes.tr an and ;veti .culAr 'traffie�, street .=aiidre-ss' s3;gns i.rea,ll estate.'Iease/.rental•signs;. window signs,.and`ini.scel.•l aneous . signs, cov'e%•n'ii g; safety`and 'security:.-. Standards` describing-each' of these; .types'of signs;. are carefully detailed'-iii this Section b: Also detailed are provisions for' thnse 'of combinations•of :ten'ant iderit'ificati oh -q gn,'s;. as.i eii, a- des. ript on of.-the aPplica;tian Of these sign standards-where miilt•i:ple site occupancy.or multiple building'b -icupancy. occiurt-, The County of f`ers._to essist• .the-''tenant in `every way, passible to,. 46equately.'c6rnprehend .the.Rrovisi6ns of this sign..policy ".in order to'clevelop an 'csptimum •signing pxograTa, ancl 'to.expedite' the review. and approataL-procedure;. (2) 'Summary.. 'Pi.is summary. is.'in,t6nded to' prciv;ide a brief .descri.ption ' of var, tous types ,of permi,ssib]..e':.sigtis and the, general ahar.aeteri' istie ; of :each':sigh-. For detai'Zed charac•teri•st cs• and pjre,dxse defirr td:ons, :please..i•efer to paragraph. (4).; •i£ diffezeirces appear tQ•..exi s.t-.between' thi's;•'suminary' and -the,iirf ormation' contained in:paragraph,.(4),'.the .lat'ter will applyi ' a)- -Surface Mounted• Building- Sign .-. This type •of' sign is �y .intend`ed to':be installed .on .the surface. of a building to ,r,.:.•,provide ptimaiy site identificatfon. Sign size.for all _ :•.building 'fronts can be 5% of the.,front buildirig area or fo s•quai'e feet •whichever is .larger, In' addition,- buildings. ' b• situated`on, apron front sites. are permitted :to have 'si'de' " signs and real signs, with the former 'sized tfie. same •as front signs and the latter 162 01' the -rear building',area ar . 2O.square feet, whichevetAs .larger_'. . Each sign, at. the optiph of the-, tenant, .may. bb i'lluminated. b).: Free S'tandins Tenant Signs' - T•his: type ai `si'gn 1s ,intended c to provide -eye-Ie-vel .(, fz.eat .or. lave.i' 24` sbu, ie feet as ''ell a-s' su}iplements2 3Ff C12"ri71t3OTS •SUCb `asServices,. manu.a,CtuXeZS, StlB-tenants, efc:. Ur s; one fsree ••stn-d.ing sign is perasitted t'ar non- aprc�n rorit sites., two are perifitted'on the 'street side aiid, -two are permitted on the field side of apron front sites: T}te •signs. may '.2;e i111tminated. ' c) Tenant. 'all Sigh- - The characteristics of',this type oaf sign are., d-enti'cal. to that of the Free,StaDd ng 'Tenant Si , -aicep'v that 'plac'emezit may be on a fzee standing wall,; fence car,barrier of:-any •type. ` d) Y3ix�Goiial .Sika'= 'Such'signs, .rich,in _excess of two square- feet` her thaai: S.':feet-*, are in ten'ded• to provide`. ' oii.�site eciesti^ ail -ah4 veh:i tular• traffic direction., Ci3t'ericin far, the nuber arid' placement, af'.directioaal .sigias`. that Lack af. _6_h:s. pus might cause. confusion or can- :gestI6n ano possibly compromise safety. e) As •i4quir•ed, 12"''.x 18" ,street. address. signss--ar-e intended: . to Provide a .uniform .s=reef a�dc3.ress system'.throughout the airport., Platement in 'prox.mIty zo main :building. entrances sonuld..iie surface mounted: wh . ere a building •is •set back• from. the.: street, the sa gn can.be: free •s:•tandirtg. f) gReal` Esta-te-.LeaseJReista2. •Signs - .In the event a tenant kishes .tci indicate tie availability of kiuilding space., free s'tand'ing,, :non-3.11uia na[ed.IeaseJrental signs'are permitted p-•roiiidi:bg than, they .do not exceed I2'sQuar feet arid are nit .. . in excess a£, 5 ,feet'in hsight. brie* 16iselrental•sign Is permitted f or•'non-apron,,f root sites and two signs are. : germi.tted for, apron, front. sites. ; g) . .Kis O.U.S.e.11asieSig7zs -. -*Cluded, in th:i, category. are 'signs volviiag safety;':sectir. Zy, ciaz;ger; eft_' and ,size 'must not • . e�eceed :Z: si�uare feet; ' Bovever;.•gxceptions' are bated, where, more strirg•ent standards may :appl such as CISSA; EAA. etc._ ia) U'indov,5i�ens•,.-'7- is standard applies:to .small,sa:ens placed ' yyo.'••crianows or doorr,- and- 'includes' "hours o€. operation" signs, sztsall decals., etc_ : i) Combinati.oii. of Signs - To alloy, for signfl.exib%13ty to meet i.dtinti.firatian. xieeds, a -tenant may (1), in§tall. surface . MO*`_ ted =builriing si:fins only, (<2)'.free standing, tenant signs ; only, (3) tenant stall: siZus• ottlp,. or ,a combination of (I) and {2) ar'ei combiaatiou of Dther• ccndit•i.cros-:and -standards, such as sign Provisions •V ere•a•building. . or site ha's. 'min°I:tip-le temancs, problems.-of .obstruction'or interference, appearance; maintenance,, and sign !=Terfals are detailed fan this policyl ` (3) St s Tieiin'ir'o.ns. p• eSLab1is37ang specific" sigm..'st nda,fid's., 'tAe . el 6M s-w4ill- apply: a) Tenant.'Si' : _: Ai4p graphic •di.spIayi illuminated .pr sioa illuminAtgd, containing. lert,ers,.. numera)s, symbols., or:$ cninb xiatjari ttrereof: meant to provide- tenant iden'ti•fication, infoz-matiori- and/'or di,rectian. This 'includ,es ext.evTl t signs of any;type, :gr''interioi- signs that can .rradz-ly ,seen from the exter%cst,'vhet'aer.€ree standing_-oz.,at'racbed 'to`.,the sisrfac of .a building or:wall. ,'b) -Surf ace Mounted Building.•Sign .- A .si 'xi;applied .to or-mounted upon. the surface Df, a building where 'the sign' face,'letters,. ' numerals and/or syp�bnl:s are parallel to. the. scipparting suFfice.- " } Fre'e``Standing _'Tenant Sign - A sign irhfch ts .separate. and :apart frau' anp'building',. having ''it's avn integral supporting struct-u,r••e'. d} Tenant -Wall- Sign A, sign.. applied to or .mounted. upon''.th'e, surface. o 'a freestanding vall,- f•enct:, or;birrier`'af aioy type cib'e -e the sign",face;. '1-etters; vWberaY:s.and''/or' s} bels tare paia12e1'. to the supportingssirf ace. : e),' Single=.aced Fee Standing .S'en =: A' free standing sign.having. one face d`esa g ed a be seen'from :one "Oi-i-ectiran:.' f} Double-faced gree Staridizig. free stan.ding. sign: havix7g svo. faces:mounted: back:to_ back'designto be .seen from oppasi.te..a tec s« g). Priusai-y Signing Tliat signing which identifies the,principal operation', the-'sing a 'teisant. andlax :'.Lhe'principal'teisant: si. 'irY '}1i chu ' . •iii. '�e`t'oi... �`� �. '?;��;�•.•,:`''Z'1'!.... €n .M�: '-.: . -.`.:,.den�i�.ie_s •.s:..b.. to ,a'irts..;=. �n'' ;:o"'rat. rer:. �•�`cstz's.. "sxa {i'fa'��t,�ire��s��>�[y=L �n 1 .yinfs:cl.�}.:,::. "riduczs .'`�•sev :ce;^'.•. tig'ni.mg• —•That signing far providing. pedestrian . • '. , '••�.aii�d.l.or •va:iicular..",tY-afffc :di.rection,:., . ' . j) Rea 1, Estate Lease/Rental Sign A sign to 3W'dicate availabi) tr :or space on .a• site-'fcr,-lease 'or rental. k) -Miscellaneous. -Signs : ,All other• signs vhich are-',not specifically -identi•fi+ed•'above:, involy ng saf-ery, security, danger, etc. 1) 24anufacturers Sign -= Any' sign fabricated by a product. gtanufacturer whir-h- is standardized and mass-produced for the "puY'P_Rse ofd'isp ag-b9 hose ,COX0,Panies•selling. its prc►dvct. 'S 2.P Fact hr..es - '3'he grass 'area ,of 'the -surf-ace of cacti• si.pi iicltz in f•a.ee and .fra:me.. •t;: n'•c$lcula°ti-ng si.gn. lace areas, R � -one :surface-.,of.-a' dourb7a-faced -s •e : gnlpic4 •bcomputed.. ln•.th�:,�as .of individual su:irfa,te 4naun:.ted•.let•ters; to'compute' t}ie . as area; 'an•linaginary line circuins.cribing tie letters. (topg-r;,. •bpttoza.and end b'ot`der,•'eq�zaYins :1/.2, o:f maximum Ie•tter .,: height) 'should,be 'tss.ed; 'w'here individual surface• mounted ' et.fers are used iu pr,•oximity -to and in ,combination ;4T.1tli s sy-cnbol (logotype), 'this .wi11 .beconsidered• a single sign 'with tle sign face area cDmpute'd using an 'i'magirarq line circum scribing. both..the l•etters$_and"the::symbol: i) Sign S'tan8a,rds'.: Ip develnving a, spec'ifi'c sign•program, .the foYl:owing' stand-ards'w 'll ap'p.ly as -appropriate " a): SKr£aceSMounted .Bvil:dIng 'Sign ='The. fo1l.owing standard, is ppl.icable to each bu111,'c3i:ng prr.;a. tenanCsite; see j)Jor. .; }niil,tipl'e tenancy-c..r terra: front Sign ,Sizq '(facibg street) The -riarxr„um. sigh; face.area for .the fronL..Gf..each-building. on :apron, front or non-apron frons .ii.tes v411 be- -5;: of, the total square. footage of all 1 verti`-cal•'building ;surfaces. patallel.to.'tine street, or 10. square. . feet, uhi.cheve is. Marg ro except Lhat. •in no event•.pi'll..the' sign .face area exceed .;2.02 of the'single architectural building feature tri wlie2i''the, sign. is'.mouirted: " Rear Sign :Size ..(facing apr'on)' ! For.'aproa 'front., sites,. t?ie fear. a.f. .over buil3iiig' on each. -site .(oz thaw bnzlding . are most,..d.]rertZ3%"'faci-4 the' airc'i-A t-operating.•area).;. may:accomodate` a..�}irface...uiouiited..buIldzng sign with.a maximums:sign' face .area of-jnZ•of the .iotal; of all rear vertical -building •snrfaees of Llzat lruildin.g:;oY :2Q.::_pgiiare' feet';.�shiehever is: large ., ..Ya nb evt nt .zriZl' 'L}ie saga.•face area• exceed :202U.-dfthe �singlc.. aTch£tectui`al building feature to sihicw- 'thesign:.'is .mouated. sprain .fraiit sites; no'rear 'signing .wilt :be,'perm� ted.• SideSign Size 'or. :aprori ;front si:tes., Sign: requirements. be. aecorx�odated' 6tone or hot3i sides. -of.-one bulldi,3 g on.ihe' i s�•teth 'a.MaX,-MUM",sign..face area:.af.=SX"of the -total: square . f.gatage of all: vgr•tical buildingsurfaces, or 10 sauare feet, ' ` :Whichever is.larser . In no event. will :the sign face.'area :eacceed '2.Qt•of- tNe siagle'arthii:ectiir:1 •building feature 'to, z.*h ch the sign istaourited. For 'non-apron 'frons sites. no side g'nj�aig will' be per# tte,d; hvvever, 'buildings.with•,prirary .. ori�ntatioa to :either .side -may at"the discretion of the Co=ry, snstall .sida'sfgis iii lieii of':-fxont signs, with standards for fcut-isias. .bsiag.acceptable_' -22- - O '.Sign Content Content is Ii=ited.•to primary s:i^ninr: hn,scver. Ltd; L}ie eyteri:t that the. symbol and' 'l'ogotype of certain .nation lT.} xeccgn•i zeii, product snaztufacturers can :be•considered.vital to Fite 'gar'.iutlding idantificat.3on,• sucfi secanda y:signing may be -utilized :Th 'epn junction 1,ith or. •in 1 eu•--of .prim-jry .s1 pining. '5ign contint thus°t•'4Ppear''an the sigm, 'face or .bui1`ding_with each lett'e , numeral_; symbpl and/or %Int .'of type place horizontally an -the, surpporting• •surface— -Letters, numerals. and,/or, symbol,:.must be arranged' on the sign ,face or 'bud 3 ding surface 'in :a =graphically acceptm able . anner` so as to avo.,d - czovd-Ig 'ap. "6thervise poor 4'ppeara0tz.'., Sigzr=?1:aceirrenr"-- Signs mast' be..l.atit:e'd' on''each supportArig. ' siirface in:-a Lay :zhaf is ;arc?iitectisrally-acoeptalAe so`as to a=ssure :c'oiupat ki 7a'ry'betueeri. straciui aal'Jeatiires.' and ;the:siga'.• `sins are not perxai +e¢t_ton' any projec.t:ing'surf aee siicl - as.,a canopy;are. .or.•,airtil:n&, .Dor are signs permitted .cd-*the roof • oz abope the e,atie.Ii.ne .bf Any lauilding or structure. Ellumi iza t?oa ' ".Si • s .i:�3i ch•re i . m :n.. q.R re' i2 iziu�xiat ,aa' st have:'r#]1'' 2` sgh'tin'g:;"elemeiiis: neon; vozese'en "r'3iic'arit3ecenty.::etc:; - el:ecti • a .;Coai►pane" ts';;Cp3vi3;t _ .'t'ransftirmers; .soiskets ':;s,ei�sor . 6c:') xat,otr�a73y rae'd aDd L�aD.cealed"fxom w�ev : : Sin; .�i07Ces' i ;.-hav6;tTa s,luee7d;K`;'l ttois'"aiic�/b ':. a.c s aiiid n, t e ca o sn'd M''J."ctpl:;1'e;ttexs airmera3s and�'oz 'syra�ols 'each' transltic:ezit ,fiace=;'or:;Ige;ti�ek`'l .g ito -Traiisliicea atte2s .. nue::rals' '`,s bods:arid'or ace'siiu5 +3'e:='.' rm . .. uii*iapated.: iio' r;':" Fpc :ate.:` r.clisecfiiral,"and'J'4. : sign '3aceFaeut_ Fa toi ;;e' leve]:. f7 p'od•'. lei 'ht:' i'i s;? itnsss5�b3 e, ravdi ib : Prohibiter/ Signs = 'Build-ing.siggs ;of any tape: incl'ud'ing: letters; ' ixume]Cals; ssaabols and co#binatiobs'. rthereof, icay not :3ie directly. paixited on any building -surface:; .nor, may signs be- :applied •to of mounted upon bangs= doors. TIo signs may flash, revctl've, move.or iD aiay va9 .be azl:er, than static. ' No sign will -'be,, peri"-ted nr ich does Heir 'irientify or,relate to the authorized busines's being; . •.condutt d on.the- site. b) ' Frte• Stasiding Tenant Sign - The .following .standard is"applied. -- io•'free standing signs': see j-) -for riultiple tenancy criteria: . Sign. Size•- >=r�e.-standi.no .tenant signs;.whether~single face or !16uble face vi1.1`have'a width 'of. 1 to 5 time`s the• height'.. {including face 'and. frame:):, -the rt'ic3t3i bei Dg not cars than 10 fees Hoz less Lhan'4 .feet. In no eveaL igill the:single sign face. area exceed,2.4 squame -feet:.. The-iz aximura overall height of -eadh sign above•sire grade iucl•uiwig supporting: structure viI l be _5 :f e`er; QaG.lCtw t 3xghi rec�tus�l •design 5a dictates., ..'In ]scat lc`nis where free starndiag sigois iia'-lt a obstroctaed fzam view,' the::—c itT.s:*fll .caasi-rlez tenant'r+equests for signs of greater Si' content. •Rich tray include .p.rimary sipnins Siri gn :conteL ?;' and/o.r- •ses0ndsr3' signing;_ �rrust, appear on the• sign .'face ' e'r n4L'.e , symbol.: aiadlor Zine, of type s pZacexT 1,orizon.tally :bu- the suppo-r-ring•.-surfape. . Leiter ; nciaeYals an ,symbols xuiast'bearrangeii` op the sir 'fake .in a grap'bically acceptable manner s-o as•' to avoid erowdi.rig, and ot•3Seswise poor appearance. +F Sign •;,oci:tion anti- Number Free stand•i xg: tgDant signs will be. 1o.ca.ted thin, or,behind the. front setlsack .area, and may be iizsta2led--parallel, to the' curt -litre or..perpendicular to the 6-i rZiDa= Co * er. sites sill' be, considered .to have two front setback meas.• , One: free,stand'ing•-tenant:sign, will. be permitted i ar nota-apron .froot sites.and' o6t. more ,than,two free standing j tEziiant s>:gn"'•wi.11,be pe'rini•tted .sin -the 's.t reet side of.. apron front sites. ;Al,so.;.:not_ iiore than;. tuo fxe.e'st•'anding tenant signs :7 Ir ill .be;.pezitte6 at:the..reai _of. apioxr front sites, :but within.. 1Q• feet r,f•'the.-bundin�.or...structure; ..The .placement of free stani3 ing teiiaiirt`'signs r�rt3s;t.be ;comp'atible.with. archi•tecr''ral tures of Lhe.•buildi6gor%strui q. ure: � Zllumination- 'F:ree:•stand%rig :sign s'.vi�i•ch. require' illuaiinatir�n niiistIiave alI :fighting;el; ; ,£lubrescent, incandescent, et'c•..} and electr cal,.'cainpo ients {conduit.;. transformers; sockets,' saa'sars'i 'etc:7-,.•integrally installed .and , concealed from •view: :Bosieve ' emote grade :level. fl:oo4. lighting is-.'i�ermissible . p=ova,ai.xig'there .i5 zio:harizFfu7 .glaze.. •,Outrigger, lights will not be p x-mi c"tei3'". 'Sign .'boxes ,miky, Have 'tYarrslucen.'t..lett:ers, and/ faces Arid .must. lie uiiafo=mly illuminated. `ProclYibitecT Signs :-.:Nd fires:. s.tandiing sign, map' flash,.revolve, "asbiie or. in any.:-way.be otherThan s'tatit.. :.110_ sign r.*ill 'b.i i�titti'x tett svtyic#i does no•t.',i.deiitify or-relite-;to the autfrorised . bu!s ness, bej-ag,carii3ucted: on._the, site:' ; :c) Tenant: Wall S �iay;- .TIi'e fp21°awing..standarrl:.is.-.applied to..tenaat sis*res.'znournted, upon ;a free ;standiYig wall, •fence- or barti.er of. ; arty,'.tyve,• see, j} ;f-oX ir1:t-zg3-e. z eriapc3; crite-r a:' Sign Size:. This t:yoe of si:gp will. have: a.'wl� th of .1 to S tines the:height (iiiclirding face• and.*f.rame), the width tieing not, more than.'JQ. feet nor' less- than A.-.£eett fox individuals. fetters, nitsserals. Andl;.or symbols, .the' same`aroaort-ions apply- in determining allcisrabZe i*idth and .}reagh't.' In no,-evezit v-111 the single sign farce atea exceed 24. -sgisaare feet. The maxiaum overall height of' each sign 'mrist -not'. exceed•`S,•feet., :v: th proper placement deter=xned :by.•the height of the.sugpprting. -surface as well. as - azt hitettural :featuace&. -•24- Sign COflbLtnt - Sign ton2t nt, .w3sich day ir+clude prima r) sfsning.;; and/or,.s.econeary signing, must. a.pp.car.'on the. vel] or s1Fn face Lith each letter•, numeral,, svinbol and/or line Of', type placed' borizon.ially 'on the su p-or;ti,ng surface: '.Letters, numeraks and/•or.' ,gymb.P1J5 rdii.st be arranged: op. the call of sign f"ace in' a graphica3lq•acceptable manner so as tri 'avoid crowding ar.d other ise poor, ,appearance, Sign_ Location and Number.:'- The `placejntnt• of -i front i =7 be 'sr3tFiin or behind the front 'setback .a-rea.,,_Corr;er sites will be considered to have• two front, setback'areas. -One tenant ww all sign ill he permitted for noir-aproe front sites, _ and not more. than 'two Genamt wall signs will be, permitted on the. street side• of. apron. front' sites_' so., net more than t�?o : tenant -..all signs will permitted' at the tear 'of apron• fzont ,s.it:es, Suds signs, ff -architecturally desirable, Pi .y tie xecessed into the supporting surface. I]Iuminat-ion -. Signs..wh cb. t6cp4ire ill.umination'.must have, all lighting elements �riet�rit flvorestent,. incandescent, .etc.). ann electrical cbmiyonents {condui.t, ,traizsformers, -sockets,` sensors, etc.-)' integrally. xnsta]led •airs concealed from view. However, . remote grade lev el. £Iaod lighting, is permissible providi :there is.'fo harmful glare.. ' Outrigger lights' are -not permitted. Sign "boxes mayhave 'txanslucerit letr t`es:..and/or' faces; and is"the„case :of individual letters, nuiaez els ani/or symbols; , enc i,"inay have translucent face or b+e b'ack-Tighte—. Translucent•:. letters, numer'a1s, symbols, and/or faces must be unifoxal, %ll,tizinated.. Proliibitee3 Signs U,all signs of any type including letters, ' nur,.erals, 'sxnbols and .combinations :thereof 'zv3q not be directly painted on any will surface. . .Na.,signs may flash, revolve, move tar -in any:stay be. other than -sta,ti r_ No sign will. be jierr*i tted which •does�not- i�dent:ify%or. relate to the •autinorized business being eondncred on the. site:: d) . .birec_tiopal Signs - The. follouirig,standard .vill :apply -to • '• -. all'directional'signs t'• . ' . , '. - - ' sign Size - Directional signs, whether single face or. Bauble ' face, V11 be £zee. standing with`a single sign ••face area not 1-6 excess of 2.,souare 'feet and an-overall sign height' including supporting structure not in excess of.,5 feet. Sign Content - The specific need sevved b7 directional signs is guidance to pe:deszrian and/or vehicular traffic, only , Where lack .of.'sucb sighs• would create,corifusion bit .rax39est:Lb=. _Le;,*tt.x'5...numerals* and/or' symbols may be applied to or paizited upon the_'sign face; and must: be designed in a graphicall;g acceptable manner so as, to avoid .crowding and otbers•.ise poor appearance. . . -25- sign,.LDCation and. 1:vrsbez — Tv provide •optimum pedesLri.an . anAjVT- vehicular sgddance, di-rectiflnal signs-nay be plated .a any l.acati-O-n on:',a, site., . I3oweve-r; el#,hasis".Ulu St. be placed oa attaSmira ;optimum guidance Vitb' the. smallestpractical number •af's-igas. IlluminationTinder the assumption .that pedestrian traffic can.,read -di•rect,ional si:gnt.under ambient lighting conditions, arta ve�iitular•.trafiis-will -utilize •beeaalights to read directixanal- Sigiz's, '.sign. $Ilumisaati(3n IS"'opti:onal: Prohibited Sigas Y.= Direccional.,siii s`> may not be other than -' s,taac,., aad --must., relate. to .'pedestrian and/er .vehicular trstf}c OII +the -site-, e) Street'.Address Sign Tfie,fol•lo'win' S gtandatd'is.intended- Cv ,prOrlde. uniform street address, Signs .throughoyL the,airporL; f it• is. �gpplicablc t'o.'al.l -buildings having;direct street frontage' `where building sheet address identi.ficition::is considered :. . Vecessary- Sign Size - Ea:ch street address:szgYt'. 11';be single face';' _ measuring. 12°' x 38 ,oVerall;-. .To achieve- standardization' and urti:formit'y, a ¢cawing-•ig ,avai'lable' upon reobest shoving all. dir,ensipns;. colors;.:.m'aterials, letter type,letter .Spacin' and ronin tlpg details. Sign Cpntent _ Each sign trill oontain •both street-aggresses and • •s'tre'et name. .. - .. . ; . Sign 'Location and Number = Street address .'signs will. be surface:.mounted on each:bniTding'.at an oSerall. height iioL in ' excess% of 5 feed and located in prnri$cir�_ to the main bui.ld;Lng entr-anee: ' ,In the event''a. ,buildiiig is..set :back SO. feet or mare• from thy'0-xisting •and%or -de'signaLed, curb line, a single .Trice, :£ree'.standing address 'Sign•,imi be :installed. within, the front 'building setbacr k aea parallel:_ta_the curb lime an at 'aa overall height, not ;Ln excess of.'S ••,feet: •,tjlumination '— .No special. proi*isions for' illumination will � e required other than ligtititg provided by ambient conditions. : f) Real Estate Lease/Rental Sign The iolloving, standard ti-ill apply to•a1:1- lease/%ental signs: Sign Size Lease/rental signs, whether.`single face' or double' face, stili be freestaad3n9 with a,'sing•1•e .sign. face area not i6n i Mess of 12 'square feet and an overall sigu.hgigh.t not in exce:ssof 5 feet: In- locations..-where lease/rOntal: signs may . -be bbstrucred ftom vie'w,•, the County will cons der-re�uesr's for signs of •greater height. Sign C:Pnrent• - The s.ir-n -11.1 contain no r,orc than a-hr.<_ef. description of .available' space. -on a sl Le for lease or rental, as .well a5•;pertinent data such as raame, •address., and telephone nur�bez. Letters xiume.ra•ls, and/br" syr bals'•nay :be, applied tp.or -Painted upon,the sign ,'fsce; and must- be designed_ in a graphca•l;ly acceptable manner. ,so as to avoid crocrding aird ot7hersii se poor appeal an;ce. Sign t6cation and l inrbef = In all czses, leaselrental' sagas %:•ill. be' 1•ocated•p*ithin or behixid the front setback area, and may be. installed parallel. to the curb line or- perpendicular to• the'••curb li-ne.. Placement should be compatible wltb. areh3tecural f'ea'tures 6f,the .building of`structure. tine lease/recital sign ti7ili percaitted fox nozi-aprcin frost - sites, and not* mare than.twp leaselrentaT. igrtsi11`be permitted for apron .froar sites_ Corner sites will be considered to }lave. two setback, areas." Illumination .- Because'.of the ,ic:m orairy nature of, lease%rezxtal signs., no. illumination will :be :peimifled: _Prohibited S'igias' .Lease/rental sights, ssav •not be.other than static, and must relate to authorized activities on the site:. icellaneous Signs.* The- f0llo1;4;Pg_stindard :will .ap' ly .ip all..signs of -a miscellaneous nature such as those ibvbIving safety', security, danger; etc.. Sion .Sixe . Sucb sign' s-in all. cases will.be: single face' and attached to. an' appropr12te sur' ace'. with A. Sign •face *not in excess;'of 2- square feet 'and installed at eye level; sign Content•- Because, of* the.alert' or L'arm.ing'nature of these sighs, 'the content" should be siriiple; 'succinct and.-bold. Letters, numerals and/or symbols may 'ase painted upon the'sign •face ' 'and iau'sc tie .aesigi�ed. in "a' grapliicallp, acceptable manner so.'as to`avoi¢ crowding:and other4ise poor appearance. Sign Location Sign location dill be dictated by the required . proxi=i.ty. of such signs, to the •activity for which the- al ' =r, sxgus are intended_ ; Ill.u=iiiat%on - .Stich. signs•will not require illuminatiosm but may be fabricated with reflective material. Prohibited Signs - Where alert/varnistg signs 'relate to the overall' operation of the'airpcirt, or to a county fac31::Lt y sahib may. ;exist-,rithln a Tenant`•site, 'the County nty' at its option -ray . Srohibit the tenant from installing•such signs in favor of tlsec County, staking such an installation. ' -27- Exceptions -iu "he oregaing safety and. se.crity sign 'Criteria, represe`rnrs a. guilde.l.ine only: r.equirenents• established andjor'recar enced'by`the ;:at onal .-SI afety 'Council., Occupational - afery an'd• ealth'Act {t}SFiA ; Federal Aviation.li3ministratioxs aixd..ather .agencies baving.:aeit'hority, or- jurisdi'cti'on shall prevail im the event• of conflicting. stan�ar0s: h) -Window Signs..- Signs displayed 46 glass doors or windows are Limited. to an. "hours of operation" •si.g-p plus• small decals • edit card affiliation, security -system, ete: i}' CQiZsb nation. gns- To' ach'ieve'.a bzlanc of primary and seGOAdary ..s.igning on,.a: site, the Ibllow,xng signs or •combinations_. SIgps ,a_r•e:, accep[�ble: a) :Surface Tbouated•:building sign.(s} ,only , b) rree:;:stAbding,tenaii,t. sign(s). ;only: c . Tenant .Fall,sign tsy'-onlp ' .. . - d)` �Combinati.on: of�•a� aad,'b} .. . . '. .•e}"Com ination. bf•a), and` e� T"nis, stanciard:tri]I •aPp13''.uhifrr. y„to-'each.'site wrrether the te .' s. occupied.bp: n. sinkle fenant:,or. vnil°tiple.•tenants. These. combinations are'-'also intended to apply to ,.front signing orapron .trant an d. nbn�apioa-frgnt sites; and'to rear siggnijig for, apron' front.-sitesi' j). !Knilti�pl.e..Tenancy, - 'Where one' tenant.,oc.eupier, a site or building, aI]',s gn..s za.crit ria c3escribed.::here tof;are app�ies.” 'however,' an. .the case-'b'f-occ�ipancp by .twb qr more.principa'' tenants, ttie. cil°Iovimsizes asidjar• numIier of•signs. w1' apply: tutfage '?Kaunt&d Building: Signs FIadh_'pr*TIcipal btui.lding ' v ani:'i's permiitted' M.instal:l :a. buildizsg _signs{s}. Or•ovided haw'eyer,: =hit: the ..aaxisnum al I b-3e sign size„be .apportioned .,fairly- , among:p=Xnciiia7 .tenants.,..that .the, Cota2 square footage 'of -all_ signs on .s.'building, fade not:'exceed, the-maiimu= allowable. sign`'s;ize, _ain that:.; gxxs acid sigis::placerzseut Ile un i.axm sct -as tb`insure accep:tabli archipectuial• appearance_ .Free Standing Tenanr•.Signs. - For.. single or. r*ltiple occupancy-, one.free- standing teziaAt sig=. s permitted for each toa-apron $rater site and- nqt more. than:two,such signs. are permitted for earth front and rear of, aprom'front sites: Aos:ever, . the sigii, -face area may -be •utilIzed, as a• directory-type; sign with, .the . tc+� . area apoort-ionic equ Ally -among all tenau'ts. Design of the ��: should.allow for•periodia teevision icy.,each tenant wjtZhout affecting'. the -rennins sign. ' •'„` Tenant Vall Sir-.ns - Far Dingle of rnul•tivle,occupancy"ant tenant wall sign is permitted for each non apron front site and,not pore Chain 'trio' such, s:i:&bt are persuitted for .each front: and•each -rear 'of'• apion'.fron•t Ti the sign* face area• =ay 'b'e used as �• directesry--type :sig i, vith' 'the total area apportioned• equally among all tenants. Design of the sign. should allow 'for periodic tevisioci by" each tenant without aff.ectig the entire sigma: Direc-iional Signs Ta,maintain coatiiiisitl' ori`each site, r irectiona] signs 'u�'II1 be =Afarm,as to side anal..overall Real ;£state Lease/ Rerital' Si sis - For single.-or multiple . occupancy one leaselrental sign Brill be permitted' fcx non-apron front sites ,,and trot'. siraze th ; an. two lease%rental signs vial be permitted far .each apron :front.site.• Where., a'iatil' S;p e:ne-ea' exists for providing leased.r.'ental' in ormatiozi.-. persn :teed' ' sign areas,'}X 4. • i,:,ere: mnl'tiple tezisncy occurs iu .a-buf ldsig or oa a site,' all. tepaAnts -are encouraged to_collectively. establish. a Mi-ibens.ve sigh plan for review and appresva,l by the County'.• Inthis way, individual' tenant `sign.needs can be assessed ap •the basis csf overall• requirements, aria the desire -for, kt 03�s nict5co�rijl ter a en _e. �'T3o:s3gu'. f'.:'a Y. Ypt,.- :ed' Yi'a. rectl` oz:r`z.�iadrtly;'a}asr �ctsti.pf't;cxoatpromti es pias t% '. - "' a�'r'-ra�� ve'kicl'e=• ai�f o='t�`'ed`eszran�:n=a�ffic, Fii"r hei aiir uai:: °3eltusuisat' c s gh `of<a3i type- ;4UT 2i :gezm3ttei3'. xr ii # iaay' a3iise'w"alecrzon3 t' or,`:o. he .:Scad�:a•-imterferdnce--wv �ch •. vrru3dmiair 'e3ect7ranic riavigatiou ar icoi,ariiriicatiiiu: Si din'A ':ea aia ee aii 3ai4 z:a xc :` XIS s gns;•stia32 3 a =aiutainea p epttsaaL' : a' iii,3�bri3er . iepai ='auil.''corir22tYoa .,et:''a11. tIIres': ty'..t h... 8.. m) Sign.:?iat` a :Tt` aisssst t}ie:;tesiarit :3a.. 'develapg;,pope ] ., ?' `ei# iae se ser�vaceaS7�e'.`signs:; •t}ae olloc!itg rs itaa,iri':srano ids aYe'•"recon= nded'. kfeT:al: sign; aabi�sets shoiild �te.24:gauge" gavanitiec .:slieet-mat.a] or.':a317° alucieiuiud, pr-gperly .re nf6-tced,-.tirith.iaicei^nial eleetz ca3 aceways.,aiad/or. eleetricsl "tioaces cif,'cordparabl+e; gauge ,or heaz� :et. .cati ets, should'be, propezly f.itte ;;zu` al�iba t- the • . • .penezY'atori .cif �o#.stui-e,-azrd dint biit'•vi.th' sipu-faces• easi:lr , x ovable £ar c'le:cniaag am ]asap rep,14te6ent': Fluorescent 3ar:i�is.'shoiild be cciol.`t?ki1Ge:?!I2' high a.'iitpui (I . OWMA) Ylexga7s:. s1gt €aces shoi3d be 3116. thick �crith`al2ovai�ces df.'TlI6'` per. pot i t eadh di+reetion t. allav 'for `expansion .an.d contraction, Sbeet; r4eta3 surfaces should. be cleaned, przmeci and finighOa t:lth' a V6ked• enamel; galvanized sheet, metal surfaces shaalt!' be e. t ecI,•' rwd a'nd f2ni^shed,vith a baked enamel ; ax4d 'alumirYum= tYfaces'. hpul,d li.e'•s'ashei3 vith:Iacquer-, and then. finfshed jai th zlnt 'chroirate.anal spray fog coated before Applying the finiih coa-t. Individual three"dir,eissiona3 sign 'letters' s-h-o,61-d be 24 gauge, sheet,metal ..025-a uminum with,'pl'''glas facies uben'.' illtimih4tiin •is'.'required, "•.Si'zp, :co1or•and •num) Qf neoia ' tubes-%rl11 'depend tippn_the charaeier csf .sign; plexiglis.faces . should:-be. 1/V',tD- 3J15"_ thick depending tipan size.•of• letter's. Letters'ciit ram- flat'she&_-Zs-of.aater•ial•such• as' plexiglas or '. metal'ark'aeGetabe`''piovdizig geri�etes. trimis used' to- -give tire`Icer'. aiiiuirsm depth."of 1" for 'letters cip' tri J2°' xn he gNt; aria:'a i iciirnuim.letXgr_depth of :2"' for letters` greatejrc'•than I2-"; ' hegh't:: k ere•- ' ri- il'timii�a:ted wnod ;sigiS:s. a e''coasidered approp late' algid md!;A-ssaty`` dr'archjtectur Seasons, Such stood Sur aces, shat bi~ prciper]p rimed' ,painte3 zndJoi sea2'ed +. . ehipp. , e-te.a . tQ preircnt n?' SYg '.;`ltemoval D.p"`oii-,']z'ease ".teiiaj.r iciz _� `t3�'et�rertai%�.•ancI�Jor' _ :. :,,; a:ar 4 i tec3j tc► . .. .„�e.$a �r ,a"nd.•(. ::•:iP nfi'.:a11'rs .r$.'?.r ; e'aI] 's ' '.~.` -to"'p afC '17” - sya a3 •-�t%c''h'.•tlie`.s�gas'•wee:. -' ' �,J Nv,•1 y _. _ .30- ' , . G. IA?LEMENTATI ON Exaept;as otherwise expressly pr6Vi.dtd. by applicable written "agreement between--the• County and lirport lessees., this ppol.iey and standards for• development shall apply t6, the development and operation of all airport sites. . {j } 8uildin� •Standards &Ad Restrictiar s- {Secti' ii E}. This. policy wilT,.,be applzaable to all,new �snp�^ovements, axid..to substantial alterations...of or' additions to existing. improvements. Presently. existing, bxildit�gs, _structures and otber improvements will .be eXjpmpt frons this.pollcy= z'otirided, h6wever, . that this policy. .. shall. be applicable•-to all. z-ene otiated lease afire.ements with. a-mi.nismui:s -lease teras. df-five-five ($� Years: In addition to. the:pro- visions .of this p4lioy; all buildings and.*structures will be . required to conform tw appli-cable:.codes and--County .standards. . Standards (Sect!6 F}: This' poli.cy:,will be applicable v 1'. ezgn ; 'and 'tri -subs.tantial,. alterations of.:or. additions: .to exstiyg, improveimexits.. Preseritly'eXisting szgris will be...exempt .' from 'l t}iis policy pJz6vided, 'hbwever, 'that this policy,shall be• applicable to' all- renegotiated,lease_. agreements with, a min',Tn . lease term- of, five ($) years, -arsd_ that:.proposed::new' tenant- :signs which essentially dupp.licate. existing sign inforzoation will`require .. that' such .eai.stiiyg: eiP's' be immediately.removed. In. .ac�di:ti.on to. tFie `provis"ions of this••policy-,: all .signs. and sign. str,..uotute'9 will be r_equir.ed to conform to applicable` codes- and. County...stariclard.s. ( : . Imlementatioii .Prose ure, Na' `site. improvements of anY type- .nisch as triose descr'ibe'd in Sections E• and F.:;wall'be permitted without : conf'OrMii* io .the;-following procedure. tesse:es ,with whom the_County has executed a final 'lease' agreement.vill. --be :re.quir:�d .ta subm.it;:,within. a:pr'escribed period of° timid s- (b j complete sets .of drawings.ehorring all aspects of :proposed site :development or:.a2t•erati,azi., ii t 4;Lng'•a: ei'iiutive site..plan, ..lion lding';plans a s:1 sp.eca-- Sf :cataizs - landscaping plans,..:sxgn.:drawings.. td. 'at the. . tenan't:'•s.`•op't on; a 'colored reind ting.may be helpful daring the Countgr."s review process. b). The complete set of -drawings. -plans and specifications will 'be subject. to, 'County 'review based upon compliance :with all requirements contained- in Sections E. and F. . If's.11 cone- ditions are met, the blainager. of Airports* will recommend . approval by. the Board:of Supervisors.. In the ,event of non-- cvuspliance, or if the,.applicant is. uixabie in any way -to comply with Sections. E. and F. , the matter .wi:ll*be referred to the Board of Sixpervisors for final determination'with,d:eparture.s ,from the policy so noted and with recommendations of the Manager of Airports. c} The. issuance of a notice to ptoaceed. will occur within .one. week after approval by the Board of Supervisors. For minor 31 s alterations. or site improvements., review anal .approval.,will granted by the. Manager•of Airports. : Where there is any questiranregard ng 'tie minor filature. of .a• proposed prQ je:ct, the.normal rev.16v and approval'pro ws involving: the Board Of StiperVisnrs: will 'be followed: d) Eaeh Iessee 'wi13 be required to: comply, with -all. of the territs't covenaxits; and condi•tioxis; df•.axv agreement the lessee has: entered into with. t2xe=County before' or 'after, the effec v-e date' o,f this policy and.standards,for development. ENFORCEMENT" Any'.aetivity, operation or .use :6f:a site-. Which s•�6stabli:shed'.` operated,: . erected, .moved•,. altered -enlarged, painted or liakntalbed contrary to 0T�,cy:..anid' stand'arcds i�or .`dev�lopment shall ,be•;and 'is hereby'. iec ared to, die unl w iil=anc3°-a-";public :n" sa:rnce. azid<zany -die abated:as such'.' AK�NISMENT--PRQCEbURE ' T}ie folowi'ng provisions of'.ths S.ecti:ori•„shad 'prescribe, beedure by'. which _the. text 'of'.>this-.:po1icy may, he.*:cha4ged,' amehded fir :new* v olic.ies `incbrrpgy,ated,ir�;'•sai:cd Section. i l} Initiation. 'lie: C ount ` ma y: rxitiate. on. to. charig this -policy, to amend, or' deYete 'the lease po •icy .arid -s-tandarils`for iieve2opmeiit ' set firth” in this.'polick .ot- t.6,.;establish new:polscies incorg"arate•d %nto said Section. (Z) C:atintv::Action.,' ' Fc nowir=ganitfition of 'at ti6,il by td e County "to amend.,• ths-:pol car, the'. Countjr_:shall ''wi•thn.'a.'reasonable period gf time"'.prov de adequate -pitblzc notice. on, its proposal izi the ctfficzsl newspapery;of•. the County at:'l.ea.$t 'ten the date'of th+e proposed. aeti on. V-Ahih sixty •{'f }.".t'at's ,thez'e- after, ttie' Cbitzity _sh:a1 ` make` :a 'decision on.:the propp.sei3.,amendment. The �auntyy shall' consider ,vvhetlrer ;th'e ex'is'ting po icy' or policies, is' .or 'are inad'eq'uate for. the -orderly. :comprehensive and• adequate dgv6lgpxient-'and Amiprovem6nt of' .the Air-port, and ' approv,e, 13!(:�ify' or may defer' d sappri►ve the proposal -for amendment, ' or action until of 'such studies -or plans. asmay " be necessary :to .determi:ne• the' advisability. of .theproposal. In the: case of approval ormodified approval.- the -County shall, there- After adopt the necessary. policies to .accomplish the proposed' amendment: The decisi'an of the Cot nV,'shall be� fi ausive. nal and con- VARIAN'C£ PROCEDURE The prop IsI:ons•, of this S.ectioh. shall �pre.scz 6e the•.procedure for relax- The of"any gubstaz�tiV& provision;' cif. this policy .and standards for development contained in this policy, Under- spdecifieconditions: phis following procedure shall apply to all -proposals, except by lease or lease amendment,- to .°nary the strict r•egiuirements. or the saidpolicy. {1) . -,4piicatl on. Application :for• a' variance. shall .be made 'by the tenant or its= authari zed ageizt; on a 'f oz�ai;prescribed by the. Cb'iin . -and shall be filed with'-the Manager, of ,Airports herein after in this Section .J. referred to as -the "kahager". The ' application. shall be •accompanied by -such, nfbrm.ation includirig,• but not ,limited' to,' site and building plans,-. :drawii* and el`eva-- tions, and.. operational data, as.may be required to pertit the revsew„of the, proposal in the ,context• o.f the required, findings: Procedure: for Consid.eratioiz: An. applicati,an foz�.,a variance-.from a:proiri,s on.• of the said policy,shall be oo isicierad bx. t2 e,'Ma:na= ' ger:. The Manager shall deteZt�e whether;:the. c^rditz:ons :ireq:ixired in %Subsectl6ii .(4.) ,cif' this Section J. are present,.'.an may grant or 'deny an .application' fdr .a.Var,idnee •or require .'such -chan' &s in •the'.proposed usei .6'r'.-impose' 'such reasonable ,conditions '•of. approval as' are iii. -the Manager's ,judgment necessary: td-b -Omote••th6' Purposes -of the ,said. policy..' A .de*termina.ti6n,�by the Manager, shall' become final :tez (10) days ttft.er the -date of decision unless. appealed ' `to--the County in accordance. wi th the .provisioiris a Subsection ($) of this Section J. • ;Written notice ofthe determiriation o.f ,the'' Manager 'shall` be given to`fine .applicant .for the variance. {3) Peri.ad:'.bf.C.0 -deratioiix.. �hou].d a decision not be rendered' pursuant' to Subsection. (2,),. of this Sectic►n•�J.: with xi si ct c (60) ,. .days after 'fi1inFV the appl:'icati0 shall• be deemed.approved unl:ess.'s.aid. -�ime. 'has. tie'en. exteinded by=agree exit between the , Masiagez` and th-e• applicant. .-(4) : Findings•,Regu.ired.. : A.:variahce imayfoe• .granted .only,upon. ,detei-- mination, that ,all of.th.e following'coed naris are pres.ent:. a)' ' That :strict compliance with,.the spec f.led.'policy -or standards would result in impractical:'difficulty or unnecessary hard shiP inciDn9isten-t with the purposes of the said;'policy acid 'standards due to' unique physical ',or topographical circum--" stances or. c•onditioins of design; or, as -an 'alternative that such strict compliance• wool d preclude an .effective. de-sign solution improving operational efficiency. or appsearanae: b) ,That strict c.omplignce with the policy. or. standards would preclude an, effective design solution 2.Alfilling the basic intent' of the••aF 'li 'able pr4visicn. . C) That the variance, ' if granted, will .not adversely affect th, character or appropriate' development of.abutting'- site's or. th:e surrounding area-,. _and wiZl'.not be contrary to adopted -plans or- development policy of. fine. County. 33 d) .T#at the -variance will 'not constitute a grant of =special privilege iixcpnsistent with the purposes= of th-e said policy or standards, ( ) Appeal_'to. the Board .of: Supervisors: `W th°i n`ten -(10)� .days.• after a decision: by t2iq_. anager .0 -1-appli:oation for a variance from one 'of tkie .provisions. of said policy err- standards- or of•re-vpaz-' t tin..of sU.Ch' a`varianee in accordance'wi:th'- Subsection th s`,Sectior� J. an.. appeal from s6dd-• decis ¢n:'m4Y De .=takeii .to the Baard:.Of'*.$upervisors-by the. applicant, the KolAer.-.6f. the-':variance, . at. an,�►.'other interested party. Such..appeal shaxl.'be. on" a :form : :prescribed. by, tY e. County and shall. be fii6d, with 'the• Xanager.. . Theappeal -doll- state .specifically,:'wheere.i'n .. itis claimed there was .an error `or.:abuse' of discreti on:: by: the .'Manager. ar whe?"ein : . 'its. .decision -is: not .supported by ::tris 'evidence: in the records :. UPPn, receipt. 'of such appeal, the lvfanageir shall: determine: the. time, f for vecansiderat .ori•:•thereof:'-: -The Manager. shall, :not.;1ess: . Chain, :`.(sa' days prior; 'to -the. date ;seV`--for 'Ii.earing of the appeal,: ,gi:ve wr tte�i n:0 Ice .to: the. ap 'I i:cant: and .to .anyr .ath.er • parties; who laave:�made writt'e'ri request i'or succi ingtice, or: .to their .designated representatives, ••of -the time andplace 'af' the Board .meeti-ng:.hSh.:,66nsidering the. appeal,-the Board .shall' deter mzrie` whether te 'conditions require cCDy `S.ubsection :(4). ,6f .this Sect b.n.J. rare present,' and.may,grant .ar::deny.,..an= application i'•or a rsrianae or require such- may. " the-:proposed 'use. 'or impose . s.uch:.reasoriati]:e -coriciitons .of approve]: as;are h• its j:iidm`eiit' necessary' to `carry 'out the purposes of said policy. ` -Th.e -deci- sion df the :county shall be final and`•ccnclusive ' CO.:. Adtierence: .-to Apnroved:Planso A variasiee`.sh*11 .be .subject to the plans and'°:oth`er ,sped1fied' condite.�bait ihs . ch it was.:granted. 11ril.ess:;.a d .ffezerit termination: datbe presdribed•* the pei'nait.:sh•a21. `tecta nate',one`('1)"'year groin` the' ed'fectve date' Of` itS .gT 8ntl2lg uziless `actua '.construatl:on" ,or:.aitEr$tibonrt .'.or actual .e mme:ncement :of the`:.authoriz.ed..ac-tivities'in: the case• of a ,ahae' not'. rivlviig cgnstructioii `or`'alter:ationhas "begun' . under ;valid--','pei-mi.ts with n'..9,ich•per'io.d;`'. Howevei i' 'sunh•peri od: .of may be. extended by the Manager;'. or the`Board iii.:the' aas'e of vax�iance;;granted after. agpeal.' to .said, Board, ttpori application fi ed at' aziy time :before sa.id'`perod has expired. (.?) kevocatioh'. In the event --of. a:.violation of any of the provisions of said "policy, ar►d .standards, 'or in the.,.event of 'a fa:i-lure to. - comply with any.prescr •bed• condition, of approval of-a variance, or in the, event that one (1) .'year 'ha.t, elapsed since the ;granting. of a variance and' no building permit' has been issued pursuant thereto;. or .in the :event that' the.authorized activities, in cases not: requiring a building '.permit., .have. hot commenced _irithiri said.' period, the JManages, or the Board in' ' the,.case `Pf. a. -variance granttea .after appeal ..tc za�d Board,:�,ma3kti,- arfte� �no+tice, r*vmke any variance.. In: the case of revocation., of a variance, the '. determination of -the Board or the Manager,- as th:e casae may be, shall become effective ten ('10) 'day.safter the date -of decision unless appealed to. the Board iii.ace ordance with Subsection (S) .of this Section J. 3 K. . SEPARABIZITY in: ase any section or part pf any section of this policy shall be. found to .'be' invalid for any reason, the, remainder .of the policy sha11 not be invalidated thereby,- but in a.ccordanc•e with -the •intention •of' t}�e C.0 parts 'hereby expressed, shall remain in full force and effect, a3e party of this policy being hereby declared t.o .be separable and independent of a.11 others.. •' 35 o EXHIBIT #2 Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan 777777 ' ( f ' SEPTEMBER 2006 :e i Buchanan', Field Master Planning Program 4P.n'.. �6 1P. The Barnard.Dunkelberg&Company Team 'Buchanan FieldAirport Master Planning Pronam September 2008 The preparation ofthis document was f nanced in part through a planninggrant from the Federal Aviation:Administration .M (FAA)as provided under Section 505 ofthe Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 as amended by the Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987" The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or policy of the FAA. Acceptance of this report does not in any way constitute a commitment on the pant of the United States to participate in the development depicted herein,nor does it indicate that the proposed development is environmentally acceptable in accordance with appropriate public law. Thb Barnard OunkelbergA Company Team TULSA'OFFICE Cherry Street Building 1616 East 15th Street Tulsa,Oklahoma 74120-6027 Phone Number:918 585 8844 -FAX Number.918 585 8857 Email Address.mark@bd-c.com DENVER OFFICE 1743 Wazee Street,Suite 400 Denver,Colorado 80202 Phone Number.303 825 8844 FAX Number.303 825 8855 Contents Contents a Tables iv Illustrations v Inventory Introduction A.1 General Airport Description and Existing Airport Facilities A.6 Airport Environs A.20 Airspace,Navigation,and Communication Aids A.28 Financial Inventory A.31 Issues Inventory A.39 . Summary A.41 Forecasts of Aviation Activity Introduction B.1 Historical and Existing Aviation Activity Summary B.9 Airport Operations Forecasts B.11 Operations Forecast by Aircraft Type B.15 Local and Itinerant Operations Forecast B.16 Peak Period Forecast B.17 General Aviation Based Aircraft Forecast B.17 Operations per Based Aircraft B.20 General Aviation Aircraft Fleet Mix B.20 Summary B.21 Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements Introduction C.1 Airport Reference Code (ARC)/Critical Aircraft Analysis C.1 Airfield Capacity Methodology C.3 Airfield Capacity Analysis C.12 Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan Contents (Continued) Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements (Continued) Ground Access Capacity C.14 Facility Requirements C.16 Summary C.30 Concepts,Alternatives,and Development Plan Introduction D.1 Goals for Development D.3 Airside Development Components,Options,and Recommendations D.4 Landside Development Considerations,.Alternatives, and Recommendations D.28 Conceptual Development Plan D.33 Landscape Design Guidelines Overview E.1 Environmental Review Introduction F.1 Environmental Processing F.1 Existing Conditions F.4 Probable Environmental Effects F.G Airport Plans Introduction G.1 Airport Layout Plan G.1 Airspace Plan G.7 Inner Portion of the Approach Surface Drawings G.12 Landside Development Area Plans G.20 Land Use Drawing G•27 Airport Property Map G.27 Implementation Plan Introduction H.1 Implementation Schedule and Project List H.2 Cost Estimates . H.2 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) H.7 Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan �� Contents (Continued) Implementation Plan(Continued) Phasing Plan H.7 Financial Plan and Implementation Strategy H.9 Summary—Master Plan Capital Improvement Program Financial Implications H.12 Financial Implementation Analysis Historical Airport Operating Results I.1 Airport Operating Revenues—FY2006 I.2 Airport Operating Expenses—FY2006 I.5 Historical Capital Expenditures I.6 Projected Airport Operating Results I.6 Airport Development Plan I.9 Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan . N Tables Table Al General Aviation Airport Facilities in the Vicinity of Buchanan Field Airport A.6 Table A2 Fuel Storage Facilities A.15 Table A3 Average Annual Vehicle Daily Traffic A.16 Table A4 Instrument Approach Procedures A.31 Table A5 FBO Operations A.32 Table A6 Hangar Space Providers A.33 Table A7 Operating Revenues 1999-2004 A.34 Table A8 Airport Rates and Charges A.34 Table A9 Operating Expenses, 1999-2004 A.35 Table A10 Airport Enterprise Fund General Ledger Transactions,Buchanan Field Airport&Byron Field Airport A.36 Table All Airport Capital Improvement Program (2004) A.37 Table Bl Population Projections B.3 Table B2 Employment Projections B.4 Table B3 Income Projections B.5 Table B4 Historical Aviation Activity, 1994-2004 B.9 Table B5 Summary of Based Aircraft, 1994-2004 B.11 Table B6 General Aviation Operations Forecast,2004-2024 B.14 Table B7 Summary of Operations by Aircraft Type,2004-2024 B.15 Table B8 Summary of Local and Itinerant Operations, 2004-2024 B.16 Table B9 Peak Period Aircraft Operations,2004-2024 B.17 Table B10 Based Aircraft Forecast Scenarios,2004-2024 B.19 Table B11 General Aviation Based Aircraft Fleet Mix,2004-2024 B.21 Table B12 Summary of Aviation Activity Forecasts,2004-2024 B.22 Table C1 All Weather Wind Coverage Summary C.7 Table C2 IFR Wind Coverage Summary C•9 Table C3 Aircraft Class Mix Forecast,2004-2024 C.11 Table C4 Airfield Capacity Forecast Summary,2004-2024 C.14 Table C5 ARC B-III Dimensional Standards-Runway 01L/19R(in feet) C.18 Table C6 ARC B-III Dimensional Standards-Runway 14L/32R(in feet) C.19 Table C7 Declared Distances C.20 Table C8 ARC B-I Dimensional Standards-Runway 01R/19L(in feet) C.21 Table C9 ARC B-I Dimensional Standards-Runway 14R/32L (in feet) C.22 Table C10 Runway Length Requirements C.24 Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan !v Tables (Continued) Table C11 Runway Protection Zone Dimensions C.26 Table C12 General Aviation Facility Requirements C.29 Table D1 Summary of Airside Option Considerations D.24 Table E1 Recommended Landscape Palette E.13 Table F1 Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels F.8 Table F2 Existing Ambient Noise Measurements (Aircraft Noise Included) F.10 Table F3 CNEL Noise Measurements for All Sites F.13 Table F4 Results from the Concord Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Station, Exceeded Standards,2002 to 2004 F.24 Table F5 Results from the Concord Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Station, Exceeded Standards,2002 to 2004 F.25 Table H1 Phase I (0-6 Years) Development Plan Project Costs H.3 Table H2 Phase II (6-11 Years) Development Plan Project Costs H.5 Table H3 Phase III (11-20 Years) Development Plan Project Costs H.6 Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan V Illustrations ' Figure Al Airport Location Map A.4 Figure A2 Airport Vicinity Map A.8 Figure A3 Existing Airport Layout A.9 Figure A4 Arterial Circulation Map A.19 Figure A5 Airport Environs Map A.21 Figure A6 Generalized General Plan Designations A.22 Figure A7 Generalized Existing Land Use A.25 Figure A8 Generalized Future Land Use A.26 Figure A9 Airspace/NAVAIDS Summary A.29 Figure C1 All Weather Wind Rose: 10.5- and 13-Knot Crosswind Components C.6 Figure C2 IFR Wind Rose: 10.5-and 13-Knot Crosswind Components C.8 Figure D1 Airside Option One-Maintain Existing Runway Configuration D.9 Figure D2 Airside Option Two-Minimize Crosswind Runway Influences D.12 Figure D3 Airside Option Three-Close Secondary North/South Parallel Runway D.14 Figure D4 Option Four-Improve Parallel Runway System D.17 Figure D5 Option Five-Improve Orientation of and Lengthen Primary Runway D.20 Figure D6 Option Six-Close Secondary Runways D.22 Figure D7 Preliminary Recommended Airfield Development Concept D.27 Figure D8 Landside Development Considerations D.32 Figure D9 Conceptual Development Plan D.34 Figure E1 Major Development Area Designations E.2 Figure E2 Site Analysis E.3 Figure E3 Adjacent Land Uses and Access Routes E.4 Figure E4 Southeast Area Development Considerations E.5 Figure E5 North Area Development Considerations E.6 Figure E6 West Area Development Considerations E.7 Figure E7 Section Locations E.8 Figure E8 Section A/A-Marsh Drive Section B/B-John Glenn Drive E.9 Landscape Figure E9 E.14 Landscape Figure E10 E.15 Landscape Figure Ell E.16 Landscape Figure E12 E.17 Landscape Figure E13 E.17 Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan v/ Illustrations (Continued) Landscape Figure E14 E.18 Landscape Figure E15 E.19 Landscape Figure E16 E.19 Landscape Figure E17 E.20 Landscape Figure E18 E.21 Figure Fl Permanent Noise Monitoring Sites F.11 Figure F2 Existing 2005 CNEL Noise Contours F.16 Figure F3 Future Base Case 2012 CNEL Noise Contours F.17 Figure G1 Airport Data Sheet G.2 Figure G2 Airport Layout Plan G.3 Figure G3 Declared Distances Drawing G.4 Figure G4 Airport Airspace Plan-Conical Surface G.8 Figure G5. Airport Airspace Approach Plan-Extended Approach Plan Runway 19R G.9 Figure G6 Airport Airspace Drawing-RW 1L/19R and RW 1R/19L Profile G.10 Figure G7 Airport Airspace Drawing-RW 14L/32R and RW 14R/32L Profile G.11 Figure G8 Inner Approach Plan.&Profile-RW 1L G.13 Figure G9 Inner Approach Plan View-RW 19R G.14 Figure G10 Inner Approach Profile View-RW 19R G.15 Figure G11 Inner Approach Plan &Profile-RW 14L G.16 Figure G12 Inner Approach Plan&Profile-RW 32R G.17 Figure G13 Inner Approach Plan&Profile-RW 1R/19L G.18 Figure G14 Inner Approach Plan&Profile-RW 14R/32L G.19 Figure G15 Terminal Area Plan-Southeast Development Area G.22 Figure G16 Terminal Area Plan-West Development Area(Northern Section) G.23 Figure G17 Terminal Area Plan-West Development Area(Southern Section) G.24 Figure G18 Terminal Area Plan-North Development Area G.25 Figure G19 Terminal Area Plan-East Development Area G.26 Figure G20 Land Use Plan G.28 Figure G21 Airport Property Map-Exhibit`A' G.29 Figure H1 Phasing Plan H.8 Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan V# Inventory of Existing Conditions (revised) Introduction Buchanan Field Airport(CCR)is the major general aviation reliever airport serving Contra Costa County and multiple communities located in the Northeastern portion of the greater San Francisco Bay Area(see Figure Al). The Airport has been a catalyst for business growth in the region and has served as an anchor for the local employment base as well as meeting the aviation transportation needs. Situated in an unincorporated portion of Contra Costa County,directly adjacent to the thriving urban heart-beat of the City of Concord,Buchanan Field Airport is a vital ' component of the transportation infrastructure serving the region for tourism and business. Buchanan Field Airport is well equipped to serve regional demand related to general aviation and business aviation needs. The Airport has a reputation as being an excellent aviation facility that offers a safe and efficient operational environment. The Bay Area continues to experience significant increases in business activity,commercial and residential growth,and economic development. Because of this,Buchanan Field Airport is also being presented with increasing operational and facility demands. Many of the areas surrounding the Airport,with many high quality homes and environmental amenities,have experienced significant residential development, resulting in homeowner concerns about the effect that the Airport may have on their lifestyle. Some of these homes and facilities are located within a two to three mile radius of the Airport. Thus,the Airport may influence the social,economic,and physical environments of the area in which it operates. All of these effects must be carefully evaluated in considering airport development options associated with this planning effort. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan A.1 Previous Buchanan Field Airport planning studies include a Master Plan,which was completed in 1990,and an FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure and Land Use Compatibility Study,which was completed in 1989. Local,regional, and national aviation issues have evolved significantly during the years that followed the completion of the last master plan. This evolution indicates that long-term planning considerations previously identified should be re-evaluated and that an updated set of planning assumptions should be formulated. These assumptions will serve as a basis for airport development recommendations. The purpose of this Airport Master Plan is to determine airport development needs, examine viable and reasonable alternatives,recommend a realistic plan,and identify potential environmental effects. The requirement for future facilities will be evaluated from an aviation utilization standpoint,along with considering the relationship of airport facilities to the surrounding community. The focus of the Master Plan is on the physical development of airport property to meet aviation demands;however,it will also identify.potential non-aviation development areas on airport property. The overall planning goal is the development of an aviation facility that can accommodate future demand,is not significantly constrained by its environs,and minimizes its adverse effects on its surroundings. Airport History and Regional Aviation Environment Buchanan Field Airport began in.the Spring of 1942 when Contra Costa County purchased 407 acres for the development of an airport,with construction scheduled to.begin later that summer. However,prior to the completion of airfield improvements,the U.S. Government, through the War Department,acquired the entire airport for use as an army airfield for the duration of World War II. Concord Army Airfield operated from 1943 until 1946. The Army Corps of Engineers constructed many temporary and permanent facility improvements during this time period including the runways currently designated 1L/19R and 14L/32R. In 1946, the Air Corps deactivated Concord Army Air Field, and the property and buildings were deeded to Contra Costa County (with a reversion clause to the federal government). In August of 1946 Buchanan Field Airport was opened as a public-use airport operated by the County and has been in continuous operation since that time. During the post-war period,Runway 6/24 was constructed and operated until 1961,when it was closed for the first time due to a conflict with the newly constructed air traffic control tower. Runway 6/24 was opened again in 1963 until 1976,at which time it was permanently closed and has served as Taxiway"C," since then. In the late fall of 1966,Runway 1R/19L was relocated from its former location, and the then-existing runway was converted into parallel Taxiway"A". During 1968 and 1969 Runway 14R/32L was created from the existing taxiway system,lengthened and supported by a newly constructed parallel taxiway,labeled Taxiway`B." Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan A.2 Since this time,the airfield has seen the development of several other minor improvements to support airside access with the most notable being the construction of Taxiway"J"in 1975. The Buchanan Field Airport airside has operated in this,configuration to the present day. Buchanan Field Airport's history also includes periods of commercial air service beginning in the 1960s and continuing into the 70s with commuter service to San Francisco International Airport and Oakland International Airport by fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. The most significant period of commercial service however,took place from 1986 to 1992,providing service from Buchanan Field Airport to Los Angeles International Airport and San Jose International Airport. Commercial service ended in the fall of 1992 due to the prevailing economics of the airline industry. . Federal Obligation Buchanan Field Airport is a federally obligated airport. The original obligation stems from the transfer and conveyance of real property from the War Department to Contra Costa County (through what was then known as an"AP-4"Land Transfer Agreement) that placed restrictions and covenants upon the use, development,and disposition/disposal of the original 407 acres, as well as any additional land parcels acquired since then with federal grant funds. These covenants run with the title of the land and require,among other things,that the land be utilized for the purposes of a public airport and that the Airport is to be operated and developed upon fair and reasonable terms,that the County must protect the Airport,and,that all classes of aviation users be granted equal access to the Airport and its facilities. Moreover, each time a federal grant is accepted the County obligates itself for additional operational and development requirements as incorporated in FAA's "Part V Grant Assurances", attached to the grant offer from the federal government. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan A.3 1p The Barnard Dunkelberg&Company Team Santa R °Dixon YOLO Yountvi le NAPA Vacaville ° SONO[AA °BDyeS Not'. ' . Springs Nap ° °Fair6 d Petaluma °Suisun City ------------ -- SACRAMENTO,: SOLANO M A R I N S�iisxit Vallejo &'y Novato Sart Pablo Bay _ ------ - Buchanan Field Airport -. atael Antioch Lafayette Walnut Creek Berkeley Oa lj CONTRA COSTA San Fr San Ramon SAN.FRANCI CO Pacific Ocean n FranciscoHa Livermore ywa San Francisco Bay Pacifica n Bruno appy ALAMEDA nt SAN MATEO Belmont Fast Palo Alto "......`......°°"""........ ;i to Alto SANTA CLARA Sa (N1 APPROXIMATE SCALE:1"=10�iles 18 0 Figure Al Airport location Map Buchanan Field Master Planning Program A.4 Regional.Aviation Plans The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) published a report entitled: Regional Airport System Plan—GeneralAviation Element which was released in April of 2003. This plan lists 20 publicly-owned general aviation and four commercial air carrier (commercial service) airports within the nine-county Bay Area. This plan describes conditions,issues, and trends and notes future system issues and considerations. This plan includes specific discussion of the following issues as they relate to each airport and to the regional airport system as a whole: Regional Interest and Plan Recommendations Overview; General Aviation Trends and Issues;Airport Inventory and Highlights;and Specific Airport Highlights. This plan presents a solid summary of Bay Area general aviation airports and common issues and provides supporting basis for further reference. Specifically, the Re gionalAirport System Plan—GeneralAviation Element 2003 mentions Buchanan Field Airport in association with the following topics: growing business use of general aviation airports,possessing a surplus of based aircraft tie-down spaces;lack of available hangar space;having commercial service in the past; and being in a good position to cater to corporate aircraft operations. Within a 25-nautical mile radius of Buchanan Field Airport there are nine (9) other civilian airports that serve various segments of the general aviation community. The table below, entitled GENERALAVIATIONFACILITIES WITHIN THE VICEWTYOF BUCHANANFIELD AIRPORT, describes the character of neighboring aviation facilities. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan A.5 Table Al GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT FACILITIES IN THE VICINITY OF BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Distance from CCR Size of (Nautical Based Annual Longest Facility Airport Location Miles) Aircraft Operations Runway (Acres) Rio Vista Airport 20 NE 56 35,000 4,200' 273 Nut Tree Airport 24 E 245 101,000 4,700' 262 Byron Airport 23 SE 106 60,000 4,500' 1,307 Livermore Airport 21 SE 601 235,000 5,253' 643 Hayward Executive 20S 456 161,000 5,024 543 Airport Oakland North Field 18 SW 358 225,000 6,212' 2,900 Sonoma Valley Airport 23 NW 330 11,500 2,700' 79 Sonoma Sky Park 24 NW 60 10,000 2,480' 30 Napa County Airport 17 NW 222 126,500 5.931' 804 Source: FAA Form 5010-1. General Airport Description and Existing Airport Facilities Buchanan Field Airport is owned and operated by Contra Costa County,a political subdivision of the state of California and is operated as the Airports Division of Contra Costa County. The Airport is under the direction of the County Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator. Day-to-day operations are lead by the Director of Airports who supervises the Airport Division staff and has general responsibility for both airports within the Airport Division (Buchanan Field and Byron Airport). The Airport Division operates as an enterprise fund within Contra Costa County, supporting the operating and capital expenses of the Division solely from airport-generated revenues. No General Fund revenues are used to support the operating or capital expenses at either Buchanan Field or Byron Airports. In the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems(NPIAS),Buchanan Field Airport is designated as a general aviation reliever airport for the Bay Area commercial service airports of Oakland International Airport, San Francisco International Airport and San Jose International Airport. A general aviation reliever airport is a general aviation airport that is located in a metropolitan area and is intended to reduce congestion at a large commercial service airport by providing general aviation pilots with alternative landing areas and berthing facilities. The following figure,entitled AIRPORT T/70NITYMAP,provides a graphic description of Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan A.6 Buchanan Field Airport's location in relation to surrounding communities and roadways in Contra Costa County. The Airport lies within an unincorporated portion of north central Contra Costa County,bordered by Route 4 to the north,I-680 to the west,the City of Concord to the east and Concord Avenue to the South. Buchanan Field is located approximately one mile west of the Concord Central Business District(CBD) and approximately twenty miles northeast of downtown Oakland. The Airport Reference Point (ARP) is located at Latitude 37° 59'22.800"N, Longitude 122° 03'24.800"W. The airport elevation is 26 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and has property consisting of approximately 495 acres. Buchanan Field has four runways,an extensive system of taxiways,aircraft parking aprons,hangars,a terminal building, and various other airport facilities. The following text and illustration,entitled EXISTING AIRPORT LAYOUT,provide verbal and graphic descriptions of the existing airport facilities. Buchanan Field Airport. Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan A.7 [� 1j The Barnard Dunkelherg&Company Team '' , '•i� + r -dReservoir NX jI �"`,r�; � _� .��^, a��ti°�� .; ��. •' �~--�C�veraROad�� ` A ��-• q 6 j�.lohn•MuirParkw Y _ O m rte. 3 _�".,,"C�"T'7�"'%�' ,•�_ venue _�I"` � �� ",,.`rr^, Cerate—r?Y s i .� aPP MARTINEZ .I,�� =1 ` 71 .�-- on,Drt(Ave i eve %`p�e� CONCORD . ly 1 C2 JPLEASANT HILL T 1�0 �+ f d T 9 91 [y}APPROXIMATE SCALE:1"=3,000' FFigureA2 Airport Vicinity Map Buchanan .Field Master Planning Program ' A.8 The Barnard Dunkelberg&Company Team i I i o®.. 00 y — T Hangars �oc�` ®' •®, � o ® y y G ° n N t, 9 ca s do ® �m O c O T � N O o 0 0 1 `I O 4` } O� O ® Control Tower h Terminal a Ir Hangar C,`h T Hangars s ® Crowne Plaza ,00 reg. a e 1 b® ® o ® � {N?APPROXIMATE SCALE:1"=1,100' [Figure A3 Exisitng Airport Layout 1 .113luchananField Master Planning Program A.9 Airside Facilities Runways. The main runway at Buchanan Field Airport is Runway 01L/19R. Itis 5,001 feet in length and 150 feet in width,but Runway 19R has a displaced threshold of 600 feet. The runway is constructed of concrete on each approach end and asphalt with a Porous Friction Course (PFC),and has a gross weight bearing capacity of 60,000 pounds for single-wheel, 90,000 pounds for dual-wheel, and 140,000 pounds for dual tandem-wheel main landing gear configuration aircraft. The runway is equipped with High Intensity Runway Edge Lights (HIRL). Runway 19R has Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI) lights located on the left hand side of the runway and Medium Intensity Approach Light System (MALS). Runway 01L is served by VASI located on the left hand side of the runway and Runway End Indicator Lights (REILS). Runway Declared Distances are employed on each end of Runway 01L/19R. Declared Distances for Runway 01L are as follows:TORR 4,710 feet; TODA 5,010 feet;ASDA 4,410 feet; and,LDA 4,410 feet. Declared Distances for Runway 19R are as follows:TORR 5,010 feet;TODA 5,010 feet;ASDA 5,010 feet;and, LDA 4,410 feet. The primary crosswind runway,Runway 14L/32R,is 4,602 feet in length and 150.feet in width,but the Runway 14L threshold is displaced by 300 feet and the Runway 32R threshold is displaced by 350 feet. This runway is constructed'of concrete on each end and asphalt with a PFC and also has a gross weight bearing capacity of 60,000 pounds for single-wheel, 90,000 pounds for dual-wheel,and 140,000 pounds for dual tandem-wheel main landing gear configuration aircraft. This runway has Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIRL),with VASI lights and REILS provided at Runway 32R. ). Runway Declared Distances are employed on each end of Runway 14L/32R. Declared Distances for Runway 14L are as follows: TORR 4,601 feet;TODA 4,601 feet;ASDA 4,001 feet; and,LDA 3,701 feet. Declared Distances for Runway 32R are as follows:TORR 4,601 feet;TODA 5,081 feet;ASDA 4,481 feet;and,LDA 4,131 feet. The secondary parallel runway is Runway 01R/19L,which is 2,770 feet in length and 75 feet in width. It is constructed of asphalt and has a gross weight bearing capacity of 17,000 pounds for single wheel main landing gear configured aircraft. The secondary crosswind runway,Runway 14R/32L,is 2,799 feet in length and 75 feet in width. It is constructed of asphalt and has a gross weightbearing capacity of 12,500 pounds for single wheel main landing gear configuration aircraft. This runway is not lit. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan A.10 Taxiways. Additional airside facilities at Buchanan Field Airport include the taxiway system that provides access between the runway and the various landside areas. The primary taxiways consist of- Taxiway fTaxiway A and connectors: the full parallel taxiway located on the east side of Runway 01R/19L,but providing direct access to Runway ends 01L and 19R(with help from Taxiway G). Taxiway B: the full parallel taxiway located (west of Runway 14L/32R)between parallel Runways 14L/32R and 14R/32L. Taxiway C: an east/west access taxiway connecting the southern portion of the west side aviation use areas with Taxiway D on the east side of the airport. It also functions as exit taxiways for Runways 14L/32R, 1L/19R,and 1R/19L. Taxiway D: a partial parallel taxiway located east of Runway 14L/32R,between Taxiway A and Runway end 32R. Taxiway E and connectors: the full-parallel taxiway located west of Runway 1L/19R. Taxiway F:is the east/west connector for Taxiways A through E Taxiway G:connects the threshold of Runway 01L to Taxiway A and the Hotel Apron. Taxiway H:An east/west access taxiway on the north end of the airport that connects Taxiway J to Runways 14R/32L and 14R/32L. Taxiway J: located west of Runway 14R/32L from the approach end of 14R to the approach end .of 32R. Taxiway K:is the east/west connector for Taxiway E and Runway 01R/19L. Taxiway L: a connector taxiway that runs from Runway 01R/19L,crossing Taxiway A to the Terminal Ramp. Taxiway M:a connector taxiway located east of the approach end of Runway 14L. Taxiway N: a connector that joins parallel Taxiway A with the approach end of Runway 19L. Taxiway P:The connector that joins parallel Taxiway J with the approach end of Runway 32L. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan A.12 Landside Facilities Landside facilities vary from one airport to another and can be categorized differently depending on the purpose of the documentation. For the purpose of this report,landside facilities will include aircraft parking aprons,aircraft storage hangars, maintenance hangars, terminal facilities,air traffic control tower facilities, fuel storage facilities,automobile access/parking,non-aviation businesses, etc. Each of these components is discussed in the following narrative and is illustrated in the preceding figure,entitled EXISTING AIRPORT LAYOUT. Aprons. Buchanan Field Airport has three apron areas for aircraft parking,they are as follows: O The East Apron is located on the southeast side of the Airport,east of John Glenn Drive and abuts the East Hangar Area. The primary use of this apron is for based aircraft storage. ® The Hotel Apron is located on the southeast side of the Airport to the west of the Crowne Plaza Hotel. The primary uses of this ramp are for transient aircraft tie-down and parking. ® The Northwest& Gravel Aprons are located on the west side of the Airport, north of the West Ramp and west of Taxiway J. The primary use for these aprons is for based aircraft storage. © The West Apron is located on the west side of the Airport,west of Taxiway E and east of Sally Ride Drive. This apron area is presently vacated and is in the process of being converted to a hangar development area for a large executive hangar. a The Southwest Apron is located on the west side of the Airport in the southwest quadrant of airport property,west of Taxiway E and south of the Executive Hangars.The primary use of this apron is for based aircraft storage. Aircraft Storage and Aviation Use Facilities. A majority of the Airport's aircraft covered storage facilities are located on the southeast and west sides on the periphery of the airfield complex. The aircraft storage facilities range from shade hangars to larger executive and commercial hangars. Such facilities are in described geographic areas and include: e Southeast- facilities associated with commercial aviation enterprises line the west side of John Glenn Drive and include clear-span hangars for FBOs and specialty operators,such as Pacific States Aviation,Sterling Aviation and HG Limited. On the far eastern side of John Glenn Drive resides the East Hangar Area comprised of T-hangars and one shade hangar row. ® West—The west side of the Airport includes a diverse mix of aircraft storage along Sally Ride Drive that combine T-hangars to the north and corporate Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan A.13 and commercial clear-span hangars in the center section and end with small executive and flying club aircraft storage facilities to the south.This area includes clear span hangar facilities for FBOs and specialty operators, such as Apex Aviation, Concord Jet Services,Mt.Diablo Pilot's Association,and Concord Flying Club. Terminal Building. The terminal building is located on at the north end of John Glenn Drive. This.approximately 20 year old modular building includes offices,a ticket lobby,waiting area and restrooms. This facility is approaching the end of its useful life. Automobile parking is located adjacent to the east side of the building. This area was last used for commercial passenger service flights in 1992. The terminal ramp presently houses the Calstar aeromedical flight operation and in its present configuration may or may not be suitable for its original use.. Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting. The Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) storage facility is located directly north of the Airport administrative offices on the west side of the Airport along Sally Ride Drive. The Airport maintains an Airport Operating Certificate under FAR Part 139 and is classified as an Index A airport that satisfies the associated criteria and requirements of Part 139 with its ARFF equipment and Airport staff. An Index A airport can accommodate air carrier aircraft which are less than ninety feet in length. Air Traffic Control Tower. The Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) is located at the very northern end of John Glenn Drive,just past the terminal building and fronting the confluence of the parallel runway complex to the west and to the north. The FAA operates the ATCT facility at Buchanan Field Airport seven days a week, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Other.Landside Facilities. Other airport facilities include: a The Reynolds and Brown Leasehold. Located on the southeast side of Airport property and bordered by John Glenn Drive to the west and Concord Avenue to the south,this non-aviation commercial parcel contains tenants such as Sam's Club, Sports Authority,Jiffy Lube and Taco Bell. Reynolds and Brown lease this area on a long-term basis from Contra Costa County. © The Crowne Plaza Hotel. Located on the southeast side of the Airport and bordered by John Glenn Drive to the east and Concord Avenue to the south, this 324-room hotel serves the Concord-area businesses and the flying public. Adjacent to the west side of the hotel is the Hotel Apron used for transient aircraft parking. ® Buchanan Fields Golf Course. This nine-hole executive golf course is located north of Concord Avenue and south of the approach end to Runway Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan A.14 IL on Airport property. It is a land use buffer and portions of the golf course are situated within the Runway Safety Area(RSA), the Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) and the Runway Projection Zone (RPZ) for Runway 1L/19R. ® Law Enforcement Training Area. Located on the northeast side of the Airport between Taxiway"D" and the Walnut Creek Channel,this area is utilized for law enforcement driver training programs. S Reach Airlift He Area. Located east of the approach end of Runway 14L and south of Marsh Drive,this facility is utilized for aeromedical helicopter operations. Fuel Storage Facilities. Several fuel storage facilities are located on the Airport. The following table,entitled FUEL STORAGE FACIL.PITES,provides a description of the fuel facilities at Buchanan Field Airport. Table A2 FUEL STORAGE FACILITIES Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Number of Aboveground/ Total Capacity Tenant Storage Tanks Underground (Gallons) Type Pacific States Aviation 2 Underground 32,000 Jet-A Pacific States Aviation 1 Underground 12,000 AvGas Pacific States Aviation 1 Underground 4,000 Auto Gas Sterling Aviation 1 Underground 10,000 Jet-A Sterling Aviation 1 Underground 10,000 AvGas Apex Aviation 1 Underground 20,000 Jet-A County 1 Aboveground 1,000 Auto Gas County 1 Aboveground 1,000 Deisel Source: Buchanan Field Airport Personnel. Ground Access As an employment center and to facilitate air travelers,ground access is an important element in the overall ability of an airport to function properly. The ground access system serving the Buchanan Field Airport area is shown on the following illustration,entitled ARTERIAL.CIRCULATIONMAP, and is described in the following text. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan A.15 Regional Auto Access-Highways.Buchanan Field Airport is located in central Contra Costa County and enjoys excellent regional access from many Bay Area locations. The Airport is located within a triangle created by Interstate 680, and State Highways 4 and 242,providing it with regional freeway access north, south, east and west. Principal highway access to Buchanan Field Airport and its adjacent communities is from Interstate 680,via Burnett Avenue exit,.and is,a major north-south corridor connecting Santa Clara County with Interstate 80 in Solano County. State Highway. 4,via the Solano Way exit,provides additional access east and west, connecting Interstate 80 in western Contra Costa County,and serving the rapidly growing communities of eastern Contra Costa County. State Route 242,via the Concord Avenue exit,provides a connector between I-680 and Route 4. Table A3 AVERAGE ANNUAL VEHICLE DAILY TRAFFIC' Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Highway 680 @ Concord.Ave 160,000 Highway 4 @ I-680 92,000 Highway 242 @ Concord Ave 92,000 Source: Caltrans,Traffic Information Program. Local Auto Access—Streets.Concord Avenue is a major arterial providing access to John Glenn Drive and general aviation facilities at the southeastern end of the Airport,as well as to the Crowne Plaza Hotel and Sam's Club,major commercial uses on Airport property. Concord Ave. connects directly to Interstate 680 to the west, as well as to communities west of the highway and to downtown Concord to the east; and it is a major commercial thoroughfare. Concord Avenue adjoining Buchanan Airfield has three through lanes in either direction divided by a median augmented by turning lanes at intersections. There is no street parking on Concord Avenue. Marsh Drive provides access to facilities along Sally Ride Drive and Buchanan Road on the Airport's western side. This route requires a more circuitous approach to reach Airport facilities. It is accessible from the North and East via Solano Way and SR 4, and from the West and South via Pacheco Blvd and Center Avenue. Marsh Drive is also the main access to several large mobile home parks located immediately to the west of the Airport.Marsh Drive has one travel lane in either direction,with a' ' Caltrans, Traffic Operations Program—Traffic and Vehicle Date System,2004 (http://dot.ca.gov/hq/trafficops/saferesr/2004all.htm) Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan A.16 substantial paved shoulder for much of its length. Limited parking is permitted on Marsh Drive. On Airport Roadways.Two roads currently provide access to Buchanan Field: John Glenn Drive for eastside facilities, and Sally Ride Drive for westside facilities. John Glenn Drive is a two-lane road with a landscaped median. This road terminates at the public parking lot that serves the general aviation terminal. Parallel parking is permitted on both sides of the street. John Glenn Drive also provides secondary access to Sam's Club,which has frontage along Concord Avenue. John Glenn Drive has sidewalks along its full length. In addition to aviation facilities,John Glenn Drive is the location of several rental car agencies,including Alamo,National,Hertz and Budget. Sally Ride Drive is a two-lane road with an entrance off of Marsh Drive,and serves as the gateway to the development on the west side of the Airport. At its entrance and for about one-quarter of its length,it has curbs and sidewalks; otherwise it has a . gravel shoulder. Four hour parking is allowed along the shoulder. Sally Ride Drive dead ends at the west hangar area at its north end,a few feet from Marsh Drive. Buchanan Field Road is a narrow two-lane street providing access to facilities at the south end of the west side,accessible off both Center Ave and Sally Ride Drive. This private road has narrow travel lanes and a gravel shoulder. Truck Routes.Both Interstate 680 and Highway 4 are state designated STAA trucking routes,providing access to Buchanan Field Airport via Contra Costa Boulevard and Burnett Avenue/Diamond Boulevard. Freight transportation is available from numerous freight companies. BART.Regional Public Transit is provided by BART,which has stations in both downtown Concord and North Concord,both of which are located within a few miles of the Airport.BART operates between 4AM and 1 AM,with 15-minute intervals during much of the day,with more frequent service during peak periods,and less frequent evening.and weekend service. BART provides direct connections to Oakland,San Francisco,and San Francisco Airport. Limited local bus service provides connections from BART to Buchanan Field Airport environs from both the Concord and North Concord stations. Local taxi service is also available. Capital Corridor.Intercity Rail Service is provided by the Capitol Corridor service, located in downtown Martinez. This service is operated by Amtrak and provides 24 trips per day ina corridor between San Jose and Auburn,all operating between Oakland and Sacramento. Local bus service connects the Airport to the Amtrak station. County Connection.Local public transportation in the Concord area is provided by County Connection,which provides fixed-route bus and paratransit service Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan A.17 throughout the central Contra Costa communities of Clayton, Concord,Martinez, Pleasant Hill,Walnut Creek,Danville, San Ramon,Lafayette, Orinda,and Moraga,as well as unincorporated communities. The system operates between the hours of 5:30 AM and 9:30 PM Monday through Saturday,with limited Sunday service. In the Airport project area, facilities are limited to bus stop signs indicating the Route number of the County Connection bus. Three County Connection Routes serve the environs of the Airport: a Route 127 provides service between the North Concord BART Station and Diablo Valley College station. Stops along Marsh Road provide access to the western side of the Airport. e Route 118 provides service between the downtown Concord BART Station and Martinez along Concord Avenue.A stop near John Glenn Drive provides access to Airport facilities. Reaching Airport property requires crossing Concord Avenue • Route 991 provides limited weekday commute-hour service in a loop originating at the downtown Concord BART station and serving employment centers west of downtown. The Airport is served by a stop at John Glenn Drive. Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections.Concord Avenue on Buchanan Field Airport's southern boundary has sidewalks along most of its length,and allows pedestrian crossings on at least one side of each major intersection,including at John Glenn Drive.The sidewalks on Concord Avenue connect to sidewalks that run the full length of John Glenn Drive,thereby providing pedestrian access to on-airport facilities. Crossing Concord Avenue requires pedestrians to cross eight travel lanes, including left and right turning lanes. Marsh Drive has a sidewalk along its westerly margin fronting the mobile home parks on the Airport's periphery. There is no traffic light or sign at the intersection of Marsh Drive and Sally Ride Drive,and so pedestrian crossings are unprotected. Traffic is not heavy,however, along this stretch of roadway and sight lines are good. There are also very few pedestrian destinations in the west Airport area. Several local bicycle routes serve the Buchanan Field Airport. An off-street bike trail follows the eastern side of Walnut Creek Channel,providing north/south connections through the Airport area. Class III (on street bike routes) and Class II (on street bike lanes) are provided along Marsh Drive,which creates an east-west connection around the I-680/Highway 4 interchange. There is no on-street bicycle route along Concord Ave,and direct connections to downtown Concord must be made by riding in heavy traffic or riding on the sidewalks. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan A.18 J 1 f The Barnard Dunkelherg&Company Team iolivera 5 QackY+a E PACHEC! y JohnMUU l " . J` , d c/MARTINEZ , W,Q.{�,.,� ��° �r:2_ —1 Q d A y Ugp {{j 7 � ®_ Center Avenue �.� ,l �Q - l � a A� /�C. = "�i Cogoor Ghira"�Eo. D'Q�—`_ Pam %�� 6�.�.. :...a'� CONCORD r ' a DIP- PLEASANT C HILL {N}APPROXIMATE SCALE:J"=2,JB0" (Figure A4 Arterial Circulation j t� Airport Boundary = Collectors Buchanan ..field O Interstate/Freeway ddd��ll UU/fdf o Arterial Master Planning Program A.19 Socioeconomic Conditions Historically,the socioeconomic conditions of a particular area affect aviation activity within that region. It is usually helpful to incorporate an analysis of local and regional socioeconomic data into the forecast for future aviation demands at an airport. Typically,the most often analyzed indicators are population,employment, and income. Socioeconomic data was obtained from recognized sources,including local,regional, state,and federal planning organizations. Population. During the 1990s,the Bay Area became a major high tech center by attracting a high concentration of technology firms and workers. However,by the late 1990s and going into 2000 and 2001,the region began to encounter an economic slump, with the downtown of the technology boom and the national economic recession. As a result of the national economic downturn,the Bay Area has naturally suffered a downturn in economy,as well as population. However,the lack of affordable housing and high cost of living have affected economic and population growth. Beginning in the mid 2000s,the national economy is beginning to turn, and signs of economic growth and recovery are evident. Nonetheless,the region has remained strong, and continues to boast a highly skilled work force,national and international presence,and diversified economy. This paired along with vibrant arts,nightlife,and culture,mild climate, and breathtaking scenery provide a high quality of life for its residents. Contra Costa County is the ninth largest county in California, and has one of the fastest growing work forces in the Bay region. Additionally,the County has a large concentration of highly skilled jobs,along with relatively wealthy residents. The following table,entitled POPULATIONPROJEMONS,provides a summary of the population information for various Bay Area cities and counties. As the below table highlights,the overall population of the region is projected to increase-steadily from 2000 to 2030. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan 8.2 Table B1 POPULATION PROJECTIONS Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Average Growth 2000 2010 2020 2030 Ratez Regional Population) 6,783,762 7,419,600 8,094,000 8,747,100 0.96% Alameda County 1,443,741 1,584,500 1,714,500 1,884,600 1.02% Contra Costa County 948,816 1,055,600 1,150,900 1,244,800 1.04% San Francisco County 776,733 810,700 859,200 924,600 0.63% San Mateo County 707,163 741,000 806,500 848,400 . 0.67% Solano County 394,542 466,100 532,400 581,800 1.58% NAPA Valley MSA 124,279 139,700 148,100 153,400 0.78% SJ/Sunnyvale/Santa Clara MSA 1,682,585 1,855,500 2,073,300 2,267,100 1.16% Santa Rosa Petaluma MSA 458,614 508,000 534,100 558,400 0.73% SF/Oakland/Fremont MSA 4,123,742 4,450,300 4,806,100 5,186,400 0.86% Vallejo/Fairfield MSA 394,542 466,100 532,400 581,800 1.58% City of Antioch 90,532 107,400 116,600 125,500 1.29% City of Concord 121,780 127,000 139,400 153,600 0.87% City of Lafayette 23,908 24,400 25,400 26,100 0.31% City of Martinez 35,866 36,900 40,100 43,200 0.68% City of Pittsburg 56,769 61,300 70,600 79,400 1.33% City of Pleasant Hill 32,837 33,700 35,300 36,800 0.40% City of Walnut Creek 64,296 66,900 72,000 77,700 0.69% Source:Association of Bay Arra Governments Projections 2003(all projections use Jurisdictional Boundary Data). 1.Includes Alameda,Contra Costa,Mann,Napa,San Francisco,San Mateo,Santa Clara,Solano,and Sonoma counties. 2.Avera ge Annual Growth Rate oyer 30yearperioc,2000 to 2030. MSA-Metropolitan SennceArea 3.SJ-San Jose 4.SF-San Francisco Employment. According to demographic information provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2005 report,there were over 3,452,117 employed residents in the nine county region in 2000: This number is forecast to grow an average annual rate of approximately 1.20 percent over the next 30 years to 4,698,800 employed residents. The following table,entitled EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS,provides a summary of the employment growth rates for various Bay Area cities and counties. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan B.3 Table B2 EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS Buchanan Field Airj�ort Master Plan No.of No.of Employed Employed Average Residents Residents Growth 2000 2030 Rate2 Regional, 3,452,117 4,698,800 1.20% Alameda County 709,557 1,032,100 1.52% Contra Costa County 461,992 667,800 1.48% San Francisco County 437,533 558,700 0.92% San Mateo County 369,725 464,600 0.86% Solano County 182,964 269,800 1.58% City of Antioch 42,779 65,410 1.76% City of Concord 62,596 87,670 1.34% City of Lafayette 12,790 15,360 0.67% City of Martinez 22,633 30,380 1.14% City of Pittsburg 33,904 52,730 1.85% City of Pleasant Hill 21,595 26,370 0.74% City of Walnut Creek 39,139 52,990 1.18% Source:Association of Bay Area GonernmentsProjections 2003. 1.Includes Alameda,Contra Costa,Marin,Napa,San Francisco,San Mateo,Santa Clara,Solano,and Sonoma counties. 2.A:erage Annual Growth Rate oirr 30yearperiod,2000 to 2030. Income. According to the ABAG Projections 2005 report,the mean household income for the nine county Bay area in 2000 was $92,500 and is projected to increase an average annual rate of 0.94%, to $118,700 in 2030. The following table,entitled INCOME PROJECTIONS,provides a summary of the income growth rates for various Bay Area cities and counties. Buchanan Field Airport• Draft Final RepoiVSeptember 2008 Master Plan BA Table B3 INCOME PROJECTIONS Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Mean Mean Household Household Average Income Income Growth 2000 2030 Rate' Regional, $92,500 $118,700 0.94% Alameda County $79,500 $104,800 1.06% Contra Costa County $89;300 $117,500 1.05% San Francisco County $87,400 $115,600 1.08% San Mateo County $121,700 $148,700 0.74% Solano County $69,300 $97,100 1.34% City of Antioch $72,600 $99,800 1.25% City of Concord $72,100 $90,900 0.87% City of Lafayette $150,800 $192,900 0.93% City of Martinez $78,400 $99,500 0.90% City of Pittsburg $60,900 $76,900 0.88% City of Pleasant Hill $82,100 $107,400 1.03% City of Walnut Creek $87,500 $114,500 30.86% Source.Association of Bay Area Governments Projections 2003. 1.Includes Alameda,Contra Costa,Mann,Napa,San Francisco,San Mateo,Santa Clara,Solano,and Sonoma counties. Z AferageAnnual Growth Rate o:er30yearperiod,2000 to 2030. Community Support Buchanan Field Airport benefits from the support of local governments,Contra Costa County,and local Contra Costa County businesses and residents. The Airport is recognized as a vital asset contributing to the economic stability of Contra Costa County, the surrounding cities,region,and state and provides an excellent recreational amenity for its residents. Community/Airport Location and Potential Buchanan Field Airport is ideally situated in a location where numerous educational and recreational opportunities,tourist activities exist. This,combined with an affluent population base,provides a strong and definable market area for continued business and recreational flying opportunities. The Airport is in a position to continue to support the economic vitality of the surrounding community with the potential to be a significant economic influencer throughout the planning period. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan B.5 Moreover,when factoring overall Bay Area indicators and potential,including an economy of almost$300 billion,the following generalized San Francisco Bay Area statistics,as reported by the Bay Area Economic Forum cannot be overemphasized: o The nation's largest concentration of national laboratories,corporate and independent research labs, and leading research universities; ® The largest number of top-ten ranked graduate programs in business,law, medicine and engineering in the nation;the highest density of venture capital firms in the world; ® More Fortune 500 companies than any region except New York; ® The highest level of internet penetration of any U.S. region;the highest level of patent generation in the nation,with more patent generated per employee than any other major metropolitan area; o The most highly educated workforce n the nation,with the highest percentage of residents with graduate and professional degrees; O A leading position in global trade,with exports larger than all but one U.S. state; and, o The highest economic productivity in the nation—almost twice the U.S. averages. Other Aviation Considerations As it has during the past planning period,the Airport will remain to be a busy general aviation airport in the next twenty years. The role and importance of the Airport will continue to support a broad cross section of the general aviation marketplace with the strongest growth percentage being lead by corporate aviation activity. Nationally,the business jet component of general aviation is growing at a much faster rate than other aspects of the industry. The growth of this sector,which was statistically significant to begin with,has been advanced even more by the event of September 11, 2001. In the post-9/11 environment,the speed and efficiency of business jet travel has created large dividends for the corporate community in terms of offering greater schedule flexibility over the commercial air carriers and less aggravated security considerations. I Bay Area Economic Forum, The Region,www.bayeconfor.org/baefregion.html Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan 8.6 In addition to recognizing the ever growing importance of business/corporate aviation on reliever airports such as Buchanan Field Airport,the emergence of the newest segment of the jet market,the Very Light jet (VLJ) is also worthy of comment. VLJs are a much anticipated future addition to the general aviation marketplace,both in their own right,and as a key element of NASAs Small Aircraft Transportation System(SATS) program.According to AOPA Pilot magazine,Very Light jets are to be roughly the size of light to medium twin-engine aircraft such as the Pressurized Baron or the Cessna 421, have maximum speeds of 375 knots and are expected to be able to operate from runways as short as 3,000 feet2. Such aircraft have the promise to transport 6 to 8 adults in safety and comfort at operating costs and to destinations currently unreachable with existing jet aircraft fleet. There are two primary markets for VLJs, (1) the existing heavy single-engine to medium twin engine aircraft owner,both piston-engine and turbo-prop,who is looking to move up;and, (2) Air Taxi operators. The move up aircraft owner is less speculative and it is anticipated that VLJs may well replace existing aircraft on a one-for-one basis and are anticipated to generally have a net neutral impact on a particular airport. The more speculative proposition is the use of VLJs in creating a paradigm shift and an explosion in the use of air taxis,taking passengers away from the airlines and off the highways.Air-taxi operators are responsible for about half of the approximately 3,000 VLJ orders,to date3.The source of speculation seems to stem from the aggressive number of hours per year these aircraft will need to fly to meet the economic expectation of the potential operators—almost 1,500 hour annually—which is significantly more than current business jets are flown. Further,the effective use of VLJs as paradigm-shifting air taxi"limousines"will be tremendously dependant upon how successful each individual Air Taxi operator will be in mi'n=' izing back haul trips with no passengers. This will not be an easy,feat for start up operators with relatively small fleets and customer bases. There is no concurrence regarding their potential impact. .Some say that they will revolutionize the way the small business person travels,some say that it's all over rated and that they'll believe it when they see it. In addition to their attractiveness to the owners of existing heavy single engine and twin- engine aircraft,many air taxi operators are stepping up to the VLJ as well,in.fact, In the FAA Aeros pace Forecasts Fiscally Years 2005-20 16,FAA,anticipates that VLJs will enter the active general aviation fleet in 2006 and that these aircraft will-grow to 4,500 units by the end of the current forecast period in 2016. While 4,500 units is a statistically meaningful number,and it is anticipated that the popularity of VLJs will be relatively. strong,it remains speculative to anticipate the specific employment of such aircraft. Therefore,this Airport Master Plan will not forecast the operations of Very Light Jets at Buchanan Field Airport Airport. 2jaek 01COg, DaVn of an era, 'AOPA Pilot,June 2005,88-90. Ibid,90. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan B.7 Negative or Nebtral Factors As a general comment,the Airport has very few negative physical factors and is in an enviable position due to its many positive features and conditions. However,there are some broad factors that can have a negative or neutralizing impact on the Airport,and the aviation industry,and these are considered in the planning process. As an example, limited runway length and availability of hangar space could be considered potential negative factors that can create a ceiling on the Airport's potential to meet optimal aviation demand. From a national perspective,one negative factor is due to the current state of the economy and the attitude of the traveling public toward commercial airline travel since the events of 9/11. Certainly,business and pleasure travel declined in the aftermath of those events;however, strong recovery trends began in 2004 at many airports around the country. The economic condition of many of the hub-and-spoke "legacy" airlines is also of concern. This is being offset to a great degree by the positive economic conditions being experienced by the low-cost,point-to-point carriers. The overall condition of the general aviation industry in the United States has been a negative factor for several years. Beginning in 1978,many sectors of the general aviation industry have been in recession,and the FAA has identified several factors that precipitated this downturn,including economic recessions, fuel crises, the termination of the GI Bill,and the repeal of the investment tax credit. Factors including the rising expense of owning and operating an aircraft (i.e., costs of insurance,fuel,and maintenance),increases in air space restrictions affecting fair-weather flying,reductions in personal leisure time,and shifts in personal preference as to how leisure time is spent have tended to restrict the single-engine light aircraft segment of the industry in particular. There are also a number of bright spots having a positive impact in certain segments of the general aviation industry. They include the passage of the General Aviation Revitalization Act(GARA) of 1994: This legislation has caused renewed interest and optimism among US aircraft manufacturers,who are either reentering the single engine aircraft market after several years' absence, or are increasing future production schedules to meet expected renewed demand. The growth in the amateur-built aircraft market,and the strength of the used aircraft market,indicate that demand for inexpensive personal aircraft is still relatively strong. Historical Airport Activity Summary Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan B.8 The starting point for any forecasting effort is to compile data on historical operational activity. The following table provides a tabulation of the historical operations data that we have been able to compile from Air Traffic Control Tower records. The following table, entitled HISTOKICALAWATIONACTIT/ITY, 1994 2004,provides a tabulation of Buchanan Field Airport's historical aviation activity since 1994. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Pian B.9 Table B4 HISTORICAL AVIATION ACTIVITY,1994-2004 Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Air Traffic Control Tower Counts Air Air General Total FAA Carrier Taxi Military Aviation Aircraft Year TAFI Operations Operations Operations Operations Operations 1994 224,398 --- --- --- --- 230,998 1995 222,003 --- --- --- --- 219,805 1996 227,297 --- -- --- --- 225,324 1997 226,082 --- --- --- --- 227,681 1998 214,094 --- --- --- 216,371 1999 225,939 --- --- --- 232,93.9 2000 216,138 13 2,087 193 199,372 201,665 2001 155,713 --- --- --- 143,649 2002 142,329 0 3,171 205 135,196 138,572 2003 124,737 3 3,594 317 115,172 119,106 2004 123,974 0 3,961 213 124,201 .128,375 Source.Airport Air Trafic Control Records 'FAA TAF—FAA TerminalArea Forecasts Issued January 1005. —no data available As can be seen,total aircraft operations (an operation is defined as either a takeoff or a landing) at Buchanan Field Airport have,been declining since 2000,bottoming in 2003 with a rebound occurring in 2004. It is important to note that the large decrease in operations from 1999 to 2000 is a proximate result of the loss of 25 based helicopters from Helicopters Adventures Incorporated pAD who moved their principal training base from Buchanan Field Airport to an airport in Florida during this time frame. Each of the 25 training helicopters was estimated by HAI to produce approximately 2,000 annual operations.Declining operations in 2001 and 2002 are attributable to the national impacts of the events of September 11,2001. In addition,it is estimated that 54% of the operational activity at the Airport are itinerant operations and 46% are local operations. Local operations are aircraft operating in the local traffic pattern or within sight of the tower,or aircraft executing practice instrument approaches at the airport. Touch-and-go operations are perhaps the best example of a local operation. Air CanierAircraft Operations. There currently is no passenger air carrier service at Buchanan Field Airport. However,passenger service existed at the Airport Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan B.10 intermittently in the 1960s through the early 1990s with the most significant operational period being from 1986 to 1992. GeneralAtiation Operations. General aviation operations are typically more directly tied to economic conditions than commercial passenger operations,and this trend is often reflected in the historical operations data for a particular airport. The amount of general aviation activity at many airports around the country has remained flat or declined since the early 1980's. The data available for Buchanan Field Airport illustrates fluctuations in general aviation activity since 1994. As economic conditions in the region and nation change in the future, fluctuations in the number of general aviation operations at the Airport will likely continue although an increasing trend is expected over the long-term. r Air Taxi Operations. During the last five years, the number of air taxi operations has remained,for the most part,steady. Similar to the air carrier classification of aircraft at airports with ATCT facilities,Air Traffic Control personnel categorize "Air Taxi" as those aircraft capable of seating less than 60 passengers,which are being utilized for commercial passenger or air freight service and which use a three letter company designator or the "Tango" designation. For purposes of this study,"Air Taxi" aircraft will be included in the general aviation operations category. Military Operations. Historically,military aircraft have infrequently utilized Buchanan Field Airport for training and/or operational purposes,primarily Coast Guard and Army helicopters (and an occasional military King Air C-12). Annual military aircraft operations during 2004 were approximately 213,and are expected to remain roughly the same throughout the planning.period. Based Aircraft The number of aircraft that can be expected to base at any airport is dependent upon many factors,such as aircraft maintenance facilities, airport communication practices, services provided at the airport,airport proximity and access, and similar factors. A historical summary of based aircraft is presented in the following table entitled SUMMARY OF BASED AIRCRAFT, 9994-2004. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan B.11 r Table B5 SUMMARY OF BASED AIRCRAFT,1994-2004 Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan FAA Total Year TAF Based Aircraft, 1994 579 --- 1995 .579 --- 1996 579 --- 1997 579 --- 1998 579 576 1999 579 541 2000 579 540 2001 579 503 2002 579. -7- 2003 594 512 2004 599 49.7 FAA TAF-Issued January 2005 ,Based aircraft count conducted by airport personnel This count does not take seasonal changes or fluctuations into account. —no data az ailable According to Airport records in 2004, there were 497 based aircraft at Buchanan Field Airport,of which 406 are single engine aircraft,32 are multi-engine piston aircraft, 16 turboprop aircraft, 14 helicopters,and 29 are business jets. Aircraft Operations Forecasts Forecasts can be utilized for various purposes. The ultimate use of the forecast data may influence the assumptions used to develop the forecasts. For instance,if the forecasts are to be used for financial planning,the goal being to make sure the airport can properly fund its operation and capital improvement program,the assumptions that are used will tend to minimize revenue generation capabilities of.the airport. If the forecasts are to be used for facilities development planning,the assumptions will tend to maximize the operational activity expectations in order to make sure the airport has adequate area set aside to build the facilities required to accommodate potential demand. The preferred forecast-scenario may change,depending on the ultimate use of the forecast data. Aviation activity forecasts for airports are often established using several sets of assumptions that generate different forecast scenarios. Several forecast scenarios are Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan B.12 used in this Master Plan,the primary purpose of which is to provide a long-term facilities development plan for the Airport that safely and efficiently accommodates anticipated demand. Additionally, they are used to establish an on-Airport/off-Airport land use compatibility program in consideration of aircraft generated noise and other environmental influences. The forecasting of any type of future activity is as much an art as a science,particularly in the current era of airline deregulation and changing operating methodologies (legacy airline hub and spoke systems vs.low cost carrier's point-to-point systems). Any forecast represents a"deducted guess" or"best hypothesized circumstance" at a particular point in time. It must,therefore,be revised and updated periodically to reflect new conditions and developments. Commercial Passenger Service Forecast Commercial passenger service will not be a focal point of the master plan;however,the potential for the future re-instatement of passenger service remains a possibility. Given the present economics of the Airline industry,with the lack of financial stability of the Legacy Carriers (United,American,Delta,Northwest, Continental,US Airways) and the growing market share of the Low Cost Carriers (Southwest,JetBlue,AirTran Airways, etc.) exacerbating the financial condition of the Legacy Carriers,new small markets are not being aggressively pursued and may not be for the near term future. The potential for future passenger service will be considered,with possible facility requirements discussed;however, due to market uncertainties and the speculative nature of likely outcomes,it is not anticipated that specific commercial passenger service activity forecasts will be presented in this Airport Master Plan. . Based on these reasons and others,the Association of Bay Area Governments RegionalAirport System Plan— GeneralAviation Element 2003, sums up the current state of scheduled passenger service at Bay Area General Aviation Airports,"Based on discussion with the Bay Area general aviation airport managers,they do not see the future role of their airports changing to accommodate any aviation activity beyond what currents exists; e.g., future scheduled commuter-type airline service." Military Operations Forecast As a percentage of total annual aircraft operations,the number of military operations at the Airport has historically been relatively insignificant. No factors have been identified that would significantly increase or decrease the number of military operations in the future;therefore,the number of military aircraft operations is projected to remain at historic levels through the end of the planning period. ,o Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan B.13 General Aviation Activity Forecasts In 2004, 128,162 general aviation operations were conducted at the Airport,which includes an estimated 3,961 air taxi operations. Several forecast scenarios were developed to appropriately reflect current general aviation operation activity and provide realistic projections for the 20-year planning period. The forecast scenarios generated for this Master Plan assume, for the most part, straight-line growth. While it is recognized that straight-line (consistent) growth never occurs year after year for many years, average annual growth methodologies often serve to illustrate intermediate and- long-range planning quite well. It should be noted that it is not the actual numbers that are most important,but the reasoning, assumptions, and trends that the numbers represent. FAA TAF—Data from the January 2005 FAA Terminal Area Forecast(TAF) is shown. Scenario One—The January 2005 FAA Terminal Area Forecast(TAF) indicates an average growth rate of 0.76 percent annually from 2004 to 2020. . Scenario Two-According to the FAA Aerospace Forecasts Fiscal Years 2005-2016,the general aviation operations at towered airports nationwide is expected to increase at an average rate of 1.33 percent annually. Scenario Three-As previously mentioned in the Association of Bay Area Governments Pr jections 2005 forecasting document,the socioeconomic conditions of a particular area can affect aviation activity. Typically,population, employment,and income are analyzed and used as a forecast scenario. Scenario Three utilizes the forecast average annual population growth for Alameda County and Contra Costa County. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments Re gionalAirport System Plan 2003,the majority of based aircraft owners reside in Contra Costa County, followed by Alameda County. This forecast growth scenario uses the average of the two growth rates, corresponding to a growth rate of 1.03 percent. Scenario Four—Projects an average growth rate of 1.55 percent,which corresponds to the average annual increase of the number of total jobs growth rate forecast for Contra Costa County. Scenario Five—This forecast scenario is based on the assumption that during the first 5 years of the planning period (2004-2009),business jet operations will increase at a greater rate than other general aviation operations. Business jet activity was projected to grow 6.7 percent annually during the initial 12 years of the planning forecast,which ` Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan B.14 corresponds to the FAA Aerospace Forecasts Fiscally Years 2005-2016 nationwide forecast for Turbo Jet hours flown. Moreover,airport personnel report an anticipated increase in based corporate jets at Buchanan Field Airport because of new landside facilities, including 40,000 square feet of hangar space that is currently under construction. Each additional based jet is capable of generating at least 200 operations per year (conservatively). Business jet activity is then forecast to increase at an average rate of 1.33 percent from 2017 through to the end of the planning forecast(2024),which corresponds to the FA*A Aerospace Forecasts general aviation growth at towered airports nationwide. The remaining general aviation operations are expected to grow at an average rate of 1.33 percent(again,corresponding to the FAA Aerospace Forecasts general aviation growth at towered airports nationwide). This Scenario results in an average compound growth rate of 1.75 percent over the 20-year planning forecast. The following table entitled GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS FORECAST SCENARIOS, 2004-2024,are several general aviation operational forecasts,including the FAA TAF (from January 2005) , and five forecast scenarios developed for this study. Table B6 GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS FORECAST SCENARIOS,2004-2024 Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Year FAA One Two Three Four Five2 0.76% 1.33% 1.03% 1.55% Variable 2004 123,639 128,162 128,162 128,162 128,162 128,162 2005 124,642 129,136 129,867 129,482 130,149 130,555 2006 12 5,645 130,117 131,594 13 0,816 13 2,16 6 133,026 2007 126,573 131,106 133,344 132,163 134,214 135,578 2008 127,510 132,103 135,117 133,524 136,295 138,218 2009 128,460 133,107 136,915 134,900 138,407 140,948 2014 132,373 138,242 146,265 141,992 149,472 156,152 2018 137,534 142,493 154,203 147,933 158,956 167,438 2024 ---a 149,115 166,925 157,314 174,324 181,252 Source.BARNARD D UNKELBEBG dam'COMPANY. 1. FAA TerminalArea Forecast,Fiscal Years 2004-2020 Issued January 2003. Includes Air Taxi Operations. 2. 1.73%compounded aterage annualgron th rate. ---no data available Recommended Forecast Scenario. The Consultant's Preferred Forecast for this Master Plan is Scenario Five. This scenario recognizes the fact operations will grow much faster Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan B.15 for business jet operations at the airport. It is important to note that the total number of operations at the end of the planning period remain lower than those observed during several years in the 1980s and 1990s at Buchanan Field Airport. Operations Forecast By Aircraft Type A further assessment of the forecasts involves the individual and collective use of the airport byvarious types of aircraft. The types of aircraft expected to use the airport assists in determining the amount and type of facilities needed to meet the aviation demand. The following table, entitled SUMMARYOF OPERATIONS FORECAST BYAIRCRAFT TYPE, 2004-2024, depicts the approximate level of use by aircraft types that are projected to use Buchanan Field Airport. This table reflects a growing percentage of turbine and multi engine powered aircraft anticipated to operate at the Airport, and a decreasing percentage of single engine powered aircraft. This is indicative of the type of facility the Airport is,the prevailing local economic conditions,and regional/national trends in general aviation. As mentioned previously,there is no expected growth in military operations from the base year (2004). Table B7 SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS BY AIRCRAFT TYPE,2004-2024 Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Operations by Type 20041 2009 2014 2019 2024 General Aviation 128,162 140,948 956,152 169,665 181,252 Single Engine 89,713 . 94,435 101,499 106,889 112,376 Multi Engine 8,971 10,148 11,711 12,895 13,775 Turboprop 3,845 . 4,510 5,153 5,599 6,163 Business Jet 12,816 17,618 21,861 26,807 30,269 Helicopter 12,816 14,236 15,927 17,475 18,669 Military 213 213 213 213 213 TOTAL 128,375 141,161 156,365 169,878 181,465 Source:BARNARD D UNKBLBERG&COMPANY. 1. Air Traffic Control Tamer records. Currently,it is estimated that approximately seventy percent of all general aviation operations are single engine operations,while seven percent are multi engine,three Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Repor0eptember 2008 Master Plan B.16 percent are turbo prop, ten percent are business,jet,and ten percent are helicopters. At the end of the forecast period (2024), approximately 62 percent of all general aviation operations are forecast to be single engine,7.6 percent are multi-engine piston,3.4 percent are turbo prop, 16.7 percent are business jet,and 10.3 percent are helicopter. Local and Itinerant Operations Forecast Forecasts of operations have also been categorized accordingly into local and itinerant operations. The Air Traffic Control Handbook defines a local operation as any,operation performed by an aircraft operating in the local traffic pattern or within sight of the air traffic control tower,or aircraft known to be departing or arriving from flight in local practice areas,or aircraft executing practice'instrument approaches at the Airport. Touch-and-go operations are perhaps the best example of a local operation. At Buchanan Field Airport,local operations account for 54 percent of all airport operations,and this percentage is expected to decrease slightly(to 42 percent at the end of the planning period) due to increased business-related flight activity. Based on this consideration, forecasts of local and itinerant operations are shown on*the following table,entitled SUMMARY OF LOCAL AND ITINERANT OPERA 7YONS,2004-2024. Table B8 SUMMARY OF LOCAL AND ITINERANT OPERATIONS,2004-2024 Buchanan Field Air ,port Master Plan Year Local Itinerant Total 20041 59,161 69,214 128,375 2009 63,522 77,638 141,161 2014 68,800 87,564 156,365 2019 73,047 96,830 169,878 2024 76,215 105,250 181,465 Source.BARNARD DLTNIMLBERG e,COMPANY. 1. Air Traffic Control Tower Records Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan B.17 Peak Period Forecast An additional element in assessing airport use and determining various capacity and demand considerations is to ascertain peak period activities. Air traffic records indicate that October was the peak month in 2004,with 14,014 total operations occurring in that month. The following assumptions were made: eleven percent (11%) of annual operations occur in the peak month,a 31-day peak month is assumed, and peak hour operations are 10 percent of the average day of the peak month. The peak period operational activities are illustrated in the following table entitled PEAKPERIOD. AIRCRACT OPERATIONS,2004-2024. Table B9 PEAK PERIOD AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS,2004-2024 Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Peak Average Day Peak Hour/ Year Annual Month of Peak Month Average Day Ratio Peak Hour 2004 128,375 14,014 452 10.0% 45 2009 141,161 15,284 493 10.0% 49 2014 156,365 16,669 538 10.0% 54 2019 , 169,878 18,179 583 10.0% 59 2024 181,465 19,827 640 10.0% 64 Source:BARNARD D UNKELBERG dam'COMPANY Operation counts were tabulated based on methodology from FAA AC 15015070-6AAiiportMarter Plans and FAA AC 150/5060-5 Airport Capacity and Delay. General Aviation Based Aircraft Forecast The number of general aviation aircraft,which can be expected to base at an airport facility,is dependent on several factors, such as airport radio communications;available facilities,airport operator services,airport proximity and access,aircraft basing capacity available at adjacent airports and similar considerations. General aviation operators are particularly sensitive to both the quality and location of their basing facilities,with proximity of home and work often being identified as the primary consideration in the selection of an aircraft basing location Several forecast scenarios were developed to appropriately reflect current based aircraft and provide realistic projections for the 20-year planning period. The forecast scenarios generated for this Master Plan assume, for the most part, straight-line growth. While it is recognized that straight-line (consistent) growth never occurs year after year Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan B.18 for many years,average annual growth methodologies serve intermediate and long- range planning purposes quite well. It should be noted that it is not the actual numbers that are most important,but the reasoning,assumptions,and trends that the numbers represent. FAA TAF—Data from the January 2005 FAA Terminal Area Forecast(TAF) is shown. Scenario One—The January 2005 FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) indicates an average growth rate of 0.85 percent annually from 2004 to 2020. Scenario Two-According to the FAA Aerospace Forecasts Fiscal Years 2005-2016,the FAA active general aviation fleet is forecast to increase at an average rate of 1.10 percent annually. Scenario Three-As previously mentioned in the Association of Bay Area Governments Pr/ections 2005 forecasting document,the socioeconomic conditions of a particular area can affect aviation activity. Typically,population, employment, and income are analyzed and used as a forecast scenario. Scenario Three utilizes the forecast average annual population growth for Alameda County and Contra Costa County. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments Regional Airport System Plan 2003,the majority of based aircraft owners reside in Contra Costa County, followed by Alameda County. This forecast growth scenario uses the average of the two growth rates,corresponding to a growth rate of 1.03 percent. Scenario Four—Projects an average growth rate of 1.55 percent,which corresponds to the average annual total jobs growth rate for Contra Costa County. Scenario Five—This forecast scenario is based on several assumptions. First,is the previously mentioned consideration of additional business jets that,in all likelihood,will be basing at Buchanan Field Airport in the near-term.Jt is anticipated that up to 20 additional business jets will be based at Buchanan Field Airport because of new hangar facilities being built within the next 5 years. Secondly,.with the potential for exceptional landside facilities at the airport,and the airport itself being located in a superior location (close to area businesses and executive residences alike),business jet activity is forecast to increase substantially more than other general aviation activity. Therefore,this forecast scenario uses a variable rate of adding these additional business jets at a rate of 4 per year during the initial five years of the planning period. Business jets are then predicted to increase 5.4 percent annually from 2010 to 2016,which corresponds to the FAA Aerospace Forecasts Fiscal Years 2005-2016 FAA active general aviation fleet forecast for turbo jet aircraft. Business jets'are then forecast to grow 1.10 percent annually for the remainder of the forecast period (2017 to 2024) which corresponds to the FAA Aerospace Forecasts Fiscal Years 2005-2016 FAA total average active general Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan B.19 J aviation fleet forecast. The remaining based aircraft at the airport (single engine,.muld- engine piston,turbo prop,and helicopters) are projected to increase 1.10 percent annually during the entire 20-year planning period (which,as mentioned previously, corresponds to the FAA Aerospace Forecasts Fiscal Years 2005-2016 FAA average total active general aviation fleet forecast.) This forecast scenario results in an average compound growth rate of 1.43 percent. The following table,entitled GENERAL AVIATIONBASED AMCRAFT,2004-2024 presents the based aircraft forecast for the twenty-year planning period. Table B10 BASED AIRCRAFT FORECAST SCENARIOS,2004-2024 Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Year TAF1 One Two Three Four Five2 0.85% 1.10% 1.03% 1.55% Variable 2004 599 497 497 497 497 497 2005 605 501 502 502 505 506 2006 610 505 508 507 513 515 2007 615 510 514 513 520 525 2008 620 514 519 518 529 534 2009 626 518 525 523 537 551 2014 647 541 554 551 580 586 2018 674 560 579 574 616 618 2024 --- 589 619 610 676 660 Source:BARNARD DUNIELBERG dam'COMPANY. i. FAA TerminalAuea Forecast,Fiscal Years 2004—2020 Issued Jam+ag 2003. 2. 1.43%compounded average annualgromtb rate. --no data atailable Recommended Forecast Scenario. The Consultant's Preferred Forecast for this Master Plan is Scenario Five. This scenario again recognizes the fact based aircraft will grow much faster for business jet operations at the airport based on the local conditions, industry trends and regional economic indicators mentioned in the preceding pages of this chapter. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan B•20 Operations per Based Aircraft Generally,there is a relationship between aviation activity and based aircraft, stated in terms of operations per based aircraft (OPBA). Sometimes a trend can be established from historical information of operations and based aircraft. The national trend has been changing with more aircraft being used for business purposes and less for pleasure flying. This impacts the OPBA in that business aircraft are usually flown more often than pleasure aircraft. In 2004,the OPBA at Buchanan Field Airport was 258. In consideration of the recommended general aviation operations and based aircraft scenarios,it is expected that the number of operations per based aircraft will increase at the airport as more aircraft based there are used for business purposes to 275 by the end of the planning forecast. General Aviation Aircraft Fleet Mix The mix of based aircraft for incremental periods throughout the planning period is illustrated in the following table,entitled GENEEALAP7ATIONBASED ATACRAFTFLEET MIX,2004-2024. With an existing high percentage of single engine aircraft based at the airport,the percentage of turboprop and business jet aircraft are expected to increase as a part of the total based aircraft population. This is in line,first,with overall trends in general aviation,but even more importantly,parallels the economic development and growth expectations and projections characteristics locally and regionally. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan B•21 Table B11 GENERAL AVIATION BASED AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX,2004-2024 Buchanan Field Airport Master Platz Aircraft Type 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024 Single Engine 406 424 441 463 481 (81.7%) (78.1%) (75.3%) (74.1%) (72.9%) Multi-Engine 32 35 39 42 46 (6.4%) (6.401o) (6.701o) (6.701,) (7.0%) Helicopter 14 17 21 25 30 (2.8%) (3.1%) (3.6%) (4.0%) (4.501o) Turbo Prop 16 18 21 23 26 (3.2%) (3.301o) (3.601o) (3.7%) (3.901o) Business Jet 29 49 64 72 77 (5.801o) (9.0010) (10.901o) (11.501o) (11:7%) TOTAL 497 543 586 625 660 (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) Soune:BARNARD D UNKELBERG dam'COMPANY. Summary The following tables summarize the forecasts of aviation activity,which has been presented in this chapter. This information will be utilized in the following chapter to document and analyze both airside and landside facility requirements. Therefore,the forecasts of aviation activity are an important part of the information base,which will be used to develop future plans for the airport and formulate implementation decisions relating to airport development. Overall,total aircraft operations at Buchanan Field Airport are anticipated to increase over the course of the twenty-year planning period. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan B.22 1 Table B12 SUMMARY OF AVIATION ACTIVITY FORECASTS,2004-2024 Buchanan Field Master Plan Update Operations 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024 GeneralAviation 128,162 140,948 15,6152 169,665 181,252 Single Engine 89,713 94;435 101,499 106,889 112,376 Multi Engine 8,971 10,148 11,711 12,895 13,775 Turbo prop 3,845 4,510 5,153 5,599 6,163 Business Jet 12,816 17,618 21,861 26,807 30,269 Helicopter 12,816 14,236 15,927 17,475 18,669 Military 213 213 213 213 213 TOTAL OPERATIONS 128,375 141,161 156,365 169,878 181,465 Local Operations 59,161 63,522 68,800 _73,047 76,215 Itinerant Operations 69,214 77,638 87,564 96,830 105,250 Based Aircraft By Type Single Engine 406 424 441 463 481 Multi Engine 32 35 39 42 46 Turboprop 16 18 21 23 26 Business Jet 29 49 64 72 77 Helicopter 14 17 21 25 30 Total Based Aircraft 497 543 586 625 660 Source:BARNARD DUNKELBERG&COMPANY. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan B.23 Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements Introduction The capacity of an airfield is primarily a function of the major aircraft operating surfaces that compose the facility and the configuration of those surfaces(runways and taxiways). However, it is also related to and considered in conjunction with wind coverage,airspace utilization,and the availability and type of navigational aids. Capacity refers to the number of aircraft operations that a facility can accommodate'on either an hourly or yearly basis. It does not refer to the size or weight of aircraft. Facility requirements are used to determine those facilities needed to meet the forecast demand related to the aircraft fleet. Evaluation procedures will analyze runway length,dimensional criteria,aprons,hangars,and vehicular access. Airport Reference Code (ARC)/Critical Aircraft Analysis As a foreword to capacity analysis and facility requirements,it is important to first determine the Airport Reference Code (ARC) for each runway and establish a critical aircraft to properly establish capacity or facility considerations that are specific to the ARC and design aircraft operating from Buchanan Field Airport,or forecast to operate during the 20-year planning horizon of this master plan. A discussion airport design consideration relating to the Airport Reference Code and the critical aircraft analysis follows. The types of aircraft presently utilizing an airport and those projected to utilize the facility in the future are important considerations for planning airport facilities. An airport should be designed in accordance with the Airport Reference Code (ARC) standards that are described in AC 130/3300-13 Airport Design. The ARC is a coding system used to relate and compare airport design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics of the aircraft intended to operate at the airport. The ARC has two components that relate to the airport's "Design Aircraft." The first component,depicted by a letter (i.e.,A,B,C,D,or E),is the aircraft approach category and relates to aircraft approach speed based upon operational characteristics. The second component, depicted by a Roman numeral (i.e.,I,II,III,IV,or V),is the aircraft design group and Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan C.1 relates to aircraft wingspan (physical characteristic). Generally speaking,aircraft approach speed applies to runways and runway-related facilities,while aircraft wingspan is primarily related to separation criteria associated with taxiways and taxi lanes. Runway 1L/19R This is the main runway and primary parallel runway at Buchanan Field Airport. Past planning studies have identified this runway as one that mostly accommodates small to medium size general aviation aircraft (up to and including many of the business jets). The historic "Design Aircraft" fleet for this runway has been made up of turbo-props such as the Beech Super King Air 200,various Cessna Citations,the majority of the Dassault Falcons,etc., along with the BAe-146,which was used for commercial air service at Buchanan Field. As indicated in the 1990 Airport Master Plan for Buchanan Field Airport,this runway has been designed using an Airport Reference Code for Runway 1L/19R of B-III,which was a combination of the`B" approach speed category,for aircraft such as the King Air and Citation, and aircraft design group "IIP'to account for the larger wingspan of the BAe-146. The BAe-146 has ceased operating from Buchanan Field;however,larger business jet aircraft with design group III wingspans (Gulfstream V and the Bombardier Global Express) have begun to occasionally operate from the Airport. Therefore,it seems prudent and appropriate to recommend the continuation of the ARC B-III designation for Runway 1L/19R. Runway 1R/19L The secondary parallel runway at Buchanan Field Airport has historically been designed to accommodate the smaller single and twin engine general aviation aircraft weighting less than 12,500 pounds (ARC B-I Small Aircraft Only). This remains the proper Airport Reference Code for Runway 1R/19L and will be maintained. . Runway 14L/32R. This is the primary crosswind runway at Buchanan Field Airport. Past planning studies have identified this runway as one that mostly accommodates small to medium size general aviation aircraft(up to and including many of the business jets). The historic"Design Aircraft" fleet for this runway has been made up of turbo-props such as the Beech.Super King Air 200,various Cessna Citations,the majority of the Dassault Falcons,etc.,along with the BAe-.146,which was used for commercial air service at Buchanan Field. As indicated in the 1990 Airport Master Plan for Buchanan Field Airport,this runway has been designed using an Airport Reference Code for Runway 14L/32R of B-III,which was a combination of the`B" approach speed category, for aircraft such as the King Air and Citation,and aircraft design group "IIP' to account for the larger wingspan of the BAe-146. .The BAe-146 has ceased operating from Buchanan Field;however,larger business jet aircraft with design group III wingspans (Gulfstream V and the Bombardier Global Express) have begun to occasionally operate from the Airport. Therefore,it seems prudent and appropriate to recommend the continuation of the ARC B-III designation for Runway 14L/32R. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan C.2 Bunway 14R/32L The secondary crosswind runway at Buchanan Field Airport has historically been designed to accommodate the smaller single and twin engine general aviation aircraft weighting less than 12,500 pounds (ARC B-I Small Aircraft Only). This remains the proper Airport Reference Code for Runway 14R/32L and will be maintained. Airfield Capacity Methodology The evaluation method used to determine the capability of the airside facilities to accommodate aviation operational demand is described in the following narrative. Evaluation of this capability is expressed in terms of potential excesses and deficiencies in capacity. The methodology used for the measurement of airfield capacity in this study is described in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)Advisory Circular 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay. From this methodology, airfield capacity is defined in the following terms: • Hourly capacity of Runway.The maximum number of aircraft that can be accommodated under conditions of continuous demand during a one-hour period. • Annual Service Volume:A reasonable estimate of an airport's annual capacity (i.e.,level of annual aircraft operations that will result in an average annual aircraft delay of approximately one to four minutes). The capacity of an airport's airside facilities is a function of several factors. These factors include the layout of the'airfield,local environmental conditions,specific characteristics of local aviation demand, and air traffic control requirements. The relationship of these factors and their cumulative impact on airfield capacity are examined in the following paragraphs. Airfield Layout The arrangement and interaction of airfield components (runways,taxiways,and ramp entrances) refers to the layout or"design" of the airfield. As previously described, Buchanan Field Airport is served by four runways (two sets of parallel runways): Runway 1L/19R,Runway 1R/19L,Runway 14L/32R,and Runway 14R/32L. Each of the four runways is served by a full parallel taxiway. There are also numerous runway exit taxiways and connector taxiways that are designed to minimize aircraft runway occupancy time,thus increasing the capacity of the runway system. Existing landside facilities,which include private hangars, corporate hangars,FBO hangars,aprons,and other various aviation use facilities on both the east and west sides Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan C.3 of the Airport,located mostly south of Taxiway"C" east of Runway 1R and west of Runway 32R;west of Runway 1L/19R;and,northwest of Runway 14R. These facilities are well situated to take advantage of the existing taxiway system. Environmental Conditions Climatological conditions specific to the location of an airport not only influence the layout of the airfield,but also impact the use of the runway system. Variations in the weather resulting in limited cloud ceilings and reduced visibility typically.lower airfield capacity,while changes in wind direction and velocity typically dictate runway usage and also influence runway capacity. Ceiling and Visibility. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5060-5,Airport Capacity and Delay, describes three categories of ceiling and visibility minimums for use in both capacity and delay calculations. Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions occur whenever the cloud ceiling is at least 1,000 feet above ground level and the visibility is at least three statute miles. Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) conditions occur when the reported cloud ceiling is at least 500 feet,but less than 1,000 feet and/or visibility is at least one statute mile,but less than three statute miles. Poor Visibility and Ceiling(PVC) conditions exist whenever the cloud ceiling is less than 500 feet and/or the visibility is less than one statute mile. Meteorological data from the National Climatic Data Center has been used to tabulate information at Buchanan Field Airport in more specific terms: o VFR conditions - Ceiling equal to or greater than 1,000 feet above ground level and visibility is equal to or greater than three statute miles. These conditions occur at the Airport approximately 95% of the time annually. • VFR minimums to existing Runway 19R approach minimums (LDA Approach) - Ceiling less than 1,000 feet and/or visibility less than three statute miles,but ceiling equal to or greater than 380 feet and visibility equal to or greater than 3/4-mile. These conditions occur at the Airport approximately 3.6% of the time annually. ® Category I ILS minimums - Ceiling less than 1,000 feet and/or visibility less than three statute miles,but ceiling equal to or greater than 200 feet and/or visibility equal or greater than 1/2-statute mile. These conditions occur at the Airport approximately 4.3% of the time annually. Wind Coverage. Surface wind conditions have a direct effect on the operation of an airport;runways not oriented to take the fullest advantage of prevailing winds will restrict the capacity of the Airport to varying degrees. When landing and taking off,aircraft are able to properly operate on a runway as long as the wind component perpendicular to Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan CA the direction of travel (defined as a crosswind)is not excessive. To determine wind velocity and direction at Buchanan Field Airport,wind data from the Airport were obtained and an all-weather wind rose was constructed,which is presented in the following illustration,entitled ALL-WEATHER FIND ROSE: 90.5-, 13-,AND 16-KNOT CROSSWIlVD COMPONENTS. The wind data to construct the all-weather wind rose were obtained for the period January 2000 through July 2005. The appropriate crosswind component is dependent upon the Airport Reference Code (ARC) for the type of aircraft that use an airport on a regular basis. As described earlier in this chapter,B-III is the appropriate ARC for Buchanan Field Airport. However,a large percentage of aircraft operating at the Airport fit into the ARC A-I,B-I,or B-II categories. According to FAA AC 150/5300-13,for ARC-A-I and B-I airports,a crosswind component of 10.5-knots is considered maximum. For ARC A-II and B-II airports, a crosswind component of 13-knots is considered maximum. Finally, for ARC C-I through D-III airports (which,in this case,is inclusive of ARC B-III airports),a crosswind _ component of 16-knots is considered maximum. Because Buchanan Field Airport is utilized by various ARC categories of aircraft regularly,this wind coverage analysis will consider all three crosswind components. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan C.5 Figure C1 ALL-WEATHER WIND ROSE:10.5-,13-,AND 16-KNOT CROSSWIND COMPONENTS Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan 1db N st � 7BL. �n NNS 350 360 10 7ijNF 3q0 2p ,�g0 3p 2s �ry0 27 + + ^O 22 +' 21 isO '2 �a .2 11 .1 0 + .4 10 + Knots 00 + 7 + o IV + 1 8 + 1.0 O-10 Knots + W w .1 1.1 + rn E 3 78.4 + N + .3 0 o + 1.1 7 + + 5 + 0 N No + + + 2.1 .91.9.6 '2 1 �Q 1 + o o +. .3 .1 + + p S� p + 200 160 SS 1 0 180 1j0 SSE 9'L 7 7R 3 0 y�Cn°o 76 snot Ot Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,National Climatic Data Center Station 72493-Concord,California. Period of Record-2000-2005. The desirable wind coverage for an airport is 95%. This means that.the runway should be oriented so that the maximum crosswind component is not exceeded more than 5% of the time. Based on the wind analysis for Buchanan Field Airport,the 1/19 runway. alignment provides 99.64%wind coverage for the 16-knot crosswind component, 96.95%wind coverage for the 13-knot crosswind component,and 93.59% for the 10.5- knot crosswind component. The 14/32 orientation provides 99.45%wind coverage for Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan C.6 the 16-knot crosswind component,95.81%wind coverage for the 13-knot crosswind component, and 90.84% for the 10.5-knot crosswind component. Combined,the two runways provide 99.90%wind coverage for the 16-knot crosswind component,99.07% wind coverage for the 13-knot crosswind component, and 96.52% for the 10.5-knot crosswind component. This analysis indicates that the existing runway configuration provides adequate wind coverage for the 16-, 13-,and 10.5-knot crosswind components, and no new runways are required from a wind coverage standpoint. Table C1, entitled ALL- WEATHER WIlVD COVERAGE SUMMARY,presents the wind coverage provided by the Buchanan Field Airport runway system during all weather conditions. Table C1 ALL-WEATHER WIND COVERAGE SUMMARY Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Crosswind Component 10.5-Knot 13-Knot 16-Knot Runway 1/19 93.59% 96.95% 99.64% Runway 14/32 90.84% 95.81% 99.45% Combined 96.52% 99.07% 99.90% Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,National Climatic Data Center Station 72493-Concord,California. Period of Record-2000-2005. As stated previously,the Airport currently has three published straight-in instrument approach procedures to Runway 19R. The procedure with the lowest minimums provides a decision height of 380 feet and visibility minimums of 3/4-mile. In an effort to analyze the effectiveness of these approaches,the following Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)wind rose has been constructed and is presented in the following figure entitled IFR WIND ROSE: 10.5-, 13-,AND 16-KNOT CROSSWIlVD COMPONENTS. Again,wind data from Buchanan Field Airport have been used in the construction of the IFR wind rose. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan C•7 Figure C2 IFRI WIND ROSE:10.5-,13-,AND 16-KNOT CROSSWIND COMPONENTS Buchanan Field Ahport Master Plan 6` v r1N`N 350 360 10 N�7F 340 2p 3S0 3p 2 hyo 27 Y 2F 22 6p r o s otm N1 ii 1 0 10 + Knot o + + oo o N + + 0-10 Knots 0 o E W .1 N 1 92.7 m + N o o .1 o 1.5 .5 .4 + N� a .1 YO + .4 + 1 + s� �p Sao 5 270 15p SSw p 1 0 180 170 16 SS, 32 1� 32L � 106 6 k 1t� 1�5• 0t 13, 170t 13' Cot 16.kOct 1G'tL kbOt Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,National Climatic Data Center Station 72493-Concord,Califcmia. Period of Record-2000-2005. Notes: 'Ceiling of less than 1,000 feet,but equal to or greater than 200 feet and/or visibility less than three statute miles,but equal to or greater than Vz-statute mile. The following table,Table C2, entitled IFR FIND COVERAGE SUMMARY,quantifies the wind coverage offered by the various runways under IFR meteorological conditions. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan C.8 Table C2 IFR WIND COVERAGE SUMMARY Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Wind Coverage Provided Under IFR Conditions' 10.5-Knot Crosswind 16-Knot Crosswind 5-Knot Tailwind to 10-Knot Tailwind to Maximum Headwind Maximum Headwind Runway 1 86.41% 93.46% Runway 192 79.64% 99.17% Runway 14 88.03% 99.41% Runway 32 87.51% 95.67% Runway 1 & 192 99.42% 99.94% Runway 1 & 14 97.86% 99.80% Runway.' &32 89.50% 95.86% Runway 14&32 97.82% 99.80% Runway 14& 192 93.90% 99.85% Runway 192&32 99.39% 99.94% Source:, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,National Climatic Data Center Station 72493-Concord,California. Period of Record-2000-2005. Notes: 'Ceiling of less than 1,000 feet,but equal to or greater than 200 feet and/or visibility less than three statute miles,but equal to or greater than IA-statute mile. 2Runway 19R equipped with existing instrument approach capabilities. It should be noted that the above table provides information for both the 10.5-knot crosswind component and the 16-knot crosswind component. A maximum tailwind of 5-knots is utilized for the 10.5-knot crosswind component,while a 10-knot tailwind is utilized for the 16-knot crosswind component. This variation is considered appropriate for proper estimation of conditions for small aircraft where a 10.5-knot crosswind is considered maximum and for large aircraft where the 16-knot maximum crosswind is utilized. From this IFR wind coverage summary,it can be determined that if a single runway orientation is considered,Runway 14 provides the best wind coverage,followed closely by Runway 19 (for the 16-knot crosswind component). If two runway orientations are considered,Runways 1 and 19 offer the best IFR wind coverage for the 10.5-knot crosswind component (i.e.,99.42%),and Runways 19 and 32 provide only fractions of a percent less coverage (i.e.,99.39%). Runways 1 and 19 and Runways 19 and 32 provide equal amounts of coverage when considering the 16-knot crosswind component (i.e., 99.94%). Thus,the existing instrument approach capabilities to Runway 19R provide Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan C.9 good wind coverage during IFR conditions,but improvements can be made if additional instrument approach procedures are provided to other runway ends. The potential and benefits of the provision of additional and improved instrument approach capabilities at the Airport are examined in the following chapters. Characteristics of Demand Certain site-specific characteristics related to aviation use and aircraft fleet makeup impact the capacity of an airport. These characteristics include aircraft mix,runway use, percent arrivals,touch-and-go operations, exit taxiways,and air traffic control rules. Aircraft Mix. The capacity of a runway is dependent upon the type and size of the aircraft that use the facility. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5060-5,Airport Capacity and Delay,categorized aircraft into four classes based on maximum certificated takeoff weight. This differs from the Airport Reference Code (ARC) defined previously,which classifies aircraft based on aircraft approach speed (A-E). For aircraft mix,aircraft Classes A and B consist of small single engine and twin-engine aircraft (both prop and jet),weighing 12,500 pounds or less,which are representative of the general aviation fleet. Classes C and D aircraft are larger jet and propeller aircraft typical of the business jet fleet,along with those aircraft used by the airline industry and the military. Buchanan Field Airport has no operations by Class D aircraft(over 300,000 pounds),nor are any expected to occur in the future. Class C aircraft operations at the Airport are primarily executive type prop and general aviation jet aircraft. Aircraft mix is defined as the relative percentage of operations conducted by each of these four classes of aircraft. The aircraft mix for Buchanan Field Airport is depicted in the following table entitled AIRCRAFT CLASS MIX FORECAST,2004 2024. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 C.10 Master Plan Table C3 AIRCRAFT CLASS MIX FORECAST,2004-2024 Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan VFR Conditions IFR Conditions Year Class A&B Class C Class D Class A&B Class C Class D 20041 90% 10% 0% 80% 20% 0% 2009 88% 12% 0% 78% 22% 0% 2014 86% 14% 0% 76% 24% 0% 2019 84% 16% 0% 74% 26% 0% 2024 83% 17% 0% 73% 27% 0% Class A-Small Single Engine,<12,500 pounds Class B—Small Twin-Engine,<12,500 pounds Class C-12,500-300,000 pounds Class D->300,000 pounds 'Actual. Runway Use. Runway use is defined by the number,location,and orientation of the active runways) and relates to the distribution and frequency of aircraft operations to those facilities. Air Traffic Control Tower personnel estimate that annual landings and takeoffs occur in a southerly direction (Runways 19R and 19L) approximately 22% and 20% of the time,respectively,and to the northwest (Runways 32R and 32L) roughly 22% and 18% of the time,respectively. Annual operations occur on Runway 1L about 8% of the time, on Runway 1R approximately 6% of the time,and on Runways 14L and 14R roughly 2% of the time each. Percent Arrivals. Runway capacity is also significantly influenced by the percentage of all operations that are arrivals. Because aircraft on final approach are typically given absolute priority over departures,higher percentages of arrivals during peak periods of operations reduce the Annual Service Volume. The operations mix occurring on the runway 'system at Buchanan Field Airport reflects a general balance of arrivals to departures. Therefore,it was assumed in the capacity calculations that arrivals equal departures during the peak period. Touch-and-Go Operations. A touch-and-go operation refers to an aircraft maneuver in which the aircraft performs a normal landing touchdown followed by an immediate takeoff without stopping or taxiing clear of the runway. These operations are normally associated with training and are included in local operations figures. Touch-and-go operations comprise approximately 46% of all operations at the Airport. By the end of the 20-year planning period,local operations are expected to decrease to approximately 42% of the total aircraft operations at the Airport. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan C.11 Exit Taxiways.' The capacity of a runway is greatly influenced by the ability of an aircraft to exit the runway in the quickest and safest manner possible. Therefore,the quantity and design of the exit taxiways can directly influence aircraft runway occupancy time and the capacity of the airfield system. The number of exit taxiways at Buchanan Field Airport appears adequate for existing operations. However,from a capacity standpoint, some improvements can be made. The capacity analysis gives credit to only those runway exit taxiways located between 2,000 and 4,000 feet from the threshold of each runway. It appears that the capacity of the runway system may benefit from the construction of additional exit taxiways. The potential for future taxiway locations will be examined as the Airport Development Plan is formulated, Air Traffic Control Rules. The FAA specifies separation criteria and 'operational procedures for aircraft in the vicinity of an airport contingent upon aircraft size, availability of radar,sequencing of operations and noise abatement procedures,both advisory and/or regulatory,which may be in effect at the airport. The impact of air traffic control on runway capacity is most influenced by Aircraft separation requirements dictated by the mix of aircraft utilizing the Airport. Presently, there are no special air traffic control rules in effect at Buchanan Field Airport that significantly impact operational capacity. Airfield Capacity Analysis As previously described,the determination of capacity for Buchanan Field Airport uses the methodology described in the FAA Advisory Circular 150/5060-5,Airport Capado and Delay,along with the Airport Design Computer Program that accompanies AC 150/5300-13. Several assumptions are incorporated into these capacity calculations: arrivals equal departures,the percent of touch-and-go,operations is between 0 and 50% of total operations,there is a full-length parallel taxiway with ample exits and no taxiway crossing problems,there are no airspace limitations,the airport has at least one runway equipped with an ILS and the necessary air traffic control facilities to carry out operations in a radar environment,IFR weather conditions occur roughly 10% of the time,and approximately 80% of the time the Airport is operated with the runway use configuration that produces the greatest hourly capacity. Applying information generated from the preceding analyses, capacity and demand are formulated in terms of the following results: • Hourly Capacity of Runways (VFR and IFR) • Annual Service Volume (ASv) Hourly Runway Capacity Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final RGport/September 2008 Master Plan C.12 Calculations of hourly capacity begin with an evaluation of each possible runway-use configuration at the airport. With consideration of the airport's aircraft mix index, annual percentage of touch-and-go operations and taxiway exit rating,an hourly capacity was calculated. In its normal operating configurations,the VFR hourly capacity of the Airport is potentially as high as 121 operations and the IFR hourly capacity is potentially as high as around 58 operations per hour. Annual Service Volume After determining the hourly capacity for each potential runway use configuration,a weighted hourly capacity of the entire airport can be calculated. The weighted hourly ,capacity takes into consideration not only the aircraft mix index,but the percent utilization of each possible runwayuse configuration as well. The weighted hourly capacity for Buchanan Field Airport for 2004 was determined to be approximately 112 operations per hour. This weighted hourly capacity can then be used in calculating the Annual Service Volume (ASV) for the Airport. The ASV is calculated using the following formula: ASV= CwxDxH Com, weighted hourly capacity D ratio of annual demand to average daily demand H ratio of average daily demand to average peak hour demand With the existing runway configuration,and in consideration of existing utilization patterns,the Airport has been determined to have a daily ratio (D) of 284 and an hourly ratio (H) of 10.04,and thus,an ASV of approximately 300,688. With one exception, conditions involving the determination of the weighted hourly capacity,the daily ratio,and the hourly ratio are not forecast to change significantly at Buchanan Field Airport in the future. The exception is the aircraft mix,which is expected to have a slight increase in Class C aircraft operating at the Airport during the planning period (i.e., from 10% to 17% during VFR conditions and from 20% to 27% during IFR conditions). The increase in aircraft mix reduces the amount of operations an airport can accommodate by increasing the separation criteria required during approaches. The hourly ratio,as specified in the formula,is the inverse of the daily operations that occur during the peak period. In other words,as operations increase,the peak periods tend to spread out,increasing the hourly ratio. As the hourly ratio increases,the ASV increases accordingly,even without runway improvements. However, as presented in Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan C.13 the following table, entitled AIRFIELD CAPACITY FORECAST SUMMARY,2004-2024,the ASV at Buchanan Field Airport is expected to decrease as the aircraft mix increases in the future. This analysis indicates that the forecast demand does not indicate the need for a new runway at Buchanan Field Airport. However,because of increased demand,other improvements (e.g.,taxiway improvements,approach improvements,etc.) should be programmed to maintain an efficient and safe aviation operational environment. Table C4 AIRFIELD CAPACITY FORECAST SUMMARY,2004-2024 Buchanan Field Airj�art Master Plan Total Future Design Annual Year Annual Operations Hour Operations, Service Volume 2004 128,375 45 300,688 2009 141,161 49 259,598 2014 '156,365 54 258,095 2019 169,878 59 253,149 2024 181,465 64 245,829 Notes: 'See Table 139,Entitled PEAK PERIOD OPERATIONS FORECAST,for information on design hour operations calculation. Ground Access Capacity As an employment center and to facilitate air travelers,ground access is an important element in the overall ability of an airport to function properly. Regional Auto Access-Highways Buchanan Field Airport enjoys excellent regional access from many Bay Area locations. The Airport is located within a triangle created by Interstate 680,and State Routes 4 and 242,providing it with regional freeway access north, south,east, and west. Of these connections,1-680 is the busiest,carrying 160,000 vehicles per day at Concord Avenue, while State Routes 4 and 242 both carry approximately 92,000 vehicles per day in the project vicinity. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan C.14 Capacity improvements to highways have and continue to focus on creating continuous carpool lanes and improving interchanges. In the past decade, a carpool lane in each direction was added to State Route 242 between 1-680 and State Route 4,and along I- ' 680 between Walnut Creek and Martinez. Recently passed County Measure J provides funding to close remaining gaps in the carpool lanes south of the project area,and the current rebuilding of the Benicia-Martinez Bridge will complete carpool lanes in Solano County over the next decade. A project to rebuild the i-680/State Route 4 interchange focuses on easing congestion;the project has completed environmental clearance and awaits final design and funding,with an anticipated construction start in 2010. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan C.15 Local Auto Access-Streets Concord Avenue and Marsh Drive are the local streets providing access to the Airport. Concord Avenue serves the more developed east side facilities, and provides direct connections to State Route 242 and I-680,as well as downtown Concord. Three through lanes in either direction are augmented by turning lanes at intersections. This roadway system is sufficient to handle the current eastside development,and has sufficient capacity for a significant densification of use. Marsh Drive provides access to west side facilities. Access from Concord Avenue and the south requires a circuitous route under I-680,along Pacheco Boulevard,and via Center Avenue adjoining a residential neighborhood. Access from State Route 4 is similarly circuitous,skirting the northern border of the Airport,but there are relatively direct highway connections that avoid residential neighborhoods. On-Airport Roadways John Glenn Drive provides access to east side facilities on Airport property, and Sally Ride Drive provides access to west side facilities. Both roadways provide a sufficient level of access for the current uses on Airport property. John Glenn Drive is a two-lane road with center median, sidewalks,and curbside parking. This roadway provides sufficient capacity for significant densification of use,and there is sufficient width available to create turn pockets should they be needed in the future. Sally Ride Drive is a two-lane drive,but, for much of its length lacks sidewalks and paved shoulders. As one of the few areas on Buchanan Field Airport not built out to capacity,the west side is perhaps the most appropriate and logical location for short term landside development. Therefore,should this increased development occur,the Sally Ride Drive facilities should be upgraded. In addition,Sally Ride currently terminates as a dead end,which could be connected with Marsh Road to complete a loop should additional capacity be required. Facility Requirements This section presents the analysis of requirements for airside and landside facilities necessary to meet aviation demand at Buchanan Field Airport. For those components determined to be deficient,the type and size of facility required to meet future demand are identified. Airside facilities examined include the runways, taxiways,runway protection zones,thresholds,and navigational aids. Landside facilities include such facilities as hangars,aircraft apron areas,and airport support facilities. This analysis uses the growth scenario set forth in the forecast of demand for establishing future development needs at the Airport. This is not intended to dismiss the Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan C.16 possibility that, due to the unique circumstances in the region,either accelerated growth or consistently higher or lower levels of activity may occur. Aviation activity levels should be monitored for consistency with the forecasts. In the event of changes,the schedule of development should be adjusted to correspond to the demand for facilities rather than be set to predetermined dates of development. By doing this, over-building or under-building can be avoided. Airside Facilities Dimensional Criteria. The FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13,Airport Design, recommends standard widths,minimum clearances, and other dimensional criteria for runways,taxiways,safety areas, aprons,and other physical airport features. Dimensions are recommended with respect to the Aircraft Approach Category and Airplane Design Group designations (the Airport Reference Code),and availability and type of approach instrumentation. Because different aircraft types utilize the four runways at Buchanan Field Airport,each has an appropriate Airport Reference Code (ARC). Existing dimensions and the corresponding design criteria applicable to Buchanan Field Airport are contained in the following Tables C6 through C9, entitled DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS. One table is provided for each runway. Due to the commonality of issues, tables will be presented for the primary runway system (Runway 1L/19R and Runway 14L/32R) first,then for the secondary runway system (Runway 1R/19L and Runway 14R/32L). As identified in the tables,most of the facilities at Buchanan Field Airport meet or exceed most of the appropriate requirements. However,there are some noticeable deficiencies with the primary runway system,including: the Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Runway Object Free Area (OFA) standards are not met on the north end of Runway 1L/19R and the RSA and OFA standards are not met on both the north and south ends of Runway 14L/32R. These deficiencies are primarily due to property boundary and site constraints that do not allow for the runway longitudinal design standards to be met off the ends of the above-referenced runways. However,these deficiencies are principally remedied by the use of Declared Distances,which will be discussed following Table C7. It should also be mentioned that the required design standard for the separation of parallel runways operating under Visual Flight Rule(VFR) conditions is not met for all four runways at Buchanan Field Airport. The correction of these dimensional standard deficiencies will be considered in the formulation of the development plan for the Airport. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan C.17 Table C5 ARC B-III DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS—RUNWAY 1L/19R(in feet) Buchanan Field Airj�ort Master Plan Existing ARC Item Dimension B-III Runway: Width 150 100 Safety Area Width 300 300 Safety Area Length(beyond runway end) Runway 1L 0 600 Runway 19R 600 600 Safety Area Length (prior to threshold) Runway 1L 600 600 Runway 19R 600 600 Object Free Area Width 800 800 Object Free Area Length (beyond runway end) Runway 1L -200 600 Runway 19R 600 600 Obstacle Free Zone Width 400 400 Obstacle Free Zone Length (beyond runway end) Runway 1L 200 200 Runway 19R 2,600 2,600 Taxiway: Width (see note below) 40-50 50-60 Runway Centerline to: Holdline . 250 200 Parallel Runway Centerline-VFR 500 700 Parallel Taxiway Centerline 500 300 Aircraft Parking Area 550 400 Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13,Ahpal Design,and actual airport conditions. Runway Safety Area: An area adjacent to the runway that is cleared and graded and that has no potentially hazardous ruts,humps,depressions,or other surface variations. Under dry conditions,the safety area shall be capable of supporting aircraft rescue equipment,snow removal equipment,and the occasional passage of aircraft without causing structural damage. Runway Object Free Area: A two dimensional ground area surrounding a runway that is dear of objects protruding above the safety area edge elevation. Objects are acceptable within the OFA if the location is required for the purpose of air navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes. Bold/Italic Numbers: Indicate existing non-standard condition. Taxiway dimensions: Taxiway E—50 feet Taxiway F—50 feet Taxiway K—40 feet Taxiway J—50 feet Taxiway G—50 feet Taxiway N—50 feet(proposed) Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan CA Table C6 ARC B-111 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS-RUNWAY 14L/32R(in feet) Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Existing ARC Item Dimension B-III Runway: Width 150 100 Safety Area Width 300 300 Safety Area Length (beyond runway end) Runway 14L 70 600 Runway 32R 480 600 Safety Area Length (prior to threshold) Runway 14L 600 600 Runway 32R 420 606 Object Free Area Width 800 800 Object Free Area Length (beyond runway end) Runway 14L 230 600 Runway 32R 480 600 Obstacle Free Zone Width 400 400 Obstacle Free Zone Length(beyond runway end) Runway 14L 200 200 Runway 32R 200 200 Taxiway: Width.(see note below) 25-50 50-60 Runway Centerline to. Holdline 250 200 Parallel Runway Centerline-VFR 500 700 .Parallel Taxiway Centerline 300 300 Aircraft Parking Area 500 400 Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13,Ai0on Design,and actual airport conditions. Runway Safety Area: An area adjacent to the runway that is cleared and graded and that has no potentially hazardous ruts,humps,depressions,of other surface variations. Under dry conditions,the safety area shall be capable of supporting aircraft rescue equipment,snow removal equipment,and the occasional passage of aircraft without causing structural damage. Runway Object Free Area; A two dimensional ground area surrounding a runway that is clear of objects protruding above the safety area edge elevation. Objects are acceptable within the OFA if the location is required for the purpose of air navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes, Bold/Italic Numbers: Indicate existing non-standard condition. Taxiway dimensions: TaxiwayJ(south)725 feet Taxiway C-50feet Taxiway A-50 feet Taxiway H-45 feet Taxiway J(north)-50 feet Taxiway M-35 feet Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan C.19 Declared Distance Application FAA Airport Design Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 describes the use of declared distances for applications such as "existing constrained airports where it is impracticable to provide the runway safety area(RSA),the runway object free area (ROFA) or the runway protection zone (RPZ) in accordance with the design standards" for airport geometry and runway design. The Advisory Circular further states "by treating the airplane's runway performance distances independently,provides an alternative airport design methodology by declaring distances to satisfy the airplane's takeoff run,takeoff distance,accelerate-stop distance,and landing distance requirements.. The declared distances are takeoff run available (TORA),takeoff distance available (TODA), accelerate- stop distance available (ASDA),and landing distance available (LDA)." At Buchanan Field Airport,the implementation of these standards pen-nits the boundaries of the Runway 1L/19R and Runway 14L/32R RSA and OFA lengths to be specified independently with the establishment of displaced thresholds for Runways 14L and 32R and a clearway for Runway 32R to remedy these conventional dimensional deficiencies. The resulting revised distances are listed in the following table. Table C7 DECLARED DISTANCES(in feet) Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Runway 1L 19R 14L 32R Displaced Threshold (Approach Ends) 0 0 300 350 Stopway(Stop End) 0 0 0 0 Clearway (Stop End) 0 0 0 450 Takeoff Run Available (TORA) 4,410 5,010 4,601 4,601 Takeoff Distance Available (TODA) 5,001 5,001 4,601 -5,081 Accelerate-Stop Distance Available (ASDA) 4,410 5,010 4,001 4,481 Landing Distance Available 4,410 4,410 3,701 4,131 Source: February 1997 Buchanan Field Airport Layout Plan. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan C.20 Table C8 ARC B-I DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS—RUNWAY 1R/19L(in feet) Buchanan Field Aioort Master Plan Existing ARC B-I Item Dimension Small Aircraft Only Runway: Width 60 75 Safety Area Width 120 120 Safety Area Length (beyond runway end) Runway 1R 240 240 Runway 19L 240 240 Safety Area Length (prior to threshold) Runway 1R 240 240 Runway 19L 240 240 Object Free Area Width 250 250 Object Free Area Length (beyond runway end) Runway 1 R 240 240 Runway 19L 240 240 Obstacle Free Zone Width 250 250 Obstacle Free Zone Length (beyond runway end) Runway 1R 200 200 Runway 19L 200 200 Taxiway. Width 25 35,50 Runway Centerline to: Holdline 125 125 Parallel Runway Centerline- VFR 700 500 Parallel Taxiway Centerline 150 200 Aircraft Parking Area 125 330 Source:FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13,Airpor?Design,and actual airport conditions. Runway Safety Area: An area adjacent to the runway that is cleared and graded and that has no potentially hazardous ruts,humps, depressions,or other surface variations. Under dry conditions,the safety area shall be capable of supporting aircraft rescue equipment,snow removal equipment,and the occasional passage of aircraft without causing structural damage. Runway Object Free Area: A two dimensional ground area surrounding a runway that is clear of objects protruding above the safety area edge elevation. Objects are acceptable within the OFA if the location is required for the purpose of au navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes. Bold/Italic Numbers: Indicate existing non-standard condition. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan C.21 Table C9 ARC B-I DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS—RUNWAY 14R/32L(in feet) Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Existing ARC B-I Item Dimension Small Aircraft Only Runway. Width 60 75 Safety Area Width 120 120 Safety Area Length (beyond runway end) Runway 14R 240 240 Runway 32L 240 240 Safety Area Length (prior to threshold) Runway 14R 240 240 Runway 32L 240 240 Object Free Area Width 250 250 Object Free Area Length (beyond runway end) Runway 14R 240 240 Runway 32L 240 240 Obstacle Free Zone Width 250 250 Obstacle Free Zone Length (beyond runway end) Runway 14R 200 200 Runway 32L 200 200 Taxiway: Width 25 35,50 Runway Centerline to: Holdline 125 125 Parallel Runway Centerline- VFR 700 500 Parallel Taxiway Centerline 150 200 Aircraft Parking Area 125 330 Source:FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13,Airporl Design,and actual airport conditions. Runway Safety Area: An area adjacent to the runway that is cleared and graded and that has no potentially hazardous ruts,humps, depressions,of other surface variations. Under dry conditions,the safety area shall be capable of supporting aircraft rescue equipment,snow removal equipment,and the occasional passage of aircraftwithout causing structural damage. Runway Object Free Area: A two dimensional ground area surrounding a runway that is clear of objects protruding above the safety area edge elevation. Objects are acceptable within the OFA if the location is required for the purpose of au navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes. Bold/Italic Numbers: Indicate existing non-standard condition. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan C.22 Runway Pavement Strength. The primary runway system (Runways 1L/19R and 14L/32R) pavement at Buchanan Field Airport can currently support aircraft with gross weights of 60,000 pounds single wheel;90,000 pounds dual-wheel;and, 140,000 pounds dual tandem-wheel main landing gear configuration. This provides superior pavement strength to accommodate the existing and forecast aircraft fleet utilizing Buchanan Field Airport. The secondary runway system (Runways 1R/19L and 14R/32L) pavement strength can support 17,000 pounds and 12,500 pounds,respectively, for single wheel main landing gear aircraft. The pavement strength currently exhibited by the secondary runway system pavement is adequate to accommodate the existing and forecast aircraft utilization as "small-aircraft only"runways. Airfield Capacity. The evaluation of airfield capacity presented earlier indicates that the Airport will not exceed the capacity of the existing runway/taxiway system before the end of the planning period. The airport's Annual Service Volume (ASV) at the end of the planning period was determined to be approximately 245,000 operations. FAA planning standards indicate that when sixty percent (60%) of the ASV is reached (in this case, some 147,000 operations),the Airport should start planning ways to increase capacity. Accordingly, should eighty percent (80%) of the ASV be reached (representing about 196,000 operations), construction of facilities to increase capacity should be initiated. During 2004,aircraft operations at Buchanan Field Airport totaled approximately 128,162,which is short of the sixty percent (60%) ASV level. However, forecasts of aircraft operations indicate that approximately 181,000 aircraft operations will occur at the Airport by the year 2024. These forecasts indicate the Airport will reach 60% of its operational capacity during the 20-year planning period,but not 80%. Although programming of additional runways at the Airport would appear not needed,it will be essential to maintain and upgrade the existing runway/taxiway/approach system to efficiently and safely accommodate increasing demand. Even before an airfield reaches capacity,it begins to experience certain amounts of delay in aircraft operations. As an airport's operations increase toward capacity,delay increases exponentially. Therefore,it is important to monitor the number of aircraft operations regularly and identify factors that may be acting as capacity constraints. This will enable airport management to react to unexpected trends before the lack of operational capacity might become a critical issue. Runway Length. Generally,runway length requirements for design purposes at a general aviation airport like Buchanan Field Airport are premised upon the category of aircraft using the Airport. The categories are small aircraft under 12,500 pounds maximum takeoff weight and large aircraft under 60,000 pounds maximum certificated takeoff Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/8eptember 2008 Master Plan C.23 weight. The general aviation large aircraft fleet (over 12, 500 pounds) includes the majority of the active business jet fleet. Runway length requirements are derived from the computer based FAA Airport Design Software supplied in conjunction with Advisory Circular 150/5300-13,Airport Design. Using this software,three values are entered into the computer,including the airport elevation of 23 feet Above Mean Sea Level (AMS L),the Mean Normal Maximum Temperature (NIMT) of 91 degrees Fahrenheitl, and the maximum difference in runway elevation at the'centerline of 1 foot. This data generates the general recommendations for runway length requirements at Buchanan Field Airport,which are provided in the following table entitled RUNWAYLENGTHKE,QmEmEiN,7s. Table clo RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Length(Feet) Aircraft Category Dry Wet Airplanes less than 12,500 lbs. with less than 10 seats 75%of Small Aircraft Fleet 2,520 2,520 95%of Small Aircraft Fleet 3,090 3,090 100% of Small Aircraft Fleet 3,650 3,650 Airplanes less than 12,500 lbs. with 10 or more seats 4,280 4,280 Air,blanes,greater than 12,500 lbs. and less than 60,000 Mounds 75% of fleet at 60% useful load 4,670 5,360 75% of fleet at 90%useful load 6,790 7,000 100% of fleet at 60%useful load 5,470 5,500 100% of fleet at 90%useful load 8,460 8,460 Source: FAA Advisory Circular 15015300-13,,4ipoilDefign. Lengths based on 23'ANML,91°F NW,and a maximum difference in runway centerline elevation of 1'with 500 miles length of haul for airplanes of more than 60,000 pounds. As shown in the above table, the small aircraft fleet,(under 12,500 pounds) requires a runway length in wet conditions between 2,520 and 4,280 feet,while the aircraft over 12,500 pounds,but less than 60,000,pounds,requires between 5,360 and 8,460 feet. Each of the runway lengths given for large aircraft under 60,000 pounds provides a ISource:February 1997 Buchanan Field Airport Layout Plan Data Table. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan C.24 runway sufficient to satisfy the operational requirements of a certain percentage of the aircraft fleet at a certain percentage of the useful load (i.e., 75% of the fleet at 60%useful load). Useful load is defined as the difference between the maximum gross takeoff weight and the empty weight of the aircraft,exclusive of fuel. Generally,the following aircraft comprise.75% of the general aviation aircraft fleet between 12,500 and 60,000 pounds:Learjets,Sabreliners, Citations, Challengers,Falcons,Hawkers,and Westwinds. One factor to consider when analyzing the generalized runway length requirements given in the above table is that the actual length necessary for a runway is a function of elevation,temperature,and aircraft stage length. As temperatures change on a daily basis,the runway length requirements change accordingly. The cooler the temperature, the shorter the runway necessary. Therefore,if a runway is designed to accommodate 75% of the fleet at 60%useful load,this does not mean that, at certain times,a larger or more heavily loaded aircraft cannot use the Airport. However,the amount of time such operations can safely occur can be greatly restricted. The analysis presented in the table above indicates that Runway 1L/19R,with a length of 5,001 feet,can accommodate all of the aircraft fleet weighing less than 12,500 pounds and accommodates a significant percentage of the larger general aviation aircraft fleet. Runway 14L/32R,with a length of 4,601 feet,provides an excellent length for the smaller general aviation fleet,but is limited in its ability to accommodate aircraft over 12,500 pounds. Runways 1R/19L and 14R/32L,with lengths of 2,770 feet and 2,799 feet, respectively,are able to accommodate approximately 75% of general aviation aircraft fleet under 12, 500 pounds,due to their shorter lengths. Taxiways. Taxiways are constructed primarily to enable the movement of aircraft between the various functional areas on the Airport and the runway system. Some taxiways are necessary simply to provide access between aircraft parking aprons and runways,whereas other taxiways become necessary to provide more efficient and safer use of the airfield. As described earlier,the taxiway system at Buchanan Field Airport generally meets the required standards. Runway Protection Zones (RPZs). The function of the RPZ is to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground beyond the runway ends. This is achieved through airport control of the RPZ areas. The RPZ is trapezoidal in shape and centered about the extended runway centerline. It begins 200 feet beyond the end of the area usable for takeoff or landing. The RPZ dimensions are functions of the type of aircraft operating at the airport and the approach visibility minimums associated with each runway end. In consideration of the existing instrument approach minimums and the type of aircraft each runway is.designed to accommodate,the following table,entitled RUNWAY Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan C.25 PROTECITON ZONE DIMENSIONS,lists existing RPZ dimensional requirements,along with the requirements for improved approach capabilities. Table C11 RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE DIMENSIONS Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Width at Width at Airport Runway End Length Outer End Controls Item (feet) (feet) (feet) Entire RPZ Existing RPZ Dimensional Requirements: Runway 1L 1,000 1,700 1,510 Yes Runway 19R 1,000 2,500 1,750 T.B.D.i Runway 14L 500 1,000 700 Yes Runway 32R 500 1,700 1,010 Yes Runway 1R 250 1,000 450 Yes Runway 19L 250 1,000 450 Yes Runway 14R 250 1,000 450 Yes Runway 32L 250 1,000 450 Yes Required RPZ Dimensions for Various Visibility Minimums: Visual and not lower than one mile, Small Aircraft Only 250 1,000 450 --- Visual and not lower than one mile, Approach Categories A&B 500 1,000 700 --- Visual and not lower than one mile, Approach Categories C &D 500 1,700 1,010 --- Not lower than 3/4-mile,all aircraft 1,000 1,700 1,510 --- Lower than 3/4-mile,all aircraft 1,000 2,500 1,750 --- Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13,Air .pod Dedgn. I To Be Determined=requires detailed analysis of Buchanan Field Airport Exhibit"A"Airport Property Map. Electronic Landing Aids. Electronic landing aids,including instrument approach capabilities and associated equipment, airport lighting, and weather/airspace services, were detailed in the Inventory chapter of this document. The Airport is currently . equipped with an LDA,VOR and NDB or GPS instrument approaches to Runway 19R. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan C.26 Global Positioning System (GPS) approaches are emerging as the FAA's,new standard for instrument approach technology. With GPS,the cost of establishing improved instrument approaches should be significantly reduced. Because of the expected continued use of sophisticated business and corporate aircraft, as well as the trickledown of technology enhancements to smaller general aviation aircraft operating at Buchanan Field Airport,the ability to implement improved instrument approaches is analyzed in the next chapter. Visual Landing Aids (lights). Presently,three of the four runways at Buchanan Field Airport are equipped with runway lighting. Runway 1L/19R is equipped with High Intensity Runway Lights (HIRLs) and Runways 12L/32R and 19R/19L are equipped with Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIRLs): Runways 19R, 1L and 32R are equipped with Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI) lights.Finally,Runway 19R is equipped with Medium Intensity Approach Light System (MALS) and Runway 32R is equipped with Runway End Indicator Lights (RF-IL). Runway 14R/32L has no visual landing aids. In conjunction with the examination of improved instrument approaches described above, improved airport lighting will also need to be evaluated. The type of airport lighting will be dependent on the type of instrument approach capabilities and will be examined in the next chapter. Landside Facilities Landside facilities are those facilities that support the airside facilities,but are not actually part of the aircraft operating surfaces. These consist of such facilities as terminal buildings,aprons, access roads,hangars, and support facilities. "Following an analysis of these existing facilities,current deficiencies can be noted in terms of accommodating both existing and future needs. Aircraft Storage. Aircraft based at Buchanan Field Airport are stored in several types of hangar structures: FBO hangars,large corporate hangars,individual executive hangars (accommodating one or several aircraft),individual portable hangars (accommodating one or sometimes two small aircraft),T-hangars (accommodating one or sometimes two small aircraft) and shade hangars (accommodating one aircraft per stall). Currently,there are 5 FBO hangars, 178.T-hangars,42 portable-type hangars, 18 shade hangars,and 9 commercial/corporate hangars at the Airport. In addition,based aircraft at the Airport are stored outside on apron tie-downs (approximately 214 of the 497,or roughly 43% aircraft based at the Airport are stored on apron tie-downs). Aircraft Storage Needs. Over the course of the 20-year planning period,the number of based aircraft is forecast to increase to 660,indicating that an increase in storage facilities to accommodate approximately 163 new aircraft will be required. It is assumed that Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan C.27 future storage spaces will reflect some of the characteristics of current storage patterns, with the majority of the based aircraft fleet being.stored in hangars. Tiedown Storage Requirements/Based Aircraft. Aircraft tiedowns are provided for those aircraft that do not require, or do not desire to pay the cost for,hangar storage. Space calculations for these areas are based on 360 square yards of apron for each aircraft to be tied down. This amount of space allows for aircraft parking and circulation between the rows of parked aircraft. While the actual number varies,presently, approximately 214 based aircraft use the tiedown facilities at the-Airport. Past trends indicate that as more aircraft are based at the Airport,hangar storage capacity is surpassed before additional hangars are supplied. However,it would appear that an excess of dedown space exists at the Airport in an amount well sufficient to handle any likely lag in new hangar construction.Therefore,additional based aircraft tiedown space would generally not be indicated as,part of the development plan for this Master Planning effort. Tiedown Storage Requirements/Itinerant Aircraft. In addition to the needs of the based aircraft tiedown areas addressed in the preceding section,transient aircraft also require apron parking areas at Buchanan Field Airport. This storage is provided in the form of transient aircraft tiedown space. In calculating the area requirements for these tiedowns, an area of 400 square yards per aircraft is used. There are two reasons this area is larger than the area required for based aircraft. First,the users of the transient dedown spaces will not be as familiar with the layout and circulation patterns as based aircraft operators, and,additional maneuvering room is essential. Secondly,whereas typically smaller, single engine based aircraft use dedowns as storage, all types of transient aircraft use dedowns, . making it necessary to provide additional space for the larger aircraft. The development plan for the airport will designate adequate areas for apron development to satisfy this demand. Summary. The accompanying table shows the type of facilities and the number of units or.acres needed for that facility in order to meet the forecast demand for each development phase. The actual type of indoor storage facility to accommodate based aircraft has been identified as T-hangars (including portable hangars and shade hangars) and conventional hangars (corporate and executive). Conventional hangars,as defined by this Airport Master Plan,are individually owned hangars grouped together, either under one roof or separate free standing structures. It is also recognized that FBO hangars will continue to accommodate some of the aircraft storage demand (with a likely focus to include jet aircraft),although the actual number,size,and location of these large hangars will depend on user needs and financial feasibility. Therefore,the quantity of future FBO hangars has not been projected;however,potential development sites will be identified in the Airport Plans chapter of this document. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan C•28 The following table,entitled GENERAL AVIATION FACILITYRE�QUIREMENTS, depicts the area or number of required general aviation landside facilities during all stages of development. This will assist in the development of project construction phasing. Table C12 GENERAL AVIATION FACILITY REQUIREMENTS Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Facility Existing 2009 2014 2019 2024 Itinerant Apron 1.9 acres 12.31 acres 13.51 acres 14.61 acres 16.01 acres Based Aircraft Apron 25.7 acres 16.5 acres 16.0 acres 15.7 acres 15.5 acres Hangars T-hangars (no.) 238 294 326 359 390 No.Acres per units/bays 13.8 acres 17 acres 18.9 acres 20.8 acres 22.6 acres Source: Existing building survey and BD&C projections based on FAA AC 150/5300-13. I Inclusive of FBO Itinerant Apron needs. Support Facilities Requirements In addition to the aircraft storage facilities described above,there are several airport support facilities that have quantifiable requirements and that are vital to the efficient and safe operation of the Airport. Service Roads. An additional important consideration at Buchanan Field Airport is programming for the appropriate location of a service road system,which will accommodate the need for maintenance,emergency, and fueling vehicles to access all areas on airport property without the need to drive on public roads or the taxiway/runway surfaces. When additional hangars and other aviation use areas are developed on the southwest side.of the Airport,it is likely that a fuel truck service road may be appropriate to segregate aircraft and vehicular traffic to connect these facilities with other development areas on the Airport. A comprehensive perimeter/service road proposal is programmed as part of the development plan proposal in later chapters. Passenger Terminal Facilities. No proposal is currently being considered that would return scheduled commercial passenger service to Buchanan Field Airport,with no specific activity forecast for commercial passenger service,as stated in the Forecasts chapter presented in Working.Paper One. A generalized narrative of possible facilities Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan C•29 I and space reservation considerations will be included in the overall discussion of development alternatives to be presented in the following chapter of this Master Plan. Summa/ The information provided in this chapter provides the basis for understanding what facility improvements at the Airport might help in the effort to efficiently and safely accommodate future demands. Following are the major improvement considerations that are indicated in the Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements chapter. o. Airfield Configuration. Consideration should be given to simplifying the airfield by reducing or reconfiguring the number of runways,particularly secondary parallel runways 1R/19L and 14R/32L. The potential merits of this measure must be examined against overall airfield capacity implications,capital costs,and local airport user preferences. Merits may include: simplifying the airport layout,reducing airfield operating and maintenance expenses,increasing airport landside development opportunities,and reducing aircraft flight tracks. ® Primary Runway Orientation&Length. Consideration should be given to both the orientation and length of Runway 1L/19R. From an airport design perspective,a runway extension is appropriate to meet the operational needs of 75% of aircraft under 60,000 pounds operating at 60% of their useful load. A principal goal of this analysis should be to determine if re-orienting this runway will allow for functional additional length,and will such extension yield sufficient aircraft benefit that it merits the disruption of the primary runway's orientation and use patterns? Physical site limitations,airport obstructions,existing wind data,FAA design requirements and declared distance analysis,and off-airport land use considerations are representative examples of some of the benchmark issues that must be addressed. ® Instrument Approach Capabilities. Consideration should be given to an examination of potential benefits of enhanced instrument approach capabilities at Buchanan Field Airport. Currently,the Airport has three (3) published instrument approach procedures—all serving Runway 19R. Moreover,due to site constraints and surrounding terrain,a conventional Instrument Landing System (ILS) approach had been determined to be unsuitable for Buchanan Field Airport. A summary analysis will be undertaken to determine if newer technologies (e.g.,Global Positioning System(GPS) satellite-based navigation systems,etc.) achieve improved Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan C.30 instrument approach capabilities. Limitations to implementation include: surrounding airspace considerations,terrain,FAA design requirements and declared distance, airport obstructions,operational benefits,aircraft equipage,and environmental impacts. ® Hangar Development. Consideration should be given to the existing unmet demand for hangar development. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments Kegional Airport System Plan—General Aviation Element 2003, "an increasing number of aircraft owners want hangar,rather than open tiedown space because of the investment in their aircraft,as well as the cost of maintaining and operating the aircraft." In addition,the study cites that "current(Bay Area) general aviation airport capacity issues are generally not airfield related,but are concerned more about the availability and type of aircraft parking spaces,in particular,the shortage of hangar spaces for both small and larger corporate business aircraft." Indeed,it would seem that Buchanan Field Airport is a prime example of this situation. As reported by airport management,an extensive waiting list approaching 150 requests for hangar space exists,while at the same time,ample aircraft tiedown spaces exist with facilities outstripping demand. Characteristic of such waiting lists,the majority of aircraft desiring hangar space are smaller twin-engine and single engine aircraft. Conversely, turboprop and jet aircraft generally require greater space than is offered in a typical T-hangar; therefore,owners of such aircraft tend to make their space desires known to clear-span hangar operators such as Fixed Based Operators (FBOs). Construction is underway for 40,000 square feet of additional clear-span hangar space providing added facilities for larger aircraft,as described in the Forecasts chapter to meet the assumed present hangar needs for larger aircraft space. Therefore,it should be assumed that virtually all of the individuals on the current Buchanan Field Airport waiting list are interested in T-hangar type enclosed storage for their smaller aircraft. With a hangar waiting list,it is reasonable to assume that no less than one third would be willing to make a serious financial commitment to secure hangar space for their aircraft. Thus,the immediate development of approximately 50 T- hangar units would most likely be appropriate. Moreover, considering the pent-up demand within the Bay Area for hangar space, should the County let it be known that T-hangars are to be constructed at Buchanan Field Airport,it may be reasonable to contemplate that immediate demand could be much stronger yet. ® On-Airport Aircraft Rescue&Fire Fighting Station. Consideration should be given to the limits of the existing ARFF facilities at Buchanan Field Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan C.31 Airport. Currently,Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting(ARFF) facilities are located in a lean-to with the airport administrative offices and were originally intended to be temporary. The present site has no room for expansion and requires that the ARFF truck be staged frequently outside the building. Space for supplies, firefighting agents, and support equipment is remotely located and makes recommended stockpiling and equipment servicing difficult. Periodic maintenance and non-scheduled repairs are required to be completed without cover from the elements, for the most part. Further,while acceptable and within federal guidelines,the present ARFF facilities are not optimal for emergency response to aircraft incidents/accidents. The functionality and requirements of a new on- airport ARFF station are appropriate for consideration as a part of the alternative analysis for this master planning process. ® General Aviation Terminal Building. At present,there is no centralized terminal facility to meet the landside needs of transient general aviation (GA) aircraft,their operators,or passengers. While FBOs provide such things as aircraft dedowns,flight planning,and lobby space that is available to their transient and based customers,catering to the small general aviation customer may not be a focus of their business plan. Therefore,it would seem appropriate to consider the development of such a facility that would provide adequate transient parking and tiedowns,public greeting and lobby space,restrooms,vending/catering/restaurant facilities,meeting spaces,and other items of public convenience and necessity. It is appropriate that a comprehensive examination of best possible on-airport facilities include consideration of the need for a GA Terminal Building and that such examination should pit the benefits of such a facility against competing space planning needs to determine its merits and viability. o Area Plans. Additional areas will be needed to accommodate future general aviation storage facilities,along with aircraft maintenance and FBO facilities and generalized aviation-related facilities,which provide the County with the flexibility to include aviation enterprises yet undetermined,when the opportunities arise. This will likely include the recommendation to construct hangar and aviation-support facilities on the few remaining areas of the Airport that are undeveloped,as well as the consideration of the redevelopment of underutilized areas. Programming of the implementation of these various area development plans into the long-term development plan is a key component of the overall development recommendation of this airport Master Plan. As with many of the other Facility Requirements recommendations,a careful analysis of the potential Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan C.32 benefits of each area plan will need to be considered to ensure its appropriateness. It is important to note that the recommendations in this Master Plan are provided to best understand what facilities improvements might be needed at the Airport,and where those facilities might be best placed. In other words,the Master Plan provides recommendations on how various parcels of the Airport might be best developed,in consideration of potential demand and community/environmental influences. One of the basic assumptions for a master plan,for a complex facility like an airport is: if a future improvement is identified on the recommended development plan,it will only be built if there is actual demand;if the project is financially feasible; and,if environment impacts are insignificant. In addition,a recommended development plan for an airport must also be flexible and allow for adaptation as needs and circumstances arise. In summary,the facility needs information provided in this chapter is used to develop alternatives for the configuration of airport facilities in the future,and to help provide a basis for evaluation of the Master Plan alternatives and recommended development. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan C.33 Concepts, Alternatives, and Development Plan Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to present the development alternatives and,ultimately, development recommendations for Buchanan Field Airport,in terms of both its concept and reasoning. This chapter provides a description of the various factors and influences,which will form the basis for the airport's long-term development program. In consideration of the historic and predicted role of the Airport and stakeholder input received in the planning process,a number of basic assumptions have been established to direct the development of the Airport in the future. Assumption One. The Airport will be developed and operated in a manner that is consistent with Contra Costa County policies,ordinances and codes, federal and state statutes, federal grant assurances and Federal Aviation Administration regulations. Assumption Two. The second assumption recognizes the role of the Airport. The Airport will continue to serve as a public transportation facility that accommodates a wide cross section of general aviation aircraft,inclusive of corporate business jets,with potential for the resumption of regional commercial air service,if appropriate and viable. Assumption Three. This assumption relates the size and type of aircraft that utilize the Airport to setback and safety criteria used as the basis for the layout of airport facilities. The runway and taxiway system-at the Airport is designed to accommodate different aircraft types,along with differing approach minimums. Specifically,the runway related assumptions are: Runmay IL/19K This runway's existing and future Airport Reference Code (ARC)is B-11I (the majority of the general aviation fleet including many small to medium sized business jet aircraft). The non-precision instrument approaches to Runway 19R will be maintained in addition to circle-to-land to other runway ends,as appropriate. Future approaches may include advanced satellite-based navigation systems that may provide additional capability. However,this capability must be measured against Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final ReporVSeptember 2008 Master Plan D.1 possible increases in the Runway Safety Area (RSA),Runway Object Free Area (ROFA),and runway to taxiway separation requirements that may offset potential operational benefits. Runway 14L/32R This runway's existing Airport Reference Code is B-III (the majority of the general aviation fleet including many small to medium sized business jet aircraft). The future ARC for this runway may remain at B-III,but will also be examined at a lesser ARC to evaluate possible landside development opportunities. This runway currently has,and is programmed for, only visual capabilities. Runway 1R/19L and Runway 14RI32L The existing and future Airport Reference Code for these two runways is ARC B-I—Small Aircraft Only. These runways regularly accommodate only that portion of the general aviation aircraft fleet weighing less than 12,500 lbs. These runways are visual approach facilities. Assumption Four. The fourth assumption focuses on the need to accommodate the forecast operations of all aviation types, as expressed in Annual Service Volume estimates (the estimated number of annual aircraft operations that can be accommodated without unreasonable delay). Although the number of runways serving the Airport will not be increased, this analysis indicates that the airport's system of taxiways and approaches should be programmed to maximize the ability to efficiently use the existing runway layout. Assumption Five. Because landside development area at the Airport is at a premium,the sixth assumption is that the future airport development plan should strive to make most efficient use of the available area for aviation related activities. Assumption Six. The physical development plan for the Airport that is identified in this Master Plan will be used as the future development conditions for the initiation of the companion FAR Part 150 Noise Study. Assumption Seven. The preservation of the existing airport noise ordinance is considered a given for the Master Plan Update and the FAR Part 150 Study. Assumption Eight. The eighth assumption focuses on the relationship of the Airport to off-airport land uses and fostering the complementary development of each. Maximizing compatibility is inherent in these design considerations, and,facility placement,to the extent practical,will respect this assumption. It is further important to recognize that maximizing compatibility can be viewed differently between stakeholder groups and development inconsistencies can be present as viewed from differing perspectives. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan D.2 Perceived inconsistencies noted presently center around two specific operational concerns,which have been voiced by some stakeholders. These concerns are related to the amount and location of touch-and-go training activity and compatibility concerns regarding the operation of business jets at the Airport: While many such operational matters cannot be addressed in the context of the physical development plan for the Airport (i.e.,the Airport Master Plan),they can be taken up in,and are more appropriate for consideration in,the development of the companion FAR Part 150 Study,which should commence in Spring 2006. That being said,it is also important to recognize that the FAA establishes the parameters for aircraft use and operation whereby limiting an Airport Sponsor's ability to impose use restrictions. An Airport Sponsor cannot dictate the manner in which an aircraft is operated and is generally prohibited from developing use restrictions,based on noise concerns unilaterally. Goals for Development Accompanying these assumptions are several goals that have been established for purposes of directing the plan and establishing continuity in the future for airport development. These goals take into account several categorical considerations relating to the needs of the Airport both in the short-term and the long-term,including safety, capital improvements,land usecompatibility, financial and economic conditions,public interest and investment,and community recognition and awareness. The following goals are intended to guide the preparation of this Master Plan and future development at Buchanan Field Airport: o Provide effective direction for the future development of the Airport through the preparation of a rational,implementable plan. Contra Costa County is committed to the development of a safe and high quality airport. High quality is defined as facilitating development to effectively meet aviation needs,balanced with broader regional interests. All future development concepts will consider the surrounding community,plus, environmental and aesthetic issues. To the degree possible,the Airport Master Plan will be developed to best address the needs and concerns of the broader community. The instrument approach capabilities associated with Runway 19R should be maximized and the potential for improved instrument approach capabilities for other runways will be fully examined. Enhance the self-sustaining capability of the Airport and ensure the financial feasibility of airport development. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan D,3 a Accommodate forecast aircraft operations in a safe and efficient manner by the provision of proper facilities and services. a If possible, the plan should reduce the complexity of the airside layout. With four runways and the associated system of taxiways,the airside layout at the Airport is very complex. This leads to potential confusion for aircraft operators and, because of the sheet quantity of pavement, significant maintenance expenses for the County. - To decrease the potential for conflicts (i.e.,incursions) between aircraft and automobiles, cross airport ground vehicle access should be improved. The first priority for the improved access is for the benefit airport maintenance personnel and fueling vehicles;however,improved public access will also be examined. Facilitate landside development at Buchanan Field Airport. This includes planning for the best use of the airport's undeveloped areas and planning for the redevelopment of several areas on the Airport. • Plan and develop the Airport to be environmentally compatible with the community and minirmi e environmental impacts on both airport property and property adjacent to the Airport. • Plan and develop the Airport to be capable of accommodating the'future needs and requirements of Contra Costa County and surrounding communities, thus continuing to serve as a regional aviation facility,which plays a major role in supporting regional economic development. Maintain the diversity of land uses and revenue generators to maximize airport self-sufficiency to support operating costs and capital development programs. Maintain flexibility to facilitate both aviation and non-aviation uses to account for changing market conditions. Airfield Development Components, Options, and Recommendations Introduction The forecast operations and the above aviation development and economic enhancement goals were considered in the creation of airfield development options. These generalized alternatives are outlined and discussed in the following narrative. Following a review of the airside development options,which fulfill major facility requirements (basic runway and taxiway configuration),recommendation's for landside development are presented. this chapter concludes with the presentation of a generalized conceptual airport development plan,which will include recommendations for major runway and taxiway improvements,along with an on-airport land use plan. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final ReporttSeptember 2008 Master Plan DA Details related to the exact alignment and configuration of the runway/taxiway system and the layout of landside development areas will be presented in Chapter F, entitled Airport Plans. Because all airport functions relate to and revolve around the basic runway layout, runway development options must first be carefully examined and evaluated. Specific considerations include the number of runways,runway length, as well as runway orientation and approach protection criteria needed to support forecast use through the planning period. The option analysis has been prepared to provide the Airport with a comprehensive method to analyze several critical factors that can be used in the identification of a preferred long-term development concept for the Airport. Factors Considered A listing of the factors identified as important in the analysis of the runway development options follows. These factors are specific to the planning effort for Buchanan Field Airport and were developed as a result of discussions/comments from the Steering Committee members,the public and County Staff,in addition to consideration of the forecast of aviation activity. Explanations are provided where necessary. 0 Capital Improvement Expenditure. In general terms,it is recognized that,as the size-of the capital expenditure increases, the practicality of the implementation decreases. It should also be noted that,within reasonable limits,this may be offset by the benefits provided by a given option. 0 Crosswind Coverage. As presented in previous chapters,when landing and taking off,aircraft are able to properly operate on a runway as long as the wind component perpendicular to the direction of travel (defined as a crosswind) is not excessive. The desirable wind coverage for an airport is ninety-five percent (95%). Because small aircraft are the most affected by winds,they are the most critical component of the aircraft fleet. The percentage of coverage for the 10.5- knot crosswind component (which by FAA standards is applied to the aircraft) is provided for each alternative. o . Airfield Capacity. The ability for an airport to accommodate a certain number of aircraft operations (landings and takeoffs) is primarily achieved by the provision of parallel runways and the separation of those runways (the distance between the.runway centerlines). For long-term planning purposes,using ATCT guidance plus the capacity methodology provided in the FAA's Airport Capacity and Delay Advisory Circular,an airport with parallel runways that can be used simultaneously during VFR conditions has a theoretical capacity of approximately 355,000 annual operations. 0 Reduces the Complexity of the Airfield Layout. Buchanan Field Airport . Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan D.5 o Aviation-Use Development Area Is Increased. Buchanan Field Airport has little raw land available for new aviation-use development. Several of the airside options identify strategies to increase the amount of land available for aviation- use development. ® Effect on Existing Aviation-Use Area. As stated above,the Airport has a limited amount of development area for aviation-use facilities. If currently developed land is lost as a result of the implementation of one of the airside development options, significant negative impacts will be incurred by the affected tenants and by the County (lost lease revenues). ® Effect on Existing Non-Aviation Use Area. As with aviation-use areas,the loss of non-aviation use area is significant for tenants and the County. o Runway Length. Per the analysis in the previous chapter,the primary runways should be a minimum of 4,600 feet in length and the ability to accommodate the existing and future aircraft fleet would be enhanced if they were increased to 5,500 feet in length. Secondary runways that serve only small aircraft Hess than 10 seats and under 12,500 pounds) should be between 2,520 and 3,650 feet in length. o Requirement for Additional Land Acquisition. o Instrument Approach Capabilities are Potentially Improved. Although the ultimate plan will be based on improved instrument approach capabilities to the extent possible,each airside option is reviewed with regard to its specific characteristics,which might lead to better approach minimums. o Maintain the airport's ability to accommodate all sizes of general aviation aircraft currently using the Airport,including maintaining two runways that are designed to regularly accommodate business jets. Airside Option One— Maintain the Existing Runway Configuration As illustrated in the following figure,entitled AIRSIDE OPTION ONE—MAINTAIN THE EXISTING RUNWAYSYSTEM,this Option involves maintaining the airport's basic layout of runways. ® The main (Primary Parallel)-runway at Buchanan Field Airport is Runway 1L/19R. It is 5,001 feet in length and 150 feet in width,but Runway 19R has a displaced threshold of 600 feet. Runway Declared Distances are employed on each end of Runway 1L/19R. The existing runway length and width for 1L/19R-,vill be maintained. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan D.6 The primary crosswind runway,Runway 14L/32R,is 4,602 feet in length and 150 feet in width,but the Runway 14L threshold is displaced by 300 feet and the Runway 32R threshold is displaced by 350 feet. Runway Declared Distances are employed on each end of Runway 14L/32R. The existing runway length and width for 14L/32R will be maintained. The secondary parallel runway,Runway 1R/19L,is 2,770 feet in length and 75 feet in width. The existing runway length and width for 1R/19L will be maintained. The secondary crosswind runway,Runway 14R/32L,is 2,799 feet in length and 75 feet in width. The existing runway length and width for 14R/32L will be maintained. Miscellaneous taxiway improvements and reconfigurations may be appropriate to comply with FAA's design criteria for all airfield pavements. From a runway development standpoint, Option One represents a do-nothing alternative. Option One Planning Considerations e Minimizes new construction and capital improvement expenses. e The existing runway alignments (providing 1/19 and 14/32 runway orientations) provide 10.5-knot crosswind coverage 96.52% of the time. a An airport with parallel runways that can accommodate simultaneous operations during Visual Flight Rules (VFR)weather conditions provides an Annual Service Volume Capacity of approximately 355,000 annual operations,according to FAA estimates utilized for long-term planning. e This Option does not reduce the complexity of the airfield layout. e Option One does not provide additional land for aviation use development. e All land currently utilized for aviation use is maintained. e All land currently utilized for non-aviation use is maintained. e Existing runway lengths are maintained. e There is no known additional land acquisition requirement identified with this Option. e Instrument Approach Capabilities. Existing instrument approach capabilities are not changed as a result of this Option. However, emerging satellite-based navigation technology may allow for improved instrument approach capabilities without altering physical aspects of the Airport or the surrounding area. This will be investigated in a more detailed manner as it applies to the recommended development plan. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan D•7 G Does not provide for improved cross airport access. o Can accommodate all sizes of general aviation aircraft on the primary parallel (main runway) and primary crosswind runway. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan D•8 � � `.„e. rg S i- _„�"-,• Ay,_. ` �� 5A.y.�'-^'.�'t.i'_''.,� �1 .+i✓'.�'_•`9_�'�'i r �f� c � r...•`•„r,��r^ .{� /• _""--r+---�i� � K '��-•.)�' _ tl)t- ��,rs''4�',y ri�'s�i��,. ,, �jrr r\i�,... �Y �'� ��-�,t 1yr"`r.—•�- -t..�'»��-`r-s,��''p as�!'1�'4f 1.. _ � ✓�f, .� �. a i �}rf�.� ra,•d , 'F�". t'�'" �l �v�"vn�'` - `ti tr 7 Pr, 4rCp Px a B r" Sri. Ii u# vim^ HHS\ _ ti�v y ::j. f•i m t,rN` �� N1fidM�`htl O _ ��',il5da'.�'i\r r�' t}' tf• � +r� acv 4,,�'lw�•� ^4( .�' - LT m 4 kit"f.�e,�ly .•�r � ,s.>, � .,. ��r\�L �\ +t _`= �� ]9'F�''j.��•;�t�� 0 f 1 ri?f}S! ("fs�,I T1 i ,r �' � r�i� � _ -,�L.�y!{�.`)�tT* � ?rµ l /�• � y'p�.1/' •'� ��. 4'r l.'i'1�t 'i - a� ��A �5\ 4 �`� .�. � �.\�\ �T��g'h/i�„0'�Y��.V4 Oxon; v, y' THIN >�� T,}r �`�r?�Iw1 F k' p ,d� i s�� 4,.�h, r '�.+r. i�s,vti�+4'c'4/r•7 �- ��0 8 Y,�r;i c'''S'3.e�.� y1i•. -f r 1!� �� ,'S. �� sJ,��.y a 4+..- �� i a X5+1 ?r•M'.�r I ,;>Ff( 1 � !i K'• yc tG 1 ' ll r.:�� \�t`�g m z� $ �13ne9►�-t�`.�"),:p _ f =ct •,r � ' '�>n i a. ;1 �:. ,� ,I. , �,S �� ,4 a Irm �.�•r. t�31 r l ,; '+' =�Es t�Ml r•� �'l NSA A\ t4,F \ g via 1 W9 [-'30N3�tlNtltl�• r t [ q }, _ _ �/mac , W920 F ZT fu 1lWIN !J 't t-, �• ,iy�S�• F _ �� anN'it`{� �� tti y0�4�1Br.' �t x, � ' }� A -0 .� - +.. n1tL �a"k"� 1 _1 N�� k r_ _ •�f� � `1A*�� ar4'=„ti,' ,,,y t- y }' �? ��";,xy�+`:i (' �'y)- 4 94 -rMN+s n\�. \r 1: .r 1e �3��y ��.a rak\a� � `I� �fi 1 ..,i � �"•at �t,F�' cY^ /3J�� .�i ;acy i ��. t•. :�_ a Soy t �$ 'i. �ti 'w - _ -� , a may). �, t -- v ryr �dt t 3+ ass 4p}rirly6°Stbl y 1ya , v ��uriy" `� 4 \ �tF �y. �; ' 4 r/ Z' � Y � � � u' y�Ss9� �,is�� R�� `�.s4`4� e �`•;t� "^ �4 3� '�� t's.,r I � f✓ 2F�Q, "�r,� �\\ R�� r r'�"r �!,1 r �r 3�'�` r• U �` �' S pJ f n t d� r'"� i , ♦. Ix "IAS stn a �.j'r''�re,. � sE` ' ° s"q,CF'''A 1 i`1. t r ;Y s� � ✓ }� P. S�\� I c:..'`�5,�1-� � �5 si.Rjw t, ri i r v .....,,.�1 ��.'f ylsl i'f�`� j-'� ��j,'tl "V" ..��...__ __1'_.ti:�_r_�41.z'•:_.Ly .`5 �,�L�os'._.. ._,�:+s..�ti..y��.. 7 x' ..�'+._r.�.Fs�.a... 3�..a�.:,"�.`vim..r_._ Airside Option Two— Minimize Crosswind Runway Influences As illustrated in the following figure;entitled AIRSIDE OPTION TWO—MINIMIZE CROSSWIND RUNWAY INFLUENCES, this Option involves: © Closing the secondary crosswind runway (Runway 14R/32L). o Reducing the Airport Reference Code for Runway 14L/32R from B-III (programmed for regular use by most general aviation aircraft including many business jets) to ARC B-I small aircraft only(programmed for regular use by aircraft under 12,500 pounds,which includes most single and twin-engine piston general aviation aircraft). Option Two Planning Considerations ® Minimizes future capital expenditure for construction and maintenance of airfield pavements;although,there will be expense related to the reconfigured areas. In addition,some pavement will be removed if this Option is implemented. e The maintenance of two runway alignments (providing 1/19 and 14/32 orientations) will continue to provide 10.5-knot crosswind coverage 96.52% of the time. o Parallel runways are maintained that provide the ability to accommodate simultaneous operations during Visual Flight Rules weather conditions;therefore,the airport's estimated Annual Service Volume Capacity is unchanged. It is recognized,however, that during infrequent times when there are exceptionally strong wind conditions that favor Runway 14/32,some operational capacity is lost. It is also recognized that the number of runways at the Airport that are designed to -accommodate larger general aviation aircraft on a regular basis is reduced with this Option. From a technical analysis standpoint,this is not seen as a significant influence in determining the capacity of the Airport. ® This Option reduces the complexity of the airfield layout for both airborne and ground users. o Option Two provides additional land for aviation use development: approximately 16.8 acres east of Runway 14L/32R(the primary crosswind runway- downgraded),32 acres west of Runway 14R/32L(the secondary crosswind runway-closed), and approximately 8 acres east of Runway 14R./32L (the secondary crosswind runway- closed). a All land currently utilized for aviation use is maintained. e All land currently utilized for non-aviation use is maintained. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan D.10 o With the exception of Runway 14R/32L,which is closed,the existing runway lengths are maintained. • There is no known additional land acquisition requirement identified with this Option. • Instrument Approach Capabilities. Existing instrument approach capabilities are not changed as a result of this Option. (See additional language in Option One.) • Reduces the ability to regularly accommodate all sizes of general aviation aircraft on the primary crosswind runway. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan D.11 F/tcr f � '�,„�, >w r7 -�-.`•�l�'r tJ•tr*�\�q�� -�t'P¢/'��5.6;/f'�ut'�,�,�D(_1;� �t[7.1 yy� $d* \ .rdF Hr� r o ;\ a i� ,+Jj�t ds t �(.,i''N S "�� \ F,�A� 5-'�'� 'Y, y�►� � \ G��\ ,; C`'� v b.o 4i ' .'-'tS [l� „�i �'`'• f \ a 1's� ,. �1! 'F' \ v`SJt Oi. '”[ ,6 <tc' 7 c 8. 'Y �y'�♦ r t Spy ./'- GC}�a-4- _,,yl�n O s: "c Jai\ .11M r �` }rI. ,� � r 0 r /.r+y � � kF •slm �}m Fk�� r j a•j �r � �, — _ _ °}h I �,r�� Y.QQ�V}lTf 17 f tr� L.I J(pc�'` Yf I, i �.�,ss -_ ;F. r /f l�t""�•-f 3� �S;•� Ilk �4 t�ff! — L I4 K �� L•Y"." IAS s fi A'o,,ss�� 7 1 . �P ('�• ^4, t_ t µ J r��`- � i > i I.j F* �9 r 4� J •�i� � t �Y � I�� , � •45fy.'$�pa ,f. 1< .c• •..i„ - rri�.. d •� f� J�ic>�'Ari'�hi ��.t� /� •✓S \.\�� s;�. Q •�'v / /':c•z"y7— tjr�,',�J��.1�' `Ate° �t; � � �: 9.L +a-�t Y s: nir� .�� `�r ✓ ,g '`� I .`is �1�' �� i o i Y Ll j� F I� � �v 1 t�' 11. - •1:�f k�\\ W ��\ Y,sib"' - : t �•� c � .� r*y�-'� - ` f I �� MOM t t XF RX CD 41 mv— IR i7 , ,� cam. s 4 �v` �� i _ ! \_ _ q„ \\ � ,.��„�.r �• M 3- �- _! m i��f Sy�J - � m �� ) -- �� '�' .. - a � (\ONN;_- pdsi'r"�'(q.��tv.y4..' h,.'S � _77r •7: ..ts� � ��ri. Q a O � 1 may, ,^- - s 9 �„i ay } y1, <"".� /•s s/�,,.�..�3�y � 1 � 2 Airside Option Three—Close the Secondary North/South Parallel Runway As illustrated in the following figure, entitled AIRSIDE OPTION THREE-CLOSE THE SECONDARY NORTHISO UTH PARALLEL RUNWAY,this Option involves: ® Closing Runway 1R/19L. Option Three Planning Con sideration r c Minimizes future capital expenditure for construction and maintenance of airfield pavements;although,there will be expense related to the reconfigured areas. In addition, some pavement will be removed if this Option is implemented. o The maintenance of two runway alignments (providing 1/19 and 14/32 orientations) will continue to provide 10.5-knot crosswind coverage 96.52% of the time. ® From a purely technical perspective,because parallel runways are maintained, the airport's estimated Annual Service Volume Capacity remains unchanged. It is recognized that by closing the parallel runway associated with the primary runway,the capacity of the Airport to accommodate aircraft operations will,in reality,be reduced. ® This Option reduces the complexity of the airfield layout for both airborne and ground users. ® Option Three provides additional land for aviation use development: approximately 11 acres located on the east side of Runway 1L/19R. It should,however,be noted that the additional land for development associated with this Option will be difficult to utilize given the existing building configuration on the east side of the Airport and would likely require the redevelopment of this area to take full advantage of the additional acreage offered by this Option. ® All land currently utilized for aviation use is maintained. ® All land currently utilized for non-aviation use is maintained. ® With the exception of Runway 1R/19L,which is closed,the existing runway lengths are maintained. ® There is no known potential land acquisition requirement identified with this Option. e Instrument Approach Capabilities. Existing instrument approach capabilities are not changed as a result of this Option. (See additional language in Option One.) ® Maintains the ability to regularly accommodate all sizes of general aviation aircraft on the primary parallel(main runway) and crosswind runways. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan D.13 '- V. L'r �i" '�h 1jY,�,srr�.T� "+•(J 3�t i\\"f@F'7i.r1"C*l { ` p <t H s a i !Rs a; +' cf'Tv. v {• �. 1 t � e� :A+ SC '�r, lhf t•cN��. `4�� R ani l•y �' t,� -�, � �L\ � '' .y SY � J��it g'f` \`F,v'i d7"'yy" fa7 O r v.. ` ? h'•"^, c IG s': Pt. a . 1, ` l X015 . 1r .ri \t� oar s� •N ryV .61 °` �// 't ? SIIi �' '�,�a��a•, `+,n� dr•��„� n,�0yo r,a ,�6� � �a ly r 'II:., J 7 ��1 � ! •,� ,� r}S"'a"+a o- a+ +',g 'i.�4�L-. � �.�1� 't s f. 7 tom'""rr ril 1 /�J >:3 7 J ri f1 !� In R� ��5'��x'` �f�`y� 61V �.YQ. tl, �Oyy ..;`i,ioa�w,. �`.?S'b 1(•�If yt-� ef76•.'fxy", if " u. 0� \•rN ,�+'..' �' It _ — tj� i if zllt tN j 11x4 w1x�QL v r `.,p'�t�'xfiTER VENO�d 1`".'i VIN 4�6' � r� 1�f.�,I t+~4,\ .=: �.« _11,; ��'�'>,, � IL-'- �tk�fT?]fiA�}7Is1j•.4, a r i fI t+'St�x, �/� •,••� ,?,�� e"k u /,�` 6 ��4�f 1�;d' 1 o ua, . Z.�� .l• -.J / ru It'C J I d 1.},"1 �jl`r }� �'rIJ J'. / '�' u �.' .ct- / .'.{/.�, 14•INJ�'`YPJ�r''�. ,r.+ r 'Y o 1 4d r�s a :• + P - ° d �fB x r _ � J,�r 1i�I'✓ �,t a s �:t��e �`��+z3 z..ml Axa' �� -2� - <y ;n�fr t� il:�'. o'��y�J .l1�•�,J- }, g J 'm ii"rr^'�t� T"��it11 (•°� �\ � +tt'. fst� $��..•-•�'Y" � 'r�)• Ii��-�..�J �'ei`I':� p s � wo ��1�FFJ. o�Rd'i�ax ,Ax Ft�Wae,Al,r 2 r+5 .� ��Ri v4�"�`:�'•�y.•,� �( `"»T.,,�a� r �,f' Ci� 6 �'�.�3 is�t __ I� �' .J,yj f�r � i w `��7�Yri�v��y�, i� '� >6� �r i � • - i ti �,�S.c+ r. �r1 x- y •.,y� 1. i/•. W'"r4#'S �' e V.: 1 't 1 �1. c 1 Id .1111% } / r.�7 7' .: y h`.y 1z�.x, K /`".i" �1 �•C t �. f {Y$ J- ry„ .\+,'s` +�.• co Cc NEW F, f+�' �t>r_. Oar` X6G11 !3�` It )� _ _ L4J 17 m 1trV f3)� r � `�j1 0�x�.s,.��f * •9�.rr s- "f -"`•�, "t \�Y��'t \.:� is r V d j "`l' T� �+�� _ t,.tea"i1,�r_�ifn AS Airside Option Four—Improve Parallel Runway System As illustrated in the following figure, entitled AIRSIDE OP77ONFOUR—IMPROVE PARALLEL RUNTFAYSYSTEM,this Option involves: o Moving Runway 1R/19L to the east to provide the FAA's standard separation between runways that operate simultaneously during visual flight conditions and accommodate all aircraft(as mentioned previously,the 500-foot separation that exists today is only appropriate for simultaneous operations of singe and twin- engine propeller driven aircraft). The centerline to centerline separation standard for simultaneous VFR operations for all aircraft types is 700 feet. o Closing both crosswind runways. ® Extending Runway 1L/19R(the primary runway) approximately 515 feet to the south. This is the maximum that the runway can be extended and still provide proper Part 77 approach slope clearances over Concord Avenue. Option Four Planning Considerations o The expense of constructing a new parallel runway and extending the primary runway will be considerable,even without factoring the logistical issues and short-term disruption caused by this Option. This Option will also involve expenses related to remarking and relighting areas to properly denote the reconfiguration. In addition,the pavements associated with the closed crosswind runways will be removed if this Option is implemented. • Because both Runway 14R/32L and Runway 14L/32R are closed in this Option,the 10.5-knot crosswind coverage is reduced to 93.59%,which is below the FAA recommendation of 95%. ® Because this Option provides adequate separation for the simultaneous operation of all aircraft types during Visual Flight Rules conditions,the theoretical capacity of the. Airport should be increased over existing conditions. ® This Option reduces the complexity of the airfield layout for both airborne and ground users. o Option Four provides additional land for aviation use development(approximately 75 additional acres)located on the east and west sides of the Airport. All currently utilized aviation use areas will remain in this Option. However,by moving the parallel runway to the east,the use of the east side transient aircraft parking apron in front of the Fixed Based Operators (FBOs)will be restricted and likely require reconfiguration. At least in the short-term,this will have a negative impact on affected tenants and on County lease revenues. Buchanan Field Airport' Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan D.15 0 With the closure of the crosswind runways and reconfiguration of the airfield, the number of existing development areas on the Airport is reduced,but new development areas are created that are much larger and more fully usable. Consequently,a portion of the"Delta Area" (East Development Area) could become aviation use,which would reduce the existing non-aviation use of airport property. At the same time,this reconfiguration would lend itself to the possible development of additional community-oriented non-aviation facilities such as a community or conference center. e With the extension of Runway 1L/19R and the associated extension of the taxiways and runway safety areas, the golf course on the south end of the runway will be closed. o Runway 1L/19R Will be extended to the south approximately 515 feet. This is a positive aviation consideration;however,it should also be noted that the primary runway currently has a 600.-foot displaced threshold on its north end. This displacement is in place as a"declared distances"safety factor to compensate for the lack of 600 feet of dear, flat graded area between the end of runway pavement and edge of the Walnut Creek Channel. Before funding a runway extension, although the Declared Distances compensation (as more fully described in the Ca padty and Facility Requirements chapter)meets all federally required safety standards,it is FAA policy that safety area limitations causing the use of Declared Distances be remediated. This would likely result in a runway length reduction of approximately 600 feet on the north end of the runway. This policy requirement serves to negate the 515-foot extension on the south and may well result in a net decrease in runway length of approximately 85 feet and reduce the effective length of Runway 1L/19R to approximately 4,915 feet. a The only potential land acquisition identified with this Option is associated with the Runway 1L relocated Runway Protection Zone(RPZ), as a result of the extension of Runway 1L 515 feet to the south. e Instrument Approach Capabilities. Existing instrument approach capabilities are not changed as a result of this Option. (See additional language in Option One.) e Reduces the ability to regularly accommodate all sizes of general aviation aircraft due to elimination of the crosswind runways and thereby reduces the crosswind coverage for small aircraft,as mentioned above. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan D.16 r3�71 1�� /ti ��+r y �i 1 r' yl 1 •r>,�a �a E� �c�,+�`��''f JFe t , -� 1� d � .t e�' .�„'� t` �Ot � �� bq If" '•S [ t"'t i y t t� 1 1 yyY n` f��'� 'zL >y' r -`iL C`'- 5 L' O at �` •� 1 � r, '� t 3 r..� ��c '` ��'�o j o cf'�'r^'�r isv rf t� �i �ry i��L� '{� � '�y�pj{1j(r j .l I•'AA3`t'b�J'15y$ �• ° a a a r.�` 1 !�',�~7�' .��t�.! l o�t f r��- �t >}d �d' t 1 \�k�� z o•��h0\F� \ -o �j I L.L��t ./1� p, rRRpp'F.. ��t''a° 'x•''�-� 't��'ieoh .am� L �_ o -� _ k ,-� 1.4 111JJ//f JI�'f/'J i .i 1 t;Sx ..t'� J{•.9\: rlj.�' S'`rj1SF�,1.•J;� - t zt �,� '1�.�p `+-...Y-f 'i,ti`�� Elt� s7 Y ' " - <, ��% _ —1 ``��}} �� i,\t 1•I �kg•�6��'')��+,�,�"�3 j'r ~ l¢ art{r' f t �.n �i t.�y { — [�jc �i ..� _•,/' ..,.� ,;;n�J'Fi ;' l �� `{�`\•�' ;[�� a ��+M,V' 4 ,.j� •o�, �- �_, C;4..n/%R E`t'.�� L't_"J'.�1`��.li.,.` 3 1 � 1p.�..-� .,a✓r s+jf'�.t, ,G•�/ _ r � �V ,k r'e� t � U �E�UES iM �z<�RN�1>, 1 %�� 1`,,1i. 6( r� g1 k.� Ir� •_-S!� .tom ,�r _f'r+(f'iti✓�A 1J• eaxrl� � rr �$� O :,�•c�,�."'�. �i�J tu�1,��'}i tti'1,�3 0�' I "J M1-J\S v,�,' ,6y [�ti� E" r .``c,}J�.. {+S li (J it•51 0 3 0 ,_. fyNJ°s'� c >,t�tir•(y a�.�l( t��:iff X� �• d,��'.•7[�+ - t�-�C _,[�t�{� .Y� $ 5�a ! \ t i't�1, r �* .y�Q' :``•t^• _fit:— r{, ,1 AT � m + 1_Y�wr� r�^ ^�0 ` i sjEDR1�fT aJ i 3 c rY li [ 'a r •, a f� g1�,jj j'f�,i��,q,{� N i, x ' Oj }4 `�� _- [i V `'-•, t r 1F:t t•r[ ^S,JtJ.)'%,i•'s-), w R .`. 1 'J �N�L'[q Y+;\��M �a�,r;\;. r,+..�r �'� ui�r, �j� _ Il��j-�"� � 'Y� lA � o� �� •� f ^i ` x y y.t '' ,�c, +$ i _17y�f �.�r.[r[lrn�►.►y�� W�, '. ` Li t�\ �.'. i .1 [ _. `1 'il •, Q — IW.M1/y�ft,%'� t�•Y=> 1'F• 1 . ' .j1`;O �y : i.. _- $ �i rl r 4 ♦ \ T.al \ J�`1 i ry i y�1f ,, ,d ROM".. II �ie"�f[Tv .f�6t+1r.�). `` `-P_t y .'�l'`iRit !•� Y \'S �� 111 �Ji� � f�J! IN y"j e yah I� I j_ �'�,ss"C y'��'• �l'd'��2'G�tr'kv�Y`_ .�'� t _ _ __ tii� .1�1��[,��J. �y y,� 1 '., i � t NL EPA- Ail � s O t E ; m �ey 1 1 t m f `J'� ��r� y�P� ''7•�`�z ��a <.��t�- JYr\8 "a I s,��at t tTl.� '\`\J \•'� O s � e" v ti� t. _ i # L— z'v,' QpRp,YIP' `'d..•- \t.- [ l; t}��,.y yii d/�\Y.J,ff�,1f t .;r r4 ,� ig e my i p r�Ai,� NMU)a ,•-...sr '�^'f�f �-' Ff ��. a32 a� Hyl S ; Q u m .!� 1 � �,y _ lob s�'�1'�' ' 4�5�fi ' " •� ), 4 '' J I }* .;"*�r�t 3 �1A`.? v ~ (j 0�ri�1��°`4�,.,%�''"`w„t' � _ ��t'4�t`I'� 'G t '...-�x �-»..�„� -( ��[[t ia,.•Ff,,•?'�'`rf'. it� _ (.. II..s_ M Airside Option Five—Improve the Orientation and Lengthen Primary Runway As illustrated in the following figure,entitled AIRSIDE OPTION FIVE—IMPROVE THE ORIENTATIONOFANDLENGTHEN PRIMARYRUNWAY,this Option involves: ® Moving the north end of Runway 1L/19R to the west and the south end of the runway to the east provides a more north/south alignment and would re-orient the primary runway to an approximate 18/36 configuration. Its primary benefit is to maximize the main runway length in full compliance with FAA design criteria and would produce a new runway approximately 5,600 feet in length. ® Closing Runway 1R/19L. Option Five Planning Considerations ® The expense of constructing a new main runway,along with the associated taxiway system will be considerable. Short-term logistical issues and service disruption caused by this Option will be highly significant. This Option will also involve expenses related to remarking and relighting areas to properly denote the reconfiguration. In addition,the pavements associated with existing Runway 1L/19R and Runway 1R/19R will be removed if this Option is implemented. o The maintenance of two runway alignments (providing 18/36 and 14/32 orientations) will continue to provide 10.5-knot crosswind coverage in excess of 95%. ® From a purely technical perspective,because parallel runways are maintained,the airport's estimated Annual Service Volume Capacity remains.the same. However,it is also recognized that by closing the parallel secondary runway associated with the main or primary runway,the capacity of the Airport to accommodate aircraft operations will,in reality,be reduced. Therefore,it is theoretically more negatively significant than the closure of the parallel crosswind runway system described in Option Four. o This Option reduces the complexity of the airfield layout for both airborne and ground users. a Option Five does not provide additional land for aviation use development and reduces flexibility of west side development potential. By re-orienting the main runway to a roughly 18/36 alignment,approximately 54 acres of total aviation use development are available,a loss of approximately 22.8 acres over the present 1L/19R configuration. Because this loss involves land that is currently developed for aviation uses,the negative impact on existing tenants and on the County's lease revenues is significant. With the extension and re-orientation of Runway 1L/19R and the associated extension of the taxiways and runway safety areas,the golf course on the south end of the Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan D.18 runway will be closed. This has significant negative implications for the County(lease revenue reduction) and for tenants. ® This Option provides for an extended main runway,providing a total length of approximately 5,600 feet in full compliance with FAA design criteria. m The potential land acquisition requirement identified with this Option is associated with the°Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) for new Runway 18/36 and would likely require significant property or easement acquisition. ® Instrument Approach Capabilities. By re-orienting the main runway 10 degrees to the north,the impact of the controlling obstructions is minimized and should allow for improved approach minimums. It remains to be determined if a precision instrument approach [a Category I Instrument Landing System.(ILS)] can be developed,and if Category I minimums (200 foot ceiling and 1/2 mile visibility) can be achieved. The existing non-precision Localizer-type Directional Aid (LDA) has a visibility minimum of not lower than 3/4 of a mile. If a visibility minimum of lower than 3/4 of a mile is sought, the Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Runway Object Free Area (ROFA)length beyond the runway ends increases and forces a reconsideration of the runway length, which is likely to reduce the overall length by as much as 400 feet and be a trade-off that negates the benefits of the lower visibility minimum. However,as with the other presented options, emerging satellite-based navigation technology may allow for improved instrument approach capabilities without altering physical aspects of the Airport or the surrounding area. c Maintains the ability to regularly accommodate all sizes of general aviation aircraft on the primary parallel runway and on the primary crosswind runway. In addition,a re-orientation of crosswind Runway 14L/32R was also analyzed to see if additional runway length and/or enhanced landside development opportunities would present themselves as a result of moving the north end of the runway to the east and the south end to the west. This brief analysis revealed that no significant additional runway length would likely be achieved and that it may have a negative overall impact on developable aviation use and non-aviation properties on the south side of the Airport. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan D.19 ),3 r t[ 1 �"' � I t, 2 ✓ rpS�p Y�t .c `; ,•+` `d S, if �1_ - � d a h N �'b( d t ti R r �{ S. 'ffi;.�ta 's'�a rl v e 7 SY,•y}a 2 ycx '., $ .t a t E, v��a.. SI ra` �r�•,, �f bO f +� r � +.�: A 4� p 7gr t �t"L`� �Iv�da'��fs\ra �• ;tom+: �'��: � -- - a� 1, '�'w,, F � 4 M �s+ f a }`by ✓ d'a e }-_ r: s < /t PrP.:k•":'^� tOy i•,re r j p. + ; r vs /° k F°Tisj __. � �l b.Q a�z ? i vCrN t — d �'t'+rtr dz "� `.l Qwf � l t; ��r,ys.-�I t y'j -'S.,"��s I � 6x -0 �`��'fyT � �f�H •'7 ¢ ° s{ � �Ak '' - � � + i ��j st -_ r.•�` : ' �' --...' _ ��'� y=* � r.,•{7n,� � '�•f h,_-,44`x`;�IJ.>P �.,r Sb! fi k.3�t� rl / ;�•��i+rL d s,•�•`-�r ff� l i_.•^ a $ , — , -ll' s e�F 7 -: r i '� US xS � ! �`�fr y�l shy � � `�r3 .. 1:� (-'-,� e •''�/� � ! � �� ntt7's�i3�_'"+� {t yi � � '� a �" �NI=.f eur a jzk• ry�", � � •'1 a5�..'.,+ �� tl�,�,_ {k •t%t+ �y a M�+�r gi �=/h -rt.a �. '"" _ roil y`+'u• �+�1 Ii`lYt��t�•JC�� I c ',J` zT11 zy'j o !ff'J.`.�.aS{Xlq'�rao- 5t�. � �'-r � n- G-1r�� v � / � i a -max,. ,l_y�,,r;J��}�,�„i• ; a z � erg`" ;`st4�$�.; �` ,.'c.''-•�" t�9 .c�a'Tn _ "r /�i•�•'r � f 1,�ff�"�1�1 �u''^'ppPytt � Y '.r.� 1 �a rzl at1• ,-F$.'p.Lt in 3 ,,�i efr�i�r ,.'t- � i J� SY1+y�r l�; S c ` s f.�: li`3 .ai tit_ t1 .. - AE'/ ?'rp '�--�;•-.t ., + ' r t _ ,-^^:'S :1 s�7 :, t��r-•�1'�`j1�`�y��'�� ,1�l n �0 �e ♦ �t� _ 1£ 'tA 31 A ^�.�� O r ° !1- t )1• " 4'�'-' t f* '`1 .�, F GJ lyi'i� a: , ` } dN- '�h' L r' rh",/.¢• .0. R loan •r`�� - ,z� �-, x ate' `�-. -_ - I '•"-'�}. ��q'j,�aV �, , u¢ • �y' � �-k#��F i'�\. •J t r Y6t � �lyf °IL�s" A. r �1 t�r�{`J4 �`t] °' a z a ��r'Sm '`� 6'y t `'�•' ,�+ �a \�d i,.� � :�� o` � d��Pr " ` :aye `\N` ;,V 5,A4 �l-S - , �, •�,,�.T,f -1��Gr 13! . L ;. .sl..ti _ '+a•,«' :[r' F(rt 6 '•t?c �.ri i 'l� b� >'� .1 a k ��ti x ��rp^��g IE�Kc'2•i�\�\tU� F�'ly+. s��Gt tTr� 11I a � : Vlr'�a xr'3,`� � st �•4,t� Kip�;� z.a�t- - � 'e i#•��: t{ _ � i s y r i� J ,�,1 rt - a ��, ;�A'�.p�s .,r ;��• ..� !i s\, f}� r15�' �fil .J { 11� .A+Lrr1 Yr/� c ',`�� w""+.._k..� qy z$2 t..�`4�rr -7�2 ✓ry4"k'��:`'s f 1��:ri t `�°�•.w.z..'�y_�`-�v�°�t^'t�y'•4t I^� \ _ \ i i ��w �r ✓X�.r'+,��.yr._,;+��1 �t f� � z' 11 `t a_ t-tf 1 / �rr'°'� * �?t✓4 1 i G m ry t i fi -11 .'\� � 3r.1 I r-=ryt•' x t Q cmi B Oil - � f ______,NNNNNN-----L _ 2�� ...�,F _ � ..— /_ ,i�hLF }ij ��'•+d',. �4 f c c1 a @�!t �' a '�= _ I � V.�p4•�`N oaa `a ",) �� ,'�r;r� s� , �, '`�9 1 E I r`o 1 � �< s, V- u1R ep8 }� ,p p#:; y ty t� �.(��,F "$h. �• r �' � t+ 4 C� E � r��>, f„c.d"F t? �i r�tVC�A04p r-?.X'�3 r� •i,�rt,,• �r �y �d •x-y' + y o 7*�y�i 0�' �s i'�•'r' x`�t ,�i•^�i _ ��4 �i dtq �a�»'.i...v.,,. r� „Ls d c�,a•t�,`&�""� �-k""' ilp _ 1 rr� t�._�o� � ?�,.��.'�..:'.�Pr��',per.._ .:'�'C"�i 1 � . Airside Option Six— Close Secondary Runways As illustrated in the following figure,entitled AIRSIDE OPTION SIX—CLOSE SECONDARY RUNWAYS,this Option involves: e Closing the secondary parallel runway (Runway 1R/19L) e Closing the secondary crosswind runway (Runway 14R-/32L). Option Six Planning Considerations o Minimizes future capital expenditure for construction and maintenance of airfield pavements;although,there will be expense related to the reconfigured areas. In addition,some pavement will be removed if this Option is implemented. e The maintenance of two runway alignments (providing 1/19 and 14/32 orientations) will continue to provide 10.5-knot crosswind coverage 96.52% of the time. e Option Six closes both secondary runways,hence no parallel(capacity enhancing) runways in either the 1/19 or 14/32 orientations. Thus,the capacity of the runway system to accommodate aircraft operations without unacceptable delay is lessened. © This Option reduces the complexity of the airfield layout for both airborne and ground users. ® Option Six provides additional land for aviation use development: approximately 18 acres on the east side of the Airport and 20 acres on the west side of the Airport. a All land currently utilized for aviation uses is maintained. o All land currently utilized for non-aviation use is maintained. e The existing runway lengths for the primary runways (Runway 1L/19R and 14L/32R) are maintained. e There is no known increased potential land acquisition requirement identified with this Option. e Instrument Approach Capabilities. Existing instrument approach capabilities are not changed as a result of this Option. (See additional language in Option One.) .e Does not impact the ability to regularly accommodate all sizes of general aviation aircraft on the primary and crosswind runways. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan D.21 :Y r s �` 13r } j'a; 1) 4 Y^*1 +T.��S r {F s4 `TE+,6 , .b�ai \tl � Y y: suit l� r 1 k J S t t1•``a y9 v, S T.`C h f 1 .� � "� �{e�+t� �s •4 \ 1�+� �o's�r�, � sz / 4 t'�F � .� 1 1"-� FE", a� � .�T`Sa� ;�'dy• '` �,;: �o�f`�� °_ s V ''`C1 � m�'r x' - �N c�' .:, x; t� B� i ;++-'b i 1 A ♦ '� �' of $v� N "``," k'�{� 1/ �'+r`f/ m} aJ�pty��`"�( 1�r? �, y� \ � �' � r^ q�y0 ..J - �G �1;`1\� K -. �•e� r ^ �j r+ N'^'VVI 1...y$T � ! '` r,,,�y,� �t G +t' w, amz`�� ^ a•!�.. _ _ y�.�ttt'� C4t� g,j 0 s fit u�r yn �, r} + ''';k f s N'> ei"��•�•, �'� sE�` Tette j t a � �-z --p ' X P r aS{i'sa�'w �'.o,r t2+�ef C. +� � '.r7^�.� f <^r'.5��r ,i.J t'P�l�.,•'Yi.-}',n l � F o d2'rrl1ILl� tae t..d .0 t R „ '. + SS °. - _ )• J y. ! 1l o s a {�@fit r ay Y „ay y >f N tP ri o 1J "}f,. a z rgsa+ .4 �s .m 6�J: k' ?} 4 'hr , 1 I ! {},-!1 ".'�. q ip LL ARM g'T'�' ml '`,4 4' .'#� rf { '4 d+Y.:J �'' a''� �i9 c • 3t5 Sra fG-Y-. ,rJ LJ 1 5 < {_ ti �•,EYk (� ar �t, p bx'+"' y "4: ' '., .i�' ".is.'L,� 1 q• z1�•h.r ., y �w �.` f��,�� fit• {:}. t } .�u' �P' #°'r "{d ^ r "a3t��"' t `. 1a z o g ��3�� ii-41 _ 3 rl�` L n yW 1✓�tafi( `z a a t 4��`,.,t t \ �H y, a �,( f .l.. �- \-i'I..•�r�"�'� z o S o Awl ��w,•''' �:a�jT.. ±r.� tiEt+rt��..�y4v ,�.,:�. "d � �ti`t. _ If��'�'xxhc�cF k 1,�'f�.f. ,�<�,."i`r., )tt.� �rqy "(rn� t - s >. A',. `t� y ��,� )3�•3Pr rJr� kr:. w o OWN _ fi0:fir :•�',,, a`r�?�FS-1 may..,[ ^r',,.� - •nr at,}\ x''� +� R� G - 1_ , `" r_ �� Kiwi v ! — 3 a'ir `'i',rY �/ '_r i'r ;. 4�j, pe!'� r✓< Q-f'1 to A , _ 'wir� - _ �1 � A�L.`L�r ��1�,§}4 fa_..�,'.� ( r � FY.��4 j t i 1;.tr .� s}.{ `�4✓� O Q�'�fi� �� I ,f+ �1.�t. `�� '�jO�N�Nc�t``N,.,-�?y��+raaean}�c¢'..��i'ltd''�p't•^}ti�.��.t'r Ori aq - ..r�rw Additional Analysis—Other Considerations One additional option was considered at the suggestion the Steering Committee. The Consulting Team was asked to evaluate the possibility or relocating Runway 14R/32L from its current location west of Runway 14L/32R and flipping it to the east side of 14L/32R,along the Walnut Creek Channel. By doing so,there would be more development space in the West Development Area and the East Development Area could be put to a higher use. In examining this option,it was determined that Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) on the eastside of relocated Runway 14R/32L would extend into the Walnut Creek Channel and that both the ROFA and the Building Restriction Line (BPL)would significantly limit the use of the North Development Area. While on its face this option presented potential benefits,the practical drawbacks of the option precluded it from further analysis.. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan D.23 Options Considerations Summary The following table,entitled SUMMARY OFA RSIDE OPTION CONSIDERATIONS, summarizes the planning considerations for the six options. Table D1 SUMMAR Y OFAIRSIDE OPTION CONSIDERATIONS Buchanan Field Airport Master.Plan Option Option Option Option Option Option Factor One Two Three Four Five Six Minimizes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Capital Expenditure Maintains Wind Coverage Yes . Yes Yes No Yes Yes Maintains Operational yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Capacity Reduces Airfield Complexity No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Provides Additional Aviation- No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Use Area Maintains Existing Aviation- yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Use Area Maintains Existing Non- yes Yes Yes No No Yes Aviation Use Area Provides Runway Extension No No No Yes Yes No Minimizes Land Acquisition Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Maximizes Potential No No No No Yes No Approach Improvements Maintains Two Runways for yes No Yes No Yes Yes Larger Aircraft r Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan D.24 Preliminary Recommended Airfield Development Concept . The preliminary airside development recommendation is to maintain existing runway configuration. In consideration of the Option analysis presented above,input for County Staff and input provided by the Steering Committee and the public to date,the following preliminary conclusions are made with regard to the concept for the long-term configuration of the airfield at Buchanan Field Airport: 1. It is critical to maintain the use of the Airport for all general aviation aircraft types,including small aircraft that are most influenced by crosswind conditions. Therefore,the Airport should retain a configuration with two runway orientations. 2. To maintain its capacity to accommodate aircraft operations,it is important to operate the Airport with at least one set of parallel runways. 3. Although increasing the developable area at the Airport will likely be a critical issue at some point in the future,today there is area to accommodate demands for some years into the future. Given the popularity of Buchanan Field Airport, it is not unreasonable to consider that the airport's available landside will be fully developed. Should this happen,this issue may well.need to be revisited. Given the circumstances today,it is more difficult to validate the consequences of closing a runway with the benefit of the provision of additional developable land. 4. The closure of a runway or runways at Buchanan Field Airport might concentrate aircraft operations over certain communities in the vicinity of the Airport. The closure of a runway might also minimize opportunities.to identify potential voluntary noise abatement opportunities that will be explored in the Part 150 noise study. 5. The extension of the main runway would bring some benefits to the larger general aviation aircraft operating at the Airport with regard to acceptable loadings and range;however,the ability to extend the existing runway is negated by the requirement to correct all declared distance issues before a runway extension would be funded with an FAA grant. The loss of operating revenues generated by the golf course is also a significant consideration. 6. After significant review,it was concluded that the re-orientation of the main runway is not justifiable in consideration of its significant cost,the minimal Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan D.25 runway length gained;the minimal potential gain in instrument approach minimums,the significant loss of existing developed area on the west side of the Airport,the significant negative impact on existing tenants,and the loss of operating revenues generated by the golf course and existing aviation leases. In addition,the application of current FAA design standards negates the potential benefits of re-orientation and FAA has not indicated a willingness to support the concept. 7. As explained previously,the complexity of the airfield layout at Buchanan Field Airport is a significant concern. In discussions with the Fes,they feel that the complexity can be reduced through taxiway improvements. Given these conclusions,the preliminary airside development recommendation is to maintain the existing runway configuration. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan D.26 rr N 33 4t k ..# -0. W Z S` W o -t ,q 4 �- ` a^ `r d =Z z ,WNM..1 s t,}•„rt ,x k �la61 ,"�f i Ili A` o3�'y?y� �l�•i ON 84, r!'. �tA aYr'•" 4� b,() ;h{ LfJ rn Q ,ah N r ..� y A' .Si1 ....�:, e� , mob'?. � r�u'.;,3 ��1 o\ y..•+� ��1 ea .v wMJ", iIQYA.u •' u'�F' r tomxr ,�yo �y x '�` t l C v vs in in o w {tJ z iV Z� T 2 Z y Z +i Q 'V • e • o �b�°-r -tLn _ 5 ,r• 4�- � V lift ar �i 1"ro _ ��`�_ �Q�'by�� Qal y\ � j. r � _ l�•'>��W j _J,�ji� \__ _/ k'.'. �x ✓^ ; �� t r\T 3 't' JY' _ `,y 115�_J[SJt�/ `�/" u � k I a• \ '( c Y. ,8 r yV•l�� 3��"� �i � n�O:--� Ot � �Pt- t'Sd+�"a i�,4 — — � 'I I' �i " i rl �£'� q�"4� �- a� _ � ' f' fir �f✓� � a ll+, © 7t. r l:vltt-1 'std, C rod. C ' ' `�` �' _c 3 J`d `la rx — I i�`7 ii, L-Y••<`5' *t v : 1!7'3,1 a z a �wr'It�:p ev, _ A 3.1,-� 'Yi e Moog,: F f lkI hr� 4 �� _ —�•� -� �-- - ,H-N e r P'�, �K�yr• ,-� i r F :.. — r S r+. iti.Rf�'r •t S,� y fly .�".. 1 c _ y rip 4, • 'p - KL- Al CD f i1 ;i��r 81 2 s Yet r 9'y1e 1i.! i 4 W � r tT I ttt � y � — �'•,� !a+y+��yyµV1A & � r}r ;K t•^ 4",-� .[,.3� �%•�,�/�� 1�.t ky .� m _ rrz °' !� �\ rr '�ty,a-! '�r =F�tA. r�"�+. >T�, � i y v- �,+�,s,?�• ty.. {�� 4�.r �� .�� . . ��'F�yZ7,y,,,r•,�a-�` ". ,"" ��ti7 ��✓_�r>'pbb �� ...t' .,...._.r,. t� '�"r��.�',,,.r,f °',.r' "�,9 � 'o, „��s...vy..a ._..f"�'"� rr_1t,.:,. Y• � � �-.sT.:,,t°.} ' _��::` c .r.r. '�r_sP�. _�,+.-*.,,'0 *F' �:t � Landside Development Considerations, Alternatives, and Recommendations .Introduction With the basic framework of the airport's ultimate airside development tentatively identified, concepts involving the placement of landside facilities can now be analyzed. The overall objective of the landside development at the Airport is the provision of facilities,which are conveniently located and accessible to the community and which accommodate the specific requirements of airport users. The concepts for landside development at the Airport are presented below. Aviation Use Development Areas To the greatest extent possible,aviation use facilities required for aircraft operation, storage,maintenance,and safety will occupy the majority of airport property that is not utilized by the runway/taxiway system. The following paragraphs describe the development plan for these facilities by geographic area (as identified on the previous illustration,entitled PRELIMINARY RE COMMENDED AIRFIELD DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT. West Development Area. There are three notable sites on the west side of the Airport that have been identified for development or redevelopment. This area is roughly bordered on the east by Runway 1L/19R and Runway 14R/32L,with Buchanan Fields Golf Course laying to the south,and Marsh Drive to the west and north. The first potential development area is an approximate 12-acre parcel at the southern end of the west development area that is comprised of a mix of undeveloped and under-developed properties. A"Master Developer" has been selected for this parcel and pre-development activities are underway. The 12-acre parcel is now known as the ADG Development Area. Aviation uses,such as aircraft storage hangars and commercial general aviation activities,are primarily intended for this area. The second area is approximately 11 acres in size and was identified as a commercial aviation terminal"set aside"in the previous Master Plan. With no specific forecast for the resumption of commercial service,as discussed in the Forecasts ofAviation Activity and Capacity and Facility Requirements chapters,it seems appropriate that a specific reservation of a relatively scarce landside area is likely not called for. It is recommended that this 11-acre parcel be re-oriented to better accommodate existing aviation demands. The third and final parcel is approximately 19 acres in size and is located inside the loop of Sally Ride Drive and Marsh Drive. This area was set aside for non-aviation development in previous planning studies and the present location of Sally Ride Drive Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan D•28 cuts off the potential for taxiway access to this site. Given the present demand for aviation use development area,it is recommended that this parcel be reconfigured to also allow for future aviation uses warranted/needed. This appears to be particularly appropriate if the former commercial terminal area set aside is converted to general aviation use. Sally Ride Dive can then be reconfigured,and a single,major development area"emerges that has the potential to provide a significant amount of space for a mixed-use aviation area that can accommodate T-hangars, executive hangars, and clear-span hangars. A schematic layout of future taxiway and roadway access points for the west,side of the Airport can be viewed in the following illustration at the end of this chapter, entitled LANDSIDE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS. This illustration also includes a new entrance for Sally Ride Drive at its north most terminus,providing a second connection to Marsh Drive. It should also be noted that areas for current development proposals (Seecon Builder,Inc. and Concord Jet Services,Inc.) are identified on this illustration. With no commercial passenger terminal facilities on the west side,the need for the extension of Diamond Boulevard is also not nearly as apparent or needed,and it is recommended that the extension project should be dropped from further planning discussions. Southeast Development Area. The Southeast Development Area spans from the Hotel Apron (adjacent to the Crowne Plaza Hotel),north to the Air Traffic Control Tower, east to the Walnut Creek Channel,then south to the Sam's Club/Sportsmart leasehold area and back to the Crowne Plaza. It should first be noted that this area will continue to be utilized as it is today,being primary devoted to a variety of uses,including commercial general aviation uses (FBOs,etc.),along with non-aviation uses in areas that are not provided with taxiway access. It is also recognized that this parcel is essentially built out and that any new facilities will likely involve removal of existing structures or the conversion of tiedown apron area. There are three specific issues/considerations that are appropriate to consider with regard to the Southeast Area. These considerations are: the need for a general aviation terminal building, confirmation or relocation recommendation for the control tower,and the siting of an on-airport Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting(ARM station. All of these may be accommodated in the north end of the Southeast Area. With regard to the control tower,the ultimate location and orientation of the airside complex (the runways and taxiways) must be finalized so that an adequate line-of-sight,view orientation, security, and height-of-structure investigation can be completed to confirm the tower's present location or to identify a suggested relocation site. With regard to the ARFF station,at this point in the preparation of master planning recommendations,it is appropriate to assume that it can be co-located with the general Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan D•29 aviation terminal building, or located in an alternate area such as the North Development Area and be co-located with the emergency medical and law enforcement helicopter operations (see North Development Area Discussion). Finally,regarding the general aviation terminal building,at present,the Airport does not have a centralized terminal facility to meet the landside needs of transient general aviation (GA) aircraft,their operators,or passengers. While Fixed Based Operators (FBOs)provide such things as aircraft dedowns, flight planning,and lobby space that are available to their transient and based customers,catering to the small general aviation customer may not be a focus of their business plan. Therefore,it would seem appropriate to consider the development of such a facility that would provide adequate transient parking and tiedowns,public greeting and lobby space,restrooms, vending/catering/restaurant facilities,meeting spaces,and other items of public. convenience and necessity. The current terminal building is located at the north end of John Glenn Drive. This approximately 20-year old modular building includes offices,a ticket lobby,waiting area,and restrooms. This facility is approaching the end of its useful life. Automobile parking is located adjacent to the east side of the building. This area was last used for commercial passenger service flights in 1992. The terminal ramp presently houses the CalStar aero medical flight operation. As with the Air Traffic Control Tower,it is important to first know the ultimate location and orientation of the airside complex to properly plan a terminal facility to meet the forecasted needs and fit within the development envelope provided. Once a recommended airside plan has been accepted,final planning steps can commence for optimal siting of a terminal and"to layout the terminal area environs, once specific demands and requirements have been identified. It should be noted that the area identified for the Sterling Aviation Expansion project is shown on the L, NDSIDE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS illustration at the end of the chapter. In addition,the potential for a cross airport service road connecting the. West and Southeast Development Areas is being explored. North Development Area. There are two issues/considerations associated with the North Development Area. The area incorporates the far northeast boundary of the Airport and is located at the junction of Marsh Drive and the Walnut Creek Channel. These considerations are:location of all Emergency Medical Service(EMS)law enforcement helicopter operations and the alternate location of the ARFF station. Currently,REACH operates its helicopter from this area and CalStar operates its helicopter from the existing terminal building in the Southeast Development Area. It may be operationally advantageous to co-locate all emergency helicopters,rather than have"them operating from various points at the Airport,and easier to provide higher security at one centralized location. As an alternative to locating the ARFF station at a new general aviation terminal facility,it is reasonable to assume a natural adjunct for the Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan D.30 function of the North Area to include this fire station;higher security would be present and ready access is present to both the airfield and streets via Marsh Drive. East Development Area. The East Development Area is located on the east side of the . Airport between Taxiways A,D,and C and the Walnut Creek Channel. At present,it is an under-utilized area, and,depending upon the details of the recommended airside development plan and the potential to provide access to the area,the East Development area might be better integrated with the operation of the Airport by providing additional space for aviation use or aviation support facilities. A service road connecting the Southeast and East Development Areas is being explored. Miscellaneous Considerations. Discussion has also occurred regarding the desire to locate a community or conference center at the Airport to serve both the Airport and its neighbors. Further discussion of this consideration is hinged on the ultimate layout of the airfield complex. Because of limited existing development area,all potential aviation uses will need to be accommodated before non-aviation uses are explored. Given the preliminary recommendation to retain the existing layout of runways,and recognizing that a community or conference center would likely require a significant amount of space for building and parking,it is unknown if this facility can be housed on the Airport without sacrificing aviation development space. Finally,to enhance the economic viability of third party On-Airport development,it should be stated that it is wholly consistent with the intended primary aviation use of a given property to include incidental associated uses, such as restaurants and shops that serve both the flying and general public as well as minor office and commercial uses, so long as such uses do not impede the intended aviation use of a particular airport landside property. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan D.31 w 4+11 � ,;�_ ♦ ` � ]1,. '; f ri !"' —� „0, UN Y w �"r� 1 1 a'�''r o t w x w w V w t U YQ O dV •C-E"Z Os F .-W U PL`k�e'^r �°- 9 ��La mt w- w w W H -'C p Q`.w w '°fk ° M }w s �` r'0$ Zig \ r'`✓if' :RE il�r i{{{ 0 0 0. o •_-.o o e` o o. o o.,, - ` N�3 aC y[--�,,-'. ,.��?�: 1�„_.`"�Z �' r;'y°�i 1} -`I `N w. �� 1 �/ <r f��rt a e or ✓"� f t i t-. t l"tQ A 2t P \� N t � �6 ve3',a-- +f� ;� .t+' ♦ S f e.b p,�$ }��"a� �` ,x f �. � 5 � -)1"i•,q} i �v.^��r,zQcy'� � ^�+c¢.,.,, �` -� � , L�� C yC �r �' C R t 1 t —� (��, r��'�'��P i�4.� i+ }r» r 'f�..3 m 'S,a'c, �, ee ! )� , i i 1 1 eFNtE�R•uA ENU� ��u.li . I'" �` �sw� nP¢E'�`!a J� `'+�•,� ?�<�..,,� �',' ^e`A.),s�� C �� 'y`t`i p�. dt� �t �.` !.�4.....;Y,++�� "xr �. �;i � J-�.M �� 'r3�i d .>il„ ''ro^'� yp,; Y)4s, •� ,fro � ,•}��' E�„��.{k ��. r �,.. f+!s �h\i!/ r s,...� J •,t '. f \ _ � re€ ��' "-g�i-y' Cl f} 7 �Lj AFL :pl �:fir z y�� ,i��jl) �'C�+� �t �. f' r,t�'u� J J�% j s��r,�rl4 ,µr✓�.r-. 5'y'1 iF c:Tlif 6 IT' d{'t� tea." y tt fJ y� ary, t krt,� iCe 5y.7et r,-. tt1+a ha .,,,Ck�xr13r�"i!a� -9 o �r�E �'}' JJ a f � 4 j f�i+ V k 4t � ion v �} f r of o{ >� j��`IJA V f� ��..�1 x r \ c,:.0 .r .�� rya rti/ � �t '�•. � ��ty 1'T.r,.� r -�y St, �� fi, a5asiy� Y .i :.k 6' 's f*!.•uI I 7 #`;� :J4u?( ''+,'�'' 7 k ., @1-fl"`o t \ ,�;?�a .k\� s rr ,i. ';aor,• �u"s:_ - \: y ,+ .'•;.'Y1 �a�t�.x�i�'� R 'V�w`,� t Yw+ '� 3t � t t�� t a 'nr'o ��'�v t{�'•4+°i� �r a ` if �:'y! t`��Q��,��,��f �'�.��C�fO�`� �.i. 9� ��Ar�l � � ' c o��F�� ar4s-f�� '�a •r C•3�`"�i\�k"Fi"R 'F\ av }`^0� ��.^ A+'+3 S �y L 'i �� p:Q j f l�ri ,y- - \�. � � �L - W�'I�th it 4r, tirllF+ $ -.�r l\n`�.. i. � i � � M:' ,a,yho 1;`_�`-, fryzy I;'•.a• iy it I:r' � i �;: �tA��i Ar \ tti j, fi� } ; 4q, J LrY1<,r r�! �� {: <<�� ' '. I .deF� � �� '. r' r:, �} _ Pth is b' 4 s{ �{ x ji�,�s fr,r..y ,>•: ...•w•i•"*..:.w�� 4r+..��`'i'4.�iP1 I \i*��'�� \4t'a z'`t r+I \ { C Yy�t d lC✓��sy yx' ,"*'/- ` ' �V _�` r :' 5i' #t �! �• �-io 1 e� A s s t y� f�': 4 p - wic 1 �, _ y o f.Y r .a)�"��"�`ti v<.('t''~�`^` � �R.'` iS'�� ,yy!�s ,�*+f'' � a - T C x-,Y �a�'�• � � tY a � ,V I �n� J.-' 'fi"'c''�a ;! )1Mx�it ) ?�r sem+ ♦`a�, � GSI �:-,. 1,+ y,,�-�-t �"�f r� i� �.E 7^T-yul p �y.,r * c� §k� �t')Kt-N,!'.;V l�' ►S� t ,xa,r ss �M1' fl t I j-.F.? '* Y,YIP `��','.`° `S\ r r 1 b,7' `*' �r, f ,.>f � ,•")c 4�t� v = In 1 1)j7' +;.•i 1d a r `y. qr c�o-�.,'�` W\fy ^kit aYF3. �f:'',r„i.''�^' � � �r `��S �� t � ��,N`ti'":z '"'z~..a., `S C+� •,f 3 =��:- � _ r.� � �I:}:'''�r.r' =�.a�'�?��!�„�r-�t,4,�i�. li,✓`"'11�- ��'\�� !a.`'r r. 4,,"`r':�, �;, r...L"�Y",�"r._'-�.t��a�i' _+i �' 1 Conceptual Development Plan Accordingly, a Conceptual Development Plan for Buchanan Field Airport has been created that incorporates the recommended Airside Development Concept,Landside recommendations and revisions to the taxiway layout at the Airport. As stated in the Airside Development Concept,the basic runway layout at Buchanan Field Airport will be retained with Runways 01L/19R,01R/19L, 14L/32R and 14R/32L remaining located in their current positions. All runways will be kept at their current lengths and the utilization of Declared Distances on Runways 01L/19R and 14L/32R will continue. At the suggestion of the FAA, an ultimate taxiway layout has been developed that is intended to reduce airfield complexity,and enhance safety and efficiency. To this end,the major element of the Conceptual Development Plan is the incorporation of this revised taxiway layout which will transform the,airfield layout within the 20-year horizon of this Airport Master Plan. The FAA has reviewed the recommended revised taxiway layout and the Airport received FAA's conceptual concurrence with the proposal on June 8,2006. Landside uses and activities follow the concept and recommendations of Landside Development Considerations,discussed earlier in this chapter. On the following page please find Figure D9 entitled,CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan D.33 ' r Figure—D9 CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan D.34 Landscape Design Guidelines Overview Buchanan Field is superbly situated for access,being located in the triangle of land between Interstate 680,and State Highways 4,and 242. With exits off I-680 at Concord Avenue and Route 4 at Solano Way,access from north,south,east and west are well served. The two distinct airside facilities,at .john Glenn Drive on the southeast side and at Sally Ride Drive on the west side,provide separation for the two broad categories of airport users. Access from freeway exits is nearby and easy,but the connection from freeways to the airside facilities is obscure and ambiguous.In addition,the visual cues from the airport landscape are varied and seem unrelated,which leads to confusion for the arriving guest. Understanding the Site A series of analysis plans and sections that identify major natural and cultural influences are addressed in Landscape Plan Figures El through E8.They relate to uses of the site and identify potential issues.They include: ® A site analysis plan that shows Walnut Creek and Grayson Creek that flank the site. • The three primary development areas. ® Nearby land uses,primary access routes,and issues relating to the: o South East Development Area o West Development Area o North Development Area ® A composite plan of the development areas • Conceptual site sections. The Public Airport Landscape There are limited opportunities where a landscape vocabulary can be established.The primary areas of focus for the public landscape are entries, curbsides,the John Glenn Drive median, edge treatments of leased parcels, and portions of the perimeter of the airport proper.That is,any airport land that can serve as a unifying force bringing together the various disparate elements of this site. Treatments for planting,pavements, signage, site furnishings including lighting and vertical elements are addressed. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan EA Figure E1 Major Development Area Designations Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan E.2 Figure E2 Site Analysis Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan E.3 Figure E3 Adjacent Land Uses and Access Routes Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan EA Figure E4 Southeast Area Development Considerations Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan E.5 Figure E5 North Area Development Considerations Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan L6 Figure E6 West Area Development Considerations Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan E•7 Figure E7 Section Locations 0 Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan E.8 Figure E8 Section A/A—Marsh Drive Section B/B—John Glenn Drive Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan E.9 The existing natural site features should be incorporated into the new work.The site is naturally flat, so vertical elements will be visually prominent.As well,the natural grassland still evident tends to be in a light color range of greens and golds.These natural qualities of the site guided site planting selection for the Plant List. Refer to Landscape Table E1. The Role of Landscape Treatments These landscape guidelines will establish the guiding principles for enhancing existing site elements as well as the rules governing allfuture landscape-related landside development. The 495-acre,greater Buchanan Field landscape may serve a range of broad land use and environmental purposes as discussed elsewhere in this report. In contrast,the role of the landscape treatment,on the landside at Buchanan Field,is very specific.The singular goal is to create a landscape that is unified. The only way for this to be a successful strategy is for these recommendations to be simple and manageable so that they create a character that is easily identifiable.The thorough and consistent implementation of these elements brings the strategy to life. How do Consistent Landscape Treatments Work? Only if the tactics are simple and consistent can the landscape tie this facility together. The use of similar trees, shrubs and groundcovers in similar relationships to one another throughout the site, indicates a cohesive system. Refer to Landscape Figures E9 and E10. Often landscapes are delineated by the use of repetitive vertical elements like light fixtures, street trees,banners,and signs. In the case of street trees,rigorous and repeated patterns of trees of similar size and scale placed approximately every 20-feet on center can be very effective. Refer to Landscape Figure E11. Why Consistent Landscape Treatments are Effective Buchanan Field is a campus. As with many campuses,there may be buildings from a range of different eras that serve various purposes,but the campus,as a whole needs to read as one place. Integrating a degree of predictable uniformity in the landscape brings the dissimilar parts together. Adhering to specific setback guides for current and future buildings allows the edge between the developed land and the street to have an identifiable and recognizable character;.that then becomes a spatial characteristic specific to the campus at Buchanan Field. Implementation There are many aspects that are critical to successfully implement a cohesive landscape. The four most important are: A. Recognition that a readily identifiable site is an asset B. Endorsement and strict adherence to design guidelines C. Thorough implementation of recommendations D. Long-term budget allocation for quality maintenance. 1.Design for All parcels. The following standards seek to provide a recommended approach to creating a unified landscape. The primary element,repeated patterns of planting, should be straight-forward and uniform in their design and installation.We Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan E.10 have utilized the Contra Costa County Water Department's suggested plant list as a basis for the Buchanan Field plant list (see Landscape Table 1) to help develop a drought tolerant,low-maintenance planting identity. For plant establishment at the Buchanan Field,newly installed planting will require irrigation. It is the goal of this plan to minimize irrigation as the plants become established over time. See Landscape Figures E12 and E13. 2. Edge Conditions.The setback for buildings should be consistent throughout the airport development areas. Buildings should face the street with signage that follows a consistent pattern throughout the airport. This includes size,colors, fonts,materials, and placement of signs. Ideally,parking for buildings should be located at the sides of buildings.or in lots perpendicular to the main drives.Avoid parking in front of buildings that would necessitate setbacks deeper than intended by these guidelines. The goal is to have the edge of the street defined by a vertical building face rather than by an amorphous parking lot that acts like a moat between the two activity areas of the street and the buildings. 3. Design Standards for John Glenn Drive. John Glenn Drive at Concord Avenue provides an excellent opportunity to showcase the Airport entry to its users and to the community. While the actual airport buildings are tucked well back off the intersection,the landscape and the median come right to the airport's edge.This is a critical opportunity to create an identity for the airport and establish a recognizable landscape palette of materials, (see Landscape Figure E14). It is also the place where a new,enhanced, and larger site-identification sign should be located.The relatively narrow width of the median suggests a vertical sign format, see Landscape Figures E15 and E16.The median is a valuable asset and offers the best place to create and define the airport's landscape character at this primary entry.The existing trees have reached,and in some cases,passed maturity.With a master landscape plan for succession of trees,the trees in this median should be replaced over time. Figures E17 and E18 illustrate medians with strong,simple planting design. Aristocrat Pear,Red Maple or Hornbeam should be planted in this median at approximately 20-feet on center. They will provide a repeated element to guide those entering of the airport.As the trees grow to approximately 30-feet,they will reduce the scale and proportion of the entry sequence to be more inviting and scaled for people. With a lighter green canopy,the median provides a lighter shade and is less somber than the existing evergreens. Simple low ground covers like Manzanita, Daylilies,or African Daisy,should be planted between each tree. A few key areas at main access points should have distinguished accent planting. 4.Design Standards for Sally Ride Drive. Design guidelines for Sally Ride Drive should be similar to those for John Glenn Drive,though there is no median. Common items will include a consistent treatment of setbacks, signage,planting palette and placement,and lighting style and placement. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan E.11 5..Design Standards for Marsh Drive. Marsh Drive forms one property boundary of the airport; future planting should reinforce that edge of the airport.The Pepper Trees (Schinus molle) adjacent to the nearby hangers establish a good consistent edge. The drainage swale that is parallel to Marsh Drive is to remain unaltered. In this area, landscape improvements should focus on the airport side of the swale.There is a potential for brackish ground water around the swale as it can be affected by tidal influence.Plant species for this area should be selected with this in mind and should avoid negative impacts to the drainage patterns. 6.Maintenance. The success of the landscape is contingent upon an improved level of maintenance. Given that Buchanan Field has limited landscape maintenance resources,it is our intention that the landscape improvements be able to be maintained with a modest maintenance budget.This is key. For future lease parcels, the maintenance requirement should be integrated into lease conditions.For areas that the airport authority is currently and will continue to be responsible for,the improved level of landscape maintenance will pay dividends in a more cohesive.and recognizable facility,which then increases the desirability of leased space. 7. Signage. Key locations for new entry/site identification signs are: A. John Glenn Drive at Concord Avenue B. Marsh Drive at Sally Ride Drive C. Marsh.Drive at Solano Avenue There is also an opportunity for identifying the airport to motorists on Route 4 by placing a sign at the northwest corner of the airport where Marsh Drive takes a sharp turn to the east. •A signage designer should be retained to establish a simple,clear and cohesive signage program for the airport. Ideally,the whole program should be implemented at one time.To add a new sign at John Glenn Drive at Concord Avenue without adding new signage elsewhere or without implementing the other landscape recommendations would be wasteful and misses an opportunity to raise the quality of the airport facility. S. Lighting/Vertical Elements. Lighting and other vertical landscape elements such as signs and trees, should support the landscape recommendations identified above.They should be used campus-wide,in a repetitive and rational fashion.The style of lights and other elements should be similar, for instance if the sign is made of steel in a contemporary style,the lighting should be likewise. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan E•12 Table E1 RECOMMENDED LANDSCAPE PALETTE Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Botanical Name Common Name Notes Trees Acer rubrum `Red Sunset' Red Maple Bioremediation Albizia julibrissin Silk Tree Specimens Cardinus betulus `Fastigiata' Hornbeam Regular form Celtis sinensis Hackberrry Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Summer color Platanus acerifolia Bloodgood' London Plane Deciduous canopy Pyrus c. `Aristocrat' Aristocrat Pear Spring Flowers Ulmus parvifolia Chinese Elm Evergreen canopy Washingtonia filifera California Fan Palm Native Shrubs Arctostaphylos d. `Howard McMinn' Manzanita Native Carpenteria californica Bush Anemone Native Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud Native Cistus ladanifer Crimson-spot Rockrose Lavandula spp. Lavender Phormium hybrids New Zealand Flax Rosa spp. Rose Salvia greggii . Autumn Sage Groundcovers Arctostaphylos Emerald Carpet' Manzanita Native Erigeron moerheimii Santa Barbara Daisy Hemerocallis spp: Daylily Lantana montevidensis Lantana Limonium perezzii Sea Lavender Osteospermum fruticosum African Daisy Ornamental Grasses Calamagrostis acutiflora`Stricta' Feather Reed Grass Fall color Carex pansa Helichtotrichon sempervirens Blue Oat Grass Blue foliage Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass Native Nasella pulchra Needle Grass Native Nasella tenuissima Mexican Feather Grass Stipa gigantea* Giant Feather Grass Bulbs Narcissus spp Daffodil Brodiaea elegans Harvest Brodiaea Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan E.13 ti r � akn ` t t 4tr�. i1; f ' '�`r +��,,}},,,, xK'f6�" ,.aL��" A f'�a`�-•'a "'Y' � s r . '�`ww �o '-� i,,, �'r:. .amu"•;.,,f'� 'YY � t r .., a„r .? .5 +.i � ��` � ..La.x i ff-v.-- ..5� .ST.`r`. �,.�' �` ..s•..-•,�.,t;t.sr::�.•S;:Lasan".,sd `y "3C�fi u:.•. .X.. ..s...._..`..".+3.....Lf>s,. _. ° Street _ co P t • Jk� beg\nong°f a c the EX\st\ng s\ -' nape o vr�E p�an�\ngs. `av% a d groundco tree an o�SePtember E 4 pra'�Ftne\FteP cha�an F\e\d �rport Master P\an tom"" '` ••ti ��''"..;�' . - '--.1^. +r•..+.w '.'lei ` +��.<*��. t7r<iV'�ty��b�� '.,�'�-�'+'-"`'�k•� '"u,h,i,J„�`u ,�.��)aa' FGkMi:'"z�r�':w 'Cd;' � ..+..•.�T7; � i.Ki�.t'"V-' { - - ' :'1 tY� f""1'L 't^-• ^?^S Tt T �.] iT`Vx�y yi„¢3. 2afi _ycf Landscape Figure E10: A simple, extensively applied planting treatment. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan E.15 "ROT ! •„'t�sfi• .. �' 9 ,��,9 111 � r i •7.i+` '"Fa�'�� "1 Is UT j< l arra "`9 F :'rC.'.`a j.�.Y .z r x- i 1 ��aM^�n �' �'`.er'�� '3.'t i`�4 �f,,/•b •" ter- Y. SM 4 vw "� at �,. _'_.'p �Y_ n"�t y .v�2. �.4' �^ � a.;�• � T�� "�,�";;�rlt.,."� ��5. '}'ice. '�+o�<`�� yK}};�_wt4 � `.r`"-r :.s s7 � ; �"'� 4�.• `� �, _.-r-- Y,%!�,,C+a x �.'-�. ` `s�"` :�c �Y.;,!�,y7�',r,.�,F� � 3 i/ 17 K�yj^4 ti's J1 MIT fi ' .4 ','"�:.�.sa:. v.,u• —j7 a s� �+�t$� d ii .^•.tom shy .. t" ;Yii-`„ r�� Fid\�� L��}�'�,�'t'S4�y 1• Landscape Figure E12: Drought tolerant shrubs and groundcover utilized at the grounds of the Contra Costa County Water Department, located less than one mile from Buchanan Field. r If Landscape Figure E13: Detail of drought tolerant shrubs and groundcover utilized at the grounds of the Contra Costa County Water Department. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan E.17 I j- - ., s !Landscape Figure E14: Opportunity for enhanced planting and site-identifying signage. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 E.18 Master Pian h S 1 Landscape Figure E15: Vertical site-identity signage provide information and establish a character for elements site-wide (Fort Worth Museum of Modern Art). �� canced.Cente ,• errltierg.�nfer OutpatlCnt�Testlrb�; .. `. fMadlc�l;4lfleg,� „ fBuildi gs IMRI/CAT/P�T:Scan Landscape Figure E16: Signage can identify the site or guide the visitor within the site (Lankenau Hospital). Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan E.19 �ter 4y T 5t� � sY •5 } � Lam„-. .r l} �'� � r " � t �#� ab. 3� u&�,• .{t{a n'' ' -•"'� r .}Y;�' s �(t ° !"�� .tom "Sk •;r +r., `t h+ '�,'�Se�-1 '.. r�` j� t ` eta );yY �,x4 t� �ink.€•�,t'� #?':.-;�. �,G �}/st�t��a_f. --�g L .-, C" •"ri[Y'.�i[r� ,.{ r v 4G,.rte -. �.�i,l ��o� li•r'��' ,ceg. c,:.. � w ,yy�(.J mow!! �rS � I �r.t ti• - T ' Landscape Figure E18: Median trees establish a human scale. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan E•21 Environmental Review Introduction This chapter presents a discussion of the environmental processing requirements,existing environmental conditions,and probable environmental effects of Master Plan implementation. Probable environmental effects are generally described in a qualitative manner. As discussed,implementation of the Master Plan recommendations would result in both "airside" and"landside" development at Buchanan Field Airport (Airport). Preliminary development recommendations are depicted in the BUCHANANFIELD AIRPORT CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.Airside improvements would result in the addition of 3.24 acres of new taxiway pavement and the removal of approximately 9.02 acres of pavement (resulting in a net gain of 5.78 acres of pervious airside surface area). Landside development would include both aviation and non-aviation related development on approximately 45 acres of pervious surfaces on Airport property. Airside development could result in the conversion of these undeveloped properties to impervious surfaces. Both airside and landside development would alter the existing conditions at the Airport and demolition,grading,construction,and operation of proposed improvements could result in environmental impacts. Environmental Processing Before Contra Costa County can implement the recommendations of the Master Plan, compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)will be required. These statutes,as applicable to Master Plan implementation,are discussed below. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan F.1 National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA),which was signed into law in 1969 (and has since been amended), establishes a broad national policy to protect the quality of the human environment. The fundamental purpose of NEPA is to ensure that environmental issues are given consideration in any decision undertaken by the federal government; specifically, federal agencies must assess and disclose the environmental impacts of proposed federal actions. 'Federal actions subject to NEPA include grants,loans, contracts,leases,construction,research, rulemaking and regulatory actions,certifications,licensing, and permitting. The Council on Environmental Quality,which issues regulations pertaining to NEPA implementation, emphasizes the importance of integrating the NEPA process with early project planning. As a result of NEPA,the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has developed detailed guidance documents for airport development projects.FAA Order 1050.1E Environmental Impacts:Policies and Procedures sets FAA's agency-wide environmental protocol. Order 5050.4B NEPA Implementing Instructions forAirport Projects supplements Order 1050.1E by providing NEPA instructions especially for proposed federal actions to support airport development projects. Effective April 28,2006, Order 5050.4B,replaces Order 5050.4A,Airport's Environmental Handbook,dated October 8, 1985. Order 5050.4B follows the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ's)NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR 1500 - 1508. It also follows Department of Transportation's (DOT's) Order 5610.C,Policies for ConsideringEnvironmentaI Impacts,and FAA Order 1050.1E. As noted in Order 5050.4B,not all development proposals require environmental evaluation. This order specifically identifies the following categories for use in considering the environmental impact of federal actions. • Categorical-Exclusions. Categorical exclusions are projects excluded from the need to prepare environmental documents, as their impacts are presumed to be less than significant. • Environmental Assessment. If a project could result in environmental impacts,an Environmental Assessment(EA)would be prepared. If no significant unmitigated impacts are identified,the federal agency would issue a Finding of No Significant Impact(FONSI). If the action is found to result in a significant environmental impact, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)is then prepared. • Environmental Impact Statement. An EIS is a detailed analysis of a proposed action and its alternatives. An environmental clearance as specified by NEPA will be required for any improvement shown on the Conceptual Development Plan before construction is initiated if federal funds are to be used for the project. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan F.2 California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)was adopted in 1970 and incorporated in the Public Resources Code Sections 21000 through 21177. CEQA supplements NEPA through State law and,unlike NEPA,requires State and local agencies to not only identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions but also to avoid or mitigate those impacts,if feasible. CEQA applies to projects undertaken, funded or requiring an issuance of a permit by a public agency. The basic purposes of CEQA are to inform governmental decision makers and the public of the potential significant environmental effects of proposed activities;identify ways that environmental impacts can be avoided or significantly reduced;require changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when feasible; and disclose to the public the reasons why a project was approved if significant environmental effects are involved. An Initial Study and CEQA Environmental Checklist is typically prepared to identify the appropriate environmental documentation for any given agency action. The resulting environmental documentation categories are similar to those required under NEPA, and include the following: • Categorical Exemptions. Categorical exemptions are agency actions excluded from the need to prepare environmental documents, as the action is either not defined as a"project" under CEQA or the project itself would not result in environmental impacts. • Negative Declaration. If a project could result in environmental impacts,but these impacts can be mitigated through the implementation of routine mitigation measures,. an agency may issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration along with publication of the Initial Study(IS/MND). If no significant unmitigated impacts are identified,the agency may simply issue a Negative Declaration. If the action is found to result in a significant environmental impact that cannot be reduced with standard mitigation measures,an Environmental Impact Statement(EIR)is then prepared. • Environmental Impact Reportt,An EIR is a detailed analysis of a proposed action and its alternatives.An EIR will recommend mitigation measures,to the extent feasible, to reduce potentially significant impacts of the project. Contra Costa County is preparing an Initial Study (IS)which includes the CEQA Environmental Checklist for the development actions recommended in the Master Plan to determine the potential for environmental impacts applicable to CEQA. The IS may recommend that mitigation measures and/or additional studies (such as an MND or EIR) be completed to reduce the potential environmental impacts of Master Plan implementation. Additional project- specific CEQA documentation may be required for any improvement shown on the BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT CoNCEP7UAL.DEVELopmENTPLAN prior to project approval. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan F.3 Existing Conditions Buchanan Field Airport is located within unincorporated Contra Costa County and within the City of Concord's Sphere of Influence and Planning Area Boundary. The Airport abuts the city limits of Concord to the northeast,east,and southeast. The northwestern portion of the Airport abuts the City of Martinez,while the southwestern and western portions abut the City of Pleasant Hill and the Town of Pacheco,respectively. The area directly north of the Airport consists of sparsely developed unincorporated land,while all other surrounding areas are developed. The climate in Contra Costa County is characterized as dry-summer subtropical (often referred to as Mediterranean),with cool wet winters and relatively warm dry summers. The mean annual rainfall in the vicinity of the Airport is approximately 16 inches,'with the vast majority of rainfall between October and May. Analysis of long-term precipitation records indicates that wetter and drier cycles lasting several years are common in the region. The Airport is located in the San Francisco Bay Area,a large shallow air basin ringed by hills that taper into a number of sheltered valleys around the perimeter. Two primary atmospheric outlets exist. One outlet is the strait known as the Golden Gate,a direct outlet to the Pacific Ocean. The second outlet extends to the northeast, along the west delta region of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. Agricultural uses in the County consist largely of range and pasture lands (84% of total agricultural activity),providing grazing land and dry farming for grains and feed. These lands include areas with steep slopes,rugged terrain,lack of adequate water supply,or other constraints which make the land unsuitable for more intensive agricultural activities. Field crops,vegetables,and fruit and nut crops account for approximately 16% of total agricultural activities within the County. Naturally occurring oil and gas resources are largely concentrated in the eastern segment of the County;however, scattered resource areas, such as Los Medanos Hills,located northeast of the Airport between Bay Point and the Concord Naval Weapons Station,can also be found. Ridges,hillsides,rock outcroppings and the San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary system create the scenic character of the County and provide visual contrast to areas of urban development. The Lime Ridge Open Space area, designated a scenic ridgeline within the Contra Costa County General Plan,is visible southeast of the Airport. Suisun Bay is located north of the Airport, and is designated as a scenic waterway. 1 Rantz,S.E., 1971. Mean Annual Precipitation and Precipitation Depth-Duration-Frequency Data for the San Francisco Bay Region,Caiifomia,U.S.Geological Surrey,Open File Report 3019-12,October. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan F,4 In the year 2000,Contra Costa County had a population of 948,816.2 The estimated 2005 population for the County is 1,016,300 with an increase to 1,244,800 projected for the year 2030. The County had an estimated 368,770 households in the year 2005,with approximately 2.72 persons per household. The County's median income for 2005 is $88,700.3 Crime and fire protection services for the Airport are generally provided by the Contra Costa County Sherriff's Department and the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, respectively. However,Airport staff may also fulfill some of these functions. Water service to the Airport is provided by Contra Costa Water District and wastewater conveyance and treatment is provided by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. Solid waste is collected by an independent contractor,and is transported after processing to any one of the three landfills located within the County or outside of the County. The Airport is located within a triangle created by Interstate 680 (I-680),State Route 4 (SR-4), and State Route 242 (SR-242),providing it with regional access from all directions. Concord Avenue connects directly to I-680 and is a major arterial providing access to John Glenn Drive and general aviation facilities at the southeastern end of the site,as well as to major commercial and recreational (i.e.,golf course) facilities on the property. Marsh Drive provides access to facilities along Sally Ride Drive on the site's western side. Marsh Drive is accessible from the north and east via Solano Way and SR-4, and from the west and south via Contra Costa Boulevard and Center Avenue. The Airport is surrounded by a variety of land uses.The unincorporated area directly north of the Airport is sparsely developed,while all other surrounding areas are densely developed. Land uses surrounding the Airport are discussed below. North. The Airport is bordered to the north by SR-4,which runs in an east-west direction. Large tracts of light and heavy industrial parks exist north of the highway; this area holds Tosco Oil Refining Company and Monsanto Chemical Company. Pacheco Slough extends south towards the Airport from Suisun Bay,which is approximately four miles north of the Airport. East. The Airport is bordered to the east by the Walnut Creek channel,which extends southeast from Pacheco Slough. On the opposite side of the creek channel,to the northeast, single-family residential uses are the predominant land use. Southeast across the channel,land uses primarily consist of industrial and office park uses. Farther east,SR-242 runs in a north-south direction. East across the highway,land uses consist of residential uses to the north and commercial uses to the south. z United States Census,2000. Demographic Research Unit. 3 Association of Bay Area Governments,2004.Projections 2005.•Forecasts for the San Francisco Bay Area to the Year 2030. December. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/Sepbember 2008 Master Plan F.5 South. The Airport is bordered on the,south by Concord Avenue. South of this roadway,land uses consist primarily of commercial and mixed use developments. Wiest.The Airport is bordered to the west by a mobile home park located within the unincorporated County. I-680 runs in a north-south direction west of this development. Grayson Creek extends southwest from Pacheco Slough,crosses beneath I-680, and runs generally parallel to the Airport. West of I-680,land uses are light industrial and then transition to office,commercial,and multi-family residential uses, followed by single-family residential uses farther west. Probable Environmental Effects This section provides a brief description of existing environmental conditions within and in the vicinity of the Airport for those conditions which may experience significant impacts due to Master Plan implementation.These factors include: aircraft noise exposure;land use compatibility;safety.hazards;water quality and drainage;biological resources;and cultural resources. For these topics,this section also provides a general discussion of the possible environmental constraints and additional actions that may be required. Aircraft Noise Exposure This section presents a discussion of the.existing noise environment within the vicinity of the Airport.This information is drawn from the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR)Part 150 Noise Compatibility Plan prepared for the Airport.' Characteristics of Sound. To the human ear, sound has two significant characteristics:pitch and loudness. A specific pitch can be an annoyance,while loudness can affect our ability to hear. Pitch is the number of complete vibrations or cycles per second of a wave that results in the range of tone from high to low. Loudness is the strength of a sound that describes a noisy or quiet environment,and it is measured by the amplitude of the sound wave. Loudness is determined by the intensity of the sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the human ear. Sound intensity refers to how hard the sound wave strikes an object,which in turn produces the sound's effect. This characteristic of sound can be precisely measured with instruments. Noise is usually-defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work,rest,recreation,or sleep. 4 Barnard Dunkelberg and Company,2006. Buchanan Field Airport FAR Part 150 Study/Working Paper One.June. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan F.6 Based on the adverse effects of noise,the federal government,the State of California,and many local governments have established maximum allowed noise levels to protect public health and safety and to prevent disruption of certain activities. Various noise measurements are used to assess the level and the annoyance potential of community noise such as that generated by aircraft activity and arterial traffic.They include the following single event and cumulative metrics: • A-Weighted Sound Level(dBA). The A-weighted sound pressure level is commonly abbreviated dBA. The dB refers to a measurement in decibels. The "A"identifies a particular setting of the measurement instrument,the sound level meter. The A- weighted sound level provides a scale with the range and characteristics most consistent with human hearing ability. The dBA measures sound over a period of time, typically one'hour,to identify the minimum and maximum levels and the statistical variation of fluctuating sounds. Table F1 shows representative outdoor and indoor noise levels in units of dBA. • Maximum Noire Level(IJ. The highest noise level reached during a noise event is called the"Maximum Noise Level" or L.,For example,as an aircraft approaches,the sound of the aircraft begins to rise above ambient noise levels. The closer the aircraft gets,the louder it is until the aircraft is at its closest point directly overhead.As the aircraft passes,the noise level decreases until the sound level settles to ambient noise levels. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan F.7 Table F1 TYPICAL A-WEIGHED SOUND LEVELS Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan A-Weighted Sound Level Noise Subjective Noise Source in Decibels Environments Evaluations Civil Defense Siren 130 Threshold of Pain 64 times as loud Hard Rock Band 120 Threshold of 32 times as loud Feeling Accelerating Motorcycle at a few feet 110 Very Loud 16 time as loud away Pile Driver; Noisy Urban Street/Heavy 100 Very Loud 8 times as loud City Traffic Ambulance Siren; Food Blender 95 Very Loud Garbage Disposal 90 Very Loud 4 times as loud Freight Cars;Living Room Music 85 Loud Pneumatic Drill;Vacuum Cleaner 80 Loud 2 times as loud Busy Restaurant 75 Moderately Loud Near Freeway Auto Traffic 70 Moderately Loud Reference Level Average Office 60 Moderate 1/2 as loud Suburban Street 55 Moderate Light Traffic;Soft Radio Music in 50 Quiet 1/4 as loud Apartment Large Transformer 45 Quiet Average Residence Without Stereo 40 Faint 1/8 as loud Playing Soft Whisper 30 Faint Rustling Leaves 20 Very Faint Human Breathing 10 Very Faint Threshold of Hearing Source:Compiled by ISA Associates,Inc.,2006. Note:This table is not included in the Buchanan Field Part 150 Study Working Paper One,June 2006. Continuous Equivalent(Average)Noise Level(L,). The continuous equivalent (average) noise level is an energy equivalent level of fluctuating noise for a measured time period.Data.from this measurement are applied to the 24-hour measurement of noise. Leq for one hour is used to develop CNEL values (described below) for aircraft operations. Community Noise Equivalent Noise Level(CNEL). A given level of noise may be more or less tolerable depending on the time of day and duration of exposure experienced by an individual. The CNEL,weights noise events in the late evening through early morning,as well as noise events occurring between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. (increasing them by five dBA),is also widely used by jurisdictions concerned with noise. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan F.8 Noise levels that are less than 40 dBA CNEL are not considered significant. This threshold is commonly used to assess noise impacts in environmental impact documents. In addition, generally established regulatory standards throughout California do not typically address noise levels that are less than 40 dBA. However,even low levels of noise can be annoying to people when concurrent background noise is very low. Existing Ambient Noise. The Airport maintains a permanent noise monitoring system consisting of eight locations within the vicinity of the Airport. These monitoring locations are shown in Figure Fl.The ambient sound level at each site was identified based on information collected at these locations. Ambient sound level is measured using Percent Noise Levels'(Lj. Percent Noise Level is the noise level exceeded for specified percentages (n) of the time (i.e.,10 represents the sound level exceeded 90% of the time).The information helps identify the ambient noise environment and aids in assessing how intrusive aircraft noise is at a particular location.The sources of background sound include noise from cars and roadways,railroads, and commercial sources. The results of the ambient noise measurement data are presented in Table F2.Ambient noise measurements for all monitoring locations are shown and the L.noise level for the Lm;,,,Leo,L;o, Llo,and Lma,are presented.The Lm.,is presented for the peak dBA value that was measured while the Lm;,is the lowest(quietest) dBA value that was measured.This table illustrates the range in noise levels that exists at each site.Aircraft noise is included in this information and is typically the source of the peak noise levels.Although Lmz,is not technically a component of the ambient noise levels,it is included in Table F2 because at most noise monitoring locations aircraft noise is the loudest event. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan F•9 Table F2 EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS(Aircraft Noise Included) Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Statistical Noise Level NMS Address Max 110 L50 L90 Min NMS01 1901 95 74 58 52 49 Concord Avenue NMS02 201 Golf 89 58 51 45 43 Club Drive NMS03 2301 91 60 57 49 46 Stanwell Drive NMSO4 1775 94 61 54 48 45 Solano Way NMS05 355 Vista 88 63 59 52 49 Grande NMS06 205 Center 92 62 56 48 44 Avenue NMS07 99 Benita 96 57 50 46 43 Way NMS08 1 Santa 90 58 53 49 46 Monica Drive Source:BARNARD DUNKELBERG AND COMPANY,2006.Buchanan Field Airport FAR Pact 150 Study/Working Paper One. Note:NMS=Noise Monitoring Site Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/Septermber 2008 Master Plan F.10 L4 'j The Barnard Dunkelberg&Company Team Mallard Reservoir ' 4i --�% h„ NMS07 moo NMSO4 NMS05 E p �- .� �;�yR •fid ,,'11 .�� j NMS06 NMS03f WWI N MARTINEZ\t�`-�j ° ` •71 WA 1 • �' � renue °��6ord Boulevard r7' dyO CONCORD r. r PG °aa 1 i caro I. .1, PLEASANT HILL Id •'� 1 we��Road IM 4 TaylonBoulevard 9-�� ! • Pdo�y 1/ m e f {N} APPROXIMATE SCALE:1"33,000' Figure F1 Permanent Noise Measurement Sites Buchanan Fief Master Planning Program F.11 The L90 generally represents the residual sound level. It represents the level of noise that is exceeded 90% of the time. It is commonly referred to as the residual sound when other sources of noise are not present and is the level above which noise events occur, such as an aircraft over-flight or train pass-by. The L50 noise level is referred to as the median or average noise level.Half the time the noise is below this level;half the time it is above this level. During peak hours of aircraft activity,the L50 noise level could be influenced by aircraft noise, but on a 24-hour basis,this level is generally reflective of ambient noise levels. The results of the noise measurement show that the L90 noise levels ranged from a low of 45 dBA to a high of 52 dBA. Most sites had L90 noise levels in the high 40s dBA. The majority of these sites are located in relatively quiet settings that are not exposed to typical community noise sources, such as highways.The sites with the higher noise levels were typically exposed to freeway noise.These levels are typical of urban residential environments. Ambient noise levels vary by day and time of day. Background noise levels are quieter at night and during late evening and early morning hours.The ambient noise levels increase during daytime hours and periods of bad weather.Typical daytime ambient noise levels are about 5 to 10 dBA higher than the nighttime hours. Community Equivalent Noise Level. Event-related CNEL (aircraft and non-aircraft events) levels were identified for each of the noise monitoring sites.Table F3 presents the results of the CNEL noise measurements at the noise-monitoring locations.This table lists the average CNEL due to all (aircraft and non-aircraft) noise events for the 2005 base year.Table F3 also shows the background CNEL (noise that did not result in an event) and the total CNEL. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/Septermber 2008 Master Plan F.12 Table F3 CNEL NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS FOR ALL SITES Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Measured CNEL Noise Levels All NMS Address Events Background Total NMS01 1091 Concord Avenue 62 61 64 NMS01 201 Golf Club Drive 55 54 58 NMS03 2301 Stanwell Drive 57 53 59 NMSO4 1775 Solano Way 60 56 61 NMS05 355 Vista Grande 58 54 59 . NMS06 205 Center Ave 59 51 59 NMS07 99 Benito Way 56 54 58 NMS08 1 Santa Monica Drive 53 53 56 Source: BARNARD DUNKELBERG AND COMPANY,2006.Buchanan Field Airport FAR Part 150 Study/Working Paper One. Note:NMS=Noise Monitoring Site The Airport's permanent noise monitoring system does not correlate a noise event to an aircraft. Therefore this system does not specifically measure aircraft CNEL. However,the data can be used to approximate the aircraft CNEL noise levels that are experienced at each location. Depending upon the ambient conditions present and the loudness of the aircraft noise at a particular location,the aircraft only CNEL is typically within three dBA of the all events CNEL. When ambient noise levels are higher and the aircraft noise is lower,then it is more difficult to estimate the aircraft only CNEL.The aircraft only CNEL is less than the all event CNEL. Monitoring results show that there is a wide range in noise levels experienced in each location. The number of operations and the pattern of the operations vary with the weather,which affects which runway is used. Non-aircraft noise events can also influence these noise levels. Peak day CNEL-type data were an average of three to seven dBA higher than the average day. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan F.13 2012 Operational Assumptions. The future noise environment for the Airport was analyzed in the FAR Part 150 Study based upon operational conditions in the year 2012. The forecast data shows a total of 150,283 operations are anticipated to occur at the Airport in 2012. This equates to an average of 412 operations per day (an operation is either one takeoff or one landing) in 2012. Assumptions such as runway use,time of day,flight tracks and flight track usage,and departure procedures remain the same as with existing conditions. Land Use Compatibility Land use incompatibility is an area of determination and regulation that is to be resolved solely at the discretion of the local community or by the State. To determine what constitutes land use incompatibility,the individual land use types within particular noise contours need to be defined. The FAA, through the FAR Part 150 Study process,has developed generalized guidelines for land use compatibility for land use planning purposes. However,these are guidelines and do not automatically define incompatible land uses. Based on these guidelines, residential uses and schools are compatible with noise up to 65 CNEL; they can be compatible with up to 70 CNEL with sound insulation. Commercial uses are compatible with noise up to 75 CNEL. Existing (2005) and Future (2012) base case noise contours and land use compatibility is described in this section. Existing(2005)Noise contours. This section discusses the land use types found within the existing noise contours generated by aircraft utilizing the Airport. The existing situation is represented by three contours, the CNEL 65, 70, and 75 contours. The CNEL 65 contour is the threshold contour for land use analysis;residences are incompatible with noise above this level. The total figures given below are cumulative. The figures for the larger contours contain the area within all smaller contours;i.e.,the CNEL 65 contour area includes the area representing the 70 and 75 contours along with the 65 CNEL area. Existing noise contours are shown in Figure F2., CNEL 65 Contour. The CNEL 65 contour contains approximately 288 acres. Land uses within this contour include one acre of industrial development,22 acres of open space,and 265 acres of transportation-related uses. There are no residential developments, schools, churches,or other noise sensitive uses within the existing 2005 CNEL 65 noise contour. CNEL 70 Contour. The CNEL 70 contains approximately 168 acres.There are two acres of open space and 166 acres of transportation land use within this contour. There are no residential developments, schools,churches, or other noise sensitive uses within the existing 2005 CNEL 70 noise contour. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/Septermber 2008 Master Plan F.14 CNEL 75 Contour. The existing 2005 CNEL 75 contour contains approximately 72 acres of transportation use. There are no residential developments, schools, churches,or other noise sensitive uses within the existing 2005 CNEL 75 noise contour. Future(2012)Noise Contours. This section discusses the land use types found within the base case future (2012) noise contours generated by aircraft utilizing Buchanan Field Airport, assuming that all land uses will remain the same as present through 2012.This is the"base case"which assumes that no operational or facility modifications will occur at the airport, and is reflective of the forecast operations and aircraft types set forth in the FAR Part 150 Study. This is the situation against which future development projects will be measured to quantify land use effects.The future base case situation is represented by three contours,the CNEL 65, 70,and 75 contours. Future noise contours are depicted in Figure F3. CNEL 65 Contour. The CNEL 65 contour contains approximately 319 acres. There are four acres of industrial development,32 acres of open space, and 283 acres of transportation-related uses within this contour.There are no residential developments, schools, churches,or other noise sensitive uses within the future base case 2012 CNEL 65 noise contour. C CNEL 70 Contour. The CNEL 70 contour contains approximately 182 acres: There are two acres of open space and 180 acres of transportation land use within this contour.There are no residential developments, schools,churches,or other noise sensitive uses within the future base case 2012 CNEL 70 noise contour. 0 CNEL 75 Contour.The CNEL 75 contour contains approximately 82 acres of transportation-related land use.There are no residential developments,schools, churches,or other noise sensitive uses within the future base case 2012 CNEL 75 noise contour. Since there are no residential developments, schools,churches, or other noise sensitive land uses within any of the three future base case noise contours, future aviation activities at the Airport are consistent with federal guidelines. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan F.15 �p The Barnard Dunkelberg&Company Team} 0� ki P�rJ`� nneye/v a d ' �ay a°spa\ \S/G'e 65 CNEL Imhoff.ro��eA 5 < 70 CNEL Oiivera.Rd Grafi Na 4 7 Elena o� i rn n M° d Amotd Dr Muir-Rd / o 75 CNEL _am o MARTINEZ PAC ? Lsjhs/ � o IF 0 h m CentervA�e � 0 - High.`�o� a� 2nd:?ve N iP 70 CNEL co co b'ave CONCORD w 6hill�a nain9o. 65 CNEL pa � L F� O. 5a�.i�o.St 6"M o� o• 0 0 G9/as.I I CO/jC/ub Rd < �nl-p/ab/ �h °Si m' C) 0. Viking-D 3 C�d owe//A'd �Qr O PLEASANT HILL m O e o— cyc`a AC 9m m 9 rr ALj- a 0`� Legend ied J �J� sa,. o °� ® City Limit Boundary (0 2005 Noise Contours ° 0 1,500 3,000 Feet Figure F2 Existing 2005 CNEL Noise Contours I-b,(1-1#/.cba.n.an Field 11/lasler Planning Progra F.16 V The Barnard Dunkebrg&Company Team . 1yce.R /�a a E LL w y' P, ° 65 CNEL lmnort.o� R0�tieA S y� s� 'm �aEe. A as 70 CNEL o O�OQ Ra Pis a � -IIs pr N M�tr-Rd 75 CNEL o a 75 CNEL MARTINEZ ,y PACHECO m m NV, 1stAve 70 CNEL CONCORD n <n 65 CNEL 'oF`a i eiio d� s Q g I O KWk�.D y � cDWe/% Wing Dr PLEASANT HILL o Ge �� l syNia.Dr Legend raj d ® City Limit Boundary S Doris-Dr 5a� pO 2012 Noise Contour w 0 ®D 1,500 3,000 Feet Figure F3 Future Base Case 2012 CNEL Noise Contours f-bucba,na,n.. Fie1d Mister Planning Program F.17 Safety Hazards Development at the Airport is subject.to a number of safety constraints due to the underlying geology of the area as well as the nature of Airport operations.These constraints are discussed below. Geology,Seismology and Soils. The Airport is located within a seismically active region.The Hayward and San Andreas Faults are the two principally active faults within the Bay Area and are located approximately 15 and 32 miles west of the Airport,respectively. Other principally active faults within the region include the Green Valley,Rodger's Creek, Calaveras, Clayton, Diablo, and Marsh Creek-Greenville Faults. The Concord Fault runs in a northwest-southeast direction immediately east of the project site. Areas that are most likely to experience fault rupture from movement of the Concord Fault are incorporated within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Extending approximately 1,000 to 2,500 feet wide,the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone was established by the California Geological Survey under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Act of 1972. Development within this zone is strictly regulated, and requires that detailed geologic and seismic evaluations be conducted to assess the potential for fault rupture hazard before a construction permit can be issued for most projects. Small portions of the North and East Development Areas on the project site are overlaid by this zone and there is a potential for fault rupture within this area.' Future development projects at the Airport would increase the number of people,structures and improvements exposed to seismic hazards. Because of the proximity of the Airport to nearby active and potentially active faults,moderate to strong ground shaking could occur at the Airport as a result of an earthquake on any of these faults. The aggregate probability of the occurrence of one or more magnitude 6.7 plus earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Area over the next 25 years is estimated at 70 %.6 Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon primarily associated with saturated soil layers located close to the ground surface. These soils lose strength during ground shaking. Due to the loss of strength,the soil acquires a"mobility" sufficient to permitboth horizontal and vertical movements. Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean,loose,uniformly graded, saturated,fine-grained sands that he relatively close to the ground surface. However,loose sands that contain a significant amount of fines (silt and clay fraction) may also liquefy. 5 Association of Bay Area Governments,2006.Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones Map.http://quake.abao.ca.gov.August 16. 6 Michael,A.J.,et.al.,2005. Major Quake Likely to Strike Between 2000 and 2030—Understanding Earthquake Hazards in the San Francisco Bay Region. USGS Fact Sheet 152-199. Rev.May 6. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan F.18 The Airport is underlain by Quaternary Alluvium consisting of consolidated and unconsolidated sediments which have a high potential for liquefaction as shown on the Contra Costa County General Plan Generalized Geology Map. In addition,near-surface,highly expansive clay soils may be present at the Airport due to the presence of Quaternary Alluvium. Future development at the project site would be subject to the geological constraints discussed above. Individual projects would be required to comply with the Uniform Building Code and with Title 24 specifications for seismic design. In addition,individual projects may be required to conduct site-specific geotechnical investigations to address differential fill thickness,total and differential settlement within building pads, soil stability,potential seismic ground shaking, and liquefaction and provide specific building foundation recommendations to reduce the risk associated with soil subsidence,liquefaction and differential sediment. Hazardous Materials. In California,the U.S.EPA has granted most enforcement authority over Federal hazardous materials regulations to the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA). In turn,a local agency,the Hazardous Materials Program of Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS),has been granted responsibility for implementation and enforcement of many hazardous materials regulations in Contra Costa County_under the Certified Unified Program Agency(CUPA)Program (California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.11). Another local agency,the Contra Costa Fire Protection District,performs safety inspections and provides emergency response to hazardous materials incidents within the County. In California,State and regional agencies are responsible for programs regulating intentional and accidental release of hazardous materials to the environment.At the Airport,the Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD) has oversight over air emissions,and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)regulates discharges and releases to surface water and groundwater.The Cal EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)regulates remediation of sites where hazardous materials discharges could potentially present a public health risk. CCHS may act as lead agency to ensure proper remediation of leaking underground petroleum product tank sites and certain other contaminated sites within Contra Costa County. The Airport is identified as a hazardous land use in the Contra Costa County General Plan. Although no hazardous materials sites have been identified by State or federal agencies at the Airport,hazardous conditions may occur throughout the site.These include underground storage tanks located at various locations throughout the property. Above and below-ground fuel storage tanks are located at the County facility,Pacific States Aviation,Sterling Aviation, and Apex Aviation. The condition of these tanks is regularly monitored for compliance with hazardous materials regulations. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan F.19 Prior to the approval of individual development projects that may occur with implementation of the Master Plan, site-specific environmental site assessments (Phase I and/or Phase II) may be required. In addition,for demolition or renovation of structures constructed prior to 1980, a lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials survey may be required. Hydrology and Water Quality In 1993,a Drainage and Flood Control Study was prepared for the Airport.' The Drainage and Flood Control Study serves as a plan to mitigate and control the incremental runoff associated with future development of the Airport. Development proposed as part of the Airport's Master Plan could alter the existing drainage system and water quality on the site. Localized flooding could also occur due to the alteration of the on-site drainage pattern. A detailed hydraulic analysis (or a revised Drainage and Flood Control Study reflecting implementation of the current Master Plan) may be required for future development projects at the Airport. Current conditions, to the extent that they are known, are described below. Drainage. The eastern portion of the Airport is within the Walnut Creek watershed,while the western portion of the site is within the Grayson Creek watershed.Watersheds and drainage facilities surrounding the Airport are currently being evaluated by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Changes in watershed hydrology could result in impacts to local drainage at the Airport and the ability of the Airport's existing drainage system to handle runoff occurring from Master Plan implementation may be affected. Further evaluation of the Airport's drainage system may be required after this study is completed. Storm drains serving the Airport are maintained by the Contra Costa County Public Works Department. Currently,drainage from the Airport generally flows east to west. Drains on the west side of the Airport feed into open drainage swales that flow north to Grayson Creek. A small portion of airport runoff drains to the Walnut Creek channel to the east. Runoff from the Airport eventually drains north into Pacheco Slough and then into Suisun Bay. Historically, the airport drainage system has experienced difficulties in maintaining free open surface channel flow during a 10-year storm event due to the extreme high water level of receiving water.bodies. The low lying open space areas between runways and taxiways often function as detention basins during storms. Some of these locations were specifically designed as detention basins in the early 1990s. The drainage systems are considered adequate as long as the backwater surface elevations do not overtop and flood the runways and taxiways. New development at the Airport which could include the fill of drainage channels may alter the existing drainage pattern,increasing the risk of runway and taxiway flooding. 'CS Young Engineers, 1993. Drainage and Flood Control Study for Buchanan Field Airport,Final Report. Prepared for Hodges&Shutt.January 28. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan F.20 In addition,alteration of existing drainage channels on airport property could adversely affect existing drainage facilities downstream and adjacent to airport property. A detailed hydraulic analysis would be required of new development projects proposing to alter the existing drainage pattern at the Airport. Funding mechanisms for the construction and perpetual maintenance of drainage improvements would be identified at the time drainage improvements are proposed and evaluated. New development at the Airport may also be subject to the collection and.conveyance requirements of Title 9, Chapter 914 of the Contra Costa County Code. Per these regulations, development projects at the Airport would be required to include storm drainage facilities to adequately collect and convey storm water entering or originating within the development to the nearest adequate man-made drainage facility or natural watercourse. Water Quality. The quality of surface water and groundwater in the vicinity of the Airport is affected by past and current land uses at the site and within the watershed, and the composition of geologic materials in the vicinity. Water quality in surface and groundwater bodies is regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board and RWQCB. The Airport is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB,which is responsible for implementation of State and federal water quality protection guidelines in the Bay Area. The RWQCB implements the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan),' a policy document for managing water quality issues in the region. The Basin Plan establishes beneficial water uses for waterways and water bodies within the region. Grading and excavation activities for individual development projects could result in exposure of soil to runoff,potentially causing erosion and entrainment of sediment in the runoff. Soil stockpiles, cuts,and fills could be exposed to runoff and,if not managed properly,the runoff could cause erosion and increased sedimentation in storm sewers or drainages at or outside the project site. There is also a potential for chemical releases at most construction sites. Once released, substances such as fuels, oils,paints,and solvents could be transported to nearby drainages,including Walnut Creek, Grayson Creek,and Pacheco Slough and/or groundwater in stormwater runoff,wash water,and dust control water,potentially reducing the quality of receiving waters. Runoff water quality is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)Nonpoint Source Program (established through the Clean Water Act).The NPDES program objective is to control and reduce pollutants to water bodies from nonpoint discharges. s San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1995. Water Quality Control Plan,June 21. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan F.21 i Locally,the NPDES Program is administered by the RWQCB,which has conveyed responsibility for implementation of storm water regulations in the vicinity of the Airport to the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCWP)by issuing a NPDES permit covering all participating agencies within the County,including the City of Concord. The Airport maintains its own industrial storm water permit that is shared with other airports in California. Permitting requirements for the Airport are administered by the airport collaborative,and not the County. Compliance with the NPDES permit is mandated by State and federal statutes and regulations. New development and redevelopment projects (not including routine maintenance of existing pavements such as seal coating,reconstruction, or pavement overlays) that would create or replace more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface (e.g.,roof area, streets,sidewalks, and parking lots) are also subject to recent provisions of the NPDES Permit(Provision C.3). Provision C.3 is separate from,and in addition to,requirements for erosion and sediment control and for pollution prevention measures during construction.The permit requires applicable development projects to capture and treat operational stromwater runoff prior to . discharge to receiving water bodies or storm drainages to the maximum extent practicable. Where feasible,development projects must also minimize the area of new roofs and paving and should substitute pervious surfaces to allow runoff to reach the underlying soil. In addition to compliance with the provisions of the NPDES permit,development projects at the Airport may be required to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)including Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality during the construction of the project. Flooding. The eastern portion of the Airport is located within the mapped dam failure inundation area for the Lafayette Reservoir and the northwestern portion of the Airport is located in the 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA).The West Development area is located within this 100-pear flood hazard area. Future development within the 100-pear flood hazard area could consist of structures that impede or redirect flood flows. Contra Costa County participates in the National Flood Insurance Administration (NFIA)program,which is administered by FEMA. Proposed development projects within the West Development area would be subject to the provisions of the Floodplain Management Ordinance,which regulates development within the flood zones and complies with the NFIA program. 9 Association of Bay Area Governments, 1995. Hazard Map Dam Failure Inundation Areas,Concord,CA. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan F.22 As discussed above,during the construction period,grading and excavation activities could result in exposure of soil to runoff,potentially causing erosion and entrainment of sediment in the runoff. If not managed property,the runoff could cause erosion and increased sedimentation in storm sewers or drainages at or outside the project site.The accumulation of sediment in culverts or drainages could result in blockage of flows,potentially resulting in increased localized ponding or flooding. Future development could increase the coverage of impervious surfaces (e.g.,paved surfaces, buildings) at the Airport by as much as 40 acres. This increase could reduce infiltration of precipitation and interfere with groundwater recharge at the site. Air Quality The Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD)is primarily responsible for regulating air pollution emissions from stationary sources (e.g.,factories) and indirect sources (e.g.,traffic associated with new development),as well as for monitoring ambient pollutant concentrations.The California Air Resources Board (CARB)and the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)regulate direct emissions from motor vehicles. Ozone levels,measured by peak concentrations and the number of days over the State one- hour standard,have declined substantially over recent decades as a result of aggressive programs by the BAAQMD and other regional,State and federal agencies.The reduction of peak concentrations represents progress in improving public health;however the Bay Area still exceeds the State standard for one-hour ozone.Levels of PMIO(particulate matter greater than 10 microns in size,such as fugitive dust) in the Bay Area have exceeded State standards at least three times per year the last three years;therefore the Bay Area and it is considered a nonattainment area for this pollutant relative to the State standards.The Bay Area is an unclassified area for the federal PMI.standard. Pollutant monitoring results for the most recent years for which data are available (see Tables F4 and F5) at the Concord ambient air quality monitoring station indicate that air quality in the vicinity of the Airport has generally been good.As indicated in the monitoring results,three or fewer violations per year of the State PMI,, standard during the 3-year period were recorded and no violations of the federal PMI(, standard were recorded. The federal PM2, standard was exceeded twice during the three-year period,in 2002 and 2004. State one-hour ozone (03) and federal eight-hour 03 standards have been exceeded every year at this monitoring station. Federal 03 standards were exceeded in 2002 and 2003,while standards were not exceeded in 2004. Carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO�,and nitrogen dioxide (NO� standards were not exceeded in this area during the three-year period. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan F.23 Airports are associated with several different sources of air pollution,including aircraft machinery,ground support equipment (e.g.,air conditioners, service equipment,vans),on-road vehicle trips generated by airport users,and stationary sources such as boilers,emergency generators,and incinerators. Of these sources, aircraft and car trips are the most significant in terms of overall quantity,of emissions although other sources can also pose potential health risks.A significant consideration for aircraft emissions is that aircraft not only operate on the ground,but emit pollutants during their flight. Some aircraft emissions affect ground level pollutant concentrations due to atmospheric mixing. The FAA requires that pollutants released in the air that would be expected to affect ground-level air quality be accounted for during the air emissions inventory. Similarly,airports are required to account for the total emissions of ground access vehicles,meaning the emissions generated from the time a vehicle is started at its point of origin, arrives at the airport, departs the airport,and reaches its point of destination (total emissions may be calculated using standard trip traffic modeling,based on expected Airport use). An emissions inventory may be required prior to approval of individual development projects that would increase aircraft or vehicle activity at the Airport. Table F4 RESULTS FROM THE CONCORD AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING STATION, EXCEEDED STANDARDS,2002 TO 2004 Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Carbon Nitrogen Y Ozone Monoxide Dioxide PM10 e Max- Nation Max. Max. Max. a1-Hour al D-O- California 1-Hour California 1-Hour California 24-Hour National California r (ppm) S D-O-S (ppm) D-O-S (ppm) D-O-S (mg/m') D-O-S D-O-S 2002 0.103 . 0 5 3.5 0 0.063 0 65.8 0 3 2003 0.101 0 5 3.2 0 0.062 0 34.0 0 0 2004 0.097 0 1 2.7 0 0.065 0 50.7 0 1 Source: U.S.EPA and CARB,2002 to 2004. Notes: D-O-S=Days Over Standard ppm=parts per million ppb=parts per billion mg/m;=milligrams per cubic meter Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan F.24 Table F5 RESULTS FROM THE CONCORD AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING STATION, EXCEEDED STANDARDS,2002 TO 2004 Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Ozone Carbon Monoxide Sulfur Dioxide PM2.5 Max. Max. Max. Max. 8-Hour National 8-Hour California 24-Hour California 24-Hour. National California Year (ppm) D-O-S (ppm) D-O-S (ppm) D-O-S (mg/m3) D-O-S D-O-S 2002 0.089 3 2.3 0 0.007 0 76.7 1 NA 2003 0.085 1 2.0 0 0.003 0. 49.7 0 NA 2004 0.083 0 2.0 0 0.010 0 73.7 1 NA Source: U.S.EPA and CARB,2002 to 2004. Notes: D-O-S=Days Over Standard ppm=parts per million mg/m3=milligrams per cubic meter NA=Not Applicable.No State Standard. Biological Resources Portions of the Airport remain undeveloped and the potential exists for vegetation and wildlife habitats,wetlands,and special status species to be affected by development associated with implementation of the Master Plan.These biological resources and the extent to which they constrain development at the Airport are described below. Vegetation Communities and Wildlife Habitats. The majority of Airport parcels proposed for development consist of non-native grasslands with scattered patches of ruderal forbs such as wild radish (Aaphanus sativa),poison hemlock (Conium maculatum) and perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium).Non-native grass species include wild oats (Avena fatua),ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus),Italian ryegrass (Lolium multflorum),Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), and creeping wildrye (Leymus triticoides).10 Fescue,a common grass species,is also planted at the Airport. Special-Status Species. Although burrowing owls have not previously been observed on Airport property, suitable habitat (burrows) exists due to the presence of California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheya) throughout the site. Burrowing owls are a California Species of Special Concern, and their nest burrows are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code.Although disturbance of nesting pairs is illegal,the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)allow passive relocation of burrowing owls from development sites during the non-breeding season (September January). Because there is also substantial public and professional concern about population declines throughout California, the CDFG usually also requests mitigation for loss of burrowing owl habitat. io These grasslands were identified by an LSA Associates biologist during a field visit in June 2006. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan F.25 Typically,CDFG requests 6.5 acres of suitable on- or off-site burrowing owl habitat per pair or non-paired owl displaced by the project. For example,if a site scheduled for development in 2007 supported two breeding pairs and one unpaired male in the summer of 2006,CDFG would request that 19.5 acres (6.5 * 3) of suitable habitat be protected elsewhere on the project site, acquired at an off-site location,or purchased in the form of"credits" at a CDFG-approved habitat conservation bank.Prior to development associated with the Master Plan,biological site assessment surveys,including pre-construction surveys,may be required to identify the presence of burrowing owls. California red-legged frog(Rana aurora draytonia) and California tiger salamander (Ambystome californiense),both of which are listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act, are not expected to occur on the site due its urban setting,the lack of known breeding records in the site vicinity (nearest occurrences are more than 3 miles away at the Concord Naval Weapons Station),and the low habitat value of the on-site drainages. No other federally or State-listed species are expected to occur on the site due to its history of disturbance and associated lack of native habitats. Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Several drainage features (i.e.,channels) at the Airport are likely subject to U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Potential jurisdictional features include the large channel parallel and adjacent to Marsh Road,11 a north- south drainage swale in the parcel bounded by Sally Ride Drive,a northwest-southeast channel in the northern portion of the site,and a small tributary to the main channel in the southern portion of the site. The Corps uses three characteristics when making wetland determinations: vegetation, soil,and hydrology.Typically,all three characteristics must be present during some portion of the growing season for an area to be considered a wetland. Hydrophytic (i.e.,water- loving) plant species growing in and adjacent to the channels include the following: tule (Scirpus sp.),cattail(Typhus sp.),fat hen (Atriplex triangularis),nutsedge (Cyperus eragrostis),rabbit's-foot grass (Poly pogon monspeliensis),and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata). Fat hen is the dominant species within the north-south drainage swale (in the parcel bounded by Sally Ride Drive),which also contains scattered curly dock (Rumex,crispus) and rabbit's-foot grass.A small stand of arroyo willows (Salix lasiolepis) is also present towards the north end of this swale.All of these species are common indicators of wetland conditions. 11 The first 40 feet of the drainage channel parallel to Marsh Road is not proposed for development as part of the Master Plan,.and would thus not be altered due to Master Plan implementation.This space.is set aside for potential road widening or as a light rail corridor,which would be subject to separate environmental review by the agencies sponsoring these projects. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan F.26 Fill of any or all portions of the above described drainage features would require a Section 404 permit from the Corps, Section 401 water-quality certification from the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB),and potentially a 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG).A formal wetland delineation would be required for development on the Airport affecting these drainage features. Cultural Resources Historical structures in the County are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, as well as with the State of California Office of Historic Preservation. Two non-aviation use structures located on Airport property were possibly constructed prior to 1950.These structures include the Quonset but and a tarpaper building and are located on the west side of the Airport,north of the Airport administrative offices. Both structures accommodate temporary uses and may be demolished or altered due to Master Plan implementation.Although not anticipated,these structures may be considered historic resources and a cultural resources investigation may be required prior to any demolition or construction activities affecting the structures. In addition,there are approximately 600 archeological sites within the County which have been recorded with the Archeological Inventory,Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University.Although the Airport is not located in an archeologically sensitive area,undisturbed portions of the property could contain such resources.An archeological records search and site reconnaissance performed by a qualified archeologist may be required prior to ground disturbing activities for individual development projects associated with Master Plan implementation. The archeologist may recommend educating construction crews on the proper procedures in the event of an archeological discovery or may require archeological monitoring in the event that potentially significant resources are identified. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan F.27 Airport Plans Introduction The plan for the future development of Buchanan Field Airport has evolved from an analysis of many considerations. Among these are:aviation demand forecasts and facility requirements;aircraft operational characteristics;environmental considerations;and as characterized in the previously noted statement of goals,the general direction of airport development prescribed by airport management. Forecasts are utilized as a basis for planning;however,facilities are only to be constructed to meet actual demand. Previous chapters have established and quantified the future development needs of the Airport. In this chapter,the various elements of the plan are categorically reviewed and detailed in summary and graphic format. A brief written description of the individual elements,represented in the Airport Layout Plan Drawing Set for Buchanan Field Airport,is accompanied by a graphic description presented in the form of the AIRPORT DATA SHEET, AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN(ALP),the AIRPORTAIRSPAcE DRAWINGS,the INNER PORTIONOFTHEAPPROACHSURFACEDRAWINGS,the TERMINALAREA PLANS the LAND USEDRAWING and the AIRPORTPROPER TY. Airport Layout Plan The Airport Layout Plan (ALP)is a graphic depiction'of existing and ultimate airport facilities that will be required to enable the Airport to properly accommodate the forecast future demand. In addition,the ALP also provides detailed information on both airport and runway design criteria,which is necessary to define relationships with applicable standards. The following illustrations;entitled AIRPORT DATA SHEETand AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN, and the following paragraphs describe the major components of the future Airport Development Plan. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan GA Y o E11,1112 9. 6 9.11 r W g Sry J 1222 ....E4 4 4E4 4 444 P wO H LU gg$ ad's _ qRq YL V H . MORE Piz }� 4 4 444 4 4£4 44 4 4444 4 4 _W 0 J3'^ppyy 77f1d06d { gg 3 R LL .4 YY44Y^ 4Y Y Hff H4Y ff � 8) Y J p� O 1 q-5 R9 s5 $ lL 9 vqg e� g+�yy gg q gy qq ggqq mA ^- F 7 +xYB 48844 84488@ ffHeHB 2Sdgge 1 a z M 8 H�xi �� S�g'ja 1-0 S j ?_ M a 4 4 4 4 4 $ s 4 4 4 4 4 ti(' 'b...:1, \ � !.a '.. Z.•.�ge ..jam � 4�..8_ � _ Tra w o Q $i G a� .r CIO Its KL -45 _jw. 36 Cj Y � L/ �'4-�Etl 71 1 �f l.e✓ -/3., �, .n ; � / ,�,./ 1 t,..-'� m . ,! ! {., �.. y/7 +�.G', B�A♦ }+{ � � [ Cis �~` F1 �C.s 1 W , �. '• .� v � _._ 11�r'I..k ��-'�.t_ YYe� !� 6 �§ 7`-i 6l ` SO , �- 9 i@€S -a A f6 "Z i t .I.1 5�,' �♦ ��/B N� h ap a .a3� y � �r �� a3§c >r� 9J� � �,'•� �1 �,� fir" g; Ail" Jill�� : Mg I CIA f � d r-ii p�Y Vol �� h� \ f fy $ HIT ill If § ,gypp r $ & �3fl$ -zoL�� ~$ ell ♦ �Tr♦k�ar_=rl s 1�� :�'� -`� ` f-J f --- -- "t: rc ~E Z ' cu o` � =� .. r ry N 51 '�� :•� \ ,` ;S°.°. oa >.- ¢ct.: r ',A� '1 a O ICY _z.4jJ:3 LU u>o �MF l t° - c �ti r a F r-. ✓ "c� J tq r IL. W T.F Q Q m 51 ION m '''4m'ff�II 4 0 0 @M { rWli I'1A z 0r 4 S aIc W W { u ua3 .I1hT'.- dj, a exia_�nalao iem . "lv 'la z _ 7 0 o mo 1 „ ..1,� s 's.i •� ¢F E aA 4 4 E 4 4 '� u z z $e p t mom z@ax.; looI� :K p� �5..—y.t §I,� ` e k s § K �T.-, c.o 511 Ali tea= Ln .a 7'r.,•w ,�'�:�V ,.I •�I' � E 3 � � l o��,. 3 -, w z� w' G w, t��V4• / 4 4 4 4 ` , e � r s.. S e z VV Runway System The Airport's runway configuration will remain structured around four runways. Runway 1L/19R will be retained as the Airport's main runway,with its existing length and width (5,001'x 150'). The secondary parallel runway (Runway 1R/19L) will also remain at its existing length and width (2,770 x 75). Runway 14L/32R will be retained at the Airport's primary crosswind runway with its existing length and width (4,602'x 150'). The secondary crosswind runway will also remain in its current length and width (2,799'x 75"). The use of Declared Distances will continue to be employed for Runways 1L/19R and 14L/32R. As described in the Facility Requirements section of Chapter Three and shown on the Declared Distances Data Table on the Airport Layout Plan Sheet, Declared Distances are utilized to achieve required FAA Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Runway Object Free Area(ROFA) setback standards. Another important consideration related to runway development at Buchanan Field Airport is the existing and planned instrument approach system. e As recommended in previous planning studies,the approach visibility to Runway 19R will continue to be3/4-mile or greater,however,the Airport will continue to provide a larger than required Precision Runway Protection Zone to allow for the future potential implementation of GPS driven Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance(LPV)approach to 1/2-mile. This would additionally require the installation of a Medium Intensity Approach lighting system with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (MALSR) and greater RSA width and Length. ® Runway 1L is programmed for non-precision approach capabilities with a not lower than3/4-mile visibility minimum, for future potential GPS driven Lateral Navigation/Vertical Navigation (LNAV/VNAV) or LPV approach. 6 Runway 32R is programmed for non-precision approach capabilities with a not lower than .1 mile visibility minimum, for future potential GPS driven Lateral Navigation/Vertical Navigation (LNAV/VNAV) or LPV approach. o Runways 14L will continue to be served with visual approach capabilities only. e Runways 1R/19L and 14R/32L will continue to be served with visual approach capabilities only. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Pian G.5 Runway Lighting and Landing Aids. Currently,the High Intensity Runway Lights (HIRLs) (edge lighting) serves Runway 1L/19R,with Visual Approach Slope Indicator. (VASI) lights and Medium Intensity Approach Light System (MALS) serving Runway 19R. Runway 1L is served by VASI and Runway End Indicator Lights (REILS). Lighting and landing aids to both runway ends will be maintained. Precision Approach Path Indicator(PAPI)lights are programmed to replace the VASIs to both ends of Runway 1L/19R. Runway 14L/32R is equipped with Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIRL),with VASI lights and RF-ILS provided at Runway 32R.. Precision Approach Path Indicator (DAPI)lights are programmed to replace the VASIs on Runway 32R and to be installed on Runway 14L. Taxiway System and.Run-Up Areas Recommended taxiway system improvements include: • Construct new parallel lateral taxiways to serve 19 acre development in the West Development Area. • Remove portions of Taxiway D at Taxiway A and the Runway 32R Threshold. • Construct Taxiway L extension from Runway 1L/19R to Taxiway E;remove Taxiway C from Taxiway E to Taxiway D. • Construct Taxiway F extension from Runway 1L/19R to Taxiway E;remove diagonal section of Taxiway F between Taxiway E and Runway 1L/19R.' • Construct replacement Taxiway K from Taxiway A to Taxiway E;remove existing Taxiway K. • Remove Taxiway H between Taxiway J and Runway 14L/32R. Run-Up Areas and Airfield Service Roads • Construct expansion of eastside run-up areas for Runways 19R and 19L • Construct new run-up area on East Ramp west of the intersection of Taxiway J and Taxiway B. • Remove portions of run-up area on East Ramp adjacent to Runway 32R Threshold • Remove portions of he run-up area between Taxiway E and Runway 1L/19R. • Construct airport service road from Hotel Ramp to Taxiway E. • Construct airport service road from Northwest Hangars to North Development Area. 0 Construct airport service road from East Ramp to East Development Area. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan G.6 Landside Development As discussed in the previous chapters,the ALP also allocates various development areas for landside facilities. Landside facilities include terminal facilities,aircraft parking aprons,hangars,aircraft maintenance facilities, automobile access and parking,support facilities, etc. Detailed illustrations and descriptions of these landside development areas are provided in the Landside Development Area Plans section of this chapter. As provided on the Airport Layout Plan,proposed landside development areas include: ® Southeast Development Area ® West Development Area ® North Development Area o East Development Area Airspace Plan The Airport Airspace Drawing is based upon Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. In order to protect the Airport's airspace and approaches from hazards that could affect the safe and efficient operation of aircraft, federal criteria contained in the FAR Part 77 document have been established to provide guidance in controlling the height of objects in the vicinity of airports. FAR Part 77 criteria specify a set of imaginary surfaces,which,when penetrated, identify an object as being an obstruction. The AIRPORTAIR4PACE DRAWINGS,which are illustrated in the following figures, provide plan and profile views depicting these criteria as they specifically relate to Buchanan Field Airport. The plan is based on the ultimate planned runway lengths, along with the ultimate planned approaches to each runway end. For Runway 1L/19R,it is based on larger-than-utility criteria with the continued provision for a precision approach to the south end of the runway and a non-precision to the north end. Runway 32R it is based on larger-than-utility criteria and is also ultimately protected for a non-precision approach to the northwest. All other runways(14L, 14R,32L, 1R, 19L) are utility criteria runways with visual approaches only. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan G•7 g I x z r n4( •FAY A { t(�Q z x..,.- C'°1`�' '�''`#�",�'':�Qa�1y.Y t�,t C'Td-7 .a� � F,;:9;: x a •,-'"Ff � �` � IFt-!t��: k.�a J�f f•' }\. �z x� � Z IY � LU ,'e`' .� v.s •S, I#�� 5' o W z z x jf�.ti/„i?'�'..`�, N pp O z 4s�=jt i'°NY(I t * •� Ifs �,f.�' Y.O 8 C ZMw 5 3x .J j •� �tfi 1 7 = Y H i 4 Rapp c ,V �oalr !. ey •` u� - �_ vo F �$o'�'.o g S � i � - d 14 p � Y �k L it ! MH am 3xxiaaa mocisa3 c ti ,; 2•rd .,: ( 1M �; - 171 3•,�'+� y -�a z g s s s "`s4a o a o$`/ I( 1 1 i 4 �U •R \ 576 5.�6 �o�x +p.t y,`•'^'Qz'% G� 4 >iF.3��, �yv, yyy � •� t ..".a��7 3 :. 6 pY F U"<ar tf�.�..fra� YRV •� � � � � � ,'� � h'Nz � u.+ eC ��'w�'`. .lam ' P. W, 51 A su. NO ..... ...... mumm"g ASSSg gum."Mo Mg mg! • CL CC "M H 2 99M LL,M WE ig IM, PR 191! 1% A XZZ229 Mm- 0'. in Z 41 "eamsoososooaogeoag F— 11 --;--�ttt- t 1a --ti 11t t I-- It -t-11-11 �31RM��Z1 SI L jig MR m R9 MIR M. oa !R9 011' ON 61 r V 4 go LU ,Zf.- mul << T REN kr- W Z. M; 5a 6� wWa> IU vz e �s3 Q8 mg 3;, a yr E j � as 3aa #-g 2=9w H o - i a �F t ddFF3 S'i�f m CD t dg i3[2 U AN Uj UjWf LU z I 3 , el J Y la I; i j ol �O ZQw oa ul'1 5 65 „666„ ,1g1 g6 g _ 'BBiDoo` z�'=` 3` 33333 �� . � m m elmw awaaro•Ix x #��'i �o ��a a a� . s� z; s 4 v vY'4 v s 4 H C.) e � all j v M. ® Q� -ri�fi:a_ t �9� IS p O L1' CL M C) OW$_ Z5�5 W LU W Ly.i � Koa rna y � I s I I I g A � I a I e i a ` I am g rl 2 I 8 e3 r i I x g�gj _� a rno gl 1 a•>� I s as ¢OLu �. > ate. •A..... ZW WJ€ aWL2 DZC�P ZZ�y- C�Wa OWa LY W W A CL CI) 4 N'CL s #-4 W'H uY M tr E 6_ yt s� �Fg11 99 w _. SAx:h:7xxFA"oKxFR III; .S a+ L9 F ww ii I1 � 1 t t 1 t nl I i i i \\ I \ ( 1 1 \ i I I , _ I x I I { I r �a I I � I I � I a — I I I I I T � I I i I � I l d i i I I I / i tt t t t t t t f t / cc_ U :10 s �g +¢Lu wli� 2zc � Sao, =wa Ocwd X X LU w Xnner Portion of the Approach Surface Drawings To provide a more detailed view of the inner portions of the Part 77 imaginary- approach maginaryapproach surfaces and the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) areas,the following drawings are provided. An RPZ is trapezoidal in shape,centered about the extended runway centerline and typically begins 200 feet beyond the end of the runway. The RPZs are safety areas within which it is desirable to clear all objects (although some uses are normally acceptable). The size of the RPZ is a function of the design aircraft and the visibility minimums associated with the runway's instrument approach capabilities. The INNER PORTION OF THE APPROACH SURFACE DRAWINGS,which are depicted in the following illustrations,provide large-scale drawings with both plan and profile delineations. They are intended to facilitate identification of the roadways,.utility. lines,railroads, structures,.and other possible obstructions that may lie within the confines of the inner approach surface area associated with each runway end. As with the AIRPORTArRsPACE DRAwiNGS,the IlVNER PORTION OF THE APPROACH SURFACE DRAWINGS are based upon the ultimate planned runway length,along with the ultimate planned approaches to each runway. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan G.12 c a I SEEM€ _ ` i p■eII a««««<. <.«« W,$ J @¢ 9 4 Q ��Y'ui @^�•FFF 4YYFFP4MPP 4FFPY4YYFF4 < ,f,ul a`-:::::z::::::__::I d : s.s Sg �SSEff ESS 5 a�eveo 0o tf Z` E ? :s O{3, LL oZi -WEN �E` grins p p5m .,:A,'..R^"RF � f��'�� ! SE� ' 5 I J & 1 EL Fo AT vI * a/ . _ � 6 Z •:I F I -.Y "!S, I ,� - a v' A J d I L �>I�"'�.�✓a,�r'f�i `�+ �' ��'�+y��'p E� i�.�'�al�5"� f< '' ga;.,, r i � - �3 �3 p rI H� ZM �s Q7� 0. j',y� \y � a� S,\ k. rryl R i I.�Y• ` °i F {S Q$ Q A: ti LLI IL IL W Q� o crLilW o,d,a' .J' i• . '`t.I F� "- _.,+G fel Ola flu .--- -`.-` f r _ tsi ` rz II ITT III 01 '� � / 2'� r•-11-Q-rl �— �� _ `',w�s '�'" �firo firir�f ��•;. i A y $ � 'f'e �7�.. ,h` �� z:sai e2?o �=a � ��a��s€ � :;• �� S _<' �` r i I, nF :i � � I�'E�,lr+'�•��r sj=n g'�� 3s_�e�a d �y I ••.' C 1 l y�-y�� Y. '�• i It`s"" � � i�r �v � + � Tyr `. S � § �• %�`� x •,I a�'� '�T i s iZJ� � I � hl -,-4.c1 = .8 � ce�$T$ `�\f-,. "{ •e ro " ��- �14"� � rT�J J r�r ��°� � x'•.�`' @ �g �:�ax.�.��Y � �� c�e�� If t YI r 1r J n :re a g tJ�?^3 , It'.iF ,, 6 C r Pq¢,i� ,y!>J •�J1(jdr / T; �€3gc8T��e f �cl t 'G�•! '•int 'y � dsns5s. ¢ i�� { y i qq ( ✓t:rf yb ? oa 33.1 =$off e s # /• sem" ` 7Y. �yf:; J �. y � ( / �� I"�v+� � �Zz �m a = r t I t Y Jf it 1 I n ee�.. .!�S+aC�A+ T.! .� -' { ,�a r J � ^ ,..r^•f r IRMO M f#$$tF S. SMS ♦ � 'Z• tT � K� "� f jj Y e �XYY�[X> '� �;E• "'� �I., �„. } i _.a'r J r� ��'r�Ylt- �,�^r>I�i'F�I. �` _� , y>d ,�Xyy�x,YtXYYXYrYCXTXX r F ti+'"'v '^>I_q is• 4a4-.i'n,.t II�I ,17\rtmr.s 3§l X Y �+ `r` ^aaR g g?lc WSJ f $,;"f�roe I, .� .�� 'a,.� I � "•,,,.`+i Z� � .� \ sw € yt �b Y'. 'h��I•S E E I , w_k |) zi `s | z! MZ I t | z /� , all ■ LIJ ' § 72 — . ! G 5-55 l . . �. � ! .II0 ||I1I� !! N | § '. ,. , ƒ/ R• \©| © - . //| | ! \|| |.,;|.| I!'!•| , \|I | ! . A 4 \ � , ■ � | \ \ k # � //} N■ e_ ! . 2 Clim — - \ . / % ■ \®�� Q2] . • ,, __!� .41 | ` ) � . § , � I | \ | • � ] it z 11 . M LLQ a mom AM HN LL it cs W --- ------------ ;Nlip 'A It 9 '7 A kb : i'l T 1'111 TOM/ lip -T F, w ZIN M.M ' sAgV22 2222 P'€22 4A -2922 i l lul�::::_: om-.: .=I LV w wW d I �� ZS ww w A $§ F3y !! z 03 E ilmi Q1MH € zyW'"B � �� = ° 6aqpS,s §a`wa6g€t §$>a 9s � 3�e ^�w ff e'er a� �'Ln'� f\�'9 I�r� •��I A 4 �I�y' � ��' t� ' � g �I i� C�/f(j��iHi /��IZ`•t`�� L � may"' �� t r'�,r.r,4kr I r 4�1 {�'$� �/,`' ..�.1V I ,;�I '✓ �"',to�. �� 1 gd 41 IN f i lb Id 1 t\t k 1 @ .y ♦ _ \ ' �'��•.• I fF@ /ASS. I a'V' � \. tl ' ' 9 9 8m o �2 2aa" p: t ,} ;(,,,ter, ;. 3 ��.•� r � $ <_`� \ ` � e � B q z i % � g \ i [I L d, S QW c t >r i Y `t \ �� fag .. e q t � t i Y � • t 1 Y �s i t . ' f h h A h a h h h h $ 5 It' t '`,,,ems"°'` 1 �j '� �33e ti•� $ 3 � t , r a � c c r Ii � AA 1 �' S1 J,j'ek Yp f 1e 1 Landside Development Area Plans Landside Development As discussed in the previous chapters,the ALP also allocates various development areas for landside facilities. Landside facilities include terminal facilities,aircraft parking aprons,hangars,aircraft maintenance facilities, automobile access and parking, support facilities, etc. Detailed illustrations of these landside development areas are provided in this section of the Airport Plans chapter. As first shown on the Airport Layout Plan, and described here as follows,is a narrative summary of the proposed landside development at Buchanan Field Airport that includes: Southeast Development Area. This area currently contains many of the Airport's commercial general aviation businesses and facilities (FBOs, flight training,aircraft maintenance,etc.) and is the location of the terminal building and Airport Traffic Control Tower(ATCT). The area will continue to be used for the"commercial aviation" activity at the Airport in the future. Residing within this area is a significant amount of aircraft tie- down spaces,T-hangars and shade hangars. A flexible-use permanent terminal building facility is programmed for development within the Southeast Development Area. Over the next 20-years,redevelopment is anticipated in this area,including both commercial general aviation facilities and additional T-hangar devolvement. Landside access is provided by John Glenn Drive. In addition,older structures,as they reach their useful life,will be replaced with newer ones. .Non-Aviation commercial development will continue to abut this development area on the south. West Development Area. The West Development Area is separated into to parts;northern and southern sections. The north section includes land parcels north of the existing intersection of Sally Ride Drive and Marsh Drive. This area is currently under development and is characterized by larger commercial general aviation facilities (FBOs, aircraft maintenance, etc.) and corporate or large-span hangars.An example of this development is the Concord Jet facility,which is presently under construction.The Northwest Ramp area houses T-hangars as well. Two major areas are forecast for the development during the planning horizon. One,a vacant 11-acre parcel,previously set aside for a commercial passenger terminal facility should be reserved for large-scale development and is the only remaining parcel on the Westside with immediate airside access suitable for larger Design Group III aircraft. Existing ramp space or smaller vacant parcels are programmed for development of corporate and executive aviation facilities. A 19-acrea interior parcel that fronts Sally Ride Drive is also programmed for development and represents the largest single parcel of land for development within the West Development Area. This area is slated for a combination of mixed aviation uses including box hangar,executive hangars and potential aircraft tie-down spaces. This parcel also includes a small remnant area for aviation support or non-aviation uses. The 19-acre parcel will be supported by a dual parallel taxiway system Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan G.20 to join with Taxiway E. Future demand for this parcel is anticipated to be strong due to location and uniqueness. Landside access to northern section of the West Development Area is provided by Sally Ride Drive,via Marsh Drive. The south section of the West Development Area begins south of the intersection of Sally Ride Drive and Marsh Drive,within airport property. The primary parcel within this section is the ADG Master Developer site which is a 12-acre mix aviation use site that is characterized by joined box hangars and clear-span hangars to suit a variety of aircraft storage needs. This site will also house meeting and public facilities,including the new Contra Costa County Airports Division offices.An airport/airfield service road is programmed to connect this area with the Southeast Development Area extending from the Hotel Ramp to Taxiway E. Landside access to southern section of the West Development Area is also provided by Sally Ride Drive,via Marsh Drive. North Development Area. Currently,the North Development Area is primarily used by REACH,which operates emergency aeromedical helicopters. The REACH facility includes ramp space for several helicopters as well as a modular office structure that houses operations and stand-by facilities for the helicopter crews. Future uses for the North Development Area could include an emergency and law enforcement helicopter compound, as well as an additional location for airside/landside fire station and Airfield Rescue and Fire Fighting(ARFF) facility. The North Development Area is also suitable for mixed aviation storage and tie-downs,plus retention of the existing REACH operation.An airport/airfield service road is programmed to connect this area with the Northwest Ramp (West Development Area) along the perimeter fence,outside the Runway Safety Areas to Runways 14L and 14R. Landside access to the North Development Area is provided by Marsh Drive. East Development Area. Due to its remoteness,with no suitable means for public landside vehicular access,the East Development Area is primarily used for non-aviation purposes and currently is the location for the Law Enforcement Driver Training Center. This is an under- utilized area and is not appropriate for activities that require general public or aviation public access. This site is,however, suitable for aviation-support activates. Considering the existing use,and the imperative to separate vehicle from aircraft,it is recommended that Taxiway D be closed and portions of the Taxiway that join with the Threshold of Runway 32R and Taxiway A be removed,just outside the Object Free Areas associated with Runway. 32R and Taxiway A. An airport/airfield service road is programmed to connect this area with the Southeast Development Area extending from the Southeast Ramp along the perimeter fence,adjoining Walnut Creek Channel,north,to the Threshold of Runway 19R. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan G.21 MM N9919 ! R U 9 0 {'0 6a ....... LU M 5 _y U � oil H `C 6 E Of � � N GgggIEM N7I$g i Fpa:a °1 aBEe P� ` � o ';1 a-® o�. �? y�l• �r ry O� rr , / f •` ,ems �� i��.: o� pp 45. y 3; ry i• of O 4 f may. \ 0000Oonvop�"�' i��j�xry �/'•� s� o°o �3_j \ 1 /12 W Fl NN ga.\ °OOOo 0 o i( O e t \ O P H_ Zo a ar �; g2 NnHOIVN,- d 5 QU IRE Qug 2e1v VJI IAFF ! LIJ Cw ip I O eu i Q � °°°°°°°°°°°°°°vo e a i j v c ANN I IR 93 ° o rrr ��r I! i o n ;ot �t • s ', o /loo�' � o� c ff � I . � €�F �� _��.• l G C o 0 0 651 G q o U � I � 1 U y}!� ~� • � a S LLI 4 0 — -- --- I o \1 O o 1 p C V G ! m 00 - O - ° 00000 !4 —c ooO° y..o m i y, • °n 1) ! 1 0 - CO 1 EFS �1 � o �0 4. ,i a"a •a IS O O ° EM�'XMI. M z3 as a� Qd O Z6 p eb m �k r � o Ye � t� i ro \ a b n' a� � • rt a t tqy y p sq q k t' • G k#, t I a y t a �Z,t t�'Q*• RS i m n Viso 15 e� e - t ♦rt.-., ! v trl .!-No t 9 at In mxD + \ m �tttl Gt�•Yt 8GS}� /p } £�� O b }`5 s QQ 4 NN d d d � rn o ♦ ♦'. L �i7 .'�£ S BBS � � t i,+ r dti4 l c t Wzr�r9r' < ♦ z�� t �♦ e9 �.� +rir'tyi'�o �++�X'if �: G i i 00o tl+x .l y� �+ �1 r .�� •�� Tt 4 ♦ 000 AI�a��F#� q� ��n� � �� j� +�i!?�H "° `0NIM i 00 ,r (� ♦♦ t,. !� "� �.�4 : Y V+ t ♦-000' .�. ,.+ ♦ �� µi ♦ 40iP - Fl 't/ r~✓ e� @g 1.-= z� du d� �VW qq qq Zy 2�i�e2a3 - W LL. � o l.rl V Z m \` t9 r Ir ,$ m rIIC o1� \ ria 110� \Y♦ �e 1 li Iji:: :.::. rIC dam® •, l .� � :1 $ ' Ila ply€ �to d• Ogg 9 In 13 2E' 1• 6• ` Im $o Ilo • � ?� F� �7S '� y'o 4 tl' Im gg¢g s' g9 k)€g IIIb TA•'� O i@ .� O`�0 SS i 5� e iia oIto A•& \\• �611. Ito 2 Ito Ita > a �, •o ;y -%%a _ t\o t v%toI o W I to `�•oa �b o. J 0 LU 41 J • I dg7 I I ��w\O � QCAbya Nv 1A Di F 1 f ,` � `\SOC • y;} Y .. � � ppgp o � � d 3-g �'`• • I k< 7S Qpp ; o RHIM I UP I �� @ §gam t M 1R; @ @ Iii O 3 :1 � Land Use Drawing The LAND USE PLAN,presented in the following figure,depicts existing and recommended use of all land within the ultimate airport property line and in the vicinity of the Airport(including the area contained in the future 65.CNEL noise contour).The purpose of the Land Use Drawing is to provide airport management a plan for leasing revenue-producing areas on the Airport. It also provides guidance to local authorities for establishing appropriate land use zoning in the vicinity of the Airport. Airport Property Map The AIRPORT PROPERTYMAP,which is presented in the following illustration, indicates how various tracts of land within the airport boundaries were acquired (e.g., Federal funds, surplus property,local funds,etc.). The purpose of the Airport Property Map is to provide information for analyzing the current and future aeronautical use of land acquired with Federal funds. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan G.27 1-5 Z a g gN h.. "'•'#+'+r+h:"I- t '� 4�t� , -'•'� s' y•t i..-', t �r re r Lr1�> •+k 0 c0- j ,A } 1 IL e 'h �$' r f,'kl,� \��f.. � ' t'�f.. �r< ^�y.to k "S'3• i3y _23a € {..:+ ?ff3 ,+ Iw # -t✓ ! r; �r yk ge t ae '/g ` V LL E U"A kd €^-�v ��..yy/ r � y \ rr� ! It•,,,•+-H k�3t �� Y� 7 -.:7' � 6$8 �/•:� �' s 41 tt az L r«r'."1'.�i N'*l fit' � r f >"r,�, � _ ��,E_., °a f�{ ''-- '`3` $ a €s�•. r V= c r gs m tits S, _./ e�p9 / .8[[ '- !l r�jg- • � �_g � �I -. F, 1€�.hb r^'�FF•�,_ �R .�a. '-%'��'.3� � K � Y ty I 1 I k F � f� '��2i /, ♦ '"�,' £ 1 'S it ' s r� `�kk��.- ga. �-. � �.. 1�. -.a•. 3s� �` �.,/ � 5 ?-� rr �,e g f� 13 �� 3dF�u�.'� �..�: �� I _alit C�'�IS-1� z��'t•- @5 ,��i ,'<yg�••,�a �'� � ,; ` �i'v\`�i ® Ir ,as} ��'ll � �qua<;= <` ,Jy� t � �c @ .,sus a -n ��•y � _ ® e � �� '-+-' - S,'F I p ' 08 J II I�rIII ' �, _r.-""•fit S. �u- ::.`' � } _ f�,A £9 tJ "µ i1 No fav : eM- 1013 PROM MLU -6 CL --- --- --- -- 0 cc IL v-;i PAR ME I -j Ali 4-ml R--V Oct 0 =g7 1- UMMM M-2.111 A SO M AMAJI AMA MM ZVI \.. �.� � 1, -�" �` _. .� , � • fl, LC ur . ........... LL A Implementation Plan Introduction The long-term development program or Capital Improvement Program(CIP)/Needs Assessment for Buchanan Field Airport is intended to establish a strategy to fund airport improvements and maximize the potential to receive Federal and state matching funds, while also establishing a financially prudent plan for improvement funding on a local level. This programming effort is a critical component of this Master Plan Update for the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA),the California Department of Transportation(Caltrans)and the local sponsor(Contra Costa County). From the FAA and State perspectives,the CIP provides a detailed listing of projects and costs that is critical for their use in establishing priorities and budgeting expenditures at this Airport when compared with the needs of other airports. .From the local sponsor's perspective,the CIP identifies improvement needs and allows budgeting/financial decisions to be made with a comprehensive understanding of financial implications. The overall concept is to maximize the opportunities to receive Federal and State matching funds,within the context of and in recognition of the amount of local funds that are available for capital needs. Although the CIP will be used for programming by the FAA,there is no financial commitment for the Federal government or the sponsor to provide funding for the CIP. If Federal matching funds are unavailable for a certain project during the specified timeframe,the project will almost certainly be unaffordable using only local money and the improvement project will not go forward until appropriate funding is available. The basic structure of the Development Program/CEP is established in this chapter,with a detailed financial analysis being provided in the next chapter(entitled Financia/ Implementation Ana/ysisl Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan HA The potential improvements necessary to accommodate the future needs of the Buchanan Field Airport have been placed into three(3) phases: Phase I(0-6 years),Phase II(6-11 years),and Phase 111(11-20 years). The suggested program for the phasing of these projects is provide in Tables H1,H2,and H3. The proposed improvements are illustrated graphically by time period on the PHASINGPLAN(see Figure 1-11). Implementation Schedule and Project List Using the documentation previously presented regarding anticipated facility demands, along with preliminary engineering analysis focusing on pavement rehabilitation needs,a list of capital improvement projects has been assembled. The projects for the first six (6) years are listed in priority order by year. In the second and third-phases (years 6-20),the projects are listed without year designators. Buchanan Field Airport's proposed phased capital improvement program, entitled DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT COSTS,is presented as Tables H1,H2, and H3 of this chapter. It is anticipated that the project phasing will invariably be altered as local and Federal priorities evolve over the coming months and years. The details of the Development Program (including a capital improvement project list, project cost estimates, a finalized phasing list,and a financial feasibility.analysis will be formulated in consideration of comments received from Airport staff,County staff,the FAA, the Steering Committee and the public. Cost Estimates Cost estimates for individual projects,based on current costs,have been prepared for the improvement projects that have been identified as potentially being needed during the 20-year planning period. These estimates are intended to be used for planning purposes only and should not be construed as construction cost estimates,which can only be compiled following the preparation of detailed engineering design documents. (See Financial Plan Chapter,page I.9 for cost estimates funding breakdown.) Buchanan.Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan H.2 Table H1 PHASE I(0-6 YEARS)DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT COSTS Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Recommended Financing Method Total Federal Project Description Note Costs Funds(a State(b Local(c Other(d . 2008 Projects A.1 Design-Overlay Taxiway(FW)E[N of TW J to Approach End of Runway(RW)19111&TW Golf&Run-Up Area for RW 1L $75,000 Sub-Total/2008 Projects, $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 2009 Projects A.2 Construct-Overlay/Reconstruct TW E(N of TW J to Approach End RW 19R)&TW Golf &Run-Up Area RW 1L $980,000 A.3 Security Improvements(Fencing,Gates,Lights, Cameras,etc.) $1,000,000 A.4 New Noise Monitoring and Flight Tracking System(Multdateration) $750,000 Sub-Total/2009 Projects $2,730,000 2010 Projects A.5 Design-Overlay Eastside FBO Taxdane(TL) &TW J(S of TW A to App End of RW 32R) $170,000 A.6 Capital Maintenance Reserve $30,000 Sub-Total/2010 Projects $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Notes (a Federal-FAA Airport Improvement Program(M Grants (b State-California Department of Transportation(Caltrans)Grants (c Local-Airport Revenues,Cash Reserves,Etc (d Private Financing,Revenue Bonds,Etc. Cost estimates,based upon 2006 data,are intended for preliminary planning purposes and do not reflect a detailed engineering evaluation. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan H.3 Table H1 (continued) PHASE I (0-6 YEARS)DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT COSTS Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Recommended Financing Method Total Federal Project Description Note Costs Funds(a State(b Local(c Other(d 2011 Projects A.7 Reconstruction of Eastside FBO TL&TW J(S of TW A to App End of RW 32R)w/drainage $1,700,000 A.8 Conduct Obstruction and Approach Survey- All Runways $50,000 A.9 Capital Maintenance Reserve $30,000 Sub-Total/2011 Projects $1,780,000 2012 Projects AA 0 Design-East T-Hangars TL Rehab/Reconstruct &Drainage $275,000 A-11 Capital Maintenance Reserve $30,000 Sub-Total/2012 Projects $305,000 2013 Projects A.12 Construct-East T-Hangars TL Rehab/Reconst &Drainage $2,664,000 A.13 Design North Parallel Access Taxiway to 19 Acre Development Area $24,500 A.14 Construct North Parallel Access Taxiway to 19 Acre Development Area $490,000 A.15 Construct Second Entrance Sally Ride Drive from Marsh Drive for 19 Acle Development Area, $1,870,000 A.16 State and Federal Environmental Processing for Proposed Improvements(this project may appear several times during 20-year CM $0 A.17 Design South Parallel Access Taxiway to 19 Acre Development Area $24,500 A.18 Construct South Parallel Access Taxiway to 19 Acre Development Area $490,000 A.19 Capital Maintenance Reserve $30,000 Sub-Total/2013 Projects $5,593,000 Total/Phase I(2007-2013) $10,683,000 Buchanan Field Airport 'Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan H.4 Table H2 PHASE II (6-11 YEARS)DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT COSTS Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Recommended Financing Method Total Federal Project Description Note Costs Funds(a State(Ib Local(c Other(d B.1 Construct-Overlay/Reconst RW 1L/19R $5,000,000 B.2 Construct-Overlay/Reconst RW 14L/32R $5,000,000 B.3 Reconstruct TW B $3,330,000 B.4 Construct Airport Service Road From Hotel Ramp to TW E $1,123,200 B.5 Remove Portions of TW D at TW A and Runway 32R Threshold;Construct Airport Service Road from East Ramp to East Development Area $450,000 B.6 Construct-Expansion of Eastside Run-Up $0 Areas for RWs 19R&19L B.7 Other Pavement Maintenance and Rehab- Five Year Estimate $0 B.8 Capital Maintenance Reserve $150,000 Total/Phase II(2014-2018) $15,053,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 Notes (a Federal-F--A Aiiport Improvement Prognvn(_M Grants (b State-California Department of Transportation(Caltrans)Grants _ (c Local--lirport Revenues,Cash Reserves,Etc (d Pr v tc Financing,Revenue Bonds,Etc. Cost estimates,based upon 2006 data,are intended for preliminary planning purposes and do not reflect a detailed engineering evaluation. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan H.5 Table H3- PHASE III(11-20 YEARS)DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT COSTS Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Recommended Financing Method Total Federal Project Description Note Costs Funds(a State(b Local(c Other(d C.1 Constuct-Overlay/Reconstruct RW 1R/1 9L* $0 C.2 Construct TW LExtension from Runway 1R/19L to TW E;Remove TW C from TW E to TW D $4,770,000 C.3 Construct TW F Extension from Runway 1L/1 9R to TW E;Remove Diagonal Section of TW F Between TW E and Runway 1L/19R $1,010,000 CA Construct New Run-Up Area on East Ramp, West of Intersection of Taxiways J and B; Remove Portion of Existing Run-Up Area on East Ramp at Runway 32R Threshold $770,000 C.5 Site Enhancements Landscape,Lighting, Irrigation and Sign Improvements John Glenn Drive $1,280,000 C.6 Construct Replacement TW K From TW A to TW E;Remove Existing TW K and Part of Run-Up Area Between TWE and Runway 01R/19L $1,380,000 C.7 Remove TW H Between TW J and Runway 14R/32L $110,000 C.8 Site Enhancements Landscape,Lighting, Irrigation and Sign Improvements Sally Ride Drive $710,000 C.9 Drainage Improvements $856,000 C.10 Construct New Air Traffic Control Tower $0 C.11 Install PAPIs Runways 14L&Replace VASI w/ PAPI Runways 19R IL&32R $0 C.12 Property Acquisition-Avigation Easement Runway 19R RPZ $0 C.13 Install PAPI Runways IR,19L,14R&32L $0 C.14 Construct Multi-Use Terminal/Admin.Building 15,000 s.f. $3,900,000 C.15 Other Pavement Maintenance and Rehab- Ten Year Estimate $0 C.16 Capital Maintenance Reserve $300,000 Total/Phase III(2019-2028) $9,306,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 GRAND TOTALS $35,042,200 Notes (a Federal-F_I.I Airport Improvement Program(AIT)Grants (b State-Cahfomia Department of Transportation(Caltrans)Grants (c Local--Airport Revenues,Cash Reserves,Etc (d Pmzte Financing,Revenue Bonds,Etc. Cost estimates,based upon 200G data,are intended for preliminary planning purposes and do not reflect a detailed engineering evaluation. i Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan H.6 Capital Improvement Program (CEP) To assist in preparation of the FAA's effort to provide grant funding to the most needed projects,airport staff keeps, on file and up to date with the FAA,an Airport Capital Improvements Program (ACIP),which is similar in format to the tables presented previously. The purpose of the proposed project list,phasing,and costs,is to provide a progressive projection of capital needs,which can then be utilized in local and federal financial programming. It is realized that as soon as this long-range planning document is published,the project list starts to be out of date and;therefore,it will always differ to some degree with the Airport's six-year ACIP on file with the FAA. A project must be listed on the ACIP for it to be funding eligible for AIP funds. At this point in the master planning process,the CIP is in preliminary form. Again, following review ofthe materials provided in this Draft Report,an in-depth financial analysis will be completed,which will guide the finalization of the CIP recommendations. Phasing Plan To supplement the information provided by the project list and project cost estimates,a phasing illustration has been prepared. The following illustration, entitled PHASING PLAN,indicates the suggested phasing for the proposed improvement projects throughout the 20-year planning period. The plans represent a suggested schedule and variance from it may be necessary, especially during the latter time periods. Attention has been given to the first six years because the projects outlined in this time frame include many critical improvements. The demand forr certain facilities, especially in the latter time frame,and the economic feasibility of their development are to be the prime factors influencing the timing of individual project construction. Care must be taken to provide for adequate lead-time for detailed planning and construction of facilities in order to meet aviation demands. It is also important to minimize the disruptive scheduling,where a portion of the facility may become inoperative due to construction,and to prevent extra costs resulting from improper project scheduling. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan H.7 � E'"f f' ?�� r +.�,� �`.;.Ft� z,.• �^:� r* :l''t. J¢' r't a��ti a„{.a' �.¢w �� P�S,1 -.� � w1 \./Il xt e'ar+� � a` t �r 4 � L �,,�jt.i•a-s a��:'�''�aa � �C� ; .sz o '�k a• t 2 ' S i{{„cam�'x*.•zf�t Xr'.� \.r }i. ; 6•. t t m� '�. f�Pby•-�1`r r t1 �, �}} } :.og y „' iZ.j I'-bid i�+l(''lto..lt .'I ) u, �') x'. �'� ' + ,. � � a�J \.+'r 1 :1 art •N Com" - hz A it �j1 1C•h i L q..F -Cy'�' xi+ t '� 7 _6\\ � f. � '�.'Ap J �.. N s, t,r�-� �� dx..��J�1�a,� �Q. aF irk til J; ^�� " s� �i..r '+x•�e �Os� t ��y��" � r W ..ta�jl f.�� ?~� �,/"t�.PN x x r LL•� -a as Tt�. gra uSa atm jk r y �p� r C11 O!, Y j L� t � � tf W S 2LQ ��'aj , V ,/ a't 1• ,t j�,1 t x�/'�} ca KG's/s �. o alKF,�. z),:tdJ'!,�`mY.',�,`�`�� a>. 1 r...� .+ i� a � +•� t :t I-�,�I��r,�� !. � r d. - •� Q/ r a � �'�'� t t�=t s Fi•`i I�-" 4 +• }"--'pf , tl#" ri t Z r J//C t CEN'-,- T � y£SiUE ' j � dar n{7 `f� e�mJ�� . �J � + �1- �'•Z. J -� o�i �t F G"t� � 4 c.tr;��,"^^'-t:t-1 .�{a � ! '- ( r,�1 %' a��yy � ~r.• af'�tQ�•-��t i,,,' 7 1a � r� a c �.;�, yl v 6'T, r �a J 1u•1"�� 1/ t��I z u9�o}S��Q.v-',�•�t i' � "v ,�' k�� V`�� n+ ``w. �aF 1 n w co a j e c t,,.q�` ;( �.�.+p•O.�t•.2�i g f{ ``� _euti mm + � :t•..-- "/ 4 "' t '� ,{/ (C yS e�':fl�ow�J i,'L02' { 3 .`-,y.^• )w..'�- b�. ""o � o_ `�f J ' n -5,,.. c�-"'��.,G �c i Y�t�a2a� r9�W:t>#� }yI� 0.1-z n ig i ...:Jr cri � � �� "�;�,,•i,r Boz m. -� n'c j ' �" i I -l.W� � � 4\?�L �ryG � �@�lJ q\ ,.1 2 4'rf �, j �v,�' •I E i-,-a� �'� � `t--�� d y `` •:''�t'�,a 'c°S a'j6 .�� q C�,. I JJ � v �f t3 �/ i� 1 1.�-.�ri�y�,1%+ir��i•'J''- S tWi 4'4 0 1��.5. $:• 5 cet� �\ �\� U '. t .. � w�/ � rr J � 'a.�j�_f;.f �'G. �.5:;��r '��( s w+ate�i k.S 'y w ;3 a?at •�\`: � \\ \ t a. 2 z y -:-•` { t �.2'+.`}MORiUE4RtVE �t"4j S, t rtelr ig LL f �1 Sty•'c� tL1" W Q ♦, �\ it f •. '� �_j t ( '��(4 a1 � f "4�� r: C lz f?y p47 r r o 1. - ,- s. G`.;�,� s} - Gam- x i �i�, �'�, i 1 a�• a g�`.tyt�0.9pt$ ,t`'J '!f vm '-1 P, 3� W a;t t� �y Of '�jx7 ✓ f��o L'i se N�''S sya '• '' '-'y` laJ `♦• m L' t'y ''F',z G 4� I ! -'�-U 04ijty ��`7,^F`Su /I -. ��' 1£ �' �' ru � � a�i a+ i 1 i It t-•-;r1 a e.9 s.a) ^��s,.•S,r. ).... ��i � �F 3y ..` - '�a}-3'r�L SJ,� J�.;Y�r °; � t '•d� °'..7'S,1. ! ti •� $ tir ti�t aiL- - .. i x .t S� �sJ! )'� f; fid' r }r`�'•.Y ) � M' � _ �76+f N 1 _. ��'rG 4!r T I�l - 1,� QK Y�bc�•,jR �,�X'�ri;�'�5 �t;� \ (�� \ o +�t .�r,� t '7- ). 1r`lj�'Kfd =�•"w�'F�v Y �Q' � �' r' '.t; �`,, �. � t a,o`. �,.�r��^=� Vt?,'4h L"'bx`�'``4�'`7.'"•`"�,n.S � � �t t�� \:'t >-c" r� a { F: ! i' t, t�Y �o�-� t 1. S}�. Z W .m`• �'Ck- r'- O., ' } •10.s r a � o o, � C/ LL § �' 1 f� (� 1 } +' jai �'. t'" 1 � tm st � "✓ �1, ;� \ ..S � � co000{ V IL Y rl. �, • Financial Plan and Implementation Strategy Funding sources for the capital improvement program depend on many factors, including Airport Improvement Program (AIP) project eligibility,the ultimate type and use of facilities to be developed, debt capacity of the Airport,the availability of other financing sources,and the priorities for scheduling project completion. For planning purposes, assumptions were made related to the funding source of each capital improvement. The projects costs provided in the previous tables are identified with likely funding sources. The information provided below is background information. The actual plan for funding of improvements at the airport will be specified after the completion of an in- depth financial implementation programming analysis. Sources of Capital Funding Following is a short description of capital improvement funding sources to provide background and context when reviewing the previously presented DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT COST tables. A more complete description is provided in the subsequent chapter,entitled Financiallmplementation Analysis. Federal Airport Improvement Program(AIP)Grants. The Federal Government initially embarked on a grant-in-aid program to promote the development of a system of airports shortly after World War II. Over the years,the program has been through several iterations and names. The current program was established by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 and is known as the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). Funds obligated for the AIP are drawn from the Airport and Airway Trust fund which is supported by the user fees,fuel taxes,and other similar aviation revenue sources. The FAA currently provides grants on a 95%/5% federal/local split basis to airports similar to Buchanan Field Airport for public-use improvement projects. On an entitlement grant basis, under current funding guidelines,the Airport receives $150,000 in dedicated grant funds annually. There are also discretionary funds available through AIP. Discretionary grants are over and above entitlement funding, and are provided to airports for projects that have a high federal priority for enhancing safety,security, and capacity of the Airport,and would be difficult to fund otherwise. The dollar amounts of individual grants vary and can be significant in comparison to entitlement funding. Discretionary grants are awarded at the FAA's sole prerogative. Discretionary grant applications are evaluated based on need,the FAA's project priority ranking system,and the FAA's assessment of a project's significance within the national airport and airway system. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan H.9 FAA Facilities&Equipment Funds. Within the FAA's budget appropriation,money is available in.the Facilities and Equipment (F&E) Fund to purchase navigational aids (such as Instrument Landing Systems and Approach Lighting) and air safety-related technical equipment,including Air Traffic Control Towers (ATCTs). Each F&E development project is evaluated independently through a cost/benefit analysis to determine funding eligibility and priority ranking. The qualified projects are totally funded (i.e., 100%) by the FAA,with the remaining projects likely being AIP eligible. In addition,the Airport can apply for NAVAID maintenance funding through the F&E program for those facilities that are not F&E funded. It is possible that some of the proposed landing aid-related development projects for Buchanan Field Airport will qualify for F&E funding,if available. California Department of Aeronautics (Caltrans)Division of Aeronautics. The Division Administers three state aid programs for airports: (1) Annual Grants, (2)AIP Matching, and (3) A&D Grants. The sole funding source for these grants is the excise tax revenue on general aviation (GA) gasoline ($0.18 per gallon) and for jet fuel ($0.02 per gallon). In addition,the Division administers the Local Airport Loan Program. Annual Grants.. These are State grants ($10,000 annually) to eligible airports for use at the sponsor's discretion subject to applicable laws and regulations,with prior approval from the Department. The Annual Grant can fund projects for"airport and aviation purposes" as defined in Section 21681(0 of the State Aeronautics Act. Also,the Annual Grant can fund fueling facilities,restrooms, showers,wash racks,and operation and maintenance. The Annual Grant can provide part of the sponsor's match for projects that are funded by FAA grants as long as the project is otherwise eligible for state funding. AIP Matching Grants. These are state grants to eligible airports for eligible projects subject to programming and allocation by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). This grant assists the sponsor in meeting the local match for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants from the FAA. The state grant is 5% of the AIP amount. Generally, state matching is limited to projects that primarily benefit general aviation. Acquisition and Development(A&D)Grants. In general,the sponsor must meet the same eligibility requirements as for the Annual Grant. An A&D grant cannot be used as local match for an FAA grant. The minimum amount of an A&D grant is $10,000. The maximum amount that can be allocated to an airport in a single fiscal year is $500,000. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan H.10 The amount available for A&D grants is what is left in the Aeronautics Account after funding Annual Grants and AIP Matching. The local match can vary from 10% to 50% of the project's cost. The match rate is set annually by the CTC. (A 10% rate has been utilized for the past 15+ years.) The Annual Grant may not be used for the local match to an A&D grant. Local AirportLoan Program. The Local Airport Loan Account is a revolving fund that was initiated with seed money from the Aeronautics Account. As principal and interest payments are returned to the Loan Account, additional loans can be provided to airports. Loans are available for revenue generation projects such as hangars and fueling facilities. Loans.can be made for airport development projects also and can be made to assist the sponsor with the local match for an AIP project. No limit on the size of a loan has been established. The Division determines the amount for each individual loan in accordance with the feasibility of the project and the sponsor's financial status. Private Third Parry Financing. Many airports use private third party financing when the planned improvements will be primarily used by a private business or other organization. Such projects are not ordinarily eligible for Federal funding. Projects of this kind typically include hangars,FBO facilities, fuel storage,exclusive aircraft parking aprons, industrial aviation use facilities,non-aviation office/commercial/industrial developments,and various other projects. Private development proposals are considered on a case-by-case basis. Often, airport funds for infrastructure,preliminary site work,and site access are required to facilitate privately developed projects on airport property. Airport Revenues. The Airport generates revenue through ground leases, facility leases,commercial aviation fees, fuel fees,etc. At many airports,generating the necessary cash flow to balance the operations and maintenance can be a difficult task: Generation of money to adequately fund capital costs associated with the operation of an airport is often a significant challenge. Many smaller airports rely on supplemental money from local general funds to assist with funding major projects. However,it must be realized that Contra Costa County general funds carry the burden of all County departments,and they will likely not be in the financial position to provide the type of monetary assistance necessary to fund the Airport's capital needs identified in this Master Plan. Careful planning will be required to ensure that the Airport's capital needs are met with the scarce dollars that are available. In addition,the importance of continuing the process to find and develop new revenue sources to help support the operation and improvement of the airport should be emphasized. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan H.11 Summary- Master Plan Capital Improvement Program Financial Implications If aviation demands continue to indicate that improvements are needed,and if the proposed improvements prove to be environmentally acceptable,the-capital improvement financial implications discussed above are likely to be acceptable for the FAA and Contra Costa County. However,it must be recognized that this is only a programming analysis and not a commitment on the part of the FAA or the Airport Sponsor. If the cost of an improvement project is not financially feasible,it will not be initiated. Following the receipt of comments on the above documentation and to further refine the financial implications involved with the long-term development program,the Master Plan's final chapter entified Financiallmplementation Program,will be prepared. The Financial Implementation Program will provide a detailed analysis of the CIP and funding strategies. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan H.12 Financial Implementation Analysis The primary objective of the financial implementation analysis is to demonstrate the Airport's ability to fund the projects in the master plan.This section includes: 1)historical airport operating results;2)annual projected airport operating results through Phase I of the capital improvement plan(FY2008-2013)and a five-year summary of projected operating results for Phase II of the capital improvement plan(FY2014-2018);and 3)a summary of the recommended Phase I and Phase II capital improvement plan with anticipated sources of funding. Historical Airport Operating Results This section discusses the Airport's historical operating revenues and expenses, debt service,and capital spending for the FY2002-2006 period as a component of the County's Airport Enterprise Fund. Historical operating performance is summarized with a focus on the most recent fiscal year's actual results. Historical Airport Operating Results The following table summarizes the operating performance for Buchanan Field and the Airport Enterprise Fund for the period FY2002-2006.During the five year.period Buchanan Field generated an average of$3.0 million a year in operating revenues and$2.3 million a year in operating expenses (excluding depreciation),resulting in a average net operating income of$704,000 annually. As described previously in the Master Plan (Inventory,page A.2). Buchanan Field is owned by Contra Cost County and is operated as part of the Airports Division of the County Public Works Department. The Airport Division operates Buchanan Field and Byron Airport,another general aviation airport owned by the County, as an enterprise fund within Contra Costa County,supporting the operating and capital expenses of the Division solely from airport-generated revenues. Byron Airport has operated at an average net operating loss of $184,000 for the FY2002-2006 period and historically,net revenues from Buchanan Field have been applied to offset Byron Airport's shortfall in the Airport Enterprise Fund. Net of the Byron annual net operating loss, approximately$519,000 in net operating revenue has been available for debt service and capital investment. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan I.1 The Airport Enterprise Fund pays annual debt service related to funds borrowed for the construction of Byron Airport and capital improvements at Buchanan Field.Average annual debt service for the FY2002-2006 period was $546,000 with a reduced payment in FY2006 due to a refinancing of the debt. The outstanding principal is currently$1.3 million. Net of debt service,the Airport Enterprise Fund has experienced an average net loss of$26,000 for the five-year _period. The Airport Enterprise Fund has maintained a positive balance for each year in the FY2002-2006 period,with an ending year balance of$728,000 on average. Historical Operating Results Airport Enterprise Fund (for the 12 months ended June 30) Average 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2002-06 Buchanan Field Operating Revenues $ 2,867,469 $ 2,804,349 $ 2,942,519 $ 3,143,909 $ 3,032,643 $ 2,958,178 Operating Expenses/1 1,930,018 2,151,247 2,102,830 2,452,187 2,636,742 2,254,605 Net Operating Income $ 937,451 $ 653,101 $ 839,690 $ 691,722 $ 395,901 $ 703,573 Byron Airport Operating Revenues $ 304,402 $ 297,942 $ 351,491 $ 363,442 $ 412,997 $ 346,055 Operating Expenses/2 263,744 404,934 597,906 612,081 773,460 530,425 Net Operating Loss $ 40,658 $ (106,992) $ (246,415) $ (248;639) $ (360,463) $ (184,370) Net Operating Revenues $ 978,109 $ 546,109 $ 593,275 $ 443,083 $ 35,438 $ 519,203 Less:Debt service/3 866,169 834,537 450,189 451,019 125,900 545,563 Net Income(Loss) $ 111,940 $ (288,428) $ 143,086 $ (7,936) $ (90,462) $ (26,360) Airport Enterprise Fund Beginning Balance $ 781,838 $ 893,778 $ 605,350 $ 748,436 $ 740,500 $ 753,980 Change in net income 111,940 (288,428) 143,086 (7,936) (90,462) (26,360) Ending balance $ 893,778 $ 605,350 $ 748,436 $ 740,500 $ 650,038 $ 727,620 Source: Airports Division,Contra Costa County. Note: 1.Excludes debt service;assessments,and depreciation. 2.Excludes debt ser-,ice. 3.The Airport Enterprise Fund pays annual debt service with 54 percent allocated to Buchanan Field and 46, percent allocated to Byron. Debt service shown is for both Buchanan Field and Byron. A refinancing in FY2005 resulted in a reduced interest only payment in FY2006. Airport Operating Revenues-FY2006 Generally, factors affecting airport revenues include: 1) inflation;2) the strength of the regional economy;3) activity levels;and 4) Airport rates and charges. The Airport derives revenues from aeronautical and non-aeronautical sources. Non-aeronautical sources are not directly related to aviation-that is,not . involving the operation or service or aircraft-but may be indirectly related in terms of the attraction to an airport location.Aeronautical sources,such as Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan I.2 hangar fees, tie-down fees, and fuel flowage fees,are directly related to the services provided to users of the Airport. In FY2006 Buchanan operating.revenues totaled$3.0 million with 54% ($1.6 million) from non-aeronautical sources and remaining revenues from hangar rents ($650,000),ground rent($223,000),concession fees ($145,000),tiedown Zees and transient parking($113,000),fuel flowage ($97,000), and other sources [$169,000,which includes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) tower rent of $20,000]. Operating Revenues - FY2006 Buchanan Field Tiedowns/Cards/Park Concession 4% Ground Rent 5% Fuel Flowage 7% 3% Hangars Other/1 Non-aeronautical 6% 54% Source: Airports Division,Contra Costa County. Note: 1."Other"includes development fees,utilities,control tower rent,and other miscellaneous revenues. The Airport maintains long term leases with most major tenants. Long term lease agreements with non-aeronautical lessees Reynolds &Brown,Airport Capital Group,Lithia Automotive,Budget Rent-A-Car,Buchanan Fields Golf Course, and others generate significant airport revenue,have lease terms that extend beyond FY2010 and past FY2040 in some cases,and provide an uncommon level of revenue diversification to the Airport. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan I.3 Long-term lease provisions for both aeronautical and non-aeronautical tenants include a periodic CPI adjustment to rates and charges.Additionally,most major long-term lease agreements have periodic reviews'to increase minimum annual guarantees and/or rental rates. Management also indicates that beginning in FY2008 rates and charges for hangars will be adjusted annually for inflation.' Scheduled Rental Rate Adjustments Selected Major Tenants Periodic FMV Percentage Company CPI Review A MAG Test Rent FBOs Apex Concord Jet Services(new--effective 5/1/07) ° Concord Jet Services ° HG Limited(Grover)/2 ° Pacific States Aviation ' Sterling Aviation/2 ° Hangar Lessors Buchanan Airport Hangar Owners Assoc. ° Buchanan East Hangar Co. ° L.C.A.Inc. Non-aeronautical Hotel(Airport Capital Group) ° Buchanan Fields Golf Course Budget Rent-A-Car(JR Leasing&Sales)/3 ° Lithia Automotive/3 • Reynolds&Brown ° Source: .Airports Division,Contra Costa County. Notes: 1.Other than an annual review. 2.Ramp rates increase w/county tiedown rate. 3.Also pays a per car Fee. 1.Certain leases also specify fair market value readjustments,and/or reappraisals. 2.Current Airport published rates and charges were effective December,2000. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan I.4 Airport Operating Expenses—FY2006 Generally, factors affecting airport operating expenses include: 1) inflation,2) staffing and salary levels,including overtime; 3) the cost of contracted services and supplies;and 4) activity levels. In FY2006 Airport operating expenses totaled$2.6 million with salaries and benefits accounting for 67% ($1.8 million) of the total. Other operating expenses include services and repairs ($204,000),maintenance and repairs ($190,000), professional services ($170,000),utilities ($120,000),insurance ($40,000),and other charges ($134,000).On a percentage basis, operating expenses are generally comparable to those at other airports. Operating Expenses -FY2006 Buchanan Field Professional Services Utilities Insurance Other/1 6% 5% 2% 5% Maintenance I Repairs -„ S4 r � � � s Services&Supplies \ 8% Salaries&Benefits 67% Source: Airports Division,Contra Costa County. Note: 1."Other'includes use of County vehicles and equipment,employee travel;data processing charges,and other miscellaneous charges. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan L5 Historical Capital Expenditures Since 1984 Buchanan Field has received more than$14 million in AIP grants.For the period FY2002-2006,the Airport received a total of$2.7 million in federal AIP funds and$117,000 in state funds for ongoing capital projects,an average of $530,000 and$23,000 annually from federal and state sources,respectively.Due to the timing differences that occur between receiving AIP.funds and project expenditures,net Capital Improvement Plan expenditures have a tendency to vary from year to year. Historical Capital Expenditures Buchanan Field Airport Average 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2002-06 Grant Receipts ' AIP 23,373 934,836 844,318 426,478 422,757 530,352 State 57,713 55,163 3,669 23,309 Total Grants receipts $ 23,373 $ 934,836 $ 902,031 $ 481,641 $ 426,426 $ 553,661 Less:Buchanan Field Capital Expenditures $ 115,520 $ 971,218 $ 1,013,461 $ 362,702 $ 397,160 $ 572,012 Net CIP expenditures $ (92,147) $ (36,382) $ (111,430) $ 118,939 $ 29,266 $ (18,351) Source: Airports Division,Contra Costa County. Projected Airport Operating Results Projected operating results for the FY2008-2013 period are summarized below. Based on this projection,net operating revenues (net of debt service and the projected Byron operating loss)will be sufficient to fund the annual local portion of the capital improvement plan (as described in the next section) for Phase I projects and over the five-year period FY2014-2018 for Phase II projects. FY2008 net income is estimated at$174,000,taking into account expected revenue enhancements including one-time payments,the estimated Byron net operating loss,and debt service.Net income declines in FY2009 due to a reduction in hangar revenues,as described in the next paragraph,and this decline is partially offset by$95,000 in other future revenue enhancements used to fund a portion of operating and capital expenses. Net income increases annually between FY2011 and FY2013 due to declining debt service and improved operating results at Byron.Debt payoff in FY2011 allows for additional net income for capital projects after FY2011.Airport management expects financial performance at Byron to improve gradually over the next eight years as development projects are completed and estimates that after FY2014 Byron's net operating loss will be zero. The Airport Enterprise Fund is projected to maintain a positive balance for each year in the FY2007-2013 period,with an ending balance of$832,000 on average. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan I.6 Projected Operating Results Airport Enterprise Fund (for the 12 months ended June 30) Total 2007B 2008 . 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014-2018 Projected operating Results Buchansa Fidd Operating Revers Aeronautical/I S 1,351,590 S 1,801,821 S 1,600,136 S 1,650,247 S 1,701,943 S 1,755,274 S 1,810,290 S 9,937,701 Non-eemnautical 1,659,510 1,735,439 1,787,502 1,841,127 1,896,361 1,953,252 2,011,849 11,001,617 Other revenues 144,900 161,062 163,792 166,583 169,469 172,441 175,502 926,741 Future Revues Enhancemems2 95,162 Total Operating Ra- S 3,156,000 $ 3,698,322 S 3,646,582 S 3,657,958 $ 3,767,773 S 3,880,966 $ 3,997,642 S 21,866,060 Less:Operating Eapeases/3 2,614,763 2,721,614 2,830,478 2,943,697 3,061.445 3.183,903 3,311259 18,652,241 Bucbacas Net operating Income S 541,237 S 976,708 S 816,103 S 714,260 S 706,328 S 697,064 S 686,383 S 3213,819 Less:Byron Net Operating Loss(est.)/4 519,000 446,340 381,465 316,590 251,715 186,840 121,965 57,090 Net Operating Revemnes S 22,237 $ 530,368 S 434,638 S 397,670 S 454,613 S 510224 S 564,418 $ 3,156,729 Less:Debt service/5 203,278 356,330 356,331 356,330 178,165 Net Income/Qoss) S (183,041)$ 174,038 S 78,307 S 41,340 S 276,448 $ 510,224 S 564,418 $ 3,156,729 Buchanan Field Capital Plan Funding Net Income/(loss) $ (183,041)S 174,038 S 78,307 S 41,340 $ 276,448 S 510224 $ 564,418 S 3,156,129 Less Capital Imp-ant Projects Local Match 47,706 2.089 78.308 38,788 88,032 44,441 216,493 714,408 Surplual(Short(ell) S (230,747)S 171,950 S (0)S 2,553 $ 188,415 S 465,782 S 347,925 S 2,442,321 Airport Enmprise Fwd Beginning Bal aaa S 650,038 S 419,291 S 591240 S 591240 S 593,793 S 782208 $ 1247,991 3 1,595,916 Change in act income (183,041) 174,038 78,307 41,340 276,448 510,224 564,418 3,156,729 Capital expenses local match (47,706) (2,089) (78,308) (38,788) (88032) (44,441) (216,493) (714,408) Ending balsa. S 419,291 S 591,240 S 591,240 S 593,793 1 782,208 S 1,247,991 S 1,595,916 $ 4,038,237 Gmw4h Rate(%) Buchanan Field operating Rev®ues Aeronautical/1 333% -11 2% 33% -112% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% Non-monautical 4.6% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% other revenues 112% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% 1.8% Total Opunting Reveaues 17.2% -1.4% 0.3% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Less Opssatiug Expeases 4.1% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% Net Operating Income 80.5% -16.4% -12.5% -1.1% -1.3% -1.5% Source: Airports Division,Contra Costa County and John F.Brown Company. Notes: 1. Aeronautical revenues in FY2008 includes one-tune completion fee payments of$250,000 for 8 box hangars at$10,000 per hangar and 34 T-hangars at$5,000 per hangar. 2.Future revenue enhancements from new development are set equal to the minimum remaining amount necessary to fund all requirements on an annual basis. 3.Excludes debt service,assessments,and depreciation. 4.Assumes future development at Byron eliminates Byron's net loss incrementally over the next eight years. 5.The Airport Enterprise Fund pays annual debt service with 54 percent allocated to Buchanan Field and 46 percent allocated to Byron.Debt service shown is for both Buchanan Field and Byron.Final payment is scheduled to occur in FY2011. r' Operating revenues are budgeted to increase 17%in FY2008 primarily due to incremental hangar revenues of$330,000 from new development including the Concord Jet project and the DHI hangar project as well as anticipated revenues from the East Ramp Hangar.project.'Per lease negotiations with a new tenant, the Airport will receive completion fees of approximately$250,000 upon completion of the new hangar construction project,providing a one-time boost to aeronautical revenues in FY2008.Additionally,airport hangar rates will increase annually with CPI beginning with FY2008.'Throughout the remainder of the forecast period operating revenues are projected to increase with CPI at 3% annually,excluding one-time revenue enhancements. 3.The Concord Jet development consists of about 48,000 sq.ft.of hangar space and 4,000 sq.ft.of office space built.on about 5.5 acres on the west side of the airport.DHI is building a new executive hangar and office space on 0.86 acres on the west side of the Airport. 4.The Airport reacquired 17 hangars in February 2007 due to lease expiration.At full occupancy and under current rates, the hangars would produce annual revenues of approximately$94,000 at FY2007 rates. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan .I.7 Future revenue enhancements will be required to fund the capital plan as programmed. In addition to the new development scheduled for completion in FY2008, current projects in various stages of development include the following: ® ADG.A new hangar and office space complex located on over nine acres, on the west side of the Airport.The hangars will be sold and the sizes will be varied based on market demand,ranging from 45'x 45'to 80'x 80' (or larger if desired by a tenant). ® Sterling Aviation. Redevelopment of an existing fixed based operation, which includes additional land to the immediate north of the site,totaling about 5.5 acres (east side of Airport). The project will include hangars, office space,a full-service restaurant, a smaller eatery,and a multi-story parking complex. ® CCR Hangars.A new hangar and large office space complex on approximately 11 acres,on the north side of the Airport. The hangar sizes will be varied and based on market demand,ranging from 45'x 45' to 50'x 60'. ® Airport Properties.Additional redevelopment of about 2.0 acres of the east ramp tie-down area into a combination of box,t-,and shade hangars. Partial development plans after FY2008 may include 8 additional box hangars, 17 additional t-hangars, and 18 shade hangars. Operating expenses are projected to increase at four percent annually through the forecast.period. Salaries and benefits comprise the largest component of operating expenses.Airport management expects incremental O&M requirements from new development and planned capital projects to be minimal because tenants are responsible for all direct O&M expenses and the planned capital projects are airfield projects and security enhancements with low O&M impact. Additionally,Airport personnel believe a four percent annual increase is a reasonable assumption based on historical performance and current expectations for future expenses. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan I.8 Airport Development Plan The table below summarizes the recommended capital improvement program for near-term (Phase I) and long-term (Phase II),planning timeframe:The capital improvements provide for continued Airport development and preservation of critical airport assets. Capital Improvement Plan Project and Funding Summary Buchanan Field Airport (for the 12 months ended June 30; in nominal$) Projects Year(s) Total AIP State Local Near Term Design-Overlay Taxiway(CW)E(N of TW J to Approach End of Runway (RW)19R1&TW Golf&Ron-Up Area for RW IL 2008 $ .79,568 S 75,589 S 1,890 s 2,089 Construct-Overlay/Reconstruct TW E(N of TW J to Approach End RW 19R) &TW Golf&Ron-Up Area RW IL . 2009 1,070,872 1,017,329 25,433 29,110 Security Improvements(Fencing,Gates,Lights, Cameras,etc.) 2009 11092,727 1,038,091 25,952 28,684 New Noise Monitoring and Flight Tracking System(Mullilateration) 2009 819,545 778,568 19,464 21,513 Design-Overlay Eastside FBO Taxilane(TL) &TW J(S of T W A to App End of RW 32R) 2010 191,336 181,770 4,544 5,023 Reconstruction of Eastside FBO TL&TW J(S of T W A to App End of R W 32R)w/drainage 2011 1,970,766 1,872,228 46,806 _ 51,733 Conduct Obstruction and Approach Surrey- All Runways 2011 57,964 55,066 1,377 1,522 Design-East T-Hangars TLRehab/Remnstruct &Drainage 2012 328,364 311,946 7,799 8,620 Construct-East T-Hangars TLRehab/Remnst &Drainage 2013 3,276,384 3,112,565 77,814 86,005 Design Parallel Access Taxiway to 19 Acre Development Area 2013 _ 60,264 57,251 1,431 1,582 Construct Parallel Access Taxiway to 19 Acre Development Area 2013 1,205,276 1,145,013 28,625 31,639 Construct Access Roadways for 19 Acre Development Area 2013 2,299,864 2,184,871 54,622 60,371 Capital Maintenuce Reserve Phase 1 2013 141,261 - - 141,261 Long Tern Construct-Overlay/Remnst RW IW19R 2014 6,333,850 6,017,158 150,429 166,264 Construct-Oveday/Remnst RW MUM 2015 6,523,866 6,197,673 154,942 171,251 Reconstruct Taxiway B 2016 4,475,242 4,251,479 106,287 117,475 Construct Airport Service Road From Hotel Ramp to Taxiway E 2017 1,554,771 1,477,033 36,926 40,813 Remove Portions of Taxiway D at Taxiway A;Construct Airport Service Road to East Development Area 2018 641,592 609,513 15138 16,842 Capital Maintenance Reserve Phase 2 2014-2018 201,764 201,764 Total S 32,325,278 S 30,383,140 s 759,579 S 1,182,559 Source: airports Division,Contra Costa County. Notes: Project costs were prepared in 2006 dollars and have been increased at a three percent annual rate to reflect future construction cost inflation. Historically,capital improvements at the Airport have been funded with a combination of federal and state grants and Airport funds and it is anticipated that future projects will be funded in the same manner. Under the proposed capital plan, 95% of the funding is anticipated to be provided by the federal AIP grants. The remaining five percent is expected to come from a combination of state and Airport net revenues. CALTRANS grants are anticipated to match the federal AIP-funded amount at the current 2.5% rate. Federal and state funds are programmed for all projects except for the capital maintenance projects which will be funded 100% from Airport net revenues. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan I.9 Projected Capital Expenditures Buchanan Field Airport Average 2007B 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007B-13 Grant Receipts AIF 1,709,250 75,589 2,833,987 181,770 1,927,293 311,946 6,499,699 1,934,219 State 85,412 1,890 70,850 4,544 48,182 7,799 162,492 54,453 Total Grants receipts $ 1,794,662 S 77,479 $ 2,904,837 $ 186,314 S 1,975,475 $ 319,745 $ 6,662,191 S 1,988,672 Less:Buchanan Field Capital Expendittues $ 1,842,368 $ 79,568 $ 2,983,145 $ 225,102 $ 2,063,508 $ 364,186 $ 6,878,685 $ 2,062,366 Net CIP expenditures $ (47,706) $ (2,089) $ (78,308) S (38,788) S (88,032) $ (44,441) $ (216,493) $ (73,694). Source: Airports Division,Contra Costa County. In the event that grant funds are not available for a scheduled project,Airport management indicates that the project would be delayed until such time that necessary grant funds are available. In addition to Phase I and Phase II projects included in the financial plan,the Airport has developed a list of Phase III projects totaling$9.1 million (in 2007 dollars)'that it would like to complete in the FY2019-2028 timeframe.The financial feasibility of Phase III projects will depend on the Airport's actual experience over the next decade and the resulting change in demands for facilities and services as well as the future availability of funds,among other factors and for this reason,the financial implementation plan does not include a projection of the feasibility of Phase III projects. Due to the diversity of the Airport's revenues and the long-term leases in place with most major tenants that provide for regular CPI adjustments,the strong economic growth in the region,and the flexibility to undertake projects in the capital plan depending on the availability of funding sources,no sensitivity analysis'was performed as part of the financial feasibility analysis. The projection is based on information and projections supplied by the Airport and on various other assumptions.To the extent that the Airport's actions and the Airport's actual operating performance differs from these projections and assumptions,the effect on operating results will be different from the projected results.Any projection is subject to uncertainties and there will usually be differences between actual and projected results because not all events and circumstances occur as expected. In preparing this projection assumptions were made regarding increases in operating and construction costs as a result of inflation, activity levels,and other factors and increases in revenues as a result of future rate increases due to inflation. 5.Phase III projects total cost is in 2007 dollars rather than nominal dollars because project priority and timing within the FY2019-2018 period will depend on future demand and actual results until that time. 6.For some airports a sensitivity test may be useful to assess financial risk.For example,an airport relying heavily on passenger facility charges(PFCs)may benefit from an analysis to test the sensitivity of the financial plan to different rates of passenger growth since PFC collections are directly related to passenger enplanements. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan I.10 Key assumptions underlying this analysis include: • Overall O&M expenses increase at 4% annually. • Airport rates and charges increase annually with inflation,estimated at 3%. • Projects will be completed as scheduled (timing and cost) and construction costs will increase with inflation, estimated at 3%. • FY2008 new development incremental revenues will meet budget. • Byron net operating income will increase as estimated by management. • Airport activity levels will increase as forecasted in Working Paper One. • Federal and state grants will be available as programmed in the capital plan. Buchanan Field Airport Draft Final Report/September 2008 Master Plan I.11 S ;¶ A t , x C y t. � u EXHIBIT #3 County Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-2008 RESOLUTION NO. 17-2008 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, REGARDING A PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (COUNTY FILE: GP#07-0001) INVOLVING REVISIONS AND UPDATES TO THE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION ELEMENTS OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN (2005-2020) IN SUPPORT OF AN UPDATE TO THE BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN WHEREAS, on January 23, 2007, the Board of Supervisors authorized a General Plan Amendment study for the purpose of updating relevant elements of the General Plan in support of an update to the Airport Master Plan for Buchanan Field Airport; and, . WHEREAS, for the purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and State and County CEQA Guidelines, the Department of Conservation and Development on July 10, 2008 issued a Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and an Initial Study on the proposed General Plan Amendment and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted and noticed as required by law; and, WHEREAS, staff prepared a report and recommendation for the County Planning Commission for its meeting on September 23, 2008 recommending approval of a General Plan Amendment proposal affecting the Land Use- and Transportation/Circulation elements, which proposed to update and/or revise General Plan goals, policies, implementation measures, and maps for Buchanan Field in support of the Airport Master Plan update; and, WHEREAS, after notice was lawfully given, the General Plan Amendment proposal was scheduled for hearing before the County Planning Commission on September 23, 2008, at which time testimony was taken, and, after having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter, the hearing was closed. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,that the County Planning Commission: . 1) HAS CONSIDERED THE PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY as adequate for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act prior to forwarding a recommendation; and, 2) RECOMMENDS TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION determination for this project for the purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA); and, ' 1 RESOLUTION NO. 17-2008 3) RECOMMENDS TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE (COUNTY FILE: GP#07-0001), as presented and recommended to the County Planning Commission on September 23, 2008 in the staff report, and more fully described in Exhibit "B" to the September 23, 2008 staff report, which includes: a. Amending the Land Use Element, including the Land Use Element Map to re-designate a 19-acre vacant parcel on airport property between Marsh Drive and Sally Ride Drive from Commercial (CO) to Public/Semi-Public (PS) and Business Park (BP), and to update and clarify the text, which specifically adds new and re-numbers Policies #3-92 to 3-101, under the heading "Policies for Buchanan Field Area at pages 3-47 and 3-48 in the Land Use Element". b. Amending the.Transportation/Circulation Element, to remove the Diamond Boulevard extension as depicted in the Roadway Network Plan Map, and, in conjunction with removing the Diamond Boulevard extension from the Roadway Network Plan Map, revise and clarify the text under "Policies Regarding Buchanan Field" in the Transportation/Circulation Element, at page 5-26, specifically Policies#'s 5-49 and 5-50. 4) FURTHER RECOMMENDS as the third consolidated General Plan Amendment for calendar year 2008 to the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020), as permitted under state law. NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Planning Commission finds that the proposed General Plan Amendment in support of the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan-Update (County File: GP#07-0001) would further the goals and policies in the Contra Costa General Plan (2005-2020) in support of the development of Buchanan Field, and would be consistent with other goals, policies, and implementation measures described in the General Plan, and more specifically would not cause a violation of any of the Growth Management Performance standards as described in the Growth Management Element. The decision of the County Planning Commission was given on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - R. Clark, L. Battaglia, D. Snyder, M. Terrell, H. Wong, and M. Murray (Chair) NOES: Commissioners - None ABSENT: Commissioners - C. Gaddis ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None , 2 RESOLUTION NO. 17-2008 Michael Murray, Chair of the County Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California. I, Catherine Kutsuris, Secretary of the County Planning Commission hereby certify that the foregoing was duly called and approved on September 23, 2008. ATTEST: Catherine Kutsuris, Secretary of the County Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California FAGeneral Plan AmendmemsXGP07-"1 Buchanan Ficld W UpdaleXcpc res 17-2008.dw 3 EXHIBIT #4 Board Resolution No. 2008/688 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFCONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on Tuesday, October 28, 2008, by the following vote: P ho loon; lCa �lQ�e�' AYES: � ; �(, 0'7� U: I leer+9?t NOES: tS+tie-- ABSENT: J�Lp y6e_ ABSTAIN: ,�o✓�.� RESOLUTION NO. 2008/688 SUBJECT: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY-INITIATED } BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE, AND } GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT(COUNTY FILE: GP#07-0001) } IN SUPPORT OF THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE } WHEREAS, Buchanan Field Airport is a general aviation and commercial service airport owned and operated by Contra Costa County located in an unincorporated area of north, central Contra Costa County. WHEREAS, an Airport Master Plan is a study required by the Federal Aviation Administration used to determine the long term development requirements for a publicly owned airport and Airport Layout Plan is another Federal Aviation Administration requirement that is a scaled drawing depicting existing and future facilities and property necessary for the operation and development of an airport. WHEREAS, the last update to the Airport Master Plan for Buchanan Field Airport was considered and approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 8, 1990. WHEREAS, on January' 4, 2005 the Board of Supervisors initiated an update of the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan in recognition that aviation issues at the local, state, and national level had changed since the last Airport Master Plan update in 1990. WHEREAS, subsequent to the initiation of the Airport Master Plan update and completion of a draft proposal, the Board of Supervisors on January 23, 2007 authorized a General Plan Amendment study to consider changes to the Land Use and Transportation/Circulation elements in support of the Airport Master Plan update. WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), an Initial Study. and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for both the Airport Master Plan update and the related General Plan Amendment, and a Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued on July 10, 2008 by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, which set a.thirty(30)day public review period that closed on August 11, 2008, and said Mitigated Negative Declaration was submitted to the State Clearinghouse, Governor's Office of Planning and Research and was assigned State Clearinghouse No. 2008072031. RESOLUTION NO.2008/688 WHEREAS, there is filed with the Board of Supervisors and its Clerk a copy of Resolution No. 17-2008 adopted by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on September 23, 2009, which discusses and recommends to the Board of Supervisors a General Plan Amendment in support of the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update, (County File: GP#07-0001). WHEREAS, on Tuesday, October 28, 2008, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on said General Plan Amendment described in Contra Costa County Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-2008. Notice of said hearing was duly given in the manner required by law. The Board at a hearing, called for testimony of all persons interested in this matter. _ WHEREAS, on Tuesday, October 28, 2008, after closing the public hearing the Board of Supervisors reviewed and considered a CEQA Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance prepared for the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update and related General Plan Amendment (County File: GP#07-0001), which was included in the September 23, 2008 Staff Report and Recommendation to the County Planning Commission, that concluded the project would not result in a significant impact on the environment that cannot be mitigated, and that this environmental review was prepared in accordance with the CEQA guidelines. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has fully considered the General Plan Amendment discussed in Contra Costa County Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-2008, the analysis and recommendations included in the Staff Report and Recommendations to the County Planning Commission, dated September 23, 2008, the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and CEQA Initial Study/Checklist prepared for this,project which is attached as Exhibit "A" to the 9/23/2008 Staff Report and Recommendation to the County Planning Commission, the Board Report, dated October 28, 2008, and the public testimony and written comments received at or submitted prior to the Board's public hearing on October 28,2008. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that the General Plan Amendment discussed in Contra Costa County Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-2008 will further longstanding goals and policies in the Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020, to support the development of Buchanan Field Airport as general aviation airport, and would be consistent with the other goals and policies described in the General Plan, including those in the Growth Management Element. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors ("this Board") takes the following action: 1. ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and the accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan,Update and related General Plan Amendment (attached as Exhibit "A" to the 9/23/2008 Staff Report and Recommendation to the County Planning Commission and incorporated by reference to this resolution); DETERMINES, that the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist conducted for this project was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §15000 et seq.), and the County's own CEQA Guidelines (together, "CEQA"), that the CEQA Initial Study/Environmental Checklist prepared for this project is adequate for the Board's actions and that the determination for the Mitigated Negative- Declaration reflects this Board's independent judgment and analysis; and, DIRECTS the Department of Conservation and Development to post the Notice of Determination of Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance with the County Clerk. 2. APPROVES the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update, Airport Layout Plan, and related elements as presented to the Board of Supervisors on October 28, 2008 and directs the Director of Airports or his designee to begin implementation of the Buchanan Field Airport MasterPlan. 3. ADOPTS the General Plan Amendment in support of the Buchanan Field Airport Master. Plan Update (County File: GP# 07-0001) and as more fully described in Exhibits 1"and "2" to this resolution,which includes: RESOLUTION NO.2008/688 2 (a) Amending the Land Use Element, including the Land Use Element Map to re-designate a 19-acre vacant parcel on airport property between Marsh Drive and Sally Ride Drive from Commercial (CO) to Public/Semi-Public (PS) and Business Park(BP), as depicted in Exhibit 1-A to this resolution, and updates and clarifies the text, which specifically adds new and re- numbered Policies #3-92 to 3-101, under the heading 'Policies for Buchanan Field Area at pages 3-47 and 3-48 in the Land Use Element", as described in Exhibit 1-B to this resolution; and, (b) Amending the Transportation/Circulation Element, to remove the Diamond Boulevard extension from the Roadway Network Plan Map, as depicted in Exhibit 2-A, and, in conjunction with removing the Diamond Boulevard extension from the Roadway Network Plan Map, revises and clarifies the text under 'Policies Regarding Buchanan Field" in . the Transportation/Circulation Element, at page 5-26, specifically Policies #'s 5-49 and 5-50, as described in Exhibit 2-B to this resolution. 3.' ADOPTS the General Plan Amendment in support of the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update (County File: GP# 07-0001) as the third of four consolidated amendments for calendar year 2008 to the mandatory elements of the Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020, as permitted by State Planning Law. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and Contact:P.Roche,Adv.Planning,DCD(335-1242) correct copy of an action taken and entered on the cc: Department of Conservation and Development minutes of the Bo of Supervisors on the date CAO shown. County Counsel Director;Public Works Department ATTESTED: avid Twa,Clerk of the Board of Director:County Airports Contra Costa Airport Land Use Commission upervisors and County Administrator By: Deputy RESOLUTION NO2 8/688 FAGeneral Plan Amendments\GP07-0001 Buchanan Reid MP Update\BOARDRES2008688.doc RESOLUTION NO.2008/688 3' Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Update Exhibit 1-B General Plan Land Use Element Map Change (County File: GP#07-0001) Current General Plan Land Use Designation West Development Area N :o (n a SMO' co P'S � y S u v PS Buchanan 'BP , ` Field A�rpo t �I NIH ACent pve o co PR LIZ J Pve � G o 0 0 SH(Single Family Residential-High) BP(Business Park) ®®® y c ML(Multiple Family Residential-Low) CO(Commercial) MM(Multiple Family Residential-Medium) OF(Office) r uR �p 0 MH(Multiple Family Residential-High) LI(Light Industry) MO(Mobile Home) Z?2 ACO(Airport Commercial) �1`pa PR(Parks and Recreation) PS(Public/Semi-Public) u1t II 9 Airport Property Feet o R�mrn�u<= m West Development Area 0 .1,000 2,000 �bo�,�� o a City Limits N o0 Page 3-47, Ch. 3 Land Use Element, Contra Costa County 6enera/Plan(2005-2020), proposed new text is underlined in boldface italics POLICIES FOR THE BUCHANAN FIELD AREA Land Use 3-91 The General Plan Policies for Buchanan Field Airport are set forth below, and additional policies may be found in the Transportation and Circulation. Element (a description and policies regarding airport operations and roadways in the area), and the Noise Element (a description and policies regarding acceptable noise contours). 3-92 Most of the land area comprising the Buchanan Field Airport, has been designated Public/Semi-Public (PS) reflecting its primary function and operation as a publicly owned and operated general aviation commercial service airport This plan provides for a range of commercial aviation uses and services in support of the aviation functions on the airport lands designated PS, including fixed base operators and auxiliary and executive aviation. 3-93 Airport lands designated PS may be leased to a fixed base operator. A fixed base operator (FBO) means an aviation business providing comprehensive general aviation services in accordance with the "Buchanan Field Airport Policy and Standards for Development"; as adopted by the Board of Supervisors, and as may be amended by the Board As used in the context of this plan, aircraft maintenance, sales, service and storage functions aircraft charter/rental, air taxi or commuter air services, and air terminal or ground services, are activities and uses commonly associated with a general aviation airport falling under the category of an FBO. Additionally, an FBO may provide pilots private aircraft owners, other aviation businesses travelers, and airport visitors with other services, such as: lobby and lounge spaces, weather and flight planning services, temporary aircraft parking and tiedowns, restaurant/catering/vending facilities restrooms hotel and automobile rental reservations, automobile and automobile rental parking meeting space and business center, office space for aviation and aviation-related businesses and other items of public convenience and necessity. 3-94 In addition to FBO sites, airport lands designated PS may be leased for auxiliary and executive aviation uses and services, which may include open and/or enclosed storage of private aircraft, private corporate/executive hangars) with or without attached office space pilot center and lounges unique aviation sales and services (not provided or in competition with an FBO), and other facilities that meet the needs for general aviation. Such proposed auxiliary and executive aviation uses and services must serve the aviation community and give evidence that such development will not compete with FBO operations. 3-925. Two areas adjacent to the Buchanan Field airport, which are County- owned airport lands, are designated for non-aviationcommercial uses: 13 acres located at the intersection of John Glenn Drive and Concord Boulevard is designated Commercial (CO), and -2-2 3 acres at Marsh Drive and Sally Ride Drive is designated Business Park (BP) EXHIBIT 1-13 BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2008/688 Page 3-47, Ch. 3 Land Use Element, Contra Costa County General P/an(2005-2020), . proposed new text is underlined in boldface italics 3 93.3-96._ A range of commercial uses are allowed in this ea g-EE in both the CO and BP land nese designations. The actual uses allowed will be finalized through review of projects and leases for the use of the land. x-94 3-97. For these two non-aviation commercial areas to be developed, transportation improvements are required to be constructed or committed. Such improvements will be tied directly to the County leasing of these areas for development. The extent of improvements are to be determined by the Board of Supervisors as part of the bid package. 3-9398. The area designated for eCommercial CO use at the entrance of John Glenn Drive is limited to development of 220,000 square feet of space; the area designated Business Park (BP)en at Marsh Drive and Sa/ly Ride Drive is limited to 18,500 square feet. 3-9699. The major privately owned lands within the area are designated for light industrial use and are located along I-680, west of the airport, between the existing mobile home park and the golf course. 3-97100-. The California Public Utilities Code requires that the intent and purpose of the plans and policies adopted by the County Airport Land Use Commission be incorporated into the County General Plan. The commission has adopted numerous regulations which strictly define what types of land use, and the design of those uses, which will be allowed within the Commission's airport "planning area" and within designated "safety zones" under the airport's flight path. These policies and regulations are detailed in the "Airports and Heliports" section of the Transportation and Circulation Element. Transportation 3-98101. [See the policies listed under the "Airports and Heliports" section of the Transportation and Circulation Element (Chapter 5). EXHIBIT 1-B BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2008/688 z osa = a3.a "H' N N?N N _ � • 9 y O G d CD a ro y N O1p d R 3 o `t©i> to CD lot a � ~ c r J 3 1 1 g00Coll "r■ C��4 r\a�Q N ro77, A 10 o »-t YD� tool110m�omoa m v n� rn m .63�� _ 2 �m�ro Page 5-26, Ch. 5 Transportation/Circulation Element, Contra Costa County General Plan(2005-2020),proposed new text is boldface, italics, and underlined. Policies Iteaardina Buchanan Field Buchanan Field is located on a 495-acre site in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County adjacent to the cities of Concord and Pleasant Hill; a very small portion of airport property is located within Concord. It is a general use airport and has provision for scheduled commuter airline service. The land use plan designations for this airport are shown on the Land Use Element map. Land uses allowed on the airport property should enhance the airport function and be consistent with its goals and operational requirements. Most of the site is designated "Public/Semi-Public" to reflect the airport use. Special policies of this plan that apply to Buchanan Field are as follows: 5-49 5-49. The Buchanan Field Golf Course exists on the southwest edge of the airport adjacent to the intersection of Concord Avenue and I-680. The Bicycle Facilities Network Plan May and Bicycle Trails Map which are incorporated into the Transportation/Circulation Element and Open Space Element, respectively— each each identify-a proposed Class I trail facility located approximately within the conceptual road alignment for the former Diamond Boulevard extension. Also the conceptual road alignment for the Diamond Boulevard extension had reserved space for a future transitway (non-elevated). The subsequent development of the Class I trail and transitwav within the alionment of the former Diamond Boulevard extension will depend on when future funding becomes available and it may require modification to the existing golf course. This plan encourages the maintenance of a small golf course or some other recreation facility in the location of the golf course. 5-50 Passive recreational uses are appropriate in the approach path of the airport and will constitute an environmental enhancement and balance to serve as amenities for the development at the airport. Some maintenance responsibilities for these recreational facilities may be required of the airport projects. 5-51 Trail connections surrounding the airport are required. A riding, hiking and bicycle trail is shown along the Walnut Creek Flood Control Channel. Hiking and bicycle trails are shown flanking the airport on its remaining perimeter. These trails will serve as an amenity to the new office facilities in the area, as well as providing a connection to a regional trail linkage along the Walnut Creek Channel. EXHIBIT 2-13 BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2008/688 ' GREATER CONCORD Chamber of Commerce October 27, 2008 Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, In the coming weeks, you will be presented with the updated Buchanan Airport Master Plan. This lengthy and comprehensive document has taken extensive research and analysis, several public hearings and significant community input from interested parties including the Greater Concord Chamber of Commerce. We have appreciated the opportunity to be a participant in the process and would like to compliment Airport Management for ensuring that all constituents were heard and acknowledged. Many of our Chamber members are directly-impacted by activity at the Buchanan Airport. These are tenants on the property, outside service providers as well as many others, including major corporations, which derive benefit from the convenience of the facility for air travel. In our role as the voice of some 800 businesses in the area, we have been a consistent supporter of continued investment in Buchanan as an economic engine and generator of tax revenues. As you read the Master Plan, it will become apparent that forecasts of growth are conservative and that fairly minimal changes are recommended at the facility. We would like to lend our support to the Master Plan as submitted and to offer our Chamber resources for future marketing of Buchanan Airport in the business and transportation hub of Contra Costa County. Sincerely, Ellen Williams Keith C. McMahon Chair of the Board President and CEO 2280 Diamond Blvd. Suite 200 Concord,CA 94520 925.685.1181 925.685.5623 Fax concordchambeccom