HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06082004 - D4 r
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �..
Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICPCosta
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR �~: County
DATE: JUNE 8, 2004 1f
SUBJECT: FINAL APPROVAL TO RELEASE THE BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT REQUEST FOR
PROPOSALS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDA71ON(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1 APPROVE the release of the Request For Proposals(RFP)for the development
of a new replacement airport and the reuse and development of the Buchanan
Field airport property, as submitted by the Community Development Director on
behalf of the Interdepartmental Screening Committee on Aviation Alternatives
("Screening Committee") in accordance with the Board Order on April 27, 2004
and as revised per Board member comments on May 25, 2004.
2. ACKNOWLEDGE that releasing this RFP in no way creates an obligation or
commitment by the County to accept a proposal,to enter into a Exclusive Right To
Negotiate (ERN) agreement, and/or to execute a Disposition and Development
Agreement for the Buchanan Field airport property.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON June 8 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER_
**See attached addendm for Board action**
1
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
_ UNANIIl OUS(ABSENT �J SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
AYES: NOES.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN-.,-
Contact:
BSTAIN:Contact: P. Roche,CDD-AP(925)335-9242 ATTESTE 8'
2004
cc: County Administrator JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
County Counsel SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Director,Public Works Department
Mgr.,division of Airports ? n i
EPUTY
1
i
_ . . . ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ................................................__...._.
......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ........ .........
June 8, 2004
Board of Supervisors
Final Approval for Release of the Buchanan Field RFP
Wage 2
RECOMMENDATIONS - continued
3. ACKNOWLEDGE that Buchanan Field will continue to operate as a general
aviation airport in conjunction with non-aviation commercial uses,and the County
will continue to honor existing leases and agreements at the airport, and as
appropriate, consider and negotiate new leases or lease extensions, unless and
until such time as a determination is made to close the airport, surplus the
property,and relocate its aviation uses to a new airport, which is equal to or better
than Buchanan Field, pursuant to FAA orders and the Code of Federal
Regulations.
4. ACKNOWLEDGE that the County has received a planning grant from the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) to prepare an update of the Airport Master Plan
(AMP)for Buchanan Field Airport(adopted 9118190), and in accordance with the
AMP update process the County will comply with the conditions of the FAA
planning grant and continue to honor existing leases and agreements at the
airport, and as appropriate, the County will consider and negotiate new leases or
lease extensions. �.
FISCAL IMPACT
None. The County's costs associated with the preparation of the RFP and evaluation of proposals in
response to this RFP would be recovered from the deposit(s) required as pert of submittal of a
proposal.
BACKGROUND REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
1
i
On May 25,2004, the Board of Supervisors reviewed the Buchanan Field Airport RFP as submitted
by the Community Development Director on behalf of the Screening Committee. At the May 25
! meeting,the Board following extensive public comments on the RFP declared its intention to release
the RFP. Specifically, the Board directed staff to return in two weeks with a revised RFP for final
approval,which reflects Board member comments and responds to a number of questions raised at
the May 25 meeting.
Attached for the Board's consideration and final approval is the RFP. Subject to,Board approval the
document will be printed and released to interested parties. In addition to a printed copy, the
document will be posted on the County's website.An announcement of the RFP will also be placed in
display advertisements in local, regional, and national publications.
Also attached for consideration, per Board member comments, is a listing of the specific text changes
in the RFP document by page with an accompanying redline/strikeout of the text and a staff response
to the questions raised by Board members at the May 25'h meeting.
......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........__.._.
........_..__ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
June 8,2404
Board of Supervisors
Final Approval for Rebase of the Buchanan Field RFP
Page 3
Attachments (33
1. Buchanan Field Airport Request For Proposals(RFP):Development of a Replacement
Airport and Reuse and Development of Buchanan Meld Airport, Issued by the Contra
Costa County Beard of Supervisors(June 1, 2004).
2. Page Listing and Redline/Strikeout for Text Changes to the RFP in response to Board
Member comments.
3. Staff Response to Beard Member Questions from May 25th.
kl:auet a Fwk AvMw ML fivs WARD ORDER 00.W04 Orad appmval rebus d$uctamn FWd RFP.dnc
.................................................................................................................................................
... ...............................................
ADDENDUM TO ITEM DA
June 8, 2004
The Board of Supervisors considered the final approval to release the Buchanan Field Airport
Request For Proposal.
Dennis Barry, Director Community Development Department presented the staff report and
recommendations. Also present was Patrick Roche, Community Development Department.
The chair invited those who wished to address the Board. The following persons presented
testimony:
Dave Bonini, 825 Golf Club Road,Pleasant Hill;
Brian T. George, 750 Golf Club Road,Pleasant Hill;
David Long, Hangars Lease Coalition, 1259 Larch Avenue,Moraga;
Arnold Peterson,The Airport Coalition, 167 Harriet Drive, Pleasant Hill;
Dianne Cole, Friends of the Concord Airport Association,2420 Tomar Court,Pinole;
Richard Roberts,President,MDPA,Rep to the Airport Coalition;
David Evans, 319 Rock Creek Way,Pleasant Hill;
Richard Verrilli, Martinez;
Marc Santacroce, 4395 St. Charles Place, Concord;
The Chair then returned the matter back to the Board for further discussion. Supervisor
DeSaulnier moved the staff s recommendations with the following modifications:
• Add language under Recommendation#3 "to further direct the airport manager to
aggressively pursue and support existing and new airport businessesincluding the full
implementation of the master plan. "
• Add recommendation#5 that"the county will take no less than 4 months and no more
than 6 months to enter into an Exclusive Right To Negotiate (ERN) agreement."
• Directed the Community Development Department to hire a third party Aviation
Consultant immediately for review of the RFP process.
• On page 22, add a bullet"any respondent will be responsible payingfor a full evaluation
by 3d party aviation consultants hired by the County. "
• On page 32,under 6.2.2 Evaluation and Selection Criteria, add a bullet "continued
involvement of the Aviation Evaluation Consultant and Team.-
• DIRECTED staff to work with the consultants to release the RFP on July 12, 2004 and
bring back to the Board of Supervisors any significant changes to the content.
Supervisor Gioia second the motion and the Board took the following action:
........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ....._... ..... . . .. ...... __
...... .............. ......... ......... ........... ....... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......_
.... . ......... ......... ......... . . ....... .........
• APPROVED the release of the Request For Proposals(RFP) for the development of a
new replacement airport and the reuse and development of the Buchanan Field Airport
property as amended today;
• ACKNOWLEDGED that releasing the RFP in no way creates an obligation or
commitment by the County to accept a proposal,to enter into a Exclusive Right To
Negotiate(ERN)agreement, and/or to execute a Disposition and Development
Agreement for the Buchanan.Field airport property;
• ACKNOWLEDGED that Buchanan Field will continue to operate as a,general aviation
airport in conjunction with non-aviation commercial uses, and the County will continue
to honor existing leases and agreements at the airport, and as appropriate,consider and
negotiate new leases or lease extensions, unless and until such time as a determination is
made to close the airport, surplus the property, and relocate its aviation uses to a new
airport which is equal to or better than Buchanan Field, pursuant to FAA orders and the
Cade of Federal Regulations, and direct the Airport Manager to aggressively pursue and
support existing and any new airport businesses including the full implementation of the
Master Plan;
• ACKNOWLEDGED that the County has received a planning grant from.the Federal
Aviation Administration(FAA)to prepare an update of the Airport Master Plan(AMP)
for Buchanan Field Airport(adopted 9/18/90), and in accordance with the AMP update
process the County will comply with the conditions of the FAA planning grant and
continue to honor existing leases and agreements at the airport, and as appropriate, the
County will consider and negotiate new leases or lease extensions;
• ACKNOWLEDGED the County will take no less than 4 months and no more than b
months to enter into an Exclusive Right To Negotiate(ERN) agreement;
• DIRECTED the Community Development Department to hire a third party Aviation
Consultant immediately for review of the RFP process
• DIRECTED staff to work with the consultants to release the RFP on July 12, 2004 and
bring back to the Board of Supervisors any significant changes to the content.
x
�Y
�5
Ai
1,
v >
i>
G
R---r,
JpO al
J
Development of a replacement airport and the reuse
and development of Buchanan Field Ay port, a 49.5.-
acre site located in Contra Costa Cour
y
distinctive urban place. z
k
`N
4*1
IN
Submitted
- m-> ,!
June 8, 2004
Usued by:
Conga Costa County
Board of Supervisors
.Issue Date: lune 8, 2044
Due Bate: October 6, 2004
x �
M
.c
rt
� § •b "5" .rte F ;��.
x
LlCha n a Fi g Airy O
n,
F
�rlrr�lr
r►,� wMr� � ���
/I I�MIM�N
"rl' II
......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ....
..................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... . . ..
. ......................................................................................................
The Board of Supervisors Contra John sftheB
eten
Clerk-of the Beard
and
Costa
County Administration Buildina County -190 Administrator
651 Pine Street,Room 1{36 County 192335(925)335-1900
Martinez,California 94553-4068
John Gioia,District I
Gayle B.UlIkema,District II
Millie Greenberg,District III
Mark Desaulnirr,District TV
Federal D.Glover, District V
June 8, 2004
TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES:
The Centra Costa County Board of Supervisors is pleased to announce a unique
opportunity to explore the development of a new general aviation airport in central'
Contra Costa County, to relocate current aviation uses at Buchanan Field Airport to thel
new replacement airport, which will be equal to or better than Buchanan Field, and to
evaluate the reuse and development potential of the Buchanan Field airport property into
a :new mixed-use community. Enclosed is a Request for Proposals (RFP) authorized for
release by the Board of Supervisors on this date,June 8, 2004.
The Buchanan Field airport property is a 495-acre site located within an urban setting in
central Contra Costa County approximately 30 miles east of San Francisco.
Contra Costa County is interested in addressing the long-term civil aviation needs of the
County and the region by relocating current aviation uses to a new and improvedairport
while at the same time reclaiming and recycling surplus airport land that is within the
County's Urban Limit Line to create a new mixed use community. Contra Costa County'
is seeking to partner with a qualified developer to explore the new replacement airport'
and the potential transformation of Buchanan Field airport property Into a distinctive
urban place.
Interested parties should understand that Contra Costa County obtained Buchanan Field'
from the U.S. Government in 1947, agreeing to use the property only for public airport'
uses (aviation uses), and over the years the County has been the recipient of federal
airport development grants, which also placed restrictions and obligations to maintain'
Buchanan Field as a public airport. Because of these restrictions, the sale and conveyance'
of the airport property for development of non-aviation uses will require the approval of,,;
and the release of use restrictions, by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Additionally, the development of a new general aviation airport to replace Buchanan
Field will require FAA approval.
Contra Costa County will select a developer who, at the sale discretion of the County,'
represents the best opportunity to meet the FAA requirements and'.standards and realize'
the County's goals and objectives.
1
Letter to Interested Parties,re:Buchanan Field Airport RFP
June 8,2004
Mage Two
The release of this RFP by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors in no way
creates an obligation or commitment by the County to accept a proposal, to enter into a
Exclusive Right To Negotiate {ERN} agreement, and/or to execute a Disposition and
Development Agreement for the Buchanan Field airport property. It also acknowledged
by the Board of Supervisors that Buchanan Field will continue to operate as an airport in
conjunction with non-aviation commercial uses, and the County will continue to honor
existing leases and agreements at the airport, and as appropriate,,consider and negotiate
new leases or lease extensions, unless and: until such time as a determination is made to
close the airport, surplus the property, and relocate its aviation uses to a new airport
pursuant to FAA orders and the Code of Federal Regulations.
Recipients are encouraged to carefully review the RFP and all the material in the
appendices, and the transcript of public comments on the RFP submitted at a May 25,
2004 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, which are all provided in the accompanying
CD-ROM.This information will also be made available at a link for the Buchanan Field
RFP Process on Centra Costa County's website, hq://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/.
Interested parties should periodically check the website for addenda to the RFP, and
questions in responses as submitted by interested parties. To discuss the RFP in more
detail, interested parties should contact the key County staff listed as contact persons in
the RFP.
Sincerely,
I Supervisor Federal D. Glover,District V
Chair,Board of Supervisors
x
Introduction
Summary, and
Table of ContentsI'F
1L
J F,S .;�,
n dr€r2'��� sixes d� a
v a.
ega �
y �
1.2
SUMMARY
County Goals/Objectives: Centra Costa County seeks proposals for the reuse,and development of
the Buchanan Field Airport property into a mixed-use development that would establish a distinctive
urban place. Before the Buchanan Field airport property can be conveyed to a selected developer
through this Request For Proposals (RFP)process, the developer( t the developer's sole cost) must
under the auspices of Contra Costa County: 1)site and develop a replacement general aviation airport
located in central Contra Costae County,which is equal to or better than Buchanan Field, acceptable to
the Federal Aviation Administration and Contra Costa County, and certified (permit) by the State of
California;and,2)prepare a business plan that would demonstrate the financial feasibility of acquiring,
developing,and operating the new airport.
Site Description.Buchanan Field airport property is approximately 495 acres situated within an urban
built environment on a flat valley floor in the central area of Contra Costa County, approximately 30
miles east of San Francisco. The airport site is comprised of an airfield:,including runway and taxiways;
general aviation uses,including fixed base operations,hangars,tie-downs,corporate aircraft facilities,
aircraft aprons,and terminals;and non-aviation uses,including a golf course,non-aviation retail uses,
a hotel, access roads and currently vacant lands planned for non-aviation commercial development.
The airport site is predominately within an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County.
Federal and State Requirements:The sale and development of Buchanan Field for non-aviation uses
will require the approval,of,and release of restrictions by the Federal.Aviation Administration(FAA).
The siting and development of a replacement airport for Buchanan Field will require the approval of
the FAA. Proposals submitted in response to this RFP must demonstrate a thorough understanding
of all applicable FAA requirements and standards, and the Code of Federal Regulations, and relevant
State Law,in particular,the State Aeronautics Act(Public Utilities Cade Sec. 21€3011 et seq).
Property Disposition: If a determination is made to proceed with this project,',the airport property
will be conveyed in an "as-is condition' through a Disposition and Development Agreement upon
fulfilling the requirements set forth in an Exclusive Right To Negotiate(ERN)Agreement,particularly
the FAA and State requirements and standards.
Developer Selection: The County will evaluate proposals that are submitted in conformance with
the requirements set forth in the RFP, and may decide to select a developer to enter into an ERN
Agreement that best matches the County's goals and objectives.
1
Pre-Submittal Meeting and Site Tour:
Monday,August 2, 2004, 10:00 a.m.to 12:30 p.m.
Proposals Due:
Wednesday, October 6, 2004, at the end of the business day.
For Further Information Contacts
Patrick Roche
Principal Planner
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department ,
651 Pine Street, 41 Floor North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Telephone: (925) 335-1242
E-mail: proch@cccounty.ca.us
2
1.3
Table of Contents and Figures
Section 1. Introduction,Summary, and Table of Contents
1.1 Letter of Introduction................................................................... ............................,..................i
1.2 Summary......................................................................................... . .............................. ....1
1.3 Table of Contents.....................................................................................................................3-4
Section 2. Location,Setting, and Site Description
2.1 Location and Setting.......................................................................... ..... ........... .......... ...5
2,2 Site Description. ................ ......................................................... .. ...... ...................... ...5
2.3 Utilities, Infrastructure, and Public Seryices.................................. . .............................. ...6
2.4 Local Access/Circulation and Traffic.......................................... .... ...,. . ...............,,.... ...7
2.5 Surrounding Land Uses..............................................................................................................7
Figure2.1: Regional Setting Map......................................................................................................8
Figure 2.2: Aerial Photograph of Buchanan Field Airport..................... ... ........:..............................9
Section 3. Background on Buchanan Field Airport
3.1 Airport History....... . ............................................ ..................... .... .............................. .14
3.2 Airport Operations and Management..................... .................. ...... ..... ...................... .1 U
3.3 Current and Project Airport Operations.................................... ... .... ......................................11
3.4 Non-Aviation Commercial Uses at Buchanan Field.................... ....... .....................................11
3.5 Continuing Airport Operations...................................................... .... ............................... .12
3.6 FAA's Role and the Code of Federal Regulations.......................,..,,..,.. ..,.....:,...,................,.,•..12
3,7 State of California Rules and Regulations for Public Airports.... ........ ....................................13
Section 4. Goals and Objectives and Potential County Participation
4.1 County's Goals andObjectives..................................................... ...... ... ...................... .14
4.2 Potential County Participation..................................................... ...... ......... .................. .16
Section 5. Proposal Requirements
5.1 Qualifications. . .......................... .................. ... ................ ...... ... . ..................... .18
2.2 Commitment to Assisting the County in Meeting the FAA
and State of California Requirements................ ..................... ...... ..... ...................... .21
5.3 Business Plan for New Replacement Airport:.......... ............ .. ..... ... ................ ...... .21
5.4 Commitment to Feasibility Study for New Replacement Airport........ ...........................22
5.5 Commitment to Environment Review and Plan Adoption Process......:... .... ..........................23
5.6 Commitment to Site Remediation at Buchanan Field........ ........ ...:....!,... ..............,..,.....,.,... .26
3
1.3
Table of Contents and Figures-continued
5.7 Commitment to Fiscal and Economic impact Analyses....................!. ...... ............................24
5.8 Initial Concept Development Plan.............................................. .... ..... ...................... .25
5.9 Financial Terns and Conditions...................................................... ........... .................. .26
5.10 Proposer's Representations,Warranties, and Acknowledgments...... .....................................28
5.11 Submission Requirements................................................................... .....................................28
Section 6. Selection and Exclusive Right to Negotiate (ERN) Process
6.1 Overview... ... ........................................................................... .... ...................... .31
6.2 Proposal Selection............................................................................... . ..... .'........................ .31
6.3 ERN Process................................................................................. ..... ..... . ...................., .33
6.4 Development Program........ ................. ............................. .... ..... ................... . .33
6.5 Due Diligence, Property Inspection, and Investigation of Conditions......................................34
6.6 Limitations....... .............................................................................. .............................. .35
Section 7.. Submission Date,Contact Persons,and Further Information
7.1 Submission Date. ..................................................................... ... ..... ..... ..................... .36
7.2 Pre-Submittal Meeting and Site Tour........................................... .... ..... ..................... .36
7.3 Contact Persons.......... ................................................................. .... ..... ... ................. .36
Section 8.Appendices
Listof Appendices. .. .. .......................................................................... ..... . .................38-39
(See CD-Rom for the actual documents)
4
......._ ......... ......... ......... .........
. .... ......... ......... ......... ........ ........ ......... ......... ......... ......_..
_. _ ......... .......... . ....... ........ ......... .....................
..................................................
3�A 2
Location, Settin
and Site Description
"
E
,' > �
t
, ro r
CA 3
NA 4W
1
_vCyG
Y
�a
SECTION 2.
LOCATION,SETTING,AND SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 Location and Setting
Buchanan Field Airport is a 495-acre site, which includes a general aviation airport, a nine-
hale golf course and driving range with a pro shop, and non-aviation commercial development,
situated in an unincorporated area in north-central Contra Costa County, between the cities of
Concord,Martinez,and Pleasant Hill.The airport site is generally bounded by State Route 4 to its
north,interstate 690 to its gest,and State Route 242 to its east.The airport site is approximately
30 miles east of San Francisco. See map on page 8 for the regional setting of Buchanan Field
Airport.
The County of Centra Costa, California. was incorporated in 1850 as one of the original 27
counties of the State of California with the City of Martinez as the County Seat. It is one of the
nine counties in the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area. The County is the ninth most populous
county in California,with its population reaching 1,000,000 as of January 1, 2004. The County
has one of the fastest growing work forces and housing markets among Say Area counties,
with growth in its employment base being driven primarily by the need to provide services to
an increasing' local population. Due to the presence of relatively high-wage skilled jobs and
relatively wealthy residents, the County achieves high rankings among all California counties
on a variety;of income measurements.
2.2 Site Description
The airport site is within an urban built environment on a flat valley floor adjacent to the Walnut
Creek Channel,which drains to Suisun Bay approximately 4 miles to the north,at an elevation 23
feet above sea level.The airport site is comprised of an airfield, including runway and taxiways;
general aviation uses, including fixed base operations, hangars, tie-clowns, corporate aircraft
facilities, aircraft aprons, and terminals; and: non-aviation uses, including,a golf course, non-
aviation retail uses, a hotel, access roads and currently,vacant lands'planned for non-aviation
commercial development. The airport site is predominately within an unincorporated area of
Contra Costa County. See aerial photograph of the Buchanan Field Airport on page 9.
5
2.3 Utilities,Infrastructure, and Public Services
The airport property is located within an existing built urban environment and is served by the
following utilities and infrastructure:
Water—Water service to the airport and its environs is provided by the Contra Costa dater
District from water obtained from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Service to the
airport consists of numerous 4-, 8-, and 12-inch lines from a 24-inch water main under Concord
Avenue, and 18- and 3€3-inch mains at the north end of the airport.
Sewer—Airport sewage treatment services are provided to the airport by the Central Contra
Costa Sanitation District through its Pacheco facility,located north of Buchanan Field and State
Route 4. Several sanitary sewer lines exist on the airport.
Storm Drains--Storm drains serving the airport are maintained by the Contra Costa Public
Works Department through an agreement with the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District. On-airport storm drains range from 15 inches to 34 inches in diameter.
Storm drains on the airport's east side drain directly into the Walnut Creek Channel, and drains
on the west side drain into open ditches that drain north into Grayson Creep.
Telephone and Telecommunications—Telephone and telecommunication services are provided
by SBC Communications..
Electric and Gas—Airport electrical and natural gas services are provided by Pacific Gas &
Electric Company. Main electrical feeds are provided from underground power lines in Concord
Avenue and from overhead lines along Marsh Drive. Natural gas service is provided to the
airport through underground gas mains located under Concord Avenue and Marsh Drive.
A map illustrating the major existing utilities can the airport is provided in Appendix 5.15
(Maps and Aerial Photographs).
The airport property is also served by the following public services.
Fire Protection Fire protection services are provided by the Contra Costa County Consolidated
Fire Protection District.
Ponce--The Contra'Costa County Sheriff's Department provides police protection services to
the airport site.
Schools--The airport site is within the Mount Diablo Unified School District.
6
2A Local Access/Circulation and Traffic
Highway access to Buchanan Field and its immediate environs is accomplished from either
Interstate 680 or State Route 4. Interstate 680 is a six-lane divided freeway (currently being
expanded) providing a major north-south corridor connecting the southern end of the San
Francisco Bay Area with Interstate'80. State Route 4 is a four-lane divided highway providing
additional access to communities east and west of the airport.
Concord Avenue provides primary street access to the airport's south and east sides. West side
access is gained from Center Avenue off'Pacheco Boulevard.Two local streets currently provide
secondary access to local businesses and offices on the airport. John: Glenn Drive for eastside
facilities and the SheratonHotel, and Marsh Drive for westside facilities.Jahn Glenn Drive is a
two-lane street with a landscaped median divider.This road terminates at the public parking lot,
which serves the commercial and general aviation terminals. Marsh Drive is a two-lane street
that follows the western and northern perimeter of the airport. Sally Pride Drive,also a two-lane
street, leads from Marsh Drive and provides street access to the airport's westside facilities.
There are several major regional transportation improvements in the Buchanan Field area that
are either under construction or are being programmed for future construction.
2.5 Surrounding'Land'Uses
Buchanan Field is situated in a highly urbanized area which has only limited amounts of
undeveloped land. To the north, across State Route 4, are industrial uses dominated by an oil
refinery and a sewage treatment plant.To the east,across the Walnut geek Channel,are residential
uses (bath single family and multi-family).,Retail commercial'and office uses predominate to
the south and southeast along Concord Avenue. Immediately to the west are three mobile home
parks along harsh Drive. Further to the west, across I-680, there are retail commercial uses
along both sides of Contra Costa Boulevard.
7
� e
� 4
5�as
Y• 's+ ik�,+5' \g'�,mak.��:° 5' '.
C
.p
r
�x„r fib'
r
•Y
s
--------------------------------
sw
Vag NOW �r
r x t llll 885++ yak. a9(V.
'..m -��9,a
t,r
Nk
F
' ` ti', >- 4 •° l t _ rout lt q�
,
,
<
.s CONCO -
g-;�w Jay,�p� g�egst
OF , y,. .L ;-•^; *<+ „e.'r r4 t^ Rao CPA AN
Tim
MARTINEZ Pacheco gggggy gg z g
aw #
�. .d6 � p 3 � 'fie <;� 4< •� ..��'{3:
7,71
CITY oO
PLEASAN Iwo
4• ; sic' � �n,,dF ;,� <:<.��•, �S �� ,� � ��,
<
gg^'L L -.
VL
d
Airport ••
rty
4;.. Boundary
Af
BanCkground on
Buchanan Field Airport
u.
sf
j _ .
IR --I
hd
..........
XZ
A- �
. z.`
7►+ i
SECTION 3
BACKGROUND ON BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT
3.1 Airport History
Buchanan Field is one of two airports owned and operated by Contra Costa County. Buchanan
Field is the alder of the two airports. I Buchanan Field Airport date back to 1942 when. the
County acquired the property. The facility served as an Army Air Corps base during World War
11, at which time the two original runways were constructed. Non--rnilitary use began in 1946.
The airport has been in continuous operation ever since as a general aviation airport.
Many modifications and improvements have been made to the airport over the last 58 years.
Today, Buchanan Field occupies a total of 495 acres and controls aviation easements on an
additional 54+ acres. The basic configuration of runways has essentially remained the same
since it opened in 1942.The two major runways are now designated 1 L-19R(oriented northeast/
southwest, 5,010 ft.long and 150 ft. wide)and 14L-32R(oriented northwest/southeast,4,601 ft.
long and 154 ft. wide).There are two smaller runways and associated taxiways.
True to urban development on all sides, no significant expansion in the airport's size and
configuration is considered feasible. The most recent airport master plan, adapted in 1990,
focuses primarily on building area improvements such as a potential terminal and additional
aircrafthangars. Future enhancements to instrument approach procedures are anticipated in
the plan, but no physical extension of the runways or ether major runway system changes are
proposed.
3.2 Airport Operations and Management
As noted, Buchanan Field Airport is owned and operated by Coma Costa County under the
direction of the Board of Supervisors (Airport Ordinance 87-8). The day-today management
and operations of the airport are the responsibility of the Division of Airports, Contra Costa
County Public Works Department(The Division of Airports office is located at Buchanan Field
at 510 Sally Ride Drive,Concord). See organizational chart below.
Com ORD. 87-8 4 BOARD or SupwlsoRs 3 DmcroR ar Pl.BLit Wolin
Dllu?croR orl Auiposxs
The other public airport,named Byron Airport,is a smaller general aviation
airport located in rural southeastern Contra Costa County.
10
3.3 Current and Projected AirportOperations
As a general aviation airport, Buchanan Field is home to 512 aircraft, supports 129,000 flight
operations annually(approximately 354 average daily flights)2, and it is included in the Federal
Aviation Administration's National Plan of Integrated Airport'Systems. The current aviation-
related tenants and businesses located at the airport.include:
* 3 flight schools,
* 2 aviation fuel services,
* 3 air charter businesses,
* 7 aviation maintenance firms
* 3 hangar rental firms
* 8 flying clubs
* 2 emergency service helicopter firms
* Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department Air Unit
A more detailed listing of the tenants and businesses with leases at the airport property along
with an aerial photograph of the location of certain leaseholds,is provided under Appendix 8.1
(Contra Costa County Airports Lease Information Sheet)and Appendix 8.2 (Aerial Photograph:
Location of Buchanan Field Airport Ground Leases).
Projections for aviation operations at Buchanan Field assume the potential growth to 3101300
annual flight operations and a capacity to house up to 850 aircraft. This is based on the buildout
capacity under the current airport layout plan contained in the existing airport master pin.3
These projections do not assume passenger airline service.
3.4 Non-Aviation Commercial Uses at Buchanan Field
There are several non-aviation commercial uses currently at Buchanan Field.These uses include
the following:'
Golf Course—Buchanan Field Golf Course is a nine-hole golf course;and driving range with a
pro shop that is operated under a long term lease.The golf course is located on 4'1 acres in the
southwest portion of the airport property adjacent to Concord Avenue
Hotel—The Sheraton Concord Hotel is a 324-room hotel with a'restaurant, cocktail lounge, and
meeting room facilities. The hotel is located on a 5-acre site in the south portion of the airport
property at John Glenn Drive and Concord Avenue.
2 Airport Activity Data as ofYr.2003,Buchanan Field,Contra Costa County,division
ofAirports,Public Works Department
Division of Airports,Department of Public Works,has initiated an update to the Buchanan Airport
Master Plan,which was originally adopted in 1990.
11
Retail Commercialsite (Non-Aviation)—A contiguous 13-acre retail commercial site fronting
Concord Avenue is under a long-term lease.It contains Sam's Club Membership Store,Sportmart,
Taco Bell,and Jiffy Lube businesses.There are other non-aviation commercial uses on the airport
property.
Vehicle storage,sales and rental—Several acres of the airport property are devoted to automobile
or vehicle storage, sales, and rentalsThis includes ground area, leased to local automobile
dealerships for automobile storage and building and ground area leased to national automobile
rental firms operating rental outlets from the airport.There are also two automobile sales dealers
operating on ground area teased by the airport.
3.5 Continuing Airport Operations
Buchanan Field will continue to operate as an airport in conjunction with non-aviation
commercial uses unless and until such time as a determination is made to close the airport
property, and its aviation functions are relocated to a new airport pursuant to Federal Aviation
Administration(FAA)orders and Code of Federal Regulations.This means that,unless and until
such time as a determination is made'and the aviation functions have been relocated to a new
replacement airport, the existing'leases and agreements will continue in effect with the Airport
Master Flan as may be amended,the County will continue to consider'and negotiate new leases
or lease extensions.It will be the'selected developer's obligation to pay all costs associated with
relocating existing tenants or negotiating other arrangements satisfactory to existing tenants, in
accordance with their lease terms, if a determination is made to close the airport.
3.6 FAA's Rale and the Code of Federal Regulations
When Contra'Costa County obtained Buchanan Field from the U.S Federal Government, the
County agreed that Buchanan Field would be used only for public airport purposes.Contra Costa
County's acceptance of:Federal'airport development grants since 1986 (which currently total
approximately $14 million) also obligates the County to maintain and operate Buchanan Field
as an airport'.
Because of these restrictions, the sale and development of Buchanan Field for non-aviation
uses will require the approval o , and release of restrictions by the FAA. In order to obtain the
approval of the FAA,the County will at the sale cast and with the full cooperation of the selected
developer need to accomplish the following.
12
(1) Demonstrate that the sale of Buchanan Field will benefit, and is necessary to advance, civil
aviation';
(2) Prepare and submit a detailed application to the FAA for release of airport obligations that
complies with the provisions of the Cade of Federal Regulations.and FAA orders;
(3) Ensure that the sale of Buchanan Field is not for less than its fair market value based on its
highest and best use; and,
(4) Commit the use of net proceeds from the sale of Buchanan Field to aviation, which is
anticipated to include developing,improving,operating,and maintaining a new replacement
airport.
Centra. Costa,County may also be required to repay airport development grant proceeds to the
FAA. See Appendices 8.3 (List of FAA Grants), 8.4(Instrument of Transfer'agreement between
U.S. Government and Centra Costa County for Buchanan Field), and 8.5 (Cade of Federal
Regulations and FAA orders relating to the release of airport property from surplus property
disposal restrictions and sale or ether disposal of airport land developed with FAA grants). These
casts will also Funded by the selected developer.
3.7 State of California Mules and Regulations for Public Airports
The State of California has adopted rules and regulations relating to the issuance of permits
for public airports that are used in conjunction with relevant FAA Advisory Circulars,Title 14,
and the Code of Federal Regulations. These rules and regulations are more fully described at
California Code of Regulations, Title 21 Sections 3525 through 3560, and California Public
Utilities Code, Section 21001 et seq. relating to the State Aeronautics Act. The Division of
Aeronautics, California Department of 'Transportation, is the state agency responsible for
administering the above referenced rules and regulations,and accordingly would be responsible
for issuing a permit for a nein,replacement airport in central Centra Costa County.The Division
of Aeronautics maintains a:website that explains in greater depth the adopted rules and regulation
of the State of California for public airports (http:{fwww.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/).'In
addition to the FAA requirements and role,the respondents to this RFP are strongly encouraged
to review the state's rules and regulations and become familiar'with the state's rale in granting a
permit for a public airport.
4 49 USC Sec.47153{a}
13
?y�
4
Goals and Objectives
Kir
and PotentialCounty
&�
Part ii0pat
Zw
ZI 'Z�n�
Ke
di'l
fib
/A
d
' ko,
t
S _
4 py to was
SECTION 4
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AND
POTENTIAL COUN'T'Y PARTICIPATION
4.1 County's Goals and Objectives
Contra Costa County is evaluating the reuse and development of the Buchanan Field Airport
property into a>distinctive urban place,which would include the most efficient use of limited land
resources,the full use of urban services,a mix ofland uses,the provision of transportation options
to improve access to employment, educational, and recreational opportunities, the provision of
affordable housing, and the improvement of the jobs/housing balance in this County.Any reuse
and development of Buchanan Field must also incorporate a detailed human scale of design that
will be unique and fit within an existing urban fabric.
The specific development objectives for the Buchanan Field Airport alternative use proposal are
as follows:
(l) The closure and sale of the airport property for non-aviation purposes, consistent with the
Cade of Federal Regulations and FAA orders relating to the release of airport property from
surplus property disposal restrictions and sale or the other disposal of airport land developed
with FAA.grants.
(2) The successful sale and transfer of the Buchanan Field airport property that would achieve
the highest and most certain return within a reasonable time frame,consistent with the Cade
of Federal regulations and FAA orders.. It will be incumbent upon any transferee of the
property to assume full responsibility for any remediation of the site, as further described in
Section 5.5.
(3) The siting, environmental clearance, design, development, construction, and eventual
operation of a new general aviation airport and related infrastructure within central>Contra
Costa County that is built and approved to FAA standards, consistent with the Code of
Federal Regulations and FAA orders,which is equal to or better than Buchanan Field.
(4) Development and implementation of a sound business plan that would lead to the successful
acquisition, design, construction, and operation and maintenance of a new replacement
airport.
14
(5) Creation of a pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use community at .Buchanan Field with the
character and ambience of an urban village.The primary focus of the urban village concept
is to integrate residential, employment opportunity sites, shopping and services, and
institutional/public uses,creating a master-planned community in which residents can live,
work, and play.
(6) The residential development program for the urban village should be based on an integrated
mix of residential densities and product types, including single-family and multiple-family
residential development.
(7) The provision of affordable housing based on an enhanced Dougherty Valley type affordable
housing program. The provision of residential units that are affordable to Very Low,Low,
and Moderate Income Households must be a key element of proposals for Buchanan Field
that include a residential development program (see Section 4.2.2 for details).
(8) The provision of employment opportunity sites within the new urban village that address
the economic development needs of Contra Costa County,particularly the desire to create
well paying jobs with comprehensive benefits.
(9) The provision of public, cultural, and recreational amenities within the new urban village
that address needs of Contra Costa County.
(10) Mitigation of the impacts to traffic and transportation that are expected to occur as a result,
(i)the development of the airport property for non-aviation uses, and (ii)the development
of a replacement airport, to acceptable levels of service.
(11) The financing of infrastructure andutilities,including water services,sanitary sewer systems,
wastewater treatment facilities, recycled water services, storm drain systems, solid waste
disposal, electrical grid systems, natural gas systems, telephone and data communication
systems, for the project should be financed without any commitment of public funding.
(12) A positive fiscal and economic impact for Contra Costa County.The reuse and development
of the Buchanan Field airport property into an urban village and the development and
operation of new general aviation airport should both produce positive fiscal and economic
benefits which would accrue to Contra Costa County,to the cities adjoining the redeveloped
Buchanan Field airport property,and to cities adjoining a new replacement airport.
15
(13) The reuse and development of the Buchanan Field airport property must provide sufficient
revenue sources to offset any loss of aviation or non-aviation revenues resulting from the
closure of the airport and contribute to funding airport operations within Contra Costa
County.
(14) The relocation and potential expansion of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and Lave
Enforcement Aviation, including helicopter airlift and fixed winged aircraft, to a new
replacement airport.
4.2 Potential County Participation
The following,.6utlines the general terms and conditions for the County's potential financial
participation in the residential development program for the reuse and development of Buchanan
Field. The intent is to describe the general parameters under which the`County could participate.
It is provided herein for developer guidance in structuring the ultimate ownership entity and in
seeking debt financing. It is not a commitment by the County to participate in a project in any
way. This section is intended only to outline a possible basis for negotiating appropriate sections
of an agreement:for an Exclusive Right to Negotiate (ERIN).
4.2.1 Development Costs
The selected developer shall pay all development costs,including without limitation:(1)Buchanan
Field Airport property-acquisition of property,site remediation,plan approval and entitlements,
environmentalclearance,federal,state,and local approvals,development and construction costs,
and incremental infrastructure financing; and (2) airport replacement property— acquisition of
property, federal, state, and local approvals, environmental clearance, and construction and
development costs. The developer will pay`full property taxes and all standard governmental
fees. The County may consider allowing the selected developer to finance, subject to adopted
County policies, certain required infrastructure through the County's issuance of tax-exempt
debt secured solely by Developer/property owner payments (e.g., the use of'a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District special tax,or 1911/1915 Act Assessment).
4.2.2 Housing Affordability
A:proposal with a residential development program for reuse and development of Buchanan
Field must be modeled from the staff proposed Affordable Housing Program,The staff proposed
Affordable Housing program is provided in Appendix 8.18. The provision for affordable
residential units must meet the minimum requirements as summarized below:
16
General Requirement: 25%of the residential units shall be affordable to Very Low, Low, and
Moderate Income Households at specific affordable rents or affordable sales prices.
Income Targets for Affordable Units: At lust 20% of the affordable units must be reserved
for Very Low Income Households earning 50% of the Oakland PMSA Median Income or less
adjustedfor family size. At least 20%of the affordable units must be reserved for Low Income
Households earning between 5 1-80°10 of the Oakland PMSA Median Income;;adjusted for family
size.Not more than 60%ofthe affordable units must be reserved for Moderate Income Households
earning between 81-120%of the Oakland PISA Median Income adjusted for family size.
Terms of Affordability: The rental units for Very Low,Low, and Moderate Income Households
must be affordable for fifty-five (55) year term. The for sale units for Very Low, Low, and
Moderate Income Households would be affordable for thirty(30)years.
Achievement of a higher general requirement,higher percentage of income targets for affordable
units, or longer terms of affordability, is encouraged. Any County financing assistance needed
for an affordable housing program(e.g. multi-family tax exempt bonds, CDBG and/or HOME
funds,etc.)will be predicated on achieving the highest level of housing affordability.
4.2.3 /Municipal Bond Financing
The County is a seasoned issuer of tax-exempt multi-family mortgage revenue bonds. The
County may assist the selected developer by applying for an allocation ofPrivate Activity Bond
Authority and subsequently issuing bonds to provide construction and permanent financing
for the development. Such financing is dependent on the developer and development meeting
lender and County requirements for tax-exempt bands. The County's willingness to consider
tax-exempt financing in the future in no way constitutes a pre-commitment by the County or any
other institution to provide financing for the selected developer.
17
� yM
x'
yr
3
Proposal Requirements
wf a
3
4 3 �
A� II or
E71"
-77
r ci
>t �
s� y
SECTION 5.
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
The proposal must be sufficiently detailed and,descriptive,in the County's sole discretion,to assess the
viability of the proposal. The County may choose to enter into an Exclusive Right to Negotiate(ERN)
agreement with; a selected developer that offers the best opportunity for the County to meet its goal.
and objectives. The County reserves the right to make its selection of a developer based on its sale and
absolute discretion,and it also reserves the right to reject any or all proposals at any time for any reason.
The following describes the major narrative sections that would be expected tri a proposal(5.1 through
5.9) and the specific submission requirements that must be followed by a Proposer'(5.10).
The proposal must address the following minimum requirements.
5.1 Qualifications
Address the following elements regarding the Propc %` 1
develop the airport property following the relocatio .
new replacement airport as proposed. Concise and s;
5.1.1 Organization
Identify the members of the proposing entity and tee
firm or organization involved,including the followin
(1) Number of yearn in business,
(2) Number of full-time employees;
(3) Form of development entity<(corporation,partnership, etc.),
(4) One-page resume of key principals and managers;
(5) Persons authorize to negotiate on behalf of development entity,
(6) fey development team members,if known,including architect, land planner,
engineer, attorney, etc.;
(7) Project Manager.
18
If the development entity will be a joint venture, provide information for each partner, a
description ofprior'working relationships, and the basic terms of the joint venture.
5.1.2 Relevant Project Experience
Provide a basic description of 3 to 5 relevant recently completed projects. For each project,
please include the following:
(1) Project name, location,and jurisdiction,
(2) Project type and size,
(3) Special circumstances(e.g. phase development, specific plan,public amenities,etc.),
(4) The original permitted land uses and outcome of the entitlement process;
(5) A brief description of the planning process and how it may be relevant to the circumstances
with the Buchanan Field airport property.
5.1.3 Financial Capability
The County wants assurances that the development entity has the financial capability to
successfully carry out the acquisition and development of a new replacement airport as well as
acquisition of the Buchanan Field Airport property and develop a master planned community.
Proposers shall provide a statement of financial qualifications, including a recent balance sheet
and income statement of the proposed development entity and the members of the entity. The
County recognizes that the acquisition and subsequent development of Buchanan Field is a
very large undertaking which will require, among other things, a major commitment of fonds
and resources well in advance of actual conveyance of the property and commencement of
development.So that the County may better understand how the ultimately selected'development
entity proposes to deal with this challenge,each Proposer should specify a preliminary estimate
of the amount required for each of the following items,the source of funds,and the mechanism
by which the proposer expects to recover these funds, e.g. reimbursement by third parties, in
initial construction loan financing, through raising equity, or just through the eventual returns
Associated with development and sale:
(I')Traditional pre-development expenditures including planning, environmental processing,
legal costs,etc.
19
( ) The additional costs associated with sails investigation and potential remediation.
(3) The additional costs associated with obtaining approval for the required replacement of
airport.
(4) The additional costs associated with developing, designing and constructing a replacement
airport.
(5) The actual purchase of the airport property through to property conveyance.
In addition, the County may at its sole discretion require certain supplemental disclosure
information to ascertain the financial capability of the development entity or any individual
named in the proposal, including but not limited to:
• Outstanding long-term debt of the development entity, including.'lender, amount, and date
due.
• Any litigation or other legal disputes involving the development entity or any named
individual in the proposed development plan that could result in a financial settlement having
a materially adverse effect on the ability to execute the development plata.
• Any litigation or other legal disputes involving the development entity or any named
individual in the proposed development plan regarding a real estate venture during the past
5 years.
• Whether the development entity is currently involved the pre-development or development
of a potentially competing project in the market area.If so,please identify the project and its
status, including any anticipated date of completion.
• Whether the development entity or any named individual in the proposed development plan
has ever filed for bankruptcy or had projects that have been foreclosed. If so,please list the
dates and circumstances.
0
5,2 Commitments to Assisting the County in Meeting the FAA and the State of California
Requirements
The proposal shall provide a detailed description of the manner in which the Proposer will
cooperate and provide direct assistance to the County in fulfilling requirements for the closure
and sale of the airport property for non-aviation purposes consistent with the Code of Federal
Regulations and FAA orders. The proposal shall, at a minimum. 1) demonstrate that the sale of
Buchanan Field will benefit, and is necessary to civil aviation;6; 2) outline how the Proposer
will assist the County in preparing an application to the FAA for the release of the airport use
obligations; 3) detail the financial commitment the Proposer is prepared to offer toward the
repayment of FAA airport development grants; 4) detail the Proposer's plans for development
and dedication to the County of a new replacement general aviation airport in central Contra
Costa County,which is equivalent to or better than Buchanan.Fuld., and, 5)set forth a proposed
sequence, schedule, or timetable for anticipated actions related to meeting FAA requirements.
In 'addition the proposal shall describe the manner in which the Proposer will cooperate and
provide direct assistance to the County in meeting the State of California rules and regulations
relating to the issuance of a permit for a public airport in accordance with California Cade of
Regulations,Title 21 Sections 3525 through 3560, and.California Public Utilities Code,Section
21001 et seq.relating to the State Aeronautics Act.
5.3 Business Plan for New Replacement Airport
Provide a business plan that describes the steps and financing toward site selection,environmental
clearance,agency approvals,acquisition,design, and construction of a new replacement airport,
and the eventual operation and maintenance ofthe new airport.The business plan must demonstrate
to Contra Costa County and the FAA that the site selection, environmental clearance, agency
approvals,acquisition,construction,operation,and maintenance of a new replacement airport is
financially feasible. See additional requirements under 5.6.1 Fiscal impact Analysis.
5 The term"commtment"as used in this context is Sections 5.2,5.3,5.4,5.5,and 5.6 means:(i)the
objectives and approach;(ii)the resources to be committed;(iii)the timeline for completion;and,(iv)
initial budget,whcih the Proposer is committing toward accomplishing this activity
6 49 USC Sec.47I53(a)
21
5.4 Commitment to Feasibility Study for New Replacement Airport
Based on 5.3 Business Plan requirement, the proposal shah describe the manner in which the
Proposer will cooperate with the County in conducting a feasibility study for the siting of a new
general aviation airport in central'Contra Costa County that would replace Buchanan Field, the
steps the Proposer would take to accomplish the airport relocation,and the proposed schedule or
timetable of events to accomplish this undertaking. A stated objective of the Beard of Supervisors
is that the new replacement airport would be equivalent to or better'than Buchanan Field for
general aviation use. The proposal shall include a>description of the Proposer's approach and
commitment toward conducting the feasibility study and relocating the airport. This should
include but not be limited to the following airport siting issues:'
• Aviation Operations,Air Space, and Aviation Safety
(Local and Regional)
• Environmental Opportunities and Constraints
• Regional Access and Traffic Circulation
• Airport Safety and Security
• 'Emergency Medical Service (EMS) and Law Enforcement Aviation (including helicopter
airlift and fixed wing aircraft)
• Noise
• Land Use Compatibility and Impact on Neighboring Land Uses
• Public Outreach to Airport User Groups,Residents,Businesses, and Public Interest Groups
• Airport Facility Engineering Design,Development, and Construction
• Infrastructure,Utilities,and Public Services
• Acquisition and Financing
• Future Expansion
22
............ ......
The purpose of the feasibility study is to demonstrate that a new replacement general aviation
airport, equivalent to or better than Buchanan Field, can be located, and developed in central
Contra Costa County that can meet FAA and State standards and requirements and is acceptable
to Contra Costa County. The information on a new replacement airport will need to be prepared
in sufficient detail to support an application to the FAA to allow the closure and sale of the
Buchanan Field airport property for non-aviation purposes consistent with the Code of Federal
Regulations and FAA orders relating to the release of airport property from surplus property
disposal restrictions and sale or the other disposal of airport land acquired developed with FAA
grants. See Appendix 8.6 (The Steps Necessary to Open a New Airport, and the List of FAA
Advisory Circulars for AIP Projects(updated 7/l/99),for the standards and recommendations on
design and construction for civil aviation airports)"and seeAppendix 8.7(Transportation Security
Administration, Security Guidelines for General Aviation Airports, Information Publication A-
0001 [May 20041).
5.5 Commitment to Environmental Review and Plan Adoption Process
The proposal shall describe the manner in which the Proposer will cooperate in the environmental
review and plan adoption process and provide a proposed scheduleor sequence of events to
accomplish this undertaking. The proposal shall include a description of a planning charrette
process, to establish a community consensus for a conceptual development plan of Buchan-an
Field, and the approach to aGeneral Plan amendment(or Specific Plan)tlo: establish and incorporate
planned land uses and policies derived from the planning charrette�process into the General
Plan or through Specific Plan.The proposal shall also include a description of the Proposer's
approach and commitment to a comprehensive environmental review.process. In particular, the
proposal should describe not only the commitment but also the philosophy and approach to (i)
the preparation and certification of an Environmental Impact Report(E:IR)and an Environmental
Impact Statement(EIS)which would he adequate to meet the necessaryrequirements ofCalifornia
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and/or the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA),(ii)
the adoption of a General Plan amendment or Specific Plan, and accompanying rezoning of the
airport property; and (iii) the stages toward development entitlements, including Subdivision
Maps, Development Plans,and Development Agreements.
7 Information as submitted by the California Regional Representative for the Airplane and Pilots
Association(AOPA)on May 25,2W4.
23
..... .....
5.6 Commitment to Site Remediation at Buchanan Field
Consistent with the property's_current general aviation use, aircraft fuel is presently stored
in multiple underground tanks at the airport. The selected developer will be responsible for
removing all underground tanks or other vessels used for the storage of hazardous materials.
The proposal shall describe the Proposer's plan for identifying and removing all such tanks and
vessels and toxic substances, if any.
As of the issuance of this RFP, the Director of Airports has no knowledge of any systematic
evaluation of passible release or discharge of toxic materials,hazardous substances or any other
form of contamination at the airport property. However* the County makes no representation
regarding what would be revealed by;a review of its records,,interviews of its employees or
past employees, or the understanding of a due diligence;inquiry. Neither a Phase I or a Phase
II environmental analysis has been conducted. The selected developer will be responsible for
complying with any and all requirements for the removal and remediation of any contam nation
or other discharge at the property to the satisfaction of any and all regulatory agencies.
The proposal shall describe how the'Proposer will conduct its investigation of the property,
including a Phase I and Phase Il environmental assessment of the airport property.The proposal
shall also discuss the Proposer's plan to address the possible results of its investigation,including
any limitation on the Proposer's commitment to any necessary clean-up or remediation, and
recognize that the County makes no commitment' as to assisting with the conditions of the
property,or as to, whether and to what extent County assistance may be required.
5.7 Commitment to Fiscal and Economic Impact Analyses
In considering the potential''reuse and development of Buchanan Field for a large-scale mixed-use
development and the development of a replacement airport, Contra Costa County is seeking to
realize positive fiscal and economic impacts for Contra Costa County and the adjoining cities.
To this end, the County will require the selected developer to cooperate and provide direct
assistance in conducting the fiscal impact and economic impact analyses.'The proposal shall'
include a description of the Proposer's commitment and approach toward undertaking fiscal
impact and economic impact analyses. This should include but not be.limited to the following:
5.7.1 Fiscal Impact Analysis
1. Fiscal impacts of the 'proposed Concept Development Plan for Buchanan Field airport
property on Contra Costa.County and the cities that adjoin this property. This would involve
analysis of self-financing mechanisms for the provision of onsite and offsite infrastructure
24
and public services to support the reuse and development of Buchanan Field This analysis
must demonstrate that the development would have a positive fiscal impact on Contra Costa
County and the adjoining cities, and the development would represent no additional burden
to the public agencies that might serve the site. Fiscal impact .analysis in this context is
intended to mean operating revenues created by the project for the County and adjoining
cities through sales taxes, property taxes, business licenses, and other tax revenues and
governmental transfers'that might accrue to the County and the adjoining cities, and the
offsetting incremental casts for providing services to the site.
2. Fiscal impacts of the new replacement airport. Both Contra Costa County and the FAA will
require a demonstration that the acquisition,design,construction,operation,and maintenance
of a new replacement airport will be supported by a sound business plan. The business plan
must provide evidence that construction and operation and maintenance of anew replacement
airport is financially feasible and that critical onsite and offsite infrastructure to serve the new
airport can be funded.This analysis must also demonstrate that the neve replacement airport
would have a positive fiscal impact on Contra Costa County,particularly the County's:Airport
Revenue Fund, and the adjoining cities,and the neer replacement airport would represent no
additional burden to the public agencies that might serve the new airport site.
5.7.2 Economic Impact Analysis
1. Economic impacts of the reuse and development of Buchanan Field Airport property on
the local economy and on existing aviation related business located at the airport'and on
neighboring land uses. This analysis must demonstrate the potential impact on job creation
(short-term and lung-term) and potential impact on aviation related businesses located at the
airport,including the potential relocation of those businesses,and any impacts on neighboring
land uses such as the adjacent mobile home park.
2. Economic impacts of the development of a new replacement airport on the local.economy.
This analysis must demonstrate the potential impact of the new replacement airport in regard
to job creation(short-term and long-term)and business attraction,expansion and retention.
5.8 Initial Concept Development Plan
The proposal should'include a description of an initial Concept Development Plan proposed for
the airport property.At minimum,time description should address the following elements;
25
Narrative=The proposed approach of the Concept'Development Plan, specifically stating the
mix of land uses, provision of public uses and/or amenities, and target markets. The narrative
should demonstrate how the Concept Development Plan meets the goals and objectives of the
County,in particular the creation of a pedestrian-scaled,mixed-use community with the character
and ambience of an urban village.
Residential Development---The residential development program, including a breakdown of
number and types or dwelling units, single family and multiple family, the sizes and general
configuration of residential lots.
Affordable Housing—The affordable housing element to the residential development program,
including the design concepts and general location of the units for the Very Low, Low, and
Moderate Household Income units,consistent with orbetterthan the Dougherty Valley Affordable
Housing Program:
Public Amenities The type of public amenities in the Conceptual Development Plan, which
could include,school sites or other educationalfacilities,gild care centers,recreational or sports
playfield facilities, regional sports complexes, libraries, convention and/or conference centers,
museums and/or cultural facilities,fire stations anchor emergency operation centers, etc.
Employment Opportunit es—A program for new employment"opportunities ball in the short
term(during construction)and long term(once construction is completed).
Public Transit—Public transit linkages to regional transit systems,'such as BART, County
Connection, and Amtrak.
Site Plan:—The presentation of a preliminary site plan illustrating the following:
• Residential neighborhood concepts, including the distribution of housing product types;
• Circulation and access;
• Parks, trails,and open space concepts;
• Program description and design concepts for the employment opportunity sites and
institutional/public use sites.
26
Project phasing--The anticipated sequence and timing of development.
5.9 Financial Tereus and Conditions
The proposal must specify the price for acquisition of the airport property. There shall be no
offsets or deductions for easements, dedications, fees, exactions, and other encumbrances. The
acquisition price should be detailed based on the "Lands Purchase Terms Summary", included
as Appendix 8.15. If there are more than one alternative offers, please duplicate the summary
form for each.alternative.The acquisition prig must be supported by an M.A.I. appraisal of the
Buchanan Field airport property, which is satisfactory to the County and consistent with FAA
requirements to determine the fair market value of the property.
Each proposal should include a 10-year project pro forma, including the fallowing
components:
• Estimated bard construction and soft casts, including any developer fees;
• Financing assumptions,including estimated amount financed,type of financing,interest rate,
loan costs,and equity requirements;
• Summary of grass rental or sales income from the residential development program and any
commercial uses,
• Operating expense assumptions;
• Identification of prospective construction and permanent lenders.
The Proposer must also specify what profit margins or hates of return are expected for each:
of the components of the Concept Development Plan. For land development, e.g. creation of
pads of finished lots, for sale to either builders, and for the development of far-sale housing,the
minimum acceptable profit margin as a percentage of sale price should be stated.With respect
to development of income property, e.g. rental apartments, retail, office,, and industrial, the
minimum percentage return on cost should be set for each land use proposed.
Note: To ensure consistency and equivalency among the proposals,'please use,the following
economic assumptions in thepro.orma'analysis:annual CMof3 percent;an apartment vacancy
rate of 5 percent; a retail commercial vacancy rate of`1'0 percent; a office commercial vacancy
or,f 10 percent; a 7 percent discount rate.
27
5.10 Proposer's Representations,Warranties and Acknowledgments
The Proposer shall represent and warrant to the County ,that the statements contained in its
offer are true and correct as of the date of the offer and of the sale. The Proposer shall Rather
warrant that the Proposer has all requisite authority and power to make the offer on the terms and
conditions contained in the proposal
The Proposer roust commit to funding all the casts of preparing the Request For Proposals(REP)
and reviewing responses to the RIP, as further described in Section 5.11.2.
The Proposer shall acknowledge that the proposal creates no obligation or commitment on the
part of the County to accept the proposal or the "Lands Purchase Terms". The Proposer shall
also acknowledge that acceptanceof a proposal does not obligate the County to any fiurther step
in the process, including but not limited to entering'in an Exclusive (tight to Negotiate (ERN)
agreement or other subsequent agreements or seeking PAA approval for release and disposition
of the Buchanan Field airport property,and acceptance of a new replacement airport.
5.11 Submission Requirements
Interested parties must submit ten (10) copies of their proposal package to the County in
accordance with the following submittal requirements.
5.11.1 Cover Letter:The signed Cover Letter shall introduce the development entity and development
team, summarize the main qualifications of the firm {joint venture) and team members, and
state that the developer will be bound to the proposal for 360 calendar days and is prepared to
negotiate and enter into an ERN agreement with the County.
5.11.2 Deposit A deposit,of $501,000.00 must accompany the proposal. This initial deposit will be
used to fund the County's' expenses related to the preparation of this RFP and for review of
proposals submitted in response to this RFP. The selected developer,must also commit'to one
or more additional deposits,if requested by the County to do so to be paid within.'ten(10)days
upon notification by the County.The purpose of the additional deposit(s)would be to corer any
casts not covered by the initial deposit. Failure to submit the initial deposit or any subsequent
deposit will result in the proposal being deemed incomplete and dropped from consideration.;
28
5.1 .3 Narrative Description: Written description of the proposedConcept Development Flan,
including uses,scale of development, and proposed character and quality of development.
5.11.4 Graphic Description: A >graphic description of the proposed Concept Development Plan
consisting of preliminary site plans and design concepts:
(1) A Site Plan illustrated' at scale of all the proposed elements of the Concept:Development
Plan.All drawings shall be submitted in three formats: (a)ten sets of 24"xM"drawings;(b)
ten sets of I I"x 17"drawings, and(c)electronic file of drawings in PDF format.
(2) Design Concepts illustrating architectural and urban design themes for the proposed
Concept Development flan. All design concepts shall be submitted in three formats: (a)
ten sets of 24"06"drawings; (b) ten sets of 1'I"x 17" drawings; and (c) electronic file of
drawings in PDF format.
5.11.5 Financial Terms: The development entity's proposed financial terms for the acquisition of the
airport property. The County reserves the right to set the final financial terms of the acquisition
agreement during the negotiations with the selected Proposer.
5.11.6 Financial Capacity: The County requires that the development entity have the financial
capability to carry out the proposed Concept Development Plan and airport replacement project.
The development entity must make available sufficient financial information to demonstrate that
capability to the County's satisfaction. Such information must include,but is not limited to,, (1)
audited financial statements of the lead'development firm for 20112 and 2003;and,(2)letters from
at least three(3)lenders attesting,to the development entity's capacity to undertake this project.
The financial information shall be made available for inspection by County representatives under
conditions acceptable to the County;
5.11.7 References.- All key team members of the development entity must provide references as
indicated below:
(1) Developer(s): Provide names, addresses, phone numbers and a.description of the ms's
relationship with the following: (a)at least three(3)financial institutions,including two(2)
lenders;(b)at least two(2)public agencies from which the development entity has acquired
or leased land from a,public agency, or participated in a public/private joint venture; and,
(c) two (2) public agencies; from which the development entity obtained a development
entitlement for a large-scale development.
29
(2) Development Team Members: Provide names, addresses, phone numbers, and a
description for each the firms' relationship with at least3 public agencies for which
they have been involved in preparing plans, designs, engineering, architecture, or legal
services involving a large-scale mixed use development.
5.11.8 Page Numbers: The proposal must be page numbered in sequence from beginning to end.
30
„e
Selection and Exclusive
Right to Negotiate
(ERN) Process
r
A A ........
Y t
2
kap „rraC^`..'h 3Ji 4�
v
X
eW
Ilk Iz
K
��� •�.4N$KJiv'b6:N6'ffii%'tTdYq+,�^� .
r
SECTION 6
SELECTION A D
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE(ERN)PROCESS
6.1 Overview
The County will evaluate proposals that are submitted in conformance with the requirements set
forth herein,and may decide to select a;.Proposer for ail Exclusive Right to Negotiate Agreement,
who, in the scale discretion of the County best matches the selection criteria(as describedbelow
in 6.2.2).The County reserves the right to combine project'concepts and elect to select more than
one developer to work together in partnership to fulfill the County's goals and objectives.
6.2 Proposal Sel"tion
6.2.1 Estimated tuning
Dates Scheduled
• pane S,2004 County Issues Request for Proposals
• August 2,2004 Pre-submittal Meeting and Site Thur (optional)
• October 6,2004 Deadline for Submitting a Proposal
Dates To Be Determined
• Potential Interviews
• Board determines whether to proceed with negotiation of Exclusive Right to Negotiate
(ERN)Agreement with selected developer
• Beard adoption of ordinance providing for entry into Exclusive Right to Negotiate
(ERN)Agreement
• Board authorization to submit an application to FAA for release of airport obligations
31
6.2.2 Evaluation and Selection Criteria
The evaluation and selection criteria for a proposal include the following;:
• Appropriateness and quality of the Development Plan in meeting the County's Goals and
Objectives.
• Extent to which the proposal can meet the housing affordability requirement.
• Depth of the relevant experience and reputation ofthe Development Entity and Development
Team Members to complete and manage a complex plan involving a large-scale mixed-use
development, closure of an airport, and development of a replacement airport.
• Evidence of prig successful experience developing and managing a high quality large-
scale mixed-use development.
• Depth of understanding of and expertise with the FAA and State requirements and Code'
of Federal Regulations, and the proposed approach to addressing,said requirements for the
closure of Buchanan Field airport and sate of the airport property.
• Depth ofunderstanding and knowledge about the development of new replacement airport
in centralContra. Costa County, which is equivalent or better than the existing Buchanan
Field airport.
• Clarity of a business plan for the site selection,environmental clearance,agency approvals,
acquisition, design, and construction of new replacement>airport, and eventual operation
and maintenance for a new airport.
• Financial terms.
• Financial capability of the development'entity.
6.2.3 Conditional Selection of a Proposal'
The County will condition any selection of a proposal on the following requirements:
• An additional deposit, to cover costs of negotiating'and drafting an ERN agreement, in an
amount to be determined by the County.
32
• Clarification of the terms and the verification of financialcapability of the development
entity, and ether disclosure information as may be necessary, as further explained under
subsection 5.8 Financial Terms and Conditions.
6.3 Exclusive Right to Negotiate(ERN) Process
If developer is selected through this RFP process,the County,through the Board of Supervisors,
may require the selected developer to enter into an ERN Agreement with the County. The
critical terms of this ERN Agreement will include the term, the compensation to the County to
underwrite all its costs of evaluation and negotiation,and a commitment with a specified date to
develop a detailed Development Program.
6.4 Development Program'
It is anticipated the Development Program will include, at a minimum,the following elements:
(l) The general land uses proposed for Buchanan Field, including any dedications for public
use.
(2) The extent to which the land uses correspond to current planning practice or will mire,
as expected., general plan amendments and ether discretionary actions.
(3) A timeline for the determination of entitlements for this development
(4) A timeline, presumably subsequent to the determination of entitlements, to determine the
appropriate valuation of this project,
(S) A general approach to infrastructure financing and a timeline for refining that approach.
(b) A general approach and timeline for identifying a potential replacement airport before
Buchanan Field airport can be closed and made available for private development. This
shall include a timeline for the identification of the new replacement airport and submission
to the FAA to determine whether or not it would be considered as a passible replacement
and therefore warrant the detailed investigation and planning that will be required.
(7) The identification of a consulting'team and budget for such identification.
(8) A timeline for such detailed investigation and planning.
33
Implicit in the Development Program are a least four critical decision points. The first of which
will be a determination by the FAA regarding the replacement airport. This would essentially
correspond to an agreement that they would accept an application for such a change without
necessarily committing to approve it. Should there not be a concept the FAA will actively
consider,'the negotiations would terminate.
In the event that there is a concept FAA would consider, the seconddecision point becomes
its actual approval of this concept and the detailed plans associated with it. A key step in this
phase is completion of the environmental review and the plan adoption, including development
entitlement for reuse and development.
The third decision paint is anticipated to be the completion of the replacement airport, its
acceptance as a replacement airport by the FAA and State, and dedication of a functionally
operable new replacement airport to the County.
The fourth and final decision paint is anticipated to be the actual conveyance of the Buchanan
Fuld property upon a demonstration by the developer that it has met all the conditions precedent
to such conveyance, e.g. business plan for new replacement>airport, adequate financing for
the required infrastructure,compliance with other terms of the entitlement approval, etc. It is
expected that at this final stage, the County would enter into a Disposition and Development
Agreement,which would formally define the terms and conditions for conveyance of Buchanan
Field Airport property to the development entity.
6.5 Due Diligence,Property Inspection, and Investigation of Conditions
The information contained in this RFP is ofa general nature and contains no guarantee or warranty
of any kind, express or implied, on the part of the County. The Proposer should not rely on
the accuracy of any of the information contained herein but, rather, should undertake whatever
investigation the Proposer deems necessary to obtain or verify any information relevant to its
proposal".The airport,property is currently under the ownership of Contra Costa County under the
management of the Division of Airports,the Department of Public Works,and it is a function
general aviation airport. The selected developer will be permitted to conduct due diligence on
the property subject to a schedule and plan to be approved'by the County.Access to the property
will be strictly controlled and under the supervision of County personnel. All remaining due
diligence must be completed within sixty (60) days following selection for an Exclusive Right
to Negotiate. It is the responsibility of the selected developer, at its sole and absolute expense,
to undertake such investigations as the selected developer may deem necessary in connection
with the condition of the airport property and the appropriateness of the airport property for
the intended Development Plan.The selected developer shall provide to the County, at no cost,
4
upon the County's request, complete copies of all inspection reports>obtained by the selected
developer concerning the airport property. This includes any information pertaining to toxic
and/or hazardous substances, and a report of the selected developer's findings to the County
during the Due Diligence Period. If the airport property is conveyed to a selected developer,
it will be in an "as-is" physical condition with no warranty or liability, express or implied, on
the part of the County as to any matter,and with a requirement of full indemnification from the
selected developer to the County.
6.6 Limitations
6.+6.I Sole Discretion of County
The final selection of a developer will be made solely by Contra Costa County, however, the
County is under no obligation to selectany set of proposals and may at its discretion reject any
and all proposals. The selection of a development entity and entry into an ERN Agreement
would in no way obligate the County to enter into a purchase agreement.All agreements must be
approved by the Board of Supervisors,.
6.6.2 Responsibilities of Selected Developer
The selected developer will be solely responsible for receiving all necessary approvals including
financial, plan approvals and development entitlements from the County and ether outside
agencies,as may be necessary. All approvals must be completed within the timeframe as defined
in the ERN Agreement.The County will provide the selected developer with a reasonable,period>
of time to obtain approvals.The County makes no guarantee about granting any plan approvals
and/or development entitlements from Contra>Costa>County or other public agencies.All oI'f site
and on-site predevelopment costs will be at the sole cast and expense Of the selected developer,
including but not limited to gas,water,;electric,sanitary sewer services,storm drainage,access,
grading, all physical'a-ad environmental mitigation measures,and development impact fees.
35
t
�a
Subrm' ssion D
r
Contact Persons, and
Further Inf`or - a * �� . �1
�
o.
n
1 n
v
a
s�
a11
..............
xd t
6y3
ttw
SECTION 7.
SUBMISSION``DAT E11
CONTACT PERSONS,AND FURTHER INFORMATION
7.1 Submission Date
Parties interested in submitting a proposal for this project must submit ten (10) copies by 5:00
p.m. (Pacific Standard Time, close of business) Wednesday,October 6,2004,to:
Contra Costa County ward of Supervisors
C/O Contra Crista.County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, 40,Floor North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Attn: Dennis M. Barry,AiCP
Community Development Director
7.2 Pre-Submittal Meeting and Site Tour
The County will conduct a Pre-Submittal Meeting and tour of the airport property on Monday,
August 2, 2004, from 10:00 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. The purpose is to address relevant questions
from prospective parties of interest and provide a tour of the property. 'Those interested in the
Pre-Submittal Meeting and Site Tour must RSVP with Patrick Roche,Community Development
Department by 12:00 p.m.,Tuesday,July 27, 2004.
To facilitate the preparation of a proposal in response to this RFP, the County upon written
request will consider providing additional opportunities for access or a follow-up tour of the
airport property.The written request for additional access to the airport property should be sent
to Mr. Roche.
7.3 Contaet Persons'
Any questions,'regarding this Request For Proposals, process for selection or general questions
should be directed.to Patrick Roche,Contra Costa County Community Development Department,
651 Pine Street,Maid Administration Building,2'4"Floor,forth Wing Martinez,CA 94553.Mr,
Roche can also be contacted by telephone at (925)335-1242, by e-mail at proch@cccounty.us.'
cccounty.us
or by facsimile at(925)335-1222.
36
..........
If you have more specific questions concerning planning, zoning, housing programs, economic
development,infrastructure financing, and airport issues please contact:
Planning and>Zoning: Patrick Roche, Principal Planner, Contra Costa County Community
Development Department, (925)335.1242
HousingProgram:Kara Douglas,Housing Program'Manager,Contra Costa County Community
Development Department, (925) 335-1253
Infrastructure Financing: Jim Kennedy, Deputy Director, Contra Costa County'Community
Development Department, (925) 335-1255
Airport Operations: Keith Freitas, Director,Division of Airports, Contra Costa County Public
Works Department(925) 646-5722.
37
r
Appendices
1*1 kill
al K
s
t L' y'-
w 0
..y
j
y
tA m
INW,WIM- 0
dv 3
� k
y
SECTION 8
APPENDICES
8.1 Contra Costa County Airports Lease Information Sheet—This summarizes the Airport Lease
Agreements.The actual lease agreements are available for inspection upon request'.
8.2 Aerial Photograph: Location of Buchanan Field Airport Ground Leases
8.3 List of FAA Grants received by the County for Buchanan Field and grant terms and conditions
8.4 Original Transfer Agreement between the U.S. Govt. and County for Buchanan Field
8.5 Code of Federal Regulations and FAA orders relating to the release of airport property from
surplus property disposal restrictions and sale of or the other disposal of airport land developed
with FAA grants
6.6 "Steps Necessary To{open A New Airport", and the List of FAA Advisory Circulars for the
standards and recommendations relating siting and constructing a new civil aviation airport,as
submitted by the Regional Representative of AOP,A.
6.7 Security Guidelines for General Aviation Airports,Information Publication A-0001 (May
2004),Transportation Security Administration,U.S. Rept.'of Homeland Security.
8.8 Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Study,Final Technical Report(adopted Sept.. 1990);
Volumes I and II Draft Environmental Impact`Report/Environmental Assessment for
Buchanan.Field Airport Master Plan Update,Circulation Improvements,Airport Access
Plan Amendment,Golf Course Luse,General Plan Amendment,and Related Implementation
(Oct, 1989)and'Contra Costa County.Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(adapted by ALUC,
Dec. 2€300)
8.9 "The Economic Impacts, Casts, and Benefits'of Centra Costa County Airports" (Economic
Research Associates,June,200€3)
8.10 East Contra Costa County Airport(Byron Airport)Master Plan(May, 1986), Draft
Environmental Impact Report for Proposed East Contra Costa County Airport (Sept, 1985)
8.1'l December 9,2003 Board Carder on Exploring Aviation.Alternatives for Contra Costa County'
Airports
38
------------------
8.12 April 27,2004 Board Order,Status Report on Buchanan Field R.FP Process'
8.13 Materialon"Shaping Our Future"
8.14 Material provided by Friends of Concord Airport Association to Beard of Supervisors,
5/412004, "Acme Landfill-Engineering,Review and Airport Feasibility (Final Report,April
2004),prepared by Brown,Vence &Associates.
8.15 Demographic Profile for Contra.Costa County
8.16 Maps and.Aerial Photographs
Aerial Photograph of Buchanan Field Airport Existing Uses
Airport Layout Plan
Map of Airport Utilities
8.17 "Lands Purchase Terms Summary"
18.18 Affordable Housing,Program(As Proposed By County Staff)
18.l g Transcript,May 25, 2004 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors'Meeting,Agenda Item
D.2. Consider Releasing the Buchanan'Field Airport Request For Pr.Oposals
39
l
ATTACHMENT#2
'age List and Redline/Strikeout for Text Changes to the
Buchanan ''Field RFP in response to Board Member Comments,
5/2512004'
Page 1, SECTION 1, 1.2 Summary: clarification about a 2-step process
before property can be conveyed in County Goals/Objectives
County Goals/Objectives. Contra Costa County seep proposals for the reuse
and development of the Buchanan Field Airport property into a mixed-use
development that would establish a distinctive urban place. TWswalty- o
3
EM afid
y
A o pe. Before the Buchanan Field airport property can be cunvtyed to a
selected developer_through this
Request For P=DealsPprocess, the
develo at the develo ar's sole..cost must under the,a ices'o Contra Costa
County. 1 site and' develop a r lacement aeneral aviation Ai rt located in
central Contra Costa
CggM which is equal to or better than Buchanan Field
ace table to the Federal Aviation Administration and Contra Costa COUPIL and
certified it by the State of California and 2'I r acre a business lazz'that
would demonstrate the financial feasibili of >.ac developing, and
operating the neve airport.
Page 1 SECTION' 1, 1.2 Summary: clarification that sale and development
of Buchanan Field Airport property is contingent up meeting' certain
Federal'and State:«Requirements:
Federal' and State ReauixemenIts The sale and
development of Buchanan Field for non-aviation uses will require the approval,of,
and release of. by the Federal Aviation Administration 'AA). The>
siting and development of a replacement airport for Buchanan Field will require
the approval of the FAA. Proposals submitted in response to this RFP must
demonstrate a thorough. understanding of all applicable FAA requirements and
standards., and the Code ,.of Federal Regulations, 'and relevant State Law, in
articular, the Mate Aeronautics.Act Public Utilities Code Section 21001 et s,
1 of
Attachment#2. Beard Report 6/W4
Page 1, SECTION 1, 1.2 Summary: clarification that property disposition is
contingent upon a determination to proceed with project:
Property Disposition: if'a determination is made to proceed with thistaro,ect
Eventual sa4e the airport property will he conveyed in,an"as-is
condition'' through a Disposition and Development Agreement upon ftilfilling the
requirements 'set forth in an Exclusive Right To Negotiate (ERN) Agreement,
particularly the FAA and State requirements and standards:
Page 12, SECTION 3, BACKGROUND ON BUCHANAN FIELD, 3.5
Continuing Airport Operations: clarification about how existirig leases, new
fuses and lease extensions will be considered:
3.1 Continuing Airport Operations
Buchanan Field will continue to operate as an airport in;conjunction with non-
aviationcommercial uses unless and until such time as a determination is made to
close the airport property,and its aviation functions are relocated'to a new airport
pursuant to Federal Aviation Administration ',(FAA) orders and 'Code of Federal
Regulations.
made,
t
This
means that unless and until such time as a determination is made'and the aviation
functions have been relocated to a new replacement airport, the existing leases
and aereements will continue in>effect``with the AiWort Master>Plan as mav be
amended the County will continue to consider and'n otiate new leases or lease
extensions. It will-be., the selected developer's obligation..to ply all costs
associated with relocatine existing tenants or ne ogotiatinp, other arrangements
satisfactory to existing tenants.- in accordance with their lease terms if a
determination is made to close the airport
Page 10, SECTION 3. BACKGROUND 4N BUCHANAN FIELD, 3.1
Airport History: 2nd paragraph, last sentence, clarify smaller runways and
taxiways
There are two 'smaller runty W and
associated taxiways.
2 of
Attachment#2. Board Report 6/81£14
Page 12, SECTION 3. BACKGROUND ON BUCHANAN FIELD, 3.6
FAA'S Role and the Code of Federal Regulation: add, clarification to
sentence in the 2nd paragraph
Because of these restrictions, the sale and development of Buchanan Field for
non-aviation uses will require the approval of, and release of restrictions by the
FAA. In order to obtain the approval of the FAA,the County will at the sale cost
of and with the full coo eration>of the selected develo er need to accom fish the
following:
Page 13 in subsection3.6 FANS Role and the Cade of Federal Regulation
a footnote ##4 has been added to cite relevant Federal regulation and'new
sentence has been added at the end of the lest paragraph:
s Contra Costa County may also be required to repair airport development
grant proceeds to the FAA. See Appendices 8.3 (List of FAA Grants), 8.4'
°(Instrument of Transfer agreement between. U.S. Goverment and Contra
Costa'County for Buchanan Field), and;8.5 (Code of Federal Regulations
and FAA orders relating to the release of airport property from surplus
property disposal' restrictions and sale or other disposal of airport'land
developed with FAA grants). These costs will also funded by selected
devel rs er.
Page 13, SECTION'' 3. BACKGROUND ON 'BUCHANA FIELD: new
paragraph subsection added on State Rules/Regulations for Public
Airports
3.7.1 State of California Rules and Regulations for Public AjMorts
The State of Califomia has ads+ ed rules an re lotions tela u to the issuance
of ggpnits for ublic ai its that are used con`urtction `ith relevant>FAA
AdvigM Circulars We 14 and the Code of Federal Regulations, >These rules
an re labors are rn re described at California Code ot`R.e lations'< Title
21 Sections> 3525 through 356(3 and California blie Util ties Cade Section,;
21001 et sg . relatia—g to the State Aeronautics Act. The Division of Aeronautics
California arunent of 1`r`` ortation is the state> ane nsible for
admjhjiistqrin the'above< eferenced rules and regulation d accordin would
be re' -wit airtner1 c rnta
Contra Costa Coun , The Division of Aeronautics maintains a website that
ex lains in &Lgater depth the adopted rules and regulation of the State of
California for public aimorts tt ;flww '-dot,ca. ov l tannin aeronau . m
3 of
Attachment#2.Board Report 6!8/44
addition to the FAA r `Wrements and role the re ondents to this RFP are
strongly enco a ea to review the state's' rules> and re latons and become
familiar with the state's role in ganting a pen-nit for a p1iblig a" rt.
Page 14, SECTION 4. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AND POTENTIAL
COUNTY PARTICIPATION new objective #4 added to clarify requirement
for business plan
4 Develo znent and implementation of a sound businesslai.1 at uvould load to
the successful ac uisition design, constriction and operation and
maintenance of a new r lacement airport.
Page 15, SECTION 4. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AND POTENTIAL
COUNTY PARTICIPATION: the affordable housing objective is re-
numbered as objective # 7, and revised to clarify requirement based on
enhanced version of the Dougherty Valley model
7 The provision of affordable housing based on an +enhanced pougherty
Valle c fordable housing ro . The envision of residential units
that are affor ble to V Low w and l lUloderatc :Income Ho Beholds
must be a key clement of prog2sals for Buchan an Fiold tha include a
residential develo rnent mo ain see Section 4.2.2 for details
Page 15, SECTION 4. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AND POTENTIAL
COUNTY PARTICIPATIOW a new objective ## 14 added to clarify
requirement to relocate EMS and Law Enforcement Aviation to a neve
airport
14 The relocation and otential Mansion of Emergmhig4kal Se 'ces
EM and Law Eriforcernent Aviation inclAding helicopter airlift and led,
winged aircraft,to a now oplAgement.airport.
Page 16, SECTION 4. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AND POTENTIAL
COUNTY PARTICIPATION, 4.2.1 development Costs': this subsection re-
written for clarity
4.2.1 Development Costs
The selected develo er Ishall p4y all development costs LmLudinjz without'
fimitation:J11 Buchanan Field Airport ro - ac uisitio o rci er
site remediatign.plan mp noval and entitlements env irc nrrrental clearance
4 of
Attachment#12. Board deport 618/44
federal, state, and local apyrovals, development and!construction costs
and incremental infrastructure financing; and 2 airport re lacement
property — acquisition of-pjgperty,—property, federal state and local a rovals
environmental clearance and construction and development costs. The
develo er will Dav full nroDertv taxes and all standard',izovernmental fees.
The Counly ma consider allowing the selected developgr to finance
subject-to adopted. County policies, certain required infrastructure through
the Cough issuance of tax-exempt debt secured solely by
DevelopWproperty owner payments (e.g.. the use ! of a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities Districtspecial tax or 191.1/1915Act Assessment).
Page 16, SECTION 4. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AND POTENTIAL.
COUNTY PARTICIPATION, Section 4.2.2 Housing Affordability is revised
for clarity
4.2.2 Housing Affordability
A proposal with a residential development program for reuse and develo went of
Buchanan Field must be modeled from the staff proposed. Affordable Housing
Pro am. The staff proosed Affordable Housing Pro ain is provided in
_Appendix 8.18. The provision for affordable residential units must meet the
minimum requirements as summarized below:
General Requirement: 25% of the residential units shall be affordable to Ve
Low Low, and Moderate Income Households at specific affordable rents or
affordable sales prices.
Income Targets for Affordable Units: At least 20%of the affor able units must be
reserved for VM Low Income Households earning 50% of the Oakland DMSA
Median Income or less adjusted for family size. At least 20% of the affordable
units must be reserved for Low Income Households earning between 51-80°ro of
the Oakland FMSA Median Income adjusted for famfly size. Not more than 60%
of the affordable units must be reserved for Moderate Income.Households earnn
between 81-120%of the Oakland FMSA Median Income adjusted for family size.
Terms of Affordability: The rental units for VM Low Law, and Moderate
Income Households must be affordable for fifty-five 55 ear term. The for-sale
units for Ve. Low Low, and Moderate Income Households would'be affordable
for thirty(30)years.
Achievement of a higher general r uirement higher percentage of income
targets for affordable units or longer terms of aSordabiliM is encouraged.. An
County financing assistance needed for an affordable housing -pros e. .
multi-family tax-exempt bonds. CDBG and/or HOME funds, etc. will be
5 of
Attachment#2. Board Report 6/8/04
1
predicated on achieving e hijzhest level of housing affordability.
Page 19, SECTION 5. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS: language added to
first sentence in paragraph 1, subsection 5.1.3, for clarification of selected
developer role in acquisition and development of a new replacement
airport
5.1.3 Financial Capability
The County wants assurances that the development entity has the financial
capability to successfully carry out the acquisition and development of a new
replacement airport as well acquisition of the Buchanan Field aAirport property
and develop a master planned community.
Page 21, SECTION 5. PROPOSAL. REQUIREMENTS; subsection 5.2 is
revised to add role of the State and clarifying footnote on Federal
requirement
5.2 Commitment' to Assisting the County in Meeting the FAA and the State of
California Reouirements
The proposal shall provide a detailed descrition of the manner in which the
Pro oser will coo este and provide direct assistance to the Courin fulfillin
re uirements for the closure and sale of the ai ortro for non-aviation
pgMoses consistent with the Code of Federal Re Mations and FAA orders. The
prpRosal shall at a minimums 1 demonstrate that the sale of Buchanan Field will
benefitand is neces to civil. aviation 2 outline how the Pro oser will assist
the Coupty in pLegrin an a lication to the FAA. for the release'of the ai ort
use obligations-, 3 detail the financial commitment the Proposer is pWared to
offer toward the pWgyment of FAA a
irport develo ment ants• detail the
Proposer's alms for develo meat and dedication to the C2MpV of a new
replacement grieral aviation ai ort in central Contra Costa Cgimty, which is
j e valent to or better than Buchanan Field. and 5 set 'forth a ro osed
sgguence, schedule or timetable for anticipated actions related to meetingFAA
re€luirements.
In addition the ptoposal shall describe the manner in which the Pro oser will
coo erate and.provide direct assistance to the CgMty in meeting the Mate of
California rules and re lations relgLng,to the issuance of a pqrmit for a ublic
ai rt in accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 21. Sections 3525
throueh 3560 and California Public Utilities Code Section 21001 et seg. relatin
39 USC Sec.47153(x)
6 of
Attachment#2. hoard Report 6/8/04
to the State Aeronautics Act.
Page 21, SECTION 5. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS, new subsection 5.3
Business Plan for Replacement Airport is added for clarification
5.2 Business PIan for New Replacement Airport
Provide a business plana that describes the steps and financing toward site
selection, environmental clearance agent approvals acquisition design and
construction of a new replacement airport, and the eventual operation and
maintenance of the new airport The business plan must demonstrate to Contra
Costa County and the FAA that the site selection environmental clearance
agency approvals, acquisition, construction operation and maintenance of a new
replacement airport is financially feasible See additional requirements under
5.6.1 Fiscal Impact Analysis.
Page 22, SECTION 5. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS: subsection 5. 4
Commitment to Feasibility Study for New Replacement Airport, new bullet
on EMS and Law Enforcement Aviation is added to the list on airport siting
issues
�► Emergency Medical Service (EMS) and Law Enforcement Aviation(including
helico tp er airlift and fixed wing aircraft)
Page 25, SECTION 5. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS: subsection 5.6.1,.
Fiscal Impact Analysis, 2., is revised to clarify role of the business plan
2. - Fiscal impacts of the new replacement airportBoth Contra Costa County and the
FAA will require a demonstration that the acquisition desiim, construction
operation and maintenance of a new replacement airport will be supported by a
sound business Man. The business plan must provide evidence that construction
and operation and maintenance of a new replacement airport is financiall
feasible and that critical onsite and offsite infrastructure to serve the new airport
can be funded. This analysis must also demonstrate that the new replacement
aiWort would have a positive fiscal impact on Contra Costa CauntLparticularly
the County's Airport Revenue Fund and the adjoining cities and the new
replacement airport would represent no additional burden to the public agencies
that might serve the new airport site
7 of
Attachment#2.Board Report 6/8104
Page 25, SECTION 5. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS: subsection 5.7.2
Economic Impact Analysis is revised to add requirement to include
economic impact to existing aviation-related businesses located at
Buchanan Field and on neighboring land uses
5.7.2 Economic Impact Analysis
Economic impacts of the reuse and development of Buchanan Field Airport
propertyproppLty on the local economy and on existing aviation related business located at
the airport and on neighboring land uses. This analysis must demonstrate the
potential impact on 'ob creation short-term and long-term) and potential im act
on aviation related businesses located at the airport, including the potential
relocation of those businesses and pny impacts on nei borin !land uses such as
the adjacent mobile home park.
Page 29, SECTION 5. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS: add language to
first sentence under 5.11.6 Financial Capacity for clarification
5.11.6 Financial Capacity: The County requires that the development entity have the
financial capability to carry out the proposed Concept Development Plan and the
ai ort reQlacement project. The development entity must make available
sufficient financial information to demonstrate that capability to the County's
satisfaction. Such information must include, but is not limited to, (1) audited
financial statements of the lead development firm for 2002 and 2003; and, (2)
letters from at least three(3)lenders.attesting to the development entity's capacity
to undertake this project. The financial information shall be made available for
inspection by County representatives under conditions acceptable to the County.
Pages 38-39, SECTION 8. APPENDICES: revisions to list of appendices
8.6 "STEPS NECESSARY TO OPEN A NEW AIRPOfZT'and the List of FAA
Adviso Circulars for the standards and recommendations on desi and
construction for civil aviation aiU2orts, as submitted by the Regional Representative
of AOPA.
8.18 _ -Affordable Housing Program As Proposed By County-Staf.
8.1.9 Transcript,Ma 2S 2044 Contra Costa Coun Board of Su' ervisors
Meeting, Agenda Item D.2: Consider'Releasing,the Buchanan Field Ai ort
Request For Proposals
SY73 h Ziutsi#ll^6aSli4.Y�_3ij"•�Tia��_. �
8 of
Attachment #2.Board Report 6/8/04
ATTACHMENT # 3
STAFF RESPONSE TO BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS/COMMENTS
BY TOPIC, MAY 25TH BOARD MEETING'
TOPIC: NEW REPLACEMENT AIRPORT
Supervisor DeSaulnier: The RFP needs to be clear and more direct about a
requirement to include a business plan to demonstrate the financial feasibility of
acquiring, developing and operating a new replacement airport.
Response: The RFP document has been revised to clarify that a business plan
must be submitted in response to the RFP. See Page 21, new subsection 5.3
Business Plan for New Replacement Airport. Also other sections in the RFP have
been revised to reflect the business plan requirement.
Supervisor DeSaulnier: The RFP needs to include the comments from John
Pfiefer, AOPA Representative, concerning the list of FAA requirements for a new
replacement airport and the Airport Coalition.
Response: The RFP document has been revised to incorporatelist provided by
AOPA representative. See list identified on page 38, Section 8. Appendices,
under Appendix 8.6.
Supervisor Uilkema: The RFP needs to clarify the role of the State of California in
the approval of new replacement airport
Response: The RFP document has been revised to incorporate and clarify the
role of the State of California in approving a permit for a new replacement airport.
See page 13, new subsection 3.7, State of California Rules and Regulation for
Public Airports, has been added.
Supervisor Greenberg: How is Emergency Medical Service '(EMS) Aviation
addressed in the requirement to site a new replacement airport?
Response: The RFP document has been revised to include EMS and Law
Enforcement Aviation to the list of County objectives (see page 96, objective#94)
and to the list of new airport siting issues that must be addressed in a proposal
(see page 22, 5.4 Commitment to Feasibility Study for New Replacement
.Airport).
' Board member comment or question is not verbatim but paraphrased.
I of
Attachment#3,Board Report 618/04
TOPIC: AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Supervisor Greenberg: I have concerns in the RFP with the affordable housing
requirement for reuse and development of Buchanan Field where it speaks to the
Dougherty Valley model, as being equal to or better than. Are theserequirements
based on the original program for Dougherty Valley or based on a more current
and updated version of the Dougherty Valley affordable housing program? i think
we can do better than "equal to" Dougherty Valley.
Response: The RPP document has been revised to clarify that the starting point
for the affordable housing component will be an enhanced version of the
Dougherty Valley model. An outline of the minimum requirements modeled after
more current Dougherty Valley type program is provided at page 16 in subsection
4.2.2, and in Appendix 8.18 an enhanced Affordable Housing Program, as
proposed by staff, which details the affordable housing program is provided for
guidance to RFP respondents.
TOPIC: URBAN LIMIT LINE
Supervisor Uiikema: Does the existing Urban Limit Line place any limitations on
where an airport can be located?
Response: Measure C-1990: The 65135 Contra Costa Land Preservation Plan
Ordinance and the Contra Costa County General Plan would allow for the
development of a general aviation airport that is open to public use outside the
Urban Limit Line provided that a land use permit for such a facility was issued in
accordance with the County Ordinance Code and consistent with General Plan
policies.
TOPIC: IMPACT TO EXISTING AVIATION-RELATED BUSINESSES
Supervisor Uilkema: Now will impacts to existing aviation-related businesses at
Buchanan Field be addressed in the RFP process? What happens to the
investment made by these businesses in leased facilities at the airport? Now will
lass of business due to relocation to a new airport be considered?
Reponse: The RFP document has been revised to add a requirement in the
economic impact analysis that a proposal must include impact' on existing
aviation-related businesses located at Buchanan Field. See page 25, subsection
5.7.2, Economic Impact Analysis. Also note that under Recommendation in the
Board Order, the Board would be acknowledging that County will continue to
honor existing leases and consider lease extension or new agreements, as
appropriate, in accordance with the FAA requirements and the Airport Master
2 of
Attachment# 3,Board Report 618/04
t
Plan, until and unless such time as a determination is made to close the airport,
surplus the property, and relocate aviation uses to a new airport, which is equal
to or better than Buchanan Field. This means that the airport would operate in a
"business as usual" approach in regard to aviation-related business until such
determinations are made. Also see Section 3.5 Continuing Airport Operations on
page 92 for revised language to clarify that it will be the selecteddeveloper's
obligation to pay all costs associated with relocating existing tenants at the
airport or negotiating other arrangements satisfactory to existing' tenants, in
accordance with their lease terms, if a determination is made to close the airport.
Topic Redline 1 Strikeout to Track Changes to RFP Document
Supervisor Greenberg: I would like to see in redline l strikeout form where
the changes have been made to the RFP based on comments received
today.
Response: See Attachment#2 for a page listing where key changes have
made to the RFP with accompanying redline strikeout to the relevant text.
Topic- Incorporate Public Comment into RFP Document
Sugerv_isor DeSaulnier. I would like to incorporate comments received
today from the public comment and also incorporate written comments
from the pilots that were submitted, relayed to the Clerk, intolthe'RFP.
Response: An unofficial transcript, prepared by the Clerk of the Board, on
Agenda item D.2, May 25, 2004 Board meeting, has been included as an
appendix to the RFP (see Appendix 8.99), and the "Steps;Necessary To
Open A New Airport" and List of FAA Circulars on standards and
recommendations for siting and constructing a new civil aviation airport, as
submitted by the Aircraft Pilot and Owners Association ("AOPA)
representative has been included as an appendix to the RFP (see
Appendix 8.6).
1V.o0uWs'bf+ rl9whmrf FW&AAW-A*—*,.M"ACMM1Et(M 610FFMSPOME T684AIXtl MEMBER OtZVNNS0626M 6.
3 of
Attachment# 3, Board Report 618!04
Item DA
June 8, 2004
Supervisor DeSaulnier: I would like to get to a point where for my self and ethers we do
the RFP,we have the feasibility study and the review process in there and within the 4
month period,but certainly within 6 months we can all find out if there is anything there
for everyone,or we can go on with our lives and really aggressively approach the master
plan,but also the board and the Community Development Department get'on with
multiple challenges we have. So I appreciate everyone's input, appreciate,my colleagues
and the audience in my indulgence and patients with my going through the document,but
I think its important. I think the two things remaining for me and there may be other are
how my colleagues feel about the third party evaluation, in particular the feasibility study
and how we incorporate a really aggressive,but appropriate public in particular the
aviation community into evaluating the feasibility study,if we have something we
proceed with the hard work, if we don't we get on with business.
Supervisor DeSaulnier: Mr Chairman, a brief comment, I think those things that the two
members of the Coalition are, we should include and I would be happy to include in the
motion, the Director of airports aggressively pursue the Master Flan and Lease
Extensions, but just a corrections in terms of the General Fund deficit. The Lease
revenue couldn't go to help with that deficit,they actually required, as most of you know
by the FAA. That money is required by the FAA to stay on the airfield.
David Evans: That the Director of the Airports aggressively pursue business at the ,
airport, including granting new leases, extending existing leases, upgrading existing ti f
facilities and in accordance with the Master Flan and modification that are being
considered and the pursuit o,f state and federal funds to accommodate these upgrades
Supervisor Uilkema: I don't have experience in airport closures. So I'm going to request
one more step in this process in order to be able to support it. Let me tell you why. I am
going to ask it could be an expert, such as Lee Fisher and associates or the equivalent be
asked to review this document for errors and omissions relative to the airport component
of the RFP,prior to its release. Let me explain where I finally landed on this. This
document is the foundation of everything that will follow and we've allowed that might
take several,20 years. It will be a basic land use planning and impacts statements and
evaluation for 20 years. This project is going to be as big as Tassajara. Just an example.
As far as the land use portion of it is concern,based on my experience. I feel very
comfortable. I see it is complete. That is because I have had some experience doing that
kind of document, so I can say that"well this looks good to me" and it covers every other
project in the same general fashion.However,when it comes to the airport'portion, I have
little knowledge of these issues. And I really feel a review by a professional, an expert in
the field,prior to the release of the document should occur. And I want to assure myself
that all the items appropriately covered. Today,when I came to the meeting, I asked
about the development team that did the evaluation, and I'm not trying to embarrass our
• On. page 32, under 6.2.2 Evaluation and Selection Criteria, add a bullet: That a
continue involvement of Aviation Evaluation Consultant and team, so that
would, implicit in this is the Yd party consultant. And also Keith and other people
who are within ****.
• So, in the motion what I would like to suggest to you, Gayle is that we go ahead
directly, what we are doing by this motion is directing Bennis to go ahead and
hire Lee Fisher, whomever, immediately and to make comments on the RFP to
where he feels it is appropriate to bring it back to the Board, but to release the
Board, and I'll make one final amendment to release the Board the RFP, lets say
July 10'* that would give us a month, and through the process, keep ham on
Board to make comments or input. So there is going to be dialogue, for instance I
will point you to the dates in terms of meeting the staff during the RFP process
and if I can get that right, on page 31, we talk about June 8, the County issues
request for proposals, so that would be adjusted to July 10"', pre-submittal
meeting and site tour, during this whole process, there will be as I understand
questions from potential respondents and concerns raised before the actual
respondents will respond. During that process, Lee Fisher will have been hired
and can be part of the conversation in addition to, can bring any conerns back to
the department and to the Board for that process at any time they or you deemed
necessary.
Supervisor Gioia: Seconal.
Dennis Barry: ....the 10`x' is a Saturday, so it could be the 12", or the 9th...It is our
understanding you would want us to refer to Lee Fisher, who is currently under contract
at this point to review and potentially comment on the RFP and you are leaving it in our
discretion as to whether we need to come back to you for review of any modifications
imposed.
Airport Director, I have the greatest respect for him,but I asked him if he had experience
in airport closure, and he did not either. He allauded how there are very few who have
had experience like this because it has been so long and so infrequent that an airport had
been.closed. So,many of you know in my other life I was a professor and!I used to say to
my students, graduate students"be sure your able,wise enough to know what you don't
know"because then you get help. That is when you bring in expertise. Well I'm running
up my yellow flag now to say"I don't know about airport and I have to consider myself
wise enough to make sure I recognize and say publicly know,I don't know,but would
feel better on something magnitude on this project to have had a review. And the only
name I could know is and metion is Lee Fisher and Associates. I think this would be a
brief pause in the process. If there are gaps in the RFP, I think we have an opportunity to
correct or add or delete and in fact then my name,which would also be part of this
process, I would feel better because I would feel we have done our delegece. There is
the old story, you need to ask the right questions to get answers to be evaluated. I think
asking the right questions,which would be the professional review, is foundational to this
" process and I want to make it very clear that my intent as we voted several weeks ago
hasn't changes and I really feel that its not going to slow things up that much and would
like to request to add to the recommendation for today that we have a review by Lee
.Fisher and Associates prior to the release or the equivelent, equi
Friends of Concord Airport Association
R
A Coalition of Business, Pilots and Concerned Citizens
P.O. Box 30942 Walnut Creek,Ca 94598
Phone 510.758.2325 Fax 510.758.6335
E-mail diannesummers@mindspring.com
Website www.BuchananAirport.com
June 3, 2004
Mr. Dennis Barry <i
Community Development Department
651 Pine St. 4th Floor North Wing
Martinez, Ca 94553
Re: Buchanan Field Request For Proposals
Dear Mr. Barry,
The Friends of Concord Airport Association has reviewed the above referenced document as well as
the supplemental packet provided by Supervisor DeSaulniers office. We have grave concerns
regarding both what is stated in the RFP, as well as its omissions.
As written, the document contains factual errors, various sections have conflicting statements, and
the stated intent of the Board of Supervisors is not being met. This document should have been
crafted by individuals or a private firm well versed in RFP preparation. The financial and legal
ramifications of this project, should it come to fruition, is by far, the largest undertaking of this type
by the county. These comments are not directed at you and staff as criticism, but purely from a
business and liability point of view.
Specifically, we direct your attention to page 6, 2.1; "Buchanan Field is a 495 acre site...."". According
to various documents, most of them in county possession, Buchanan Field is in fact larger;
significantly larger. Our calculations show a minimum of 530 acres and more likely 585 acres. This
discrepancy must be resolved prior to any release of the RFP.
Secondly, throughout the RFP document, reference in made to "General Aviation", and that the
replacement airport must serve "general aviation". While this is certainly true, Buchanan Field has
had commercial service in the past, and continues to be certified by the FAA as a Part 139 Airport.
The county has continued to maintain it currency of the Part 139 application, in the hope of
bringing commercial service back to Buchanan at some point in time. Therefore, the replacement
airport will need to comply with Part 139, and the runways constructed in such a manner as to
accept the additional loads of a 737 jet (or other comparable size). This adds considerably to the
complexity of the project to replace Buchanan Field. Anything less would not be "equal to or better
than Buchanan Field", as promised by the RFP and the Board of Supervisors Board Order.
Friends of Concord Aiort Association
A Coalition of Business, Pilots and Concerned Citizens
page 2
Additionally, the following items need, in our view, to be addressed.
■ Section 3.1 refers to only two runways, and two "taxi runways". Buchanan',Field has four (4) active
and officially designated runways.
■ Section 3.5(4) states "Commit the use of net proceeds from the sale of Buchanan Field to aviation,
which is anticipated to include developing, improving, operating and maintaining a new replacement
airport" (emphasis added). Based upon the Board of Supervisors Order, and assurances given by
Supervisor DeSaulnier in public testimony, "no taxpayer dollars will be used in the relocation of
Buchanan airport". Since the Airport is owned by the county, thus it is public property, and the
proceeds from its sale must be applied to a new airport built by the developer.
■ Use of proceeds from the sale of Buchanan Field to construct a replacement airport, would
constitute using taxpayer dollars for the replacement airport. It is also doubtful the FAA would
approve such a scheme. As delineated in the Federal Register, all proceeds must be applied to
further aviation. This does not include widening Highway 4 and Vasco Road, or building a new
high school in Pittsburg, nor any other items suggested by various supervisors.
■ Section 4.1(9)(ii) states "...the development of a replacement airport, to acceptable levels of
service". This does not state who determines what is an "acceptable level of service". The FAA is
the only legal authority that can make this determination, and it will be based on what is currently
existing at Buchanan Field; i.e. 4 runways, staffed tower, hangars, Fixed Base Operators,
amenities, such as hotel, golf course, restaurants, shopping, etc. and Part 139 certification.
■ Section 4.2.3 states "...issuing bonds to provide construction and permanent financing for the
development". By the County taking a position of issuing bonds for such a mammoth
undertaking, it would place every county taxpayer at risk of higher taxes, if one or more of the
developers were to default on the bonds. This is not in the spirit of the county commitment not to
use "taxpayer dollars" to finance this project.
■ Section 5.3 states "The proposal shall describe the manner in which the Proposer will cooperate
with the county in conducting a feasibility study for the siting of a new general aviation airport in
central Contra Costa County". This section is in conflict with the Board of Supervisors Order,
directing staff to craft an RFP, that will require the developer to "locate, get approved by the FAA,
and construct a replacement airport". Any staff time expended on a feasibility study, even if
compensated by the developer, is taking away from other important staff duties, and would
undoubtedly require additional hiring, not compensated by the developer.
■ Section 6.4(8) states "Implicit in the Development Program are at least four critical decision
points". This section is poorly defined, lacks a definitive timeline based upon state and federal
regulations as well as the FAA. Furthermore, the first decision point is in fact not a decision point
at all. The FAA will accept any application for change, closure and or relocation. The question is
whether they will approve such an application snot acceptance of such a document.
Friends of Concord Airport Association
A Coalition of Business, Pilots and Concerned Citizens
Page 3
While we have other concerns about the content of the RFP, time constraints,',and space preclude
further comment in this correspondence.
Should you wish to discuss any of the foregoing, or have any questions or concerns, please feel free to
contact me (cell 510.417.5121) or via e-mail diannesummers@mindspring.con.
Yours Truly,
Dianne L. Cole
Executive Director
Friends of Concord Airport Association
cc: Supervisor John M. Gioia
Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema
Supervisor Millie Greenberg
Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier
Supervisor Federal Glover
Mr. William Dunn -AOPA
Mr.John Pfeifer -AOPA
Mr. R. Austin Wiswell - Caltrans Div. of Aeronautics
Ms. Marion Blakely - FAA
Mr. Andrew Richards - FAA
Friends of Concord Aimort Association
A Coalition of f'Business, Pilots and Concerned Citizens
Page 3
While we have rather concerns about the content of the RFP, time constraints, and space preclude
further comment in this correspondence.
Should you wish to discuss any of the foregoing, or have any questions or concerns, please feel free to
contact me (cell 510.417.5121) or via e-mail diannesummers@mindspring.com.
Yours Truly,
4
Dianne L. Cole
Executive Director
Friends of Concord Airport Association
cc: Supervisor John M. Gioia
Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema
Supervisor Millie Greenberg
Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier
Supervisor Federal Glover
Mr. William Dunn -AOPA
Mr.Jahn Pfeifer -AOPA
Mr. R. Austin Wiswell - Caltrans Div. of Aeronautics
Ms. Marion Blakely - FAA
Mr. Andrew Richards - FAA
14
cut
a. ar
tax.,
iiqCA .. .� .�
jp
or
fill
a 111
In I
"gam'.��,�' ��,"�'�3 � '° �� '�� � 9 +�' '�,,� • i � � ,w'� � �
s� '�"'' G} `�p ` � • ' � � •�� ��+�,.� � fir' - �
_ .�.
- .� -~
V � _
r. C '
" w
Contra
John sweeten
The Board of Supervisors Clark of the Board
and
Costa County Administrator
County Administration Building (925}335-1940
651 Pine Street,Room 106 County
Martinez,California 945534068
John Gioia,District 1 y
Gaylen.Ullketna.District,11
Millie Greenberg,District 11 1'
Mark DeSaulnier.District 1V
Federal D.Glover, District V
June 8,2004
TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES.
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors is pleased to announce a unique
opportunity to explore the development of a new general aviation airport in central
Contra Costa County, to relocate current aviation uses at Buchanan Field Airport to the
new replacement airport, which will be equal to or better than Buchanan Field, and to
evaluate the reuse and development potential of the Buchanan Field airport property into
a new mixed-use community. Enclosed is a Request for Proposals (RFP) authorized for
release by the Board of Supervisors on this date,June 8, 2004.
The Buchanan Field airport property is a 495-acre site located within an urban setting in
central Contra Costa County approximately 30 miles east of San Francisco'.
Contra Costa County is interested in addressing the long-term civil aviation needs of the
County and the region by relocating current aviation uses to a new and improved airport
while at the same time reclaiming and recycling surplus airport land that is within the
County's Urban Limit Line to create a new mixed use community. Contra Costa County
is seeking to partner with a qualified developer to explore the new replacement airport
and the potential transformation of Buchanan Field airport property into a distinctive
urban place.
Interested parties should understand that Contra Costa County obtained Buchanan Field
from the U.S. Government in 1947, agreeing to use the property only for public airport
uses (aviation uses), and over the years the County has been the recipient of federal
airport development grants, which also placed restrictions and obligations to maintain
Buchanan Field as a public airport. Because of these restrictions, the sale and conveyance
of the airport property for development of non-aviation uses will require the approval of,
and the release of use restrictions, by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Additionally, the development of a new general aviation airport to replace Buchanan
Field will require FAA approval.
Contra Costa County will select a developer who, at the sole discretion of the County,
represents the best opportunity to meet the FAA requirements and standards and realize
the County's goals and objectives.
Letter to Interested Parties,re:Buchanan Field Airport RFP
June 8,2004
Page Two
The release of this RFP by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors in no way
creates an obligation or commitment by the County to accept a proposal, to enter into a
Exclusive Right To Negotiate (ERN) agreement, and/or to execute a Disposition and
Development Agreement for the Buchanan Field airport property. It also: acknowledged
by the Board of Supervisors that Buchanan Field will continue to operate=as an airport in
conjunction with non-aviation commercial uses, and the County will continue to honor
existing leases and agreements at the airport, and as appropriate, consider and negotiate
new leases or lease extensions, unless and until such time as a determination is made to
close the airport, surplus the property, and relocate its aviation uses to a new airport
pursuant to FAA orders and the Code of Federal Regulations.
Recipients are encouraged to carefully review the RFP and all the material in the
appendices, and the transcript of public comments on the RFP submitted at a May 25,
2004 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, which are all provided in the accompanying
CD-ROM. This information will also be made available at a link for the Buchanan Field
RFP Process on Contra Costa County's website, http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/.
Interested parties should periodically check the website for addenda to the RFP, and
questions in responses as submitted by interested parties. To discuss the RFP in more
detail, interested parties should contact the key County staff listed as contact persons in
the RFP.
Sincerely,
Yeryp
isorFederal D. Glover, District VV, Board of Supervisors
_..... .................................. ......... ......._.....
.. ....................._.... ..._....... ._....... ......... ._....... ......... ........ ......... ......... .....__.. ......._.
_. _.._..... ................._..
Friends of Concord Airport Association
A Coalition of Business, Pilots and Concerned Citizens
P.O. Box 30942 Walnut Creek,Ca 94598
t Phone 510.758.2325 Fax 510.758.6555
E-mail diannesummers@mindspring.com
Website www.BuehananAirport.cOm
June 3, 2004
Mr, Dennis
zBarr
a
t
Community unit Development to ment De
Prtmen
651 Pine St. 4th Floor NorthWing
g
.:....
Martinez Ca 94553
:3:3:3.•:;:5::::^•.;:?::::;.;...`.
::::?iiiii:{ .:r::n•:�•....r�.•.•::•.•.•..::::::SS;;jj5555555:!:5
.•i:••if�rniii:4iii}i?i}i}iiiii:4i:4ii: •i+iii}iiiiiiiY.piiiiii:0i
Re: Buchanan Field Request For Proposals
Dear Mr. Barry,
ll as
>nt as
We
The Friends o Concord Airport Association ::. . ;:><::: >:<:::>
erns
the supplemental packet provided by Supe
regarding ardin both what is stated in the RFP, as
< > > << >
...................................................................... and
mems,
error:.i:.::.ii:.i:.i:.ii:.i:.ii:.::.;:{{.i:.i:.;:.;:.::{.ii:{.i:.i:.is{{.i:.ii:.i:.i:.i:.ii:{.i:.i:{.iii:{.i:.ii:{.i:.i:. :{.;:.::.;:.i:.i:.i:.i:.i:{.;i:{.ii:..
As written the document contains factual
the stated intent of the Board of Supervisors is not being met, This document should have been
crafted by individuals or a private firm well versed in RFP preparation. The financial and legal
ramifications of this project, should it come to fruition, is by far, the largest undertaking of this type
by the county. These comments are not directed at you and staff as criticism,;but purely from a
business and liability point of view.
Specifically, we direct your attention to page 6, 2.1; "Buchanan Field is a 495;acre site....". According
to various documents, most of them in county possession, Buchanan Field is in fact larger;
significantly larger. Our calculations show a minimum of 530 acres and more likely 585 acres. This
discrepancy must be resolved prior to any release of the RFP.
Secondly, throughout the RFP document, reference in made to "General Aviation", and that the
replacement airport must serve "general aviation". While this is certainly true, Buchanan Field has
had commercial service in the past, and continues to be certified by the FAA as a Part 139 Airport.
The county has continued to maintain it currency of the Part 139 application, in the hope of
bringing commercial service back to Buchanan at some point in time. Therefore, the replacement
airport will need to comply with Part 139, and the runways constructed in such a manner as to
accept the additional loads of a 737 jet (or other comparable size). This adds considerably to the
complexity of the project to replace Buchanan Field. Anything less would not be"equal to or better
than Buchanan Field", as promised by the RFP and the Board of Supervisors Board Order.
Friends of Concord Akport Association
A Coalition of Business, Pilots and Concerned Citizens
page 2
Additionally, the following items need, in our view, to be addressed:
■ Section 3.1 refers to only two runways, and two "taxi runways". Buchanan Field has four (4) active
and officially designated runways.
■ Section 3.5(4) states"Commit the use of net proceeds from the sale of Buchanan Field to aviation,
which is anticipated to include developing, improving, operating and maintaining a new replacement
airport"(emphasis added). Based upon the Board of Supervisors Order, and assurances given by
Supervisor DeSaulnier in public testimony, "no taxpayer dollars will be used in the relocation of
.Buchanan airport". Since the Airport is owned by the county, thus it is public property, and the
proceeds from its sale must be applied to a new airport built by the developer.
■ Use of proceeds from the sale of Buchanan Field to construct a replacement airport, would
constitute using taxpayer dollars for the replacement airport. It is also doubtful the FAA would
approve such a scheme. As delineated in the Federal Register, all proceeds must be applied to
further aviation. This does not include widening Highway 4 and Vasco Road, or building a new
high school in Pittsburg, nor any other items suggested by various supervisors.
■ Section 4.1(9)(ii) states "...the development of a replacement airport, to acceptable levels of
service". This does not state who determines what is an "acceptable level of service". The FAA is
the only legal authority that can make this determination, and it will be based on what is currently
existing at Buchanan Field; i.e. 4 runways, staffed tower, hangars, Fixed Base Operators,
amenities, such as hotel, golf course, restaurants, shopping, etc. and Part 139 certification.
n Section 4.2.3 states "...issuing bonds to provide construction and permanent financing for the
development". By the County taking a position of issuing bonds for such a mammoth
undertaking, it would place every county taxpayer at risk of higher taxes, if one or more of the
developers were to default on the bonds. This is not in the spirit of the county commitment not to
use "taxpayer dollars" to finance this project.
■ Section 5.3 states '"The proposal shall describe the manner in which the Proposer will cooperate
with the county in conducting a feasibility study for the siting of a new general aviation airport in
central Contra Costa County". This section is in conflict with the Board of Supervisors Order,
directing staff`to craft an RFP, that will require the developer to "locate, get approved by the FAA,
and construct a replacement airport". Any staff time expended on a feasibility study, even if
compensated by the developer, is taking away from other important staff duties, and would
undoubtedly require additional hiring, not compensated by the developer.
• Section 6.4(8) states "Implicit in the Development Program are at least four critical decision
points". This section is poorly defined, lacks a definitive timeline based upon state and federal
regulations as well as the FAA. Furthermore, the first decision point is in fact not a decision point
at all. The FAA will accept any application for change, closure and or relocation. The question is
whether they will approve such an application,not acceptance of such a document.